Do you listen to people you don't like?

[muir]

It's often said that INFJ's respect mainly honesty whilst INTJ's respect mainly competency

INFJ's are interested in peoples VALUES and what principles underpin their thinking and actions. This is vital because competency alone is not a good thing. For example a seriel killer might be very competent at killing people but his heart is rotten to the core

So i guess what i'm wanting to explore here is a couple of aspects to human interaction.

On one hand many people want to be liked and they put a lot of effort socially into being liked. In order to be liked they might avoid speaking the truth for example

Speaking the truth can make someone very unlikeable!

But does that mean that the person shouldn't be listened to?

So i guess what i'm asking is are people able to seperate whether or not they like someone from whether or not they find TRUTH value in what they are saying?

I know for certain that some people are not interested in the truth they are only interested in playing social pecking orders within certain communities

So are you able as an individual to look past a person to what they are saying or is the only thing that matters whether or not you like someone?

This has all sorts of implications not just in every day life but also in politics for example where one candidate might be more charming or good looking than another and just more presentable and likeable yet his/her policies might not be as good as those of someone who is not so good at razzle dazzling people....should it matter?

We see examples all the time in everyday life of the most likeable person gaining support...but are they actually the person people should be listening to? For example...are they the most honest?

 

[Elis]

So i guess what i'm asking is are people able to seperate whether or not they like someone from whether or not they find TRUTH value in what they are saying?

I guess it depends on why they are lying. Personally I can think of at least a few perfectly fine reasons that, even though I prefer to hear the truth, won't make me think less of them. People make mistakes, and our society sure isn't perfect.

If anything, their attitude could be what breaks it. But even then there are exceptions.

 

[muir]

I guess it depends on why they are lying. Personally I can think of at least a few perfectly fine reasons that, even though I prefer to hear the truth, won't make me think less of them. People make mistakes, and our society sure isn't perfect.

If anything, their attitude could be what breaks it. But even then there are exceptions.

What if they are not lying?

What if they are telling the truth but they're not sugar coating it or what if you don't like the person who is telling the truth? If you don't like the person do you dismiss everything they say because you don't like them?

 

[Elis]

No. I think I'm pretty good at differentiating between the two, or at least I'd like to think so. I tend to listen to people, even the ones I dislike.

Perhaps if I find their thesis too implausible that I'll just dismiss it all together.


Generally I have more problem with people that I find sugar coating the truth - but to each their own, I guess.

 

[Eventhorizon]

If its something that I need to know and I feel like they know what they are talking about. Few people I actually know in this world I dont like. Many though that I feel dont have a good train of thought.
You can not like someone but still respect their intelligence among other things so it all depends.

 

[nosferatu]

It depends... I will usually be drawn to anyone of high intelligence, but the key to me truly taking what they say seriously is if their actions line up with their words. You can preach your intelligence all you want, but if it's something truly meaningful to you, it will also show in your actions. Otherwise I might write the person off as a know it all who is just looking for an ego boost, although if they still say good stuff I may listen to them if I'm interested in the information at hand.

Usually if they speak actual truth in relation to the environment and change of people's actions/demeanor, I will side with them and listen. Probably because I was intuiting something similar. That and I can relate with being the person who gets shunned for blurting out the truth...

 

[La Sagna]

I am willing to listen and consider pretty much anyone but I take issue with anybody saying they know the 'truth' because nobody can claim to know the 'truth', they can just express their beliefs. These beliefs can be true, partially true or completely off the mark but unless you have empirical and indisputable evidence then it cannot be known to be a 'truth'. I will absolutely accept the right for anyone to have any belief as long as it doesn't promote hatred or causing harm to another group, but it doesn't mean that I will join them in their belief or ever agree that their beliefs, or mine for that matter, can be proven to be the actual full truth. Many people that I know have gotten quite pissed off at me because I won't agree that what they believe is the truth but I find it funny that these 'truths' that people hold so dear contradict each other and somehow I'm supposed to believe it all. I am too logical of a person for that. I am open to just about any possibility but if I don't have that indisputable proof then I look at all of it with scepticism. Not having the proof does not make it untrue but it means that it cannot be called a 'truth' and that it should always be looked at with a grain of salt and a healthy amount of scepticism.

 

[muir]

I wonder how many cues when we are in social situations we are influenced by without consciously realising it for example clothing and general appearance, height and so on

Online the visual cues would be less but there are other subtle factors for example alliances between various people which might sway a person as to whether or not they listen to someone

People have their own motivations for their social interactions but how often is that motivation simply a hunger for the truth...

