Is compassion only for like minded people? Are the minorities in society worth consideration? Are the very people that typically fight politically and spiritually for diversity, forgetting the minorities and diversity of others in their current positions in society? When we regard those as different from us, as the "bad," the "wrong," the "ones who deserve to die," or with statements like; "They should not be given healthcare" or "They should be left behind- they are taking up our hospital beds"... Are we considering context? Are we actually considering the vulnerable? Could the vulnerable also be included in some of the people who can not or will not take the vaccines?
Apparently our global population is 7,929, 833, 700 as of my writing. It has been said by health organizations that only 3 percent of people have adverse reactions or die from the shot. According to my calculator that is 237,895,011 people of the world. Do those millions not get a voice? Is it not reasonable to consider that their 3 percent chance of adverse affects (or even death) is higher than the one percent possibility of them dying from Covid 19 Virus? Is it a completely cut and dry issue? Is blame and shame loving your neighbour or even your enemy? I understand that it is certainly easier to love those on the same page as us. It's easier to love those like us right? Because we are in the right obviously. Right?? Love is mercy, it does not judge, it does not boast and it submits in service to other people's choice. No one said it would be easy.
In the case of vaccines and each person’s personal choice- I am truly Switzerland. People dislike that. I have been accused of being Anti- Vaccination. I have also been accused of being Pro Vaccine. Both have been said in testy tones of judgement. Let me be clear- I am FOR individual choice and context. I believe in CHOICE. Bodily autonomy matters. We have choices when it comes to having children or not, life changing surgeries, and any other important decision- so why is the exception being made in the one case of vaccinations? Why is diversity suddenly a non issue? Did it disappear? Are we suddenly all the same in reactions, genetics (check into the MTHFR gene for example), socio economic status and vulnerabilities? So the previous conversations of "privilege" in our society no longer apply to vaccinations? Are there people who are more able to take time off of work for any perceived side effects, or stay at home when needed, or can find other jobs if they can not take the vaccine, in perhaps a place of "privilege"? There is so much more to this picture than "conspiracy."
I believe my vaccine status is private. I feel that vaccines can be an incredible gift. I believe that there are different populations whom are affected by this choice more than others. For instance, Aboriginal people are more likely to experience adverse side effects. My uncle, whom is Aboriginal, died from the vaccine but it went un reported. Another family member had to be rushed to the hospital and it again, went unreported. I don't know why this is, but I do know that in emergency situations, reporting may not always be accurate. We need to assume that if a certain population is experiencing more side effects or death (like the Aboriginal leader on La Crete reserve) that they have a right to be wary. There are those who suffer auto immune conditions that the vaccine can protect but then there are those that are higher risk with the vaccine BECAUSE of their conditions.I celebrate that many people can take the vaccine with no ill effects! Including, also, many other Aboriginal people. That is fabulous. With the over 71% vaccination rate in Canada, my country, people should be confident in the decision they have made and that it is working. Living in fear or blaming the unvaccinated for the current medical crisis is a gross negligence of the greater, complex picture. I have a friend whom has heart issues who feels like the vaccine could kill her and I have another friend with different heart issues who felt like the vaccine saved her life. Is one wrong and the other right? Can they both be RIGHT in their own contexts, listening to their own intuition and bodily needs and gut reactions?
I can state what I do not believe in, nor ever have. I do not believe in force. Forcing someone to do something by mandate or by making their life increasingly difficult, so that a choice is no longer a choice is not ethical, to me personally. Throwing ethics around on each side and giving blanket statements is not my favourite approach either. I have had many conversations since the vaccine came into mainstream health over the last few months. Many of my friends have Christian backgrounds, and many have stated to me what Jesus or God would do. I have been told he would NEVER take the vaccine and I have also been told he absolutely would. Both sides were strong in that conviction and had arguments to back themselves up. Could I offer a third option? Jesus was above the law in many regards while also respecting aspects of it. Often Jesus spoke about root issues instead of what people wanted him to speak on. He was controversial and threw over temple tables. He could be harsh and he was compassionate but it was always based on context. He looked at the individual. He held lepers. He reamed out hypocrites. I don't think we can say what he would do, in regards to taking the vaccine, because it was always the unexpected. But could it be possible that for different people, he would lay down his life and his choices for them differently depending on context? Could that be possible?
I also believe in self regulation and stepping back from hate to see context. Did you know that most of the people that are not taking vaccines are people of colour? Hispanics, Aboriginals, and Black people make up one of two groups. The other is Christians. Let's look at why that is below.
Recently, I had a vivid dream of Russell Brand. Which was weird, because I have only seen him in one movie and knew of him vaguely from the Katy Perry Documentary years ago. His accent and looks were accurate in my dream, despite not knowing these things about him before I looked him up, which was a large sign to me that I should pay attention to what my subconscious was trying to tell me. In my dream, we talked about vaccine mandates, he was clever and witty but seemed to be on the same page as me..which again felt really odd upon waking... Thus I googled him with that in mind and found this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YfxnKgCN3OY
32- 2:20 : "Shaming is always a good technique to get people to do things. If we have learned one thing from protests and demonstrations from the last few years- it's the power of shame to get people to do what you want." (Yahoo news- Earlier this month, Lemon called out unvaccinated people for "taking up the space" in the hospitals from vaccinated people who are "playing by the rules." -End of Yahoo news bit) "That's an interesting bit of authoritarianism if you ask me. It is kind of devoid of compassion and is a very reductive type of argument, because we have not yet looked at what kind of people are not vaccinated and what their reasons might be for not being vaccinated. It doesn't seem to me that it should be simplistically assessed in that manner. That's why when I am always talking about it, I am keen to point out that I myself don't have a strong opinion on what your personal, private medical procedures might be. I am interested in a global perspective of a significant issue and how government, big pharma, and media all interact to create stories that then become truths, that lead to edicts such as this with public figures such as Don Lemon, fist on table, 'leave them behind, shun em, vaccine apartheid.' That kind of language has it's own kind of quality and it should never be applied saying 'this group of people' or 'It's a choice. It's a choice' but let me tell you there are other issues around choice, that people used to play out in different spheres of the political space. In bodily autonomy and choice. Segregation and inequality. It is very peculiar the way those rules are being discarded in order to facilitate the advantage of this narrative."
The video goes on to to discuss a New York Times article that speaks upon two types of Americans whom are not getting the vaccine. The first: A mix of people but many are "white, rural, evangelical Christian and politically conservative." Russell Brand remarks at 2:40; "I suppose that comes from the perspective of liberty and libertarianism and if you are saying Christian and rural...they are defining themselves as Christian and their primary authority is a religious rather than government authority that they take their moral and ethical guidance from a spiritual or at least dogmatic (depending on your view of Christianity) rather than what the government wants."
The New York times goes on to discuss the other group are open to the vaccine, but waiting to make their decisions. It states "They are a broad range of people, but tend to be a more diverse and urban group, including many younger people, Black and Latino Americans and Democrats." I personally would like to add, being from Canada and having Aboriginals in my ancestry (as well as Hispanic) that Aboriginals should also be included in this. I know many who have taken the vaccine and have been fine, but many whom are hesitant or whom have greatly suffered. I would also like to include the Autism community, of which I am a part of. Many who have the MTHFR gene. Since this vaccine has a genetic component, would it not be safe to assume that some genetics may not react or have body immersion the same as other genetic environments? Two years is not enough time to study that. Yes, many Autistic people I know believe in the vaccine. Some have been able to get it and others have not. Some have suffered or even died, while others have been perfectly fine...but is it ok for us to take that choice, with such diversity, and enforce it? Or to call these vulnerable people in society "uneducated" or lump them in with "murderers" or "those who cause chaos/death"? Are these statements compassion if we believe compassion is a virtue that has to extend to all, even those whom we disagree with or take different life paths? Are we actually seeing the individuals themselves? Are we even giving people the benefit of the doubt? Or are we assuming context?
