[INFJ] INFJs - A Duty To Care?

[ReasonEnduring]

Something I've been thinking about recently. I welcome all opinions, not just that of INFJs.

INFJs are to a degree emotional creatures. I'm not sure how far this extends with other INFJs but from what I've seen here and other's I've spoken with INFJs feel other people's pain and often find themselves doing whatever they can to help.

Thinking about it tends to be mostly down to us feeling other people's emotions as strongly as our own. We we see someone crying, especially if we have a connection to that person we feel compelled to drop everything and help them, because we too are feeling their pain purely by seeing it.

It could be a self defense mechanism. By helping them we stop ourselves feeling bad so it could be particially out of self interest we help. Perhaps its not worth over analysing that aspect.

But at this point the INFJ has a choice to resolve the situation and make the INFJ feel better. Either to help the person, or remove themselves from the situation and potentially cut this person off and abandon them.

The later may sound cruel, and it is. But it also undenyable that sometimes the INFJ can do nothing to help the person and no amount of action will help, so only by removing themselves from the situation can the INFJ recover and resume normal life.

But the question is: Do INFJs have a moral Duty To Care?

1) Should INFJs always TRY to help if there is the possibility they can?
2) Or is it acceptable out of self-preservation to reject and avoid anyone who is emotionally distressed to avoid being emotionally drained as well?

Taking these both to their logically extremes, is it better for the INFJ to help any and all they can regardless of emotional pain and the work required, also knowing sometimes it is doomed to failure.

Or is it acceptable for an INFJ to breeze through life, deliberately not looking down to see the suffering and pain of those all around them, even if they could easily help them with no significant cost or hardship on their part.
Possibly this even includes rejecting any family and friends who fall on hard times, only speaking to them again after their life had taken an upturn again on its own without inteference by the INFJ, and where that does not occur naturally ignoring them completely for the rest of their lives.

I suspect most will say is down to personal morality, but which is the 'better' path in your opinion. Laissez-Faire or Intervention?

Or if you are more moderate like myself, where is the line drawn? When is it acceptable to ignore the suffering of nearby friends and family and when is it worth any cost to help someone?

 

[acd]

I don't think it's any specific type's duty to care. But ideally, people should care about each other. Though the various types may have different means or approaches of caring. You do have to be aware of your own boundaries and limitations. Sometimes you can't really help but you can point people toward resources where they can help themselves. (Actually in a way that's indirect help). Caring and helping doesn't mean you have to take on everyone's burdens and fix everything. Just offer what support you can and don't over promise. Help people to help themselves when possible.

 

[ReasonEnduring]

Everyone has a moral duty to care. I don't think it's any specific type's duty. Though the various types may have different means or approaches of caring. You do have to be aware of your own boundaries and limitations. Sometimes you can't really help but you can point people toward resources where they can help themselves. Caring and helping doesn't mean you have to take on everyone's burdens and fix everything. Just offer what support you can and don't over promise. Help people to help themselves when possible.

I was listening to another INFJ's analysis of our methods and he stated how we INFJs are quite controlling.

As in we try to control the world around us. We see a problem, we try to fix it.

We try to shape our knowledge around the problem, catagorise the elements of it and take steps moving that problem into a preferable state.

Not sure how much that applies to other INFJs but made sense to me.

Our inherant need to fix things mean we either have to do what we can to help, even if that means enabling others to help themselves, or do nothing and remove ourselves from the situation.

We can't be aware of issues and just let them sit next to us, even if we can't do anything. We feel compelled to do SOMETHING, even if it just means encouragement (which in itself isn't always helpful and can backfire). Or we have to completely put the issue out of mind, because whilst there is awareness there is a feeling something must be done.

 

[ZcM4xzkjgzCjytBc]

I don't care

 

[acd]

I don't care

 

[MoonFlier]

But the question is: Do INFJs have a moral Duty To Care?

No. I pick and choose what to care about so I don't get overwhelmed. (Family, friends, kids, climate, animals)

1) Should INFJs always TRY to help if there is the possibility they can?
2) Or is it acceptable out of self-preservation to reject and avoid anyone who is emotionally distressed to avoid being emotionally drained as well?

1) No. You have to be able to read yourself too. Know where to draw that line.
2) Yes. Sometimes you just have to walk away from the train wreck. (Also see: divorce.)

 

[ReasonEnduring]

No. I pick and choose what to care about so I don't get overwhelmed. (Family, friends, kids, climate, animals)



1) No. You have to be able to read yourself too. Know where to draw that line.
2) Yes. Sometimes you just have to walk away from the train wreck. (Also see: divorce.)

Interesting, makes sense.

I must admit I often have difficulty drawing the line.

It comes down to the sunk cost falicy. Even before I start its a case of not knowing if a situation can be fixed or not. I could spend X trying to help this person but if it doesn't work, do I also spend Y? Perhaps if I spend Y the situation is fixed, but if it doesn't it might force me to spend Z. But if I don't spend Y when I could it could make the difference between success or failure.

