Toxic Positivity | INFJ Forum

Toxic Positivity

Roses In The Vineyard

Well-known member
Jul 11, 2018
3,311
8,854
893
MBTI
INFJ
This doesn't get much coverage however a Lot of people out there have suffered greatly in some way or another from this type of narcissist and it is important to bring attention to such as it has been getting worse in society in recent years.

Read through some of the comments for yourselves.
 
I don't know- I would prefer somebody to fall on the positive spectrum of perception and attitude then to cycle negative emotions and constantly demand responses from other people.

"Toxic positivity" is often espoused by people who have a lot of negative emotions that they don't feel in control of and want others to help them regulate their emotions. Venting and discussing stresses in your life is perfectly normal, but there is a cost you are putting on others when you consistently need to confide in friends and family about your problems. With that being said I think it needs to be more socially acceptable for others to express that they are unable to be emotionally available for you in that moment, or simply that they don't want to. And if you do feel this way in a conversation it is critical that you set that boundary instead of allowing behavior socially that taxes you. Nobody is a mind reader, we have to communicate.

Although "everything's great" isn't realistic, "everything's horrible" isn't realistic either and I frequently see people who take up a battle against toxic positivity doing so because they want others to feel as awful as they do 24-7. We get to choose our attitude and I don't buy the victim mentality keeping people drowning in their problems or how the world is stacked against them.

In the end it is really a conflict in the style we choose to cope with the world and both are ok- they might make somebody uncomfortable if you aren't using the same method of coping. But instead of trying to label it and correct it the best thing we can do is tolerate it and if it's really bothering us that much don't closely associate with people whose perspective you are uncomfortable with.
 
We get to choose our attitude and I don't buy the victim mentality keeping people drowning in their problems or how the world is stacked against them.

Yeah, nobody ever talks about toxic negativity but it's also definitely a thing.

I agree with what you've said.
This is all sort of at the center point of my disdain for labels in general.
It's good to have language to describe things, but we live in an age where labels are weaponized.
You hear about toxic masculinity, but not so much toxic femininity.
People often use language to weaponize ideas and minimize other's experiences.
Which I think is fine in a humoristic manner, but humor itself has become a battleground these days.
It's not being overtly labeled it, but toxic comedy is also a thing now. Which is just bananas imo.

Anyway, like you said just try to allow people to cope in the ways they are oriented.
Life is too short to live with constant butthurt.
 
That video was kind of repetitive.

I don't get how someone's compulsive positivity becomes toxic for others. The presenter just kept on asserting "it's toxic" "it can become very toxic" over and over.

I occasionally encounter crazily positive or negative people, and I'd describe the interaction as odd, tiring, annoying, etc. What I don't get is why any regular person would engage with the crazy for prolonged periods.

I got the impression from the video that one would have to be driven by some extreme attachment or neediness to continuously engage with grandiose narcissistic positivity. How does one interpret a negative experience into being ostracized by someone you don't want to spend time with... if anything being ostracized by a narcissist makes avoiding their time wasting extremely easy.
 
Yeah, nobody ever talks about toxic negativity but it's also definitely a thing.

I agree with what you've said.
This is all sort of at the center point of my disdain for labels in general.
It's good to have language to describe things, but we live in an age where labels are weaponized.
You hear about toxic masculinity, but not so much toxic femininity.
People often use language to weaponize ideas and minimize other's experiences.
Which I think is fine in a humoristic manner, but humor itself has become a battleground these days.
It's not being overtly labeled it, but toxic comedy is also a thing now. Which is just bananas imo.

Anyway, like you said just try to allow people to cope in the ways they are oriented.
Life is too short to live with constant butthurt.
The only thing I can figure is that when we are young or haven't developed a certain type of emotional intelligence, the way that we experience the world and relate to it is the only one that we can see. Then a person can get drawn into dichotomous thinking where the way they experience the world is the "right" way and other ways are wrong and need to be corrected. I've often felt this way myself and breaking out of that mindset really requires a lot of work. The ability to acknowledge that multiple people's realities are just as valid and that the existence of an experience outside of your own preferences isn't a threat to your own world... It's precious, and needs to cultivated! Sometimes people feel the need to justify themselves and they do so by tearing down anything that's different. And I realize now it's not really a character defect but just part of being a human that will come to head every now and then and we can only hope to become more aware of it when it does. Great thoughts as always, @Wyote .
 
Thanks for sharing further material.

This is very interesting the way they speak of this- equating authenticity as being incompatible with the concept of "toxic positivity", as if those who feel this way are "putting on an act."

I view it less as putting on an act and actively choosing your thoughts and behavior and not just riding on whatever emotion you have at the current moment.