3:59 (Stats from the New York Times were screened before); "That in a sense, presents a broad range of views and I would say they are not ridiculous reasons. There is not a percentage of people that are like 'they are going to put a robot in your blood.' It is not like that is it? These are reasonable questions and inquiries, particularly in the climate and context that we are currently in. Most people are feeling a level of distrust...whether or not you believe they are safe, or whether or not they are safe."
An article is shown onscreen from the Kaiser Family Foundation that states; "Many concerns about Covid-19 vaccinations are expressed at higher rates by people of colour compared to White adults." If we are anti racist- which I hope all whom are reading this ARE, than is this not an important fact to consider? If we are for diversity, are we considering the diverse issues surrounding this? The article goes on to talk about missing work from adverse affects (which many diverse economic groups can not afford) or getting to vaccine sites or payments (which does not apply to Canada), or needing types of documentation or providing social security numbers, wait and see groups, or free childcare for being vaccinated or recovering from it...it's layered and complex.
5:34: "If your life is about survival...coping with the challenges of every day life, a situation I lived in for awhile and it seems like a long while ago now, but you are not thinking so much about like 'oh no...climate change...I'm ... starving...it doesn't seem so relevant."
6:33: "So when you are talking about Don Lemon who says 'Ban em from beds!" You are talking about poor people, you are talking about people who are dealing with economic realities that someone in my position or Don Lemon's position do not have to concern themselves with...and if you are on the center of left you would not be dismissive about that category of people but in this context suddenly it becomes permissible?...It makes me question the true values of people in that political class. If they can be dismissive of people and groups that they elsewhere claim to be supportive of. Cuz when you put it in those terms you could say that Don Lemon is saying ' It's time to shun Black, Hispanic, Poor, Young people' Now he would never say that but you are saying that! That is what is being said. That is the danger of reductive, simplistic, propaganda driven news reporting."
8:05 - 10:08: Russel Brand: "The reductiveness of Don Lemon's argument and other people advancing a sort of apartheid type rhetoric around the vaccine is not including the complexity of the issue. This shows you that there is no room for bombast in this argument, no room for hyperbole, condemnation "no we should leave them behind!" or "I'm not doing this!" Wherever you stand on the vaccine issue, you are a human being like me, one day you are going to die, and I'm gonna die. Let's be kind to one another, and rational, and understanding, because otherwise what you are doing is venting anger from elsewhere in your character. It's like 'I don't like life, I don't like people to do that. Grrr.' Become aware of that. Otherwise the vaccine issue will be resolved by either a vaccine will come around that people feel really confident in, or a government might come around that people really really trust...and that other stuff won't go away, because its unresolved. It's unresolved anger. Unresolved hysteria. For me, these statistics make plain that it is impossible to make Don Lemon style condemnations of people. Because imagine if you had childcare considerations, health concerns, were worried about the impact of the vaccine and your inability to deal with the side effects and cope with children...How can you be dismissive and so lacking in compassion when there is evident complexity around many people's lives when it comes to an issue as significant as this one. You can't afford to just wipe people away and shun people when you don't understand the circumstances in their lives. This shaming, the futility of bipolar, combative social discourse...Instead we should be compassionate, inclusive, considerate. "
A clip is shown of Don Lemon saying we should shame and leave behind those whom are not listening to the science etc. I find that Russell's response is exactly what I would say at 10:25- 11:15; "I would say there is a certain line that you can not cross. Particularly if your whole political party is about inclusivity, diversity, compassion..you can not say with this issue- this is the one issue. May I say that if you look at the science it seems that there is room for conversation in many of the areas that these statistics suggest are cause for concern....These are not things that you can just go "NO!" and swipe with a broad sword across a population of people...it seems that people who have been disadvantaged elsewhere that are worthy of compassion and certainly worthy of being heard." You, regardless of which side you are on, are worthy of being HEARD. You are worthy because you exist. Plain and simple.
Recently I had a response to an email I sent out about unity and vitamin regimes which the respondent stated; “I strongly believe that people who aren't vaccinated are causing significant damage to our health system and are affecting other people's lives by their decision so I really don't want to hear about people who have made that kind of decision." My response back was, "Vaccines ARE a GIFT for those who can take them and I’m thankful for that ability. But for the minorities in genetics and reactions - it’s important to consider them :) We all affect the healthcare system in our choices for sure, but blaming each other probably doesn’t help our stress levels ♥️That said - I do agree that we all have responsibilities in our approach to life and health. I know many on both sides whom have chosen rightfully for themselves and respect that. I’m glad you found the choice that works for you and respect that you strongly believe in it." Then there was no response. Nothing. It was the end of the conversation. If this happens in that case, I can't even imagine how isolated and unvoiced many of the minorities, who have good reasons for doing what they do, are feeling right now. So we are writing off entire people groups, not listening to them, and not allowing their stories because we believe that we are the only ones who could be in the right? The definition of self righteousness is this; "Exhibiting smug or unwarranted confidence in one's own righteousness." Have we all been guilty of this, during this time? I know I have certainly had to combat it in myself. I have really had to ask myself, "Where am I not listening? Am I being cruel or condemning? Did I make an all or nothing statement? Am I letting anxiety and fear rule me? Am I wrong?" And yes, there is a possibility that I may be wrong in whatever choice I choose. Sometimes I sit in silence and wrestle with all the factors, which tends to bring me into existential crisis and depression, until I voice what I am struggling with, write a blog post (lucky you!) and move onward. I keep Gandalf's words constantly in my mind, "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement...“So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”
Don Lemon clip and then Russell Brands response...then... 11:38; "If I am appealing to anything in you, if there is an area where I am happy to express directly what I mean, is do not be so quick to condemn other people when you do not understand what their perspective is. That is a basic spiritual and Christian value. Be open to other peoples' perspective. Do not assume you know exactly what it is like to be them and approach people with an open heart and recognize with a value such as compassion and kindness you can not pick and choose where it is applied. You have to apply it everywhere. All the good books suggest that that is the approach. And the more something irks, angers, and irritates you, the more you have to look inside yourself. I believe our values should be about how we conduct ourselves, NOT what we tell others to do."
YES! Resounding YES! I have been baffled that because I speak on unity, people have assumed I am pro or anti vax. No. I am simply considering context. Let me tell you, it's not easy when I am shunned, given no responses to correspondence when I have taken a step back, been kind and loving in tone, even when at first I feel attacked, or include social niceties...and my elders, people whom I look up to, people in my extended family, decide to shun me because I am asking to consider with compassion. That is hard for me, but you know what?I know these are trying times and it is tough to deal with so much right now. And it IS sad and heartbreaking and that can induce anger at all sort of things. Anger is ok to feel sometimes. Directing it or dealing out death and judgement, or who should live and who should die or be blamed - is not for us to do. All we can do is decide what to do with the time WE have…and we are all usually surrounded with only like minded people which makes it more divisive. There is so much more to the picture.I have to remind myself that all I can do is love them, challenge if it is in a context of love, and lead my life by living it. Just like in faith, we can not force those opposing us into it. Choice was given in the proverbial garden/ ancient origin story, for better or worse, and I think it is an important story. I do not think that means giving permission to do horrid things, but unfortunately sometimes people will choose that…but my hope is that MOST people ARE choosing what is best for them, and being careful in the meantime…and some of the greater picture involves other factors.
I support both the vaccinated and unvaccinated because I believe we all have individual context and MUST do what is in our spirits. I believe I protect the vulnerable and children by staying home when sick, trying to keep up my immunity and washing etc. I do not think it is so cut and dry. If we applied that mentality to everything then the minorities of this world would still be having to live in secret…and we are pushing them to live in secret in vaccination status, at a time when we generally know there is diversity? We know bodies and spirits are different, yet not in this one case of the vaccine? Blaming the unvaccinated for all of this, is not looking at the minute details that make up the whole.
12:00: "They! They! They! The more you have 'they' on your lips the more you are on your way to creating serious problems."