I have a theory that the world is as messed up as it is because people listen to the wrong people; so it then becomes an interesting area to look into regarding why people listen to the people they listen to

I guess it depends what people are questing for to a certain extent

 

[muir]

I am willing to listen and consider pretty much anyone but I take issue with anybody saying they know the 'truth' because nobody can claim to know the 'truth', they can just express their beliefs. These beliefs can be true, partially true or completely off the mark but unless you have empirical and indisputable evidence then it cannot be known to be a 'truth'. I will absolutely accept the right for anyone to have any belief as long as it doesn't promote hatred or causing harm to another group, but it doesn't mean that I will join them in their belief or ever agree that their beliefs, or mine for that matter, can be proven to be the actual full truth. Many people that I know have gotten quite pissed off at me because I won't agree that what they believe is the truth but I find it funny that these 'truths' that people hold so dear contradict each other and somehow I'm supposed to believe it all. I am too logical of a person for that. I am open to just about any possibility but if I don't have that indisputable proof then I look at all of it with scepticism. Not having the proof does not make it untrue but it means that it cannot be called a 'truth' and that it should always be looked at with a grain of salt and a healthy amount of scepticism.

I think there is a problem in that in order to access the truthfullness of something often needs a person to be informed as to the background information regarding a subject

Everyone has an opinion but not everyone is informed

The more informed a person becomes the more informed their 'belief' becomes because it is built on larger and larger foundations of understanding

Of course understanding doesn't always bring their 'belief' down on the right moral side as they might know the truth about something and still make an immoral decision because it benefits them

But to know what the right answer is we have to be informed but to get informed requires effort

So in all conflicts there seem to be informed people on both sides who know how immoral one of the sides is behaving.

The moral side then tries to expose the immorality of the other and the immoral side tries to hide behind a smokescreen of lies or apologist justifications

Both sides seek to affect the opinion of the larger mass of uninformed people

When INFJ's are informed about an issue they will often feel compelled to support the moral side and through these experiences they become very aware that there is another portion of society who also know like they do about the immorality of a position but yet that portion consciously choose to support the immoral side

They are like the nemesis of the INFJ's

If you can understand the nature/psycology of that evil portion then you understand the cause of humanities sufferings down through history and continuing into the future

Just as INFJ's feel compelled to try and do the right thing, the other portion feels compelled to do what they know will harm the many

 

[La Sagna]

I wonder how many cues when we are in social situations we are influenced by without consciously realising it for example clothing and general appearance, height and so on

Online the visual cues would be less but there are other subtle factors for example alliances between various people which might sway a person as to whether or not they listen to someone

People have their own motivations for their social interactions but how often is that motivation simply a hunger for the truth...

I have a theory that the world is as messed up as it is because people listen to the wrong people; so it then becomes an interesting area to look into regarding why people listen to the people they listen to

I guess it depends what people are questing for to a certain extent

It seems to me that most people have ingrained biases that most likely stem from how they were raised, their past experiences, what groups they associate with and of course the media. They then judge everything and everyone through these biased views and look for things that confirm their bias and discount those that prove their bias wrong.

I consider myself very democratic in how I treat other people. Everybody's views and opinions and experiences are as valid as each other's so that to me the opinion of a street person about a subject matter is just as worthy of being listened to and considered as that of somebody in a position of respect and authority. They are all one and the same to me, but I think I'm the exception and most people are more influenced by the 'respectability' of the individual according to their own biases.

 

[muir]

It seems to me that most people have ingrained biases that most likely stem from how they were raised, their past experiences, what groups they associate with and of course the media. They then judge everything and everyone through these biased views and look for things that confirm their bias and discount those that prove their bias wrong.

I consider myself very democratic in how I treat other people. Everybody's views and opinions and experiences are as valid as each other's so that to me the opinion of a street person about a subject matter is just as worthy of being listened to and considered as that of somebody in a position of respect and authority. They are all one and the same to me, but I think I'm the exception and most people are more influenced by the 'respectability' of the individual according to their own biases.

Yeah i think that's true

For example a regular joe might be a store house of very grounded wisdom and yet given the choice most people would listen to a more aggressive guy standing next to him in an expensive suit leaning on a sportscar

Energy flows where attention goes and many people market themselves well

But the guy in the suit and sportscar might be a psychopathic liar

How free are most people from their ingrained biases? To what extent are people really thinking for themselves v's their conditioned bias's and fears?

The psychopathic liar can win support by being superficially charming and likeable and by having an appearance of success that impresses people and he can even tell lies to discredit the regular joe who had the honest views and grounded wisdom; arguably that happens in politics and other areas all the time!

So...how many people are free from their conditioning (not bound by religious, national, political or any other affiliations) and how many are informed enough to know which side is the immoral side (hiding behind lies) and which side is the moral one (trying to expose the lies)?