Law of attraction thing I don't agree with either.

I think I can see what is meant by toxic positivity that it is somebody saying they've never been sad or never feel bad. I don't think I've actually met many people like that in real life. I have met more people who moan and complain and never have a good thing to say. That annoys me more.

I do think mindset is the most important part of succeeding, not just in the workplace, but in life.

Definitely there is a balance between constructive criticism with the aim of improving something and critiquing just to critique.

I like that they are touching on how some people aren't comfortable feeling calm or happy. I think that's right, and that's why those people enjoy the idea of toxic positivity because they are more negative slanted in their emotions and they have difficulty experiencing life in a positive way. So rather than just owning that- " I prefer to be unhappy and complain and express negative emotions"- they want to exert control on other people's behavior because they do not feel socially accepted.

Also, validating your own emotions when you are going through a hard time and deciding to take a mindset in reaction to it that is focusing on the positive is not shaming yourself. It's a part of regular emotional regulation. It's also ok if you prefer not to reframe your issues and allow your emotions to control your thoughts and attitude. These are choices.

I'm not sure that her claim that affirmations don't usually work is true... Where is the stats? It sounds like a personal opinion which is fine, for her it doesn't work. That's ok. But for somebody like me it works great.

Saying that your ability to have gratitude depends on your circumstances kind of defeats the concept of gratitude. Gratitude is not something only accessable if you have the perfect life. Gratitude is a practice of finding the silver lining when you do feel as though you are lacking in your life-- that's the whole PURPOSE of gratitude... To appreciate what you have, no matter how little it is. I don't buy the argument that gratitude is easier for certain people- some people might have more to be grateful for depending on how you're looking at it, but that doesn't actually make it easier to have gratitude. Gratitude is a skill that has to be developed.

I do like how she addresses the benefit of complaining in trouble shooting and that people can get stuck in these complaint loops. That's very true.

I like that she encourages people to directly communicate that is somebody says something that isn't helpful to explain and explain what woulf be helpful because again I think it boils down to a different style of coping with life and challenges. If we can realize we are different we can bridge the communication gap and acknowledge our differences without having to change each other.

"Discrimination with a smile", I resonate with the flip side. It's emotionally taxing when somebody needs you to constantly validate that they are being treated unfairly and often they're using those feelings to justify inaction. There is a balance. I can acknowledge people experience unique hardship but the minute that becomes an excuse I get frustrated by it. I have no tolerance for it but that's again my personal preference. I try to just exit those situations now that I realize I can't provide the comfort these people are seeking.

Love the critique of social media... It is very true.

I also like that they discuss the flexibility of values and how important it is to define your own values.

I definitely see if somebody thinks they aren't ALLOWED to feel negative emotions how that can create internal discord because we all do have negative emotions. Again, it's about preference and how you decide to handle those emotions.

I love they address the "when I have xyz I'll be happy" attitude and how that can be pretty destructive. I see that tied into the mindset of people who are unhappy with their lives... They always have something out of reach that, until they have that, they can never be happy. I really do not like that attitude.

It's a temperament issue in my opinion. I prefer to reframe and am very frustrated by people who like to vent and complain- it's not my style, I'm trying to solve an issue if I'm talking about it.

I will say, I hope people who do have a more negative bias in life can find places to feel comfortable and express themselves in the way those who have a positive bias do. It is hard to have a culture that encourages a certain emotion or mindset.

I am biased to think that positivity results in better life outcomes, but we all do experience a mixture of emotions. Nobody is to blame if they prefer to focus on one specific over others, though balance is great to strive for. And balance will probably look different person to person. We all have our preferences.
 
Quick "soundbites" on Toxic Positivity

Toxic positivity involves dismissing negative emotions and responding to distress with false reassurances rather than empathy. It comes from feeling uncomfortable with negative emotions. It is often well-intentioned but can cause alienation and a feeling of disconnection.



IMG-3026_0.jpg

toxic-021637214221.jpg


5F56F680-C3D7-4F8F-BEBB-141D2B449EDB.png


Screen Shot 2022-08-16 at 10.10.33 AM.png


Toxic-Positivity-Vs-Highest-Self.jpg
 
Quick "soundbites" on Toxic Positivity

Toxic positivity involves dismissing negative emotions and responding to distress with false reassurances rather than empathy. It comes from feeling uncomfortable with negative emotions. It is often well-intentioned but can cause alienation and a feeling of disconnection.



View attachment 89260

View attachment 89261


View attachment 89262


View attachment 89263


View attachment 89264
I guess I'm not seeing why we have to force our reactions to be empathetic instead of helpful. Why is this being pathologized? Don't we want different things in a conversation and that's just individual difference and preference?