I have had conversations with both people who believe in the vaccines and people whom do not...and if the conversation starts dissolving into "us" and "them" which it tends to do on either side...I say, "Wait a minute...we are all in this together. As soon as we talk about people like that, we start dividing, and making perceived enemies." My friends get some of these blog posts and they know this is true. It is quite hard to see ourselves with those we think are against us. But if we can not do that, then where is the hope for respect, unity and compassion? I am not saying it is easy or that we do not need a moment to gather self control...but I am saying, if we concentrate on the ROOT issues, and only take responsibility for ourselves, there will be less hate in the world.
The rest of the video goes on to talk about hypocrisy, and the madness and division of the media, the red lies from CNN and yet we are listening to them? I highly recommend listening to the video above. 14:33 Russell Brand: "Don Lemon has a pretty nice face, he could be a good guy, maybe, I don't know, but I don't agree pretty strongly with what he is saying when it comes to shaming, leaving behind, and not considering complex arguments, being dismissive, not acknowledging the roll of media and creating current suspicion and heightened awareness and all that exists around these issues. And I don't mean right wing or left wing media. I mean the entire integration of government, big business and big pharma. How can that not generate mistrust when you see people revolving doors...(Video goes back to Don Lemon and Russells response for awhile.) Then; "You can't just say science only brings about good things like it's a lovely, friendly old grandad Science issuing stuff. There has been all sorts of complications, the opioid crisis...science but that is too reductive...that is science as a religion but science is just a bunch of research and investigation that can have major outcomes and one of the many human endeavours that is beautiful and brilliant but if you corral that beneath a corrupted system than the outcomes can be corrupted. You can not use such reductive, simplistic arguments when doing something as dismissing a whole class of people- a significant number of people and saying those people are unworthy of compassion. Once contempt enters into an argument, incredible things become possible, elsewhere on the internet they say we are on the outskirts of civil war or new forms of fascism on the rise, well they may not come from where you think they are going to come from. Particularly when you hear discourse of this kind under the guise of liberalism."
17:13 in response to Don Lemon mocking unvaccinated people and horse de wormers: "Making the choice to call Ivermectin a horse dewormer is a propagandist choice, that is a linguistic choice, I've got no opinion on what you should do with your health, but that is an interesting choice and a further decision that makes you believe that perhaps they have an agenda, perhaps they are pushing an agenda and that they are not objectively conveying news. Mainstream media is in serious trouble because it has become entertainment and become propaganda, this is bigger than Don Lemon, whom I am sure as a human being is a lovely guy, but with regard to this particular issue, he is advancing arguments that lead to division that are reductive, that are condemning people, that if you had to look into their eyes you wouldn't be as comfortable condemning. If you had to experience the challenges they are facing with childcare, or go through the reasons they are doubtful about the government I don't think it would be so easy to condemn them. This is a call for compassion, open mindedness and a understanding of nuance. Not to be reductive about such complex issues but the mainstream media has to do this, thankfully we don't have to do that. We can be open minded..and we will still make mistakes. But we will make mistakes without any obvious intention or agenda...to try to understand the complexity of our world and the many stories that are vying for control of your consciousness."
I have two types of readers (I think...I was only informed of one category recently.) First my Secular/Pagan/ Liberal Identifying or Open minded (mostly) sisters (and brothers? I dunno.)
To you dear readers I say;
The rule is to harm none. I know you apply that to vaccines sometimes, but what if it is harming some? The rule is to allow others to decide their own paths. It is not about conversion or about trying to get others on your same path. It is not about stating that vaccines are the only ethical choice, and thereby making those who cannot or will not, feel morally less. What I know you are generally about, because I learned from the beautiful interactions and experiences I have had in your community and friendships in the past, is compassion, awareness, working behind the scenes in positive and hope filled ways and giving the individual autonomy. It is about spiritual mysticism. Mysticism does not have all the answers for other people. That is the beauty of it. You were the controversial healers in the past. You went around patriarchal medicine and gave herbal remedies. Healing women died to help others. Because people like you were different, shunned and thought of as evil, and often victims of misplaced religious zeal, you found ways around majority systems. While you did ground some of your practices in science, you also went against it too for the sake of others. You found remedies that were not always peer reviewed but worked and you used them. Sometimes you made mistakes too and the history certainly isn't perfect, but you know what it is like to be misunderstood, associated with the devil and condemned. Can you not apply that to those who may be different from you? Can you not rise above what our ancestors dealt with? I urge you to stop talking about your positions and start listening for context. I ask you to focus on letting others BE while taking ownership of your own paths. That is the way...
To my Christian sisters (and brothers?) ...I knew a few friends whom are Christian read my posts, but I did not know that others did too (which I recently found out at a Sunday Soccer game.) Especially Conservative Christians...I thought I was too controversial at times? This year alone I was unsubscribed for two conflicting reasons. One said, "With your John O Donnohue posts and mysticism you are too liberal." The other said, "You are too conservative Christian in leaning." I guess we see what we wish to see or from our own contexts?...
Anyway, to the Christians, dear readers, I say;
Is it your job to be God? Do you actually believe God is bigger than all these issues? Is Jesus the way, the truth and the life? Was he unconventional and unexpected, and do you honestly think he would always side with you or say what YOU wish he would say? Perhaps you would be better served to live his example instead? Consider many of his words in the gospels. Were they easy to swallow? Were they often contextual? Did he often concentrate on the people who were directly in front of himself, in their contexts and in their individuality? The blind man was treated differently from the adulteress and the leper. In healings, there were times when He told one to be quiet, and another to spread the word. Why? Why was he so seemingly different? Could it be because he saw each situation DIFFERENTLY? They were different timelines in ministry? That he honoured diversity? One day we will all die. Is this issue worth tearing your families and friends apart over? Is there so much more? Can you overcome with compassion, to get to the root issues? Do you honestly want to repeat some of the travesties Christians have made in the past? Yes, Christians were often the ones fighting for the oppressed and some of the first to end slavery, speak up for women, and heal the world. But in other groups, Christianity and misplaced, zealous, individuals lent the Christian name to crusades, harmful patriarchy, witch hunts, and other atrocities because they thought it was what they were "called" to do. Recently we have been studying WW2, and I think that shows the differences in living out Christian faith and just laying CLAIM to it. Many of the Nazis called themselves Christians and laid claim to it. Hitler took over the Christian churches and had them giving his agenda but he actually loathed Christianity. In that case, Christianity was used in name and language and not in deed. Some well intentioned people started believing in it too. But the ill intent was there. HOWEVER, there were many Christians who went to their deaths refusing to get behind the agenda, who smuggled the oppressed and then became the oppressed, because they could not see the minorities being treated wrongly. At that point, they did not even know what was actually happening...they just knew that they had to honour the fact that they were answerable to a higher law than their current governance. Some were called to help in secret, some were called to just live their lives, some were called to fighting or subterfuge, some were called to listen and witness... WE all have DIFFERING roles, but as Christians, there is a call to LOVE THY NEIGHBOUR. NO that does not mean loving only those you believe are doing right. It means loving that perceived enemy. It means laying down your own life in submission to a greater cause. It means listening to the commandments and not judging personal health decisions. It is about honouring God and realizing that there are things beyond your comprehension, and that some contexts are called to a different way of BEING. If you believe in God, why are you not letting God be the judge? Why are you worrying about other people's choices in the first place? Why are you not living your life and doing the hard things because we were not called to an easy path? Don't be unkind or accusatory. In faith, if you are laying claim to that, maybe you should start with yourself and God and go from there?
And to myself, and people in all categories:
Can we leave our personal agendas and find context and compassion? Can we unify instead of divide and go after the root issues? The root issue is that there are MANY ways to live a good, ethical life. And there are other ways to protect people with, or without, the vaccine. We are all part of the human race. Leave contempt at the door. There is complexity here. Find compassion and activate it, even, and especially when, it is tough to do. The path of brambles can often be more rewarding. Let us not be reductive and blame or shame. Instead let us try to add encouragement, even if we are challenging something, let us use words in the end, that also convey love and that try to see, TRULY SEE, the other person.
