The infamous "I" mentality

just me

just me

Well-known member
MBTI
infj
First person is a reality. To be short and to the point:

02c9cf6c494dddc43bc3dd416f3bc959.jpg


Each of us must have known someone that falls into this category. Everyone states things using "I". There is nothing wrong with it. We need to learn to say "we". It is as simple as that.

Even in the military, situations come up all the time when a team needs to do something. While taking fire from a fixed location up a hill, a team has been ordered to take the hill. The Captain was chosen to be team leader because he has a higher probability of getting the job done with as few casualties as possible.
Now, which would you rather hear from your Captain?

a) I want you to fire at the hill. I want you and you and you to run to the next bunker while they are firing. I want you to start firing now. OK: go, go, go!

b) We need to take this hill. Rogers, Hunter, Williams: you guys lay down some fire power. Martinez, Smith, and Jones: you guys run to the next bunker. Ready? Go, go, go.

Calling someone by their name empowers them. Adding yourself with the rest of everyone with a simple "we" makes the Captain part of the rest.

I have read a bit about the "I" mentality. It would be great if we could share. My time is limited tonight.
Thank you.
 
Yeah, I try to remember to do this in my work. Saying things like 'let's do this' and, well, saying 'we' rather than 'you' and 'I' all the time. It implies partnership, teamwork, and equality even though the relationship is pretty one-way in reality.

Also, will we be changing our username now?
 
just me said:
First person is a reality. To be short and to the point:

02c9cf6c494dddc43bc3dd416f3bc959.jpg


Each of us must have known someone that falls into this category. Everyone states things using "I". There is nothing wrong with it. We need to learn to say "we". It is as simple as that.

Even in the military, situations come up all the time when a team needs to do something. While taking fire from a fixed location up a hill, a team has been ordered to take the hill. The Captain was chosen to be team leader because he has a higher probability of getting the job done with as few casualties as possible.
Now, which would you rather hear from your Captain?

a) I want you to fire at the hill. I want you and you and you to run to the next bunker while they are firing. I want you to start firing now. OK: go, go, go!

b) We need to take this hill. Rogers, Hunter, Williams: you guys lay down some fire power. Martinez, Smith, and Jones: you guys run to the next bunker. Ready? Go, go, go.

Calling someone by their name empowers them. Adding yourself with the rest of everyone with a simple "we" makes the Captain part of the rest.

I have read a bit about the "I" mentality. It would be great if we could share. My time is limited tonight.
Thank you.
Click to expand...

Good lucking convincing a solipsist. We've had a few on the forum :neutral:
 
Individualism, me first, etc.

This mentality exists in soft ways that seem harmless, too, but that mentality can lead to a failure to take action or responsibility, to separate oneself from others, and to deny similarities, patterns, etc.
"I don't fit into a category of people, I'm myself."

Have any of you ever mentioned MBTI to someone and they reply, "I believe we're all individuals and a few letters can't define me." ;)
 
Asa said:
Have any of you ever mentioned MBTI to someone and they reply, "I believe we're all individuals and a few letters can't define me."
Click to expand...

But how can you know, if you don't? Ya know?

Do they ever choose to see what it's about, first? Shouldn't they at least want to learn about it, and then choose their stance?

It's about them, selfishly. Opting to learn means that they would have to learn about something other than themselves. So, the person who chooses to remain ignorant is really the self-centered one; if it's not all about them, then they won't have anything do with with it.

How can anyone be a part of a We, if they remain in that Me mentality? ... doesn't seem functional to me.



To be We, we must look outside ourselves so to understand those around us. It's seeing your spouses, family, peers, colleagues, etc. for who they are, and how they are around you. Being educated on MBTI and other personality type theories really helps in that process. But, some people will be cynical anyway.
 
Last edited:
Sandie33 said:
I'm responsible for I not accountable to We. ;)
Click to expand...

I think I'm a Me and focus on self-preservation.
When I'm a We, I'm quick to become a Me again if I feel that something might go wrong.
I have trouble seeing value in We achievements. More often than not, I feel like I would be left with less than I would give.

Asa said:
This mentality exists in soft ways that seem harmless, too, but that mentality can lead to a failure to take action or responsibility
Click to expand...

Yes, it might be why we won't be able to really fix global warming. At the individual scale, there is often no apparent and immediate purpose for doing something as We.
Voting, for example. If there is no tight race in your electoral district, then voting is a waste of time. Based on your decision, there are two worlds that can exist:
1) A world where you don't vote, your candidate gets n votes.
2) A world where you vote and take time off your day, your candidate gets n + 1 votes.