The truth is, if somebody comes to me with their problems, I don't want to offer to help. I lived my life being at the beck and call of people in my life who were miserable and me trying to help them to support them only encouraged the behavior at the expense of my own happiness. If somebody comes to me of course I'm going to give them advice or a story about my own experiences with the issue they're talking about, or I might try to help them look at the situation from a different angle and see the positive side of things rather than focusing on the negative. There are people in the world who love to feel sad and angry and be a victim and to say that we have to listen to them and empathize with them seems like saying we have to ignore our own wants and desires, our own style of handling things. Can't the people who want an empathetic response find somebody who enjoys interacting that way instead of trying to force somebody who doesn't to behave the way they would prefer them to?

Usually if I'm in a situation where I can tell I can't give somebody the empathetic response they need I'll just tell them I don't think I can give them what they are looking for and I hope they find it. I dismiss them because I can see they are going to be upset by my responses, but I'm done pandering to people. I am who I am.
 
I guess I'm not seeing why we have to force our reactions to be empathetic instead of helpful. Why is this being pathologized? Don't we want different things in a conversation and that's just individual difference and preference?

The truth is, if somebody comes to me with their problems, I don't want to offer to help. I lived my life being at the beck and call of people in my life who were miserable and me trying to help them to support them only encouraged the behavior at the expense of my own happiness. If somebody comes to me of course I'm going to give them advice or a story about my own experiences with the issue they're talking about, or I might try to help them look at the situation from a different angle and see the positive side of things rather than focusing on the negative. There are people in the world who love to feel sad and angry and be a victim and to say that we have to listen to them and empathize with them seems like saying we have to ignore our own wants and desires, our own style of handling things. Can't the people who want an empathetic response find somebody who enjoys interacting that way instead of trying to force somebody who doesn't to behave the way they would prefer them to?

Usually if I'm in a situation where I can tell I can't give somebody the empathetic response they need I'll just tell them I don't think I can give them what they are looking for and I hope they find it. I dismiss them because I can see they are going to be upset by my responses, but I'm done pandering to people. I am who I am.


These snippets just give examples of toxic positivity versus more realistic and empathetic phrasing. Toxic positivity dismisses real-life situations, emotions, and realistic expectations in favor of falling in line with the "rose-colored-glasses" social expectations that make people feel alienated and avoid problem-solving.

You don't have to ignore your own wants and desires when responding to a friend or acquaintance who is struggling with unfortunate circumstances, nor do you have to be available as their amateur therapist. For example, If someone you know is enduring a tragedy, you could say something more realistically empathetic when offering sympathies rather than saying something inane like, "Everything is going to be OK." This is important with cancer patients.

It sounds like you need stronger boundaries. Choose the people whose problems you listen to more carefully and be unavailable for people who drain you without giving back. A real friendship is reciprocal. Both people are there for each other, if not in the same way, then in a way that balances out.

This woman, Emily MacDowell makes more realistic cards for cancer patients and quite a few cancer survivors I know have told me how much they appreciate [that this artist makes these] and how frustrated and alone they felt by the toxic positivity people offered. I think her cards are funny.

Screen Shot 2022-08-16 at 11.55.03 AM.png

Screen Shot 2022-08-16 at 11.55.16 AM.png
 
These snippets just give examples of toxic positivity versus more realistic and empathetic phrasing. Toxic positivity dismisses real-life situations, emotions, and realistic expectations in favor of falling in line with the "rose-colored-glasses" social expectations that make people feel alienated and avoid problem-solving.

You don't have to ignore your own wants and desires when responding to a friend or acquaintance who is struggling with unfortunate circumstances, nor do you have to be available as their amateur therapist. For example, If someone you know is enduring a tragedy, you could say something more realistically empathetic when offering sympathies rather than saying something inane like, "Everything is going to be OK." This is important with cancer patients.

It sounds like you need stronger boundaries. Choose the people whose problems you listen to more carefully and be unavailable for people who drain you without giving back. A real friendship is reciprocal. Both people are there for each other, if not in the same way, then in a way that balances out.

This woman, Emily MacDowell makes more realistic cards for cancer patients and quite a few cancer survivors I know have told me how much they appreciate [that this artist makes these] and how frustrated and alone they felt by the toxic positivity people offered. I think her cards are funny.