Song choices: Get Together - Youngbloods
We shall be Free- Garth Brooks ( warning the images in this video are triggering and hard at times. I also don’t endorse everyone in it or every saying about education as I think misplaced education has caused major issues. However, the lyrics of the song make me cry every time.)
In other news, How did I not know this? DARREN CRISS, My favourite Blaine of all time, came out with an EPIC Christmas Album. I am in love, love, love! I may have screeched with my daughter, jumping up and down whilst singing the happiest version of RIVER EVER! If you love Glee, or Blainey boy, or show tunes or Classic Bing Like Christmas, Christmas, Christmas! Check it out! A Very Darren Chrissmas. EEK. (Yea I realize that this is opposing sentiments of my post but we can have many layers to us right? Oh Joy- Oh bliss)
*NOTE: As I have mentioned before in posts, personality is ONE aspect of being human and your individual make up. Environment, upbringing, birth, health, trauma, life experience, mental or cognitive differences, genetics, beliefs, gender preferences, country of origin....there are so many aspects that make up YOU. However, I firmly believe finding your accurate personality helps you understand more of yourself and how you work. Take a free test HERE: http://www.16personalities.com - or sign up with an email and take test here http://www.personalityhacker.com/genius-personality-test/ (this site has amazing insight, podcasts and videos.) The key is to answer as you ARE and not as you would want to be like. Meyers Briggs/ Keirsey is what the 16 personalities is based on and has research behind it for a reason. It is more of a descriptor of what you value and how you work out of the world in regards to communication and relationships.I am speaking with authority about INFJ because I am one. However, I make sure I am also reading up on all of the other types and I listen to every single Personality Hacker. Understanding more than just your type is key but writing about YOUR type can help the world. I encourage you, if you are not an INFJ, to write about your type and feel free to link it in the comments, as we need more personal stories on other types out there:) **
I enjoy Michael Pierce's videos on Personality. They are usually around a twenty minute verbal and visual window to introducing people to their cognitive based personality types. After my friends watch theirs, I send them over to Personality Hacker for specific articles and podcasts, but I usually use Michael Pierce's videos first. Below is the INFJ Video. HERE is the link as well. It's my type thus I am going to leave quotes that hit me specifically below and the time they are on the video with expanding thoughts. Also, if I say it's "bits" or "segments" in the time slot, you could benefit from listening to that point and not just the written quote:
I am skipping the introduction because listening to it gives context to the first quote below so I hope readers will listen to it first...
"...are audacious observers and profilers. These insights are very matter of fact and while the ISTP is far more wiling to share them despite the feeling concepts the INFJ will very much censor themselves for the sake of others. They are remarkably sensitive to the implications of their experiences. Metaphorically they have highly sensitive spiritual skin...as a natural result of this they feel the need to protect this skin with various layers of armour and clever strategies of escape and withdrawal from emotional threats.." (1:22- 1:42 Michael Pierce)
The whole video resonates but I love how the beginning starts off with the fact that INFJ's will censor themselves for others. I am constantly censoring myself almost 98 percent of the time and I don't do it for myself at all. I agree that I have a sensitive spiritual skin and I do protect with layers of armour and strategies of escape. My brain is always pondering these boundaries and protections in any given circumstance.
"...so remarkably private and reserved and their primary response is to withdraw...( fun part to listen to here- recommend) should they be caught and kept from retreating...um well, have you ever been bit by a wolf spider? Thus, the warmth of the INFJ is not unlike a genuinely caring and gracious host. Very willing to let just about anyone into their house but depending on the person very particular to which rooms can enter and enjoy and which are kept forbidden to them and how long they may stay in the house at all. But they do any thing in their power otherwise to do their duty to mankind to make their guests stay as comfortable and refreshed as possible."( Bits from 2:08- 2:55 Michael Pierce)
Lol yes, should I be caught...Yikes a wolf spider is accurate! Don't withhold me when I need to retreat. However, most times I do not need to, in the circumstances I put myself in, and I love to host and meet the needs of people at my own leisure. It is true that both in my emotional psyche and my own home I have things that are forbidden to people yet the rooms that are open are to be enjoyed. I also tend to have time limits. I often feel stretched over two hours, unless it is broken up by a show or movie, then I can go on for awhile longer visiting between and after...but even if I am enjoying the company of others I have limits to how long I can handle other's energy, how I will pay, and how long I will take to recover. (There are exceptions to this and long lost friends coming together are often exceptions- K.M. Also, if I am asking over and over for them to stay that's a pretty good indicator I have extra energy that day and want to take advantage of more time.;)
As my family can attest to, I am very cranky towards them when people leave after a longer period of time, even if I was kind and generous during and honestly savouring the company. It takes a personal toll. I feel it is my duty. It does not come out of feeling although feelings CAN come later, as will be explained later in the video, but rather a sense of duty to what I want to achieve for people. And it ends up being my love... I want them to feel like they have just been at a proverbial spa. The work it takes to create the spa, environment, conversation that is calming and insightful, and the energy taken out by someone in a spa space, is a sacrifice to all who work at the Spa or manage it, but it's one I actually, paradoxically, love to make in general when it is not being taken advantage of.
"...Can come across as obscure, mystic, seer or some other supernatural figure because their process is behind closed doors...in some sense they don't want you to see their house until they have had some time to clean up for you. In that sense they are theatrical. They are there FOR YOU to host and address YOU...very rarely is it the other way around."( Bits from 3:01-3:30 Michael Pierce)
Yes, I am often told I am mysterious. Which used to baffle me but now I get it and love that part of myself. I prefer most of my process to be behind closed doors. The only exception to this is when I write and also my Instagram. I keep it small and write personal thoughts that I otherwise would not share in person. I consider those on my board an honoured witness to my otherwise private journey. I also consider myself honoured to have them listening to the randoms I put out there...yet even then, it's not my complex thoughts at all. Those I save for rare discussions.
On a practical level, it is true, I actually do not like people seeing my house before I have had time to clean up for them. I am not a clean freak or a type A at all...But I am dramatic. My house is my canvas and I feel it shows off best when clean and everything in it's magical place. It's cluttered and bohemian but particular in placement. The statement that INFJ's are there for YOU to host and address YOU and very rarely have it the other way is true. I have a very tough time being hosted. Very rarely do I enjoy it. I prefer to be there for others. I prefer to centre my space around others instead of being hosted on by them. There are exceptions to this however (my mother, my childhood best friend, my husband, grandmother ect.) but generally it's how I work the best.
(Video worth listening to onward...) "...Sharp contrast between the shallow courtesies of small talk and disarmingly intense and deep exploration of subjects. There is little to no gradation of the shallow and deep ends of the pool for them." (3:47- 3:56 Michael Pierce)
It's very true that I can jump from shallow courtesy to immediate depth in the span of a minute and see it as related. Unfortunately, unless the person is a type that shares one of my main cognitive functions this isn't an easy path to follow. Most people will say, "What did you just say?" or "Say that again" or my favourite "Where did that come from?" Though I see it as connected.