I could refuse Y all the time, but doing so would mean leaving a lot of people to the whims of fate when Y could have been the turning point in their lives. And then there's the darker part that says "Well if you refuse Y why not refuse X as well. You'd be better off. You can climb a lot faster in life without any bagage." I feel that line of reasoning is a bit dangerous as that could become a full rejection of doing anything which wasn't solely in my own interest. I am fully capable of living a reasonably powerful and wealthy life within our current systems focusing purely on myself, but then I leave the world no better than I found it. Which may or may not be a good thing depending on your opinion.

I don't think I'm ever going to have a solid grasp on the right place to draw the line and will continue to question my own actions during and after.

 

[MoonFlier]

Interesting, makes sense.

I don't think I'm ever going to have a solid grasp on the right place to draw the line and will continue to question my own actions during and after.

It gets easier with time and accumulated failures (both external and internal)

 

[ReasonEnduring]

It gets easier with time and accumulated failures (both external and internal)

Very true.

 

[JennyDaniella]

For a long time, until recently, I always had problems with placing other people's needs and importance before mine. I suppose in a way I thought in my own perception I was being selfless and genuine, which in a way it was a yes and no situation. My actions and intentions were and always come from a good place, but I have to also realize for my own well-being---and everyone should do the same--- is that one must take care of themselves in order to take of others in the process. Goes for INFJs or any types overall.

I would say that being kind, sensitive and helpful to others is a default for many INFJs and sensitive types---however, there does come limitations that arises with helping others, or too much (which was in my case). There came a point that I just got too burnt out and needed to have a mental and emotional restart because I put myself aside completely. And eventually it got to a point that I wasn't able to help others the way I really wanted to in a sufficient, authentic way because it just all became too overwhelming. Fortunately, it is not the case anymore---but I had to learn that I must also put boundaries and maintain my inner peace; and therefore, I can be able to help those in a better and much more genuine way.

So I do think any human being should also look up to being a good, decent person with helpful and caring intentions--- but one must also look after themselves and put in certain limitations for the purpose on not getting too burned out.

 

[Wyote]

Laissez-Faire or Intervention?

Or if you are more moderate like myself, where is the line drawn? When is it acceptable to ignore the suffering of nearby friends and family and when is it worth any cost to help someone?

Both of course.
Lines are drawn where you personally don't have proper knowledge and energy reserves to handle a situation appropriately. More infjs and people in general should act with a little more caution imo because people are generally ignorant of their own ignorances.

 

[Wyote]

Caring and helping doesn't mean you have to take on everyone's burdens and fix everything.

God dammit

 

[Asa]

Nobody has a 'duty' to care.
I do care involuntarily about people, humanity, and society... but also get away from me, please and thank you.
This is one of those posts that could be in orange, but is also serious.

 

[Roses In The Vineyard]

Here is one of my biggest flaws that regardless of my own emotions and thoughts much less that of others I always end up caring one way or another, may as well be in Hell. Those who are truly able to not care without causing problems such as lacking empathy ect being able to move on are the fortunate ones as they don't even have to think about walking away. Not much is worse than being angry or even hating someone or something yet compelled to still care.

 

[Matty]

INFJs seem to be picky/choosy/snooty about what they empathise with. They only seem to care to empathise with negative or sad emotions, and seem to have contempt for positive, confident, or curious emotions.

It honestly comes across as an emotional vampirism; INFJs seem to circle the vulnerable, affection-bomb them, gaining loyalty, then engage in gang-like behaviour. The insideousness of it is patent, when they encounter an independent, non-vulnerable individual. INFJs aren't "nice" to people consistently, nor are they consistently empathetic. Their instinct is automatic hatred and gang/mob hostility towards non-vulnerable individuals, when they cannot prey upon someone with their love-bomb recruitment process.

 

[Wyote]

INFJs seem to be picky/choosy/snooty about what they empathise with. They only seem to care to empathise with negative or sad emotions, and seem to have contempt for positive, confident, or curious emotions.

What sorts of things have lead you to these conclusions?

 

[Matty]

What sorts of things have lead you to these conclusions?

The behaviour of self-identified INFJs, which I've been able to observe.

If someone isn't needy or vulnerable, INFJs aren't "nice" to them.

 

[Wyote]

The behaviour of self-identified INFJs, which I've been able to observe.

I meant specifically, what have you observed, in what contexts

If someone isn't needy or vulnerable, INFJs aren't "nice" to them

So infjs are only nice to needy people

 

[Pin]

I imagine that if people were as concerned with others as they were concerned with themselves we would at least have a world without poverty.

The INFJ can care for others but if this INFJ is not materially poor, this person could lead a life ignoring the welfare of others and face almost no consequences for their mind-set.

I don't want to live in a society like that and I don't think most people do who aren't extraordinarily privileged.