View attachment 89265

View attachment 89266
I don't know... This just doesn't resonate with me. I think that I enjoy when people tell me everything is going to be alright or work out or that I can gain strength from a bad experience, I love when people reframe this way. It helps me to feel encouraged and gets me out of feeling sorry for myself. I can appreciate that other people don't like to be told that, but some of us do. I try to respect and listen to people who don't find my responses helpful but you know, sometimes we just aren't on the same page. I think it's ok for people to say these things and it's also ok for people to not resonate with the statements and need a different type of support. But for some of us, this isn't "toxic." Although again I'm understand that some people do view it as toxic and I hope that they can find people will say the rights words the right way.
 
“What is toxic positivity, and why is it a bad thing?” asked the teacher.

Three pupils immediately raised their hands, their faces eager and bright.

The teacher smiled and said “Okay, please tell me what toxic positivity is.”

In unison, the three students said “Toxic positivity is a form of emotional invalidation.”

“Very good,” said the teacher, who then asked “and why is that a bad thing?”

“Emotional invalidation is dismissing, rejecting, or shaming someone’s feelings. It says to someone: “Your feelings don’t matter. Your feelings are wrong.” said the classmates.

A student in the back raised their tiny hand, and then waived it because they were afraid they would not be seen.

“Yes?” inquired the teacher. “They forgot something.” replied the student. “What’s that?” the teacher asked.

“Feelings do matter, and feelings are always valid, so they can never be wrong.”

Cheers,
Ian
 
Some more on this, as for the forced positivity which is just compulsory acting for me is bit too Machiavellian for what I am comfortable with and very strongly disagree with as an enneagram 4. As for dealing with it out in the real world it can be seriously damaging both in family settings as well in relationships in general for which there are sadly many examples online. At best it can be good intentioned while at worst does some very real psychological harm. Being an enneagram 4 I prefer to go by the line of thinking that all vibes are welcomed where the interaction and the overall experience is real rather than the Machiavellian forced acting having come out of the Christian and New Age pipeline where such is often the norm.

 
Offering advice, a different perspective, to help, a self-referential story, and/or something to inspire and motivate—all of these things can be good—but they are all useless, and potentially harmful, if we don’t do something else first:

We state what they have told us, not word for word, but as we (hopefully) understand them, and then we ask in order to confirm “Have I correctly heard you and do I understood you?”

The person can then confirm or deny that is the case, and offer additional feedback as needed.

The idea is to accept someone as they are, where they are, and receive them in order to meet the human need for connection and shared understanding. This also encourages communication, because each owning what they say without judging the other creates a safe space in which to engage.

Of course, boundaries and consent first. If you are unwilling, or unable, that’s okay. You always have the right to say no.

When a person feels heard and understood, their experience is that you are well and truly with them in that moment. If their sense is that you do not understand, they have no reason to think your advice, stories, or help will be of any use, and for that matter, they may rightfully understand that those things were offered for a reason, and it surely wasn’t them.

Yep, all from Nonviolent Communication, by Marshall P. Rosenberg.

Cheers,
Ian
 
Offering advice, a different perspective, to help, a self-referential story, and/or something to inspire and motivate—all of these things can be good—but they are all useless, and potentially harmful, if we don’t do something else first:

We state what they have told us, not word for word, but as we (hopefully) understand them, and then we ask in order to confirm “Have I correctly heard you and do I understood you?”

The person can then confirm or deny that is the case, and offer additional feedback as needed.

The idea is to accept someone as they are, where they are, and receive them in order to meet the human need for connection and shared understanding. This also encourages communication, because each owning what they say without judging the other creates a safe space in which to engage.

Of course, boundaries and consent first. If you are unwilling, or unable, that’s okay. You always have the right to say no.

When a person feels heard and understood, their experience is that you are well and truly with them in that moment. If their sense is that you do not understand, they have no reason to think your advice, stories, or help will be of any use, and for that matter, they may rightfully understand that those things were offered for a reason, and it surely wasn’t them.

Yep, all from Nonviolent Communication, by Marshall P. Rosenberg.

Cheers,
Ian
I just think that people have different communication styles and that you are describing a specific preference that some people have. For some reason it's important to you to state that this communication style is flawed and that it can be corrected by introducing a new element. That's cool and everything but maybe it's not flawed. Maybe you just have a preference to communicate this way and when other people don't share your preference you don't feel understood. And guess what? That's exactly what the other person on the other end is feeling, when they're being told there is this formula on how to communicate.

There are preferences. You have a preference and that doesn't match with the preference some people have.

Now, we can negotiate in our communication styles and try to bridge any gap in preferences. We can even change our communication style if we want. I'm not sure though that there is any real distinction between the styles other than what we currently prefer and what resonates with us.
 
I just think that people have different communication styles and that you are describing a specific preference that some people have.

Absolutely, different people have different communication styles.