"The image overall - a mysteriously wealthy newcomer to town...generous but almost off putting ... to where they come from..." ( Bits taken from 4:09- 4:22 Michael Pierce)
Yes, I like to benefit people with my spaces but if the conversation is turned to my inner workings I gently lead it back around to the other. That is what my writing is for. If they care to learn about me, I feel they should read my writing, instead of have me explain. If I sent them something it is not out of a belief they SHOULD read it but an invitation TO read. If they do out of desire and a genuine connect I feel they just got my part of the conversational sharing:) I don't have the patience or desire to repeat most conversations and I find myself clearer about my own self in writing. My biggest love language is verbal validation with comments or paying attention and giving feedback to my written word. This does not apply to those who are not reading out of spite, vindictiveness or to try to figure me out for curiosity sake. But the ones who take the time to care about my writings or are genuinely loving them or finding insight, validation or encouragement...or even relating- those are often my most favourite people because I don't have to explain myself. They have taken the time to know. Then when they are in my space I will make SURE it is all about them. But of course we will still have deep discussions and I will share my experiences if they enrich the conversation in that regard. Most conversations with me will be deep if we are both being truly comfortable with one another. (From 4:49 onward he gets into the cognitive functions which are important but I will make the assumption that most searching this post already know those or will watch it themselves:)
"...Easily grasping complex subjects...they watch the motions of causes and implications that are hidden beneath the surface appearance of events. INTJ's deal with their NI insight by reconciling by their personal value system...the INTJ therefore comes to have very deep desires or sometimes perhaps fears regarding their insights...deep feelings naturally motivate strong forward action to bring things to pass or prevent them. But the INFJS realm is to introverted intuition and thinking, therefore they are instead reconciling their intuitive insights with a valueless logical, rational system with a purely rational blueprint of the universe. Feeling only enters the picture, when the INFJ considers the implications of their ideas for others and their well being. They are motivated instead to understand the universe in a rather ISTP way and impart that knowledge to others in a way that will benefit them. The INTJ starts however, with the evaluation of the vision, deciding for and of themselves whether it's good or bad, and blue prints do not come into the picture until the INTJ begins bringing the vision about. The INTJ then is much more of a visionary in the regular sense of the world, the INFJ on the other hand takes on the relatively passive, contemplative wisdom imparting role of the wise man." ( Bits from 5:48-7:38 Michael Pierce. I highly recommend to listen to this whole part if you are an INTJ or INFJ)
It is true that as an INFJ, I find complex subjects easy to grasp...explaining this outside of paper and pen/computer and screen (or my brain for that matter!) is not as easy! My bestie is an INTJ which makes sense because we both share the NI insight. Where we are different is how those insights come across. She will often be motivated into action to do something or prevent something with her insights. I will want to assess and step back without feeling at first to see the whole picture, then I will ADD feeling when I speak for the sake of others. It's actually a choice I have when I consider the implications of my ideas that my insights will have on other people. I want the world to be a better place. I want the well being of souls to be high on the priority list.
My INTJ friend is a visionary. Especially in the real definition of the word! Amazing! However, I often prefer to have the same insights but look at them from a place of passivity and understanding to then impart to others. I do like the role of a wise man. The wise man or woman in every story I read was the character I wanted to be or could relate to. It was never the main hero. It was the seer or the witch, or the outcast who came for an instant to say something profound and then hermit away once more.
"If there is anything the INFJ lives for it is to positively impact others through their hard earned wisdom and understanding. To enlighten others like a wise man...( a lot more verbal explanation here to listen to) always something to do with the well being of other people..." ( 7:38- 7:60 Michael Pierce)
Yes! And I DO feel it is hard earned. A fact I wish those who asked for my advice would take seriously or those who listen to the times I do impart what I see of the world. But, as always, I believe people to be able to take or leave my advice. I value freedom of choice. I am not married to my beliefs but rather see them as observations and outcomes that have been proven over and over to often be true, but a choice that people can take or leave, because ultimately their well being could very well come from making mistakes. Who am I to stop those mistakes? But warning of them, I do feel is my duty, if I see a pattern. "...To help steer people away from dangers, to help steer them away from something they are unable to see for themselves, so the INFJ takes on the role of a concerned observer who seeks to help, uplift, and edify others with their knowledge even to help them see the world from the INFJS far reaching eyes. In a word... to enlighten them." ( 8:16- 8:38 Michael Pierce)
I am having a tough time not saying a resounding, "Yes!" after each of these quotes. Anyway, steering away from danger is HUGE for an INFJ. We value safety and a lack of harm in general. We observe deeply in a way that most people do not even know they are being observed, but we see patterns in relationships, choices and the environment. We want to use these patterns to uplift those we love. We want to validate where they are coming from but then steer them closer to their own personal deep down desires...sometimes even unknown to them. And help them remove the behaviours or beliefs that are standing in their own way. Enlightenment would be the operative word.
(My daughter was watching Gilmore Girls while I was writing and happened to glance at this picture and laughed, "Oh my mother. So true. You are so funny. I love you.")
"INTJ and INFJ...both dominantly perceiving types, seeking before all else to take in information from the environment without taking a judgment upon it thus very image based with strong imaginations ...seek to open people's eyes to the things they themselves see, especially the INFJ... To shine light on an issue and often do not think to add any meaningful judgment on it, at least not yet, their first concern is to get a clear view of the thing and how it works. This can be confusing to say the INFP because while everything the INFJ says is quite interesting to them none of it seems particularly meaningful to the INFP because of how unattached and impartial the INFJ always strives to be towards things, but the INFJ feels that a judgment of this kind would conceal or could obscure aspects of the full thing from view. ( 8:44- 9:43 Michael Pierce)
Both my INTJ friend and I LIVE off of taking in information. We are constantly bouncing this information off of each other. It's why we work so well together in general. Neither of us judge the information either. We are both inclined to allow information to be simply what it is with no good or evil attached. I am probably the one more prone of us to share my insights with others. I want to help people open their inner eyes and see connections. Especially if I think it will improve quality of life but I also am not disappointed if it does not, after an initial adjustment phase.
I do find that this is confusing to my INFP friends. While the INFP has much in common with an INFJ they are also VASTLY different. I don't like to have feelings get in the way of the entire process. INFP's are one of the most feeling types so I can see how this would bother. I will of course, consider feelings, but only after the whole picture has been brought to light. To an INFP this can come across as fake or callous.
"It is common for both the INFJ and the INTJ to often feel as though everyone around them does not see as far or as much as they do. Other people do not seem to actually think but always stop short of the fullest version of the thing...the causes and implications from what's on the surface...the INFJ often feels like the enlightenment of others is the goal....feel very alienated from people." ( Highly recommend listening to the rest of this for INTJ and INFJ types. BITS from 9:51- 11:54 Michael Pierce)
The image for the quote above was the new Sherlock, whom I can relate to but is an INTJ. I see myself in the many ways he speaks and observes. He, however, does not bring the feeling of consideration in as much when delivering to others, which is what the INFJ generally strives for. Thus, we have an F instead of a T, even though we are not an exactly a feely type of person. Both my INTJ friends and I often feel like we are aliens apart from others. This is because of our dominant cognitive function that is vastly different from the other types. We do often feel like others are watching an entirely different show from us even when they can relate. In this case it takes one to know one. However, for myself, I feel that enlightenment of others is my goal, but it is NOT for others to see the world my way but to promote perspective for peace.
10:00 - 10:60 made me laugh. INTJ's may laugh too. "They don't believe you either huh?" ha ha...You will have to listen to know why. Then he goes on to contrast the INFP and INFJ. If you are either personality, this part will be particularly interesting to you. I highly recommend the listen.
" Ethical...because you have discovered that you must do it, regardless of how you feel about the matter, Kant later adds that if you happen to want to do it later, all the better...This is very abhorrent...especially to the INFP...reason is conversely treated as impersonal...this view finds its epitome in Kierkegaard who claims the exact opposite of Kant...because you truly DO want to do it..." (Listen to hear for in depth analysis on why ect. Highly recommend the rest of this part. BITS from 12:43- 13:36 Michael Pierce)
The above quote is one of the most important. Regarding the ethics of INFJ's, we are propelled towards morality not by our feelings but by what we must DO. We can feel greatly opposed to something but if we see that it is the action that must be taken, we will do so. I can see why this would especially be disgusting to an INFP who works from a place of feeling into the world. It would seem very impersonal. I agree with Kant but I can see the validity of Kierkegaard, even though I find him not quite deep enough. I also think that just because I agree with Kant more does not mean that Kierkegaard is not valid or of equal standing in viewpoints. In fact, I see both as benefiting to the world at large. We need both.