But when you join the We, you have to stop thinking about all these individual realities. You have to devote energy and effort to a purpose of which you have no means of measuring chances of success, as it's being carried forward.
It's like a shot in the dark, a leap of faith, a reckless investment. I think that's why it's difficult, especially for those who already feel in control at the individual level. Te users perhaps?
 
Cornerstone said:
Also, will we be changing our username now?
Click to expand...

Perfect understanding. Sometimes we have difficulties finding the correct words to use. "team we" or just me" ? The username comes from coming into the house or workplace. Someone asks from the other room, "Is that you, John?" ; who is their favorite. My reply was, "No: it's just me." It could mean "only me" or "not who you wanted", to name a couple. It never meant this: "Who cleaned up this mess?" "It was just me, signifying I had no help and did it alone." May I keep just me?

Gotta go.
 
just me said:
Each of us must have known someone that falls into this category. Everyone states things using "I". There is nothing wrong with it. We need to learn to say "we". It is as simple as that.
Click to expand...
This is really good when the members of the 'We' share the same aims, values and broad situation, etc. It can be awful when they don't. I hate it when someone tries to include me in a 'we' that I don't identify with and it just sets my fillings aching. I think your military example is spot on when the guy giving the orders is in the same risk as the soldiers, but it's likely to just lead to cynicism when the same approach is tried on insincerely and conventionally by a relatively remote staff officer sitting safely in HQ a hundred miles away. The staff officer may of course be able to create a very successful We with his immediate subordinates in the line of command. On the other hand the truly great major leaders are absolutely superb at creating a 'We' that adulates them and will do just about anything for them. This can be a good thing, but it can lead to people abandoning all rational and ethical sense as happened with Hitler for example. That's on a grand scale of course, but I've seen it happen in small teams too where an inclusive leader has lead the team willingly over a metaphorial cliff. It seems to me that a strong sense of 'I' is also important, because that's how we keep critical perspective.

So where have we got to? As a build on top of the core idea, we seem to be concluding that it's good to sincerely lead others who have common objectives, and who share group identity, by nurturing an inclusive sense of 'We' - but to encourage a strong sense of 'I' too, without which the group can lack essential critical judgement from its individuals.
 
Asa said:
Have any of you ever mentioned MBTI to someone and they reply, "I believe we're all individuals and a few letters can't define me."
Click to expand...

I had this very conversation over dinner with a friend last night. He wanted to understand my interest in MBTI because he can subscribe to type theory but he thinks of himself as an true individual. He believes his biological makeup, specific life events, trauma and journey is different enough from everyone else. He believes that he's unique.
 
Daustus said:
He believes that he's unique.
Click to expand...
I mean, we are all unique in our experiences and mannerisms.

But the way we receive and process information will be similar to others.

I think people who have that mentality just aren't familiar with psychology and the science behind human behavior.
 
John K said:
It seems to me that a strong sense of 'I' is also important, because that's how we keep critical perspective.
Click to expand...
Boom. Yes.

Like John says, sometines the 'we' is dysfunctional, and then it takes a strong 'I' to reform a new 'we'.

This means that the 'I' is a necessary and critical part of any healthy 'we'. While it's all well and good to criticise the 'I' mentality in favour of the 'we', it can be ultimately counter-productive.

Any healthy 'we' needs everybody to feel like their 'I' is important, otherwise you have a collectivist nightmare. This applies to all social groupings, from to societies to marriages.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Boom. Yes.

Like John says, sometines the 'we' is dysfunctional, and then it takes a strong 'I' to reform a new 'we'.

This means that the 'I' is a necessary and critical part of any healthy 'we'. While it's all well and good to criticise the 'I' mentality in favour of the 'we', it can be ultimately counter-productive.

Any healthy 'we' needs everybody to feel like their 'I' is important, otherwise you have a collectivist nightmare. This applies to all social groupings, from to societies to marriages.
Click to expand...

Balanced right?


Does it take more Me or more We?
 
When you close your eyes and go to sleep, there is no "we", when you awake and check reality...there is no "we".
 
Stu said:
When you close your eyes and go to sleep, there is no "we", when you awake and check reality...there is no "we".
Click to expand...
Are you sure?
What about the person you're sleeping next to? They're there, no?

Even if you sleep alone, is there not someone there in your mind as you drift to dreams? ...someone on your mind as you wake?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top