For some reason it's important to you to state that this communication style is flawed and that it can be corrected by introducing a new element. That's cool and everything but maybe it's not flawed. Maybe you just have a preference to communicate this way and when other people don't share your preference you don't feel understood. And guess what? That's exactly what the other person on the other end is feeling, when they're being told there is this formula on how to communicate.

Oh, for sure I don’t think other ways are wrong, excepting those that could properly be judged as pathological.

Other people will do as they wish, and that is their right. I will attempt to understand them, and try to confirm that I have. They will engage in accordance with their values, skills, temperament, knowledge, intent, etc., and I accept that.

There are preferences. You have a preference and that doesn't match with the preference some people have.

Indeed, and that’s more than okay.

Now, we can negotiate in our communication styles and try to bridge any gap in preferences. We can even change our communication style if we want. I'm not sure though that there is any real distinction between the styles other than what we currently prefer and what resonates with us.

I used to engage very differently than I do now. I gave up whatever I did in the past because:
  1. someone I cared about and trusted the judgment of presented the new way to me
  2. the new way as written made so much sense to me that I wanted to try it
  3. there was a body of clinical data including case studies which suggested its efficacy
Over time, I engaged in the new way and I could hardly believe my experience. It was as described in the literature. It could be applied in nearly any situation, with a wide variety of people. Friendships deepened in the sense there was greater reciprocity and intimacy. At work, it made what would have otherwise been difficult, or tense conversations, so much easier, and in turn, more productive. I applied it in the context of my next relationship, and she turned out to be the love of my life. We use it every day.

I changed my style because it worked better (by my values) than anything else ever had, but also because other people gave me feedback that they really appreciated my way. Their reasons typically included that I actually (by their measure) cared, and that I was safe in that I did not give them cause to defend, and that I did not give them reason to regret telling me something.

Speaking only for myself, it has been a better way in terms of me meeting my own needs, bar none. In part because it is well and truly human-focused.
  1. receive and witness, observe
  2. distinguish the feelings
  3. so as to identify the needs
  4. and then advocate for and request
I find the combination of acceptance, validation, understanding, humanism, agency, and consent to be unbeatable—sure, because the NF idealist sx subtype in me values those things, so of course I would think so—but also because the pragmatist in me found out nonviolent communication truly works.

As I said before, other people will engage as it suits them. They are free to be themselves. I let them know that.

Of course the whole thing needs at least two people, consent, honest sharing, acceptance, emotional intelligence, self-awareness, confidence, and the willingness to be refused at the end. I’m sure that sounds like an incredibly high bar, and it certainly is, but the deepest discussions about the most meaningful and intimate things require next-level tools and skills if you don’t want anyone to be deeply hurt in the process.

And you don’t need the full monty to engage with a stranger at a gas station—but I’ve experienced some truly beautiful things, had people dare to tell me exactly who they were, seen real wonder in another person’s eyes—all because I offered them just the tiniest bit of those things, and expected nothing, while welcoming anything.

So again, it’s my way, and other people have other ways, and they are not wrong.

edit: I think the fundamental differences are that it is other-focused, understanding is confirmed, it is emotionally-validating, and it is needs-based.

Best to You,
Ian
 
Last edited:
This just doesn't resonate with me. I think that I enjoy when people tell me everything is going to be alright or work out or that I can gain strength from a bad experience, I love when people reframe this way. It helps me to feel encouraged and gets me out of feeling sorry for myself. I can appreciate that other people don't like to be told that, but some of us do. I try to respect and listen to people who don't find my responses helpful but you know, sometimes we just aren't on the same page. I think it's ok for people to say these things and it's also ok for people to not resonate with the statements and need a different type of support. But for some of us, this isn't "toxic." Although again I'm understand that some people do view it as toxic and I hope that they can find people will say the rights words the right way.

I think you do need more positive validation and kind words in your life. That's valid, especially considering everything you've expressed about your past and your current friendship issues. You need to be heard. You need encouragement and support.

Toxic positivity doesn't mean muting/censoring positive responses for the sake of "being real". (Being cruelly blunt is also toxic.) It means caging someone in simple, fake phrasing and attitudes so they do not feel heard or supported and so their problems are glazed over to keep things (fakely) "pleasant".

Being an enneagram 4 I prefer to go by the line of thinking that all vibes are welcomed where the interaction and the overall experience is real rather than the Machiavellian forced acting having come out of the Christian and New Age pipeline where such is often the norm.

I agree with you. I didn't know this was an E4 thing. I'm an E5x4 and I feel this way, too.
 
I didn't know this was an E4 thing.

Authenticity is one of my highest values. I can’t hold a candle to an E4 in this regard, and I say that as 947 tritype.

Cheers,
Ian