"This is why the INFJ can find INFP and other FI preferring types irritatingly selfish and self centred while the INFP finds the INFJ sometimes to be irritatingly insincere and ultimately untrustworthy and unpredictable." (14:08- 14:32 Michael Pierce)
Oh my fellow INFP's...I am surrounded by you on my Instagram and my personal places and let me say first and foremost - I adore you and learn from you. You are valuable and you often bring a missing aspect to the table of my life. On the rare occasion, I can feel slightly frustrated at the constant exaggerated feeling portrayed and I admit I used to find it selfish on the rare occasion. UNTIL I learned about the INFP personality on podcasts and the companion INFP video by Michael Pierce. Then I understood that really it's just the cognitive function stack. You are NOT selfish nor self centred. Just like I am NOT insincere or untrustworthy. Granted, I can be unpredictable. But if INFPs have read in depth at personality hacker about INFJs they will know we deeply value trust and sincerity. Just like I now know that INFPs are not wishy washy artists who do not follow through because of their whims. They are simply feelers whom have a tough time being attached to a particular time or place. Neither is better. Sometimes I will forget this fact and see selfishness but then I remind myself of perception itself and neutrality. Because I WANT to see this instead of use my feelings which can not always be trusted....see what I just did there?:)
"But the INFJ refuses to let anyone see this core because who they are is NOT this primordial core but how they chose to manifest it at any given point for the sake of others..." (14:37- 14:49 Michael Pierce...Fun part about magic tricks following.)
"The INFJ cares about what they actually do about the effects of their actions, while the INFP is more concerned about the intentions and the purity behind their actions." (After this segment he goes on to describe the difference in empathy which is important but I am not going to cover here.)
Can I just say, "THANK YOU MICHAEL PIERCE for pointing this out." An INFJ core is whom we choose to manifest. Our core is NOT our feelings but our choices. Our hearts ARE our minds in a sense. I often don't care about the purity of my actions. In fact, I will often do what is opposite of what I desire for the sake of another. To me that IS authentic because it was a CHOICE I made with self control and observation FOR someone else. My husband is an ENFP and this is where we contend. Because like an INFP he can sometimes think this is unauthentic because it was a choice. I believe both are authentic - just different processing. I care more about what I do with information and not how I first felt about it.
"...The INFP acting more like a personal therapist, while the INFJ is more removed acting like a personal psychologist or diagnostician. But both still feel very deeply for other people it's just that the INFJS method is to dispassionately understand other people...comes into play as a sense of injustice towards those who created such horrible circumstances for the sufferer and a desire for things to be set right by their TI system."( 16:36- 17:08 Michael Pierce segments)
Yes, INFPs are amazing at listening. They are sensitive and kind and love to probe people's feelings to get them to a place of safety. My goal is the same but I do seem like I can dissect from a less feeling standpoint. I LOVE diagnosing or helping others find their own diagnosis and a professional to help them out. I feel deeply for others but I find I work best when I detach myself from how I feel and concentrate on how they feel. I will also become the most passionate if I feel a grave injustice has occurred to me or to those in my life. I will definitely be the harshest on those who created a horrible circumstance and I will desire to set it right with my TI system.
INFJ and ISTP similarities from 17:08:
"A common INFJ idea is don't get angry but seek instead to understand. Generally people are all for this idea they think its great until of course the INFJ seeks to understand rapists and child molestors for the sake of knowledge, and should they present their sympathetic findings, as always in their comforting FE fashion, the contrast between these two things: The FE and the TI honesty, well, the contrast can be rather disturbing." (17:47- 18:16 Michael Pierce)
I can be angry but often the feelings I have are slight irritation or frustration. It's rare that I am seriously angry. Even when I say trite statements like "That makes me angry." I'm not actually all that enraged because my brain is working to understand what is making me angry while I am saying it. I seek to understand. And yes this has gotten me in trouble. My husband often says that he feels for me because no other type of personality feels and understands their enemies so much. I spend thought into the motivations and trauma of others...what makes them THEM. Even if I do not condone an action I CAN actually understand how it happened. Even when it is done to me. Which is quite conflicting. It's unfortunate that INFJ's will never be given this courtesy, to this extent, by anyone other than another enlightened INFJ. Also, it is true that I present a person's motivation with matter of a fact, deadpan honesty but also with compassionate insight and this can confuse people or even disturb them.
"Sometimes the INFJ DOES get angry or irritated and here, they become rather the opposite of the detached psychologist... It would be a serious mistake to consider the INFJ always dispassionate - they only come off that way because they are following a personal TI sense of duty or set of principles that they will not break no matter what they feel or fancy at a particular moment. " ( 18:16- 18:39 Michael Pierce)
That being said, I DO get angry. And when I do TRULY get angry, anyone in my way will know. I will verbally destroy someone and I have to watch what I say. I come across as neutral a lot because I squelch my own feelings under a sense of duty, but the times that I don't squelch are the times that involve injustice towards me (particularly disability because I know in the end it won't just affect me but the behaviour will affect all those disabled so I am not just angry for myself) or any other person I love.
Usually I have a set of principles I will not break even with those closest to me. I will constantly redirect my negative feelings to find a proper outlet and open communication. As an INFJ, my feelings are secondary.
"As a rule, their strongest principles are towards others welfare and when these are violated in their eyes it is remarkably easy for the INFJ to set all empathy for the trespasser aside." (18:47-18:57 Micheal Pierce)
(19:01 made me chuckle too...I can see that and yes, it comes out occasionally in my writing...LOL the examples slayed me...but as any INFJ can attest to- too true, too true. Yet, we have Ghandi as one of our own so I am not too concerned.)
"There is a sense both to INFJ's and INTJ's of wanting to scour the whole entirety of existence and experience in the most raw and real way. For INFJ's this is often a method of shocking people by suddenly illustrating something with unprecedented graphicness. Perhaps the best example of this is Dostoyevsky who described the brutal murder and depravity in his stories with solemn but unflinching honesty. Another example would be Dante who gave the scenes of hell an unsettling realism and rawness." (21:24- 21:57 Michael Pierce.)
The writers he discussed I relate to yet I can not handle reading in large doses. Why? Because it's already my brain in the works. My ENFP husband ADORES Dostoyevsky, and years before I even knew about personality, I said to him in response to his question on why I will not read Dostoyevsky in large amounts, "Because my brain already lives in that frank darkness, I see the depravity and it hurts ALL THE TIME. If I read, I want a reprieve from what and whom I am in general. While I love intellectualism and will read some of his brilliant thoughts I can only take it in doses. I need light and fluffy to counter balance myself." After reading personality this made even more sense. I relate to INFJ writers but I don't crave reading them all the time. My husband does because it is deep enough for his brain but different enough from his own cognitive stack to be hugely insightful and mind blowing. I adore Spinoza but I can't handle a ton of him...it's too much like my own mind. Although there are exceptions of course like Montaigne and J.K Rowling whom I can not get enough of because I relate so well. But if I am going to pick a philosopher to read more in depth it is usually an INTJ. I LOVE Friedrich Nietzsche! Because it's similar to my thought as we are both NI dominant but since we portray it differently I can learn a little bit more and chew on a bit more information that can be slightly different from my perspectives but I can still grasp. I have heard the same said about INTJ's regarding INFJ's philosophies.
If I wanted to describe something in gruesome detail I could. Even in my writings I do not go towards poetry often or words that evoke deep feeling. That type of writing most likely manifests in an INFP writer like Tolkien or C.S. Lewis. I prefer to write matter of fact paragraphs with imagination swirling through on occasion. I prefer to write to shake the common beliefs surrounding, give alternatives, and pure reality. I want rawness...while I deeply enjoy beautiful lyricism I prefer it with a dose of reality and have a tougher time reading pure poetry. It's not better...it's not less...it just is what speaks to me as an INFJ.
If you found this insightful I strongly urge you to enjoy all or any of Michael Pierce's videos on personality types. Also, I strongly urge you to listen and watch the entire podcast to get the context of the quotes as well as the fun cartoons and pics in the background. If you crave more after watching, the best site is Personality Hacker for personal podcasts found HERE. I also have another post on INFJ personality, which happens to be the top hit on my blog daily, HERE. 16 Personalities is the best place for a common, quick written overview of each personality. (click HERE.)