Having quizzed many people now on their strongly held opinions to see what kind of foundations they are built on i'd say sadly not many

 

[La Sagna]

Yeah i think that's true

For example a regular joe might be a store house of very grounded wisdom and yet given the choice most people would listen to a more aggressive guy standing next to him in an expensive suit leaning on a sportscar

Energy flows where attention goes and many people market themselves well

But the guy in the suit and sportscar might be a psychopathic liar

How free are most people from their ingrained biases? To what extent are people really thinking for themselves v's their conditioned bias's and fears?

The psychopathic liar can win support by being superficially charming and likeable and by having an appearance of success that impresses people and he can even tell lies to discredit the regular joe who had the honest views and grounded wisdom; arguably that happens in politics and other areas all the time!

So...how many people are free from their conditioning (not bound by religious, national, political or any other affiliations) and how many are informed enough to know which side is the immoral side (hiding behind lies) and which side is the moral one (trying to expose the lies)?

Having quizzed many people now on their strongly held opinions to see what kind of foundations they are built on i'd say sadly not many

I know in the previous post I said that 'most people' have ingrained biases but truthfully I believe that everybody has biases including me but the difference is that I am very self-aware and I fight any biases that I have. I think it is a very human thing to have biases. The only way to not be a biased person is to be aware and acknowledge any biases you have and then override them because it is the right thing to do.

 

[CogentPursuit]

I always considered what is given but the truth I find from it isn't necessarily what was given.

 

[Yatagarasu]

I cannot say there is one person that has lived that I don't like. Why? Everyone has their own perspectives and you certainly can't fault them for believing biases and tendencies that were ingrained in them. I will gladly listen to anyone's opinion, but that doesn't necessarily give their opinion any truth. Truth and rationality is very important to me. To me they are the building blocks of compassion and empathy. Your views should not contradict one another. You should not be living an illusion at the expense of others. But again those are my opinions on the prospect of a world with peace. Some just don't care about that. All they need is their necessities to be met. Again, not their fault they were just raised that way. [MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION] made a good point about being able to override your biases and not have it effect the way you treat others. Some cannot control the way they act. And while frustrating you just have to try your best to accept them and hope they will do the same to you.

 

[Skarekrow]

I generally give people a chance before I stop listening to them.
If I hear them lying or know they are lying about something I will also generally give that person the benefit of doubt that they just don’t know they are wrong.
There are huge groups of our population that have bought into the lies being peddled to them…and the architects of those lies also included subtext the basically says - “If someone tries to correct you it’s not because you are wrong it’s because they are (X)” X = Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, bible-thumper, atheist, homosexual, black, gun-nut, terrorist, Muslim, etc, etc, (your bias here).
It also depends on how well I know someone. It’s very easy to judge someone in a snap…it’s difficult to get to know and understand a person you may dislike…but I think there is value in that.
There is great value in being surrounded by a variety of opinions and thoughts. I think most people who lie about politics for example…are only perpetuating the lies told to them…they are lying by proxy.

 

[Delta]

I can stay focused and listen intently to things I personally have no interest in due to having a high baseline level of respect for others, especially children and teens. This aspect has been sharpened from assessing others via work. Personally, I can get on with just about anyone but honestly, I look at what is being unsaid probably more than what is said and go from there. As such I am rarely shocked.

.. but what people omit can seriously tell a whole lot about them and their motives and I am fascinated by this in others. I don't really have such a filter, hence why I stay quiet until I can work out if it is likely I will be heard. Then again my barrier is my beautiful home. I rarely trust anyone enough to let them into my home so generally I'm not too fussed about what I may or may not pick up on by listening to others.

Usually people will tell me everything about themselves on first meeting me. Whilst even my husband still doesn't know my life story.

 

[sprinkles]

Liking somebody or not is never the ONLY reason I stop listening. They have to be consistently wrong or consistently dickish and wrong. Or some times they're just a person who never said anything worth listening to in the first place - i.e. they never make a point and I gain nothing from listening to them, except maybe frustration and slowly sucking out my intelligence.

 

[sprinkles]

Also looking at it another way, I'm not interested in being friends with everyone I talk to so whether I like them or not is as irrelevant as whether they like me.

If I only listened to people I actually liked, that wouldn't be very many people.

 

[Lark]

Generally and if it is not work related no, I dont listen to them. I never dislike someone without reason and those reasons usually hold up when it comes to questions about whether or not I will listen to them.

 

[muir]

I do listen to everyone

I listen to those i like and those i dislike

I want to know if i've missed anything or if they have a perspective that might shed more light on the situation

If i think someone is a liar however i will take what they say with a pinch of salt

If i think they are confused i will listen to try and establish where the crossed wire is