My hope is greater understanding to create a better world. Understanding creates peace. Peace promotes an environment of love and well being. May it be.
I also have a post on the Contradictions, ironies and paradoxes of the INFJ here:
I'm leaving the below pin because it resonates and makes me laugh:
I feel the lyrics in this song are especially geared towards INFJ in many ways even though John Lennon is suspected to be an ENFP or INFP...the lyrics in this one could apply to all three of these Idealistic types, but certain phrases certainly resonate with an INFJ.
*NOTE: As I have mentioned before in posts, personality is ONE aspect of being human and your individual make up. Environment, upbringing, birth, health, trauma, life experience, mental or cognitive differences, genetics, beliefs, gender preferences, country of origin....there are so many aspects that make up YOU. However, I firmly believe finding your accurate personality helps you understand more of yourself and how you work. Take a free test HERE: http://www.16personalities.com - or sign up with an email and take test here http://www.personalityhacker.com/genius-personality-test/ (this site has amazing insight, podcasts and videos.) The key is to answer as you ARE and not as you would want to be like. Meyers Briggs/ Keirsey is what the 16 personalities is based on and has research behind it for a reason. It is more of a descriptor of what you value and how you work out of the world in regards to communication and relationships.I am speaking with authority about INFJ because I am one. However, I make sure I am also reading up on all of the other types and I listen to every single Personality Hacker. Understanding more than just your type is key but writing about YOUR type can help the world. I encourage you, if you are not an INFJ, to write about your type and feel free to link it in the comments, as we need more personal stories on other types out there:) *
Our family was watching the TV series,"The Middle" together. We can relate a lot...especially the first few seasons. Our two boys are a mix of Brick and our daughter can relate A LOT to Sue. The episode was about a quirky Aspergian/ Dyspraxic child named Brick who wished to have a birthday he enjoyed instead of the "typical" party. So his mom threw him a party for the whole class where each child was required to read quietly at the table, eat politely, and whisper 'Happy Birthday' at the library, then proceed to take a picture with the librarian. All the children groaned and thought the party was a dud. My children and I thought the party was EPIC and ideal. Finally, a few children (even if it was on TV) would understand how we felt sitting through their loud, overly scheduled, obnoxious, boring parties to us. When a child complained to Brick's mom about the party, she replied that Brick has sat through years worth of all their parties so they can sit through ONE that suits him. A perfect example of how many introverted or intuitive types feel at birthdays and big events ect.
Events, family or otherwise, seem to be a big part of what is considered socially appropriate behaviour and healthy habits in our culture. It's ironic that we expect family to show up for big celebrations when our personal relationships with them are broken. Or even when their personality preference may do best in other circumstances. Why, if both parties involved, have not picked up the phone for years to build a relationship would we expect to have a fun family get together? Why is that an expectation?
Looking at this chart you can see why this happens. (The red is women, blue men and grey the general average.) Much of the world is comprised of 'S' types. Sensing types value big functions, hierarchies (in general- not all of them do), establishments and "traditional" family methods. 'S' types are amazing people who help run our culture and our institutions. They have their upsides and their downsides like any other type of person, but they are in the majority and a lot of their ways became the "norm." 'S' types are capable of carrying on idyll chit chat and valuing it as building a relationship. A few birthday wishes make them feel very special. While most Intuitive or 'N' types not only forget birthdays often (most of those in the Idealist category anyway) but often will see the rigidity of certain traditions as pointless or boring. Generally depth being built upon and acceptance of quirks, imagination and big ideas are valued stronger than building sensory memories. Often a big event will not be viewed as quality time. Perhaps 'N' types will look at the chit chat or get togethers a few times a year as neutral or necessary but if their relationships with the people involved are not of deeper substance, it is more of a function to endure. Why do we focus on collective family function when instead we should first focus on individual familial relationships? If we do not have some basic respect, trust, and love built, why do we expect everyone to get together to have a good time?
Those that do not show up are considered the family rebels. The family just waits and prays from them to shape up to the familial standards. If it's past a certain amount of time they give up altogether and write them off as selfish. Preceding the write off are years of mini lectures, phone calls anytime a "wrong" decision is being considered, and brief civil dinners where the individual isn't even appreciated or allowed to be whom they are. Is it love to ignore whom a person is? Is it love to write off most of what a person does as "wrong" or to judge most of their process as something to change? Why do we expect people to relish these activities?
Most families have forms of dysfunction. There are normal subjects in each family that should be off limits. There are topics that are too explosive and should be saved for friendships. A general definition of a healthy family would be one that has all six ingredients of love and practises them to each other on a more regular basis. Thus, when the big events happen, everyone feels valued for whom they are and respected. Where each person feels comfortable enough to partake or leave when needed or be able to have some level of enjoyment. Then of course a big event is to be appreciated and looked forward to.
Years ago we slowly had to distance ourselves from certain events. For years we brought up how we felt disrespected, unheard or tried to foster understanding. Other than one beautiful person, and a couple healthy discussions, most of our pleas fell on deaf ears. Or it would be validated in a conversation but the key behaviours would continue again the next time. We were finally advised to focus on the individual relationships that could be salvaged or were willing to also work to understand, and leave the rest to their own lives. Family is what you make it. It's awesome if family can be blood ties but a lot of the time, the best family we have are the families we cultivate with respect and love.
"Love is a combination of six ingredients: care, commitment, knowledge, responsibility, respect and trust. I found that a lot of people just felt really confused about what love is, so I said, here, take these six ingredients and as you go about your life, you can ask: the action I'm taking, does it have these six ingredients? One point that I would emphasize to people is that it's the combination of the six ingredients that make love, because so many of us have one of the ingredients in our life – like we may be deeply cared for, but we may not be in a situation of trust. To me what's great about these definitions is that they're just very helpful for people in daily life trying to engage in a practice of love."- Bell Hooks (Note: As with any cited reference in this blog, just because I use an excellent quote from a speaker, does not mean I believe or subscribe to their total philosophy. In this case, the six ingredients of love is a solid example to recognize healthy relationships.)
Sometimes the minority just has to decide to stay home or do their own thing. There is no other way around it. The majority honestly do believe they want the others there in theory, but each time those others show up, there is controversy, disrespect and at least one person goes home hurt due to differences that are not held by the majority. What is the point? Why do we keep doing this? If the people in the minority aspect of the family for whatever reason (differences in spirituality, sexuality, disability, physicality ect.) decide they can be supported and happy away from the family, and the family has a general better time without them, why can't we let this happen? Why force something that isn't there? If it really seems to be an issue, then perhaps focusing on the individual relationship between the people focusing on the six ingredients of love cited above, would be a better use of time? If one seriously wants the family there that don't usually show up- it means change. It requires growth. It will take TIME. Are both parties willing to give that time? Are we going to view it as healthy and normal if both parties do not want to invest that time? Because it is ok. Life demands much. Some relationships are there to teach, sharpen or challenge, and some are meant to be left behind while some will ebb and flow depending on the ages and stages.
Another aspect of 'N's are that they are mostly unwilling to give their time to something that will not have a deep payoff...relational or otherwise. We want to know our investments of money, people, or love will at least be appreciated, helped or find depth. In relationships, we want more than talks about the weather. We want to be able to discourse about at least a few subjects deeply without having them all off limits. We want to swim in the deep end on a fairly regular basis. We want to skip the niceties that feel like a general waste of time and get down to the stuff that isn't often discussed. We want to speculate, use imagination and speak of possibilities. We want to hear philosophy or scientific theories. A shallow example would be that we would want a deeper explanation of how a person felt when the wind whipped their hair and the sun burnt their shoulders (INFP) and triggered a deep thought or existential question (many rationalists.) We don't want to just hear that it's windy and hot outside.
My husband, children and I are all "N" types. We have a lot of 'S' types in our life, because that is the majority of the world (estimated about 76% of the world.) Some are close friends who appreciate our differences deeply and we appreciate their steady differences. We need each other. We don't want our 'S' counterparts to change but we do want them to be open to understanding and reading up on us- like we understand and read up on them. It is often said that Intuitive types have had to literally be bilingual in both sensory and intuitive language because the world requires it. Yet, unless a Sensor has grown up in a household of Intuitives, they have no need to learn the intuitive language. Until one day they realize they are married to one or that person in the family they simply could never get was an Intuitive and then it is crucial if they want healthy ties to learn the Intuitive communication values. Which is why I am directing this more at Sensors.
As a family, we have listened to every personality type podcast on both sides of our entire extended family. Why? Especially when we don't even converse with some? Because we do not want to harbour any bitterness. Bitterness is easier to overcome when we can understand and at least respect the place where someone is coming from in their mind. Even if we do not want to engage or are not at a stage where we can, it is healthy for us to at least get over ourselves, listen to their mind wiring, and understand that many aspects we thought were personal were just a part of cognitive wiring.
Unfortunately, most 'S' types do not like to delve into personality on their own. Often if I hear the statement, "Oh I don't believe in personality tests. Just get to know me..." That statement usually shows that the person is an "S" type. Not all "S" types do this, but there are certain ones that are often inclined to give these statements. Naturally it is because their main values are stemming from a place of what they can see with their own eyes. Personality does not fall within the five senses as such. While they understand abstract concepts, because of cognitive wiring, many would prefer to keep the abstract on the back burner to practical concrete topics. 'N' types are generally the opposite so while they can honour concrete aspects of being they would much rather live in the abstract regularly.
Generally, we smile at a statement of opposition regarding personalities and proceed to type the person based on a few educated guesses. Are they Extroverted or Introverted according to Meyers Briggs definitions (E or I- do they get a positive or negative hit of energy with socializing)? Concrete/Sensing (do they pay attention to their five senses?) or Abstract/ Intuitive (do they pay more attention to possibilities and patterns? S or N)? Are they inclined to value a thinking standpoint when making a decision based on principles and impersonal facts or a feeling all points of view standpoint (T or F)? Spontaneous/ flexible lifestyle or scheduled/ structured lifestyle (P or J?) Suddenly, we have a basic sketch of their personality...obviously it is more nuanced than that but because our family is so immersed in personality studies we are pretty good at our guesses. Most times if we get to test the people out, they score exactly what we thought they would. But we can also be wrong- thus it is important to keep an open, flexible perspective on anything we come up with. Because if we want to get to know them, we want it to be of substance. Personality gets us down to the heart of the matter and to how they operate out of the world. Understanding what they value in their world view, helps us to have a field to play on, with clear lines on what they value and what we value, and how to play the game around those factors. Thus, if we both come from those understandings it is slightly easier to garner quicker trust, respect and genuine care. The six ingredients of love follow more naturally from something that is considered by them maybe sometimes to be unnatural.
No type is better than the other. I am giving this information because often (most) 'S' types do not give much consideration to these things unless an 'N' type, work or school bring personality studies up. It is not their natural inclination to search it out of curiosity or a desire to find out the cognitive functions of personhood, which is fine, but when in the majority, this can cause some issues. Because of the odds, it is important that 'N' types are discussed or give their opinions.
Unfortunately, for 'S' types on the net, it tends to go the opposite way online in certain forums. I actually feel bad for 'S' types that are searching out personality blogs based on type. It's hard to find. INFJ and INTJ and ENFP tend to make up the largest forums online. Perhaps it is because they felt the most marginalized as a minority? The copious amounts of INFJ information alone astounds me. But I also understand it is needed because in 'real life' we were the minority. Finding your tribe can be a beautiful leaping point to acceptance and awareness. In full confession, I can not read the comments on many personality sites or the content on forums, because they can be...well, not very nice. That is not where I need to spend my energy. If you are an 'S' type seeking more, choose one of the "official" personality sites like Meyers Briggs, Personality Hacker, Kiersey, 16 personalities, Michael Pierce ect. Each one has nuanced material on the 16 types. A word of advice? Avoid the comments until you have a foundation of self.
I also find that many 'N' types use Instagram differently than 'S' types. The Intuitives tend to have questions or abstract thoughts or pictures to prod larger discussions while the sensing types gather for memory, achievement or otherwise. Both like to document of course, but the drivers for why are different. In writing, Intuitives can come across as often matter of fact yet more abstract (most rationalists) or a mix of factual with abstract concepts like Philosophy, poetry or whatever is in their interest abstract form (typically idealists.) S types will often write sensory aspects of everyday or engage with their material imaginatively but applicable to concrete ways of being. There are exceptions to every type, nuances and many other factors that make up a person. These are just generalities. So it is very unlikely for an 'S' family member to naturally read my blog unless it is to dig for information, misunderstand my intents out of curiosity, or (on the positive side) because we have already established healthy interactions or share other similar interests.
Years ago we had our children take this test (click) and this test (click). To double check we also read their descriptions to them and made sure they agreed with their results. I take issue with these tests in general if they are not overseen by someone immersed in personality studies. Because often people will score wrong results based on HOW they see themselves or how their culture expects them to be and not on who they actually are. Generally, it takes an objective party who knows them to help them with their answers. Basically, you know if you have an accurate type if you read most of it and say, "Oh my goodness! How did they KNOW that about me? How did they crawl into my brain?"
I am an INFJ, my husband is an ENFP, and our children are ENFJ, INTJ, and ENFP. We have two extroverts who operate more like introverts. We have one primary thinker among a bunch of primary feelers...and two perceivers amongst a majority of those who value structure a tad bit more. Our cores have stayed the same over the years even though we have all mellowed in some of our stronger aspects to accommodate each other. We listen to podcasts over at Personality Hacker (click) on hour long trips. We discuss how each person feels about the accuracy of their personality result. We make sure to validate a person and if there is conflict, we first go to our main cognitive functions, driver's seats and 3 year old process to see how we can resolve while respecting the essence, strengths and weaknesses of each person involved. We know a lot about each other because of this. We can often tell when we are out, what we will discuss about something once we are home (and comfortable) as a family alone, by just a simple look. Basically we are in tune with each other BECAUSE of our deep dive into persona.
Of course, pre- personality we still understood aspects of each other, but the studies enhanced this and cut down on misunderstandings. We don't just chalk up behaviour to "sin" or "selfishness" nor do we chalk it up to "goodness" or "achievement." It's all based on WHO the person IS. On BEING. Personality studies enable us to see the person in front of us and bypass a lot of misunderstanding...or at least talk through it more constructively. Our hope is that our children's sibling relationships will carry this dignity, respect and honour of different brain function, outward preferences and inner ways into adulthood. We hope they remember aspects of these things so they can have somewhat healthy sibling relationships...maybe they will even still be the best friends they are today? Then again, maybe not, and if not, we hope they carry those aspects into their other friendships and find soul siblings to share them with.
I wish I could share this information appropriately with the relationships that long for healing in our lives but that do not understand the nuances, reasons and motivations behind many of the issues. I feel like understanding could foster the six ingredients of love. Perhaps our world would suffer less from mindless violence if we focused in on just a few people in our lives to give the six ingredients of love and if we would at least attempt to understand driving preferences, cognitive functions, perhaps we could change the course of history slowly with simple regard and general respect?
Have you studied personality? If so, did you find that your *accurate* personality type opened up a world of possibilities for you? Did you start to understand others more? Did the "box" of personality so many allude to actually become an open field of respect and understanding? Did it enable you to go beyond whom a person seems and into who they are by first having a structured view? Or did it make it worse? (If it DID make it worse could it possibly be due to inaccurate results?)
Sure, it's only one aspect of BEING but it is still important to consider. With personality, as a foundation, we can understand and judge less. Because we see that "One man's home is another man's journey...for one man's truth is another man's lie. It's just the way it goes and I couldn't say why. One man's cure is another man's poison."- Passenger Lyrics. It is brave to understand others and ourselves. To open, in compassion to be WHOM we are and allow others to do the same.
Another post I wrote on Families with the analogy of climates differing is found here:
