What are the limits of asserting your preference? | INFJ Forum

What are the limits of asserting your preference?

mintoots

Airvender
Donor
Mar 31, 2018
9,880
65,221
3,805
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
2w1
If your preference is offensive to the community or the other, though not necessarily illegal, will you assert it? If the preference of the community is offensive to you and only you, will you defend it or join the crowd? At which point on the line should the fulcrum rest to ensure the balance between the rights of self and community?
 
If your preference is offensive to the community or the other, though not necessarily illegal, will you assert it? If the preference of the community is offensive to you and only you, will you defend it or join the crowd? At which point on the line should the fulcrum rest to ensure the balance between the rights of self and community?

For me, I suppose it heavily depends on the context. In the social sphere I try to lay low, but sometimes I’ll do something impulsive like sing loudly in a grocery store. I suppose some people might be bothered by that, but no one has ever said anything, and a few times now I have experienced singing in harmony with a smiling stranger, and for me personally, that is a kind of joy, a serendipitous moment that demonstrates why the struggle of life is worth it.

So I don’t care much about asserting to a community, but will I defend against one? Yes, but I am selective. Excepting those times when something has reached my core, like witnessing a sexual assault. I’m more capable than I ever realized when in the clutch.

Now, in a relationship? I want authenticity, enthusiastic mutual consent, and I have boundaries. I will advocate, receive another, and work toward win-win. Certain behaviors are deal breakers, and I am explicit about those things. The “rules” are the result of a negotiation. Which makes it all sound so legal, and rigid, but it isn’t, and with my girlfriend everything is shared and discussed, and it makes things easy-breezy.

The best relationships are the ones where each and every are free to be themselves, and engage as they wish, and yes, finding that is no small task, but damn is it a wonderful thing to experience, especially when one is an odd duck.

Cheers,
Ian
 
I don't see much value in airing preferences unless someone asks, and has a benign reason for asking.

For example, only my parents would know that I like hazelnuts, and they know because they'd ask me what I'd like for Christmas.
 
Thank you for your answers.

I'm thinking about this in the context of exerting your right to enjoy life whenever there is inconvenient though non-illegal harm done. For example, I like music and I like to play it loudly as in it fills my room to the problem of my roommates (as an example). Or say, my roommate likes offensive food and doesn't mind eating it even if it offends others. Should I stop playing music that loudly? Would you if you were in my position or would you defend your right to enjoy your music which is after all emanating from within your own gadgets? It's not illegal to listen to music. I suppose that's basic decorum but only if you were willing to subscribe to the unspoken societal decree among your roommates. Of course it would be different if the rules were stated in the lease agreement which then makes you a violator of a pre-existing law. But what if there are no laws?

To what extent is it right to assert preference even if it is at the expense of the experience of the community and vice versa? And what if the community is an other as @aeon has mentioned in a relationship. Surely the relations change because there is an intent to appease a desired company. But what of the community as a whole? Is it okay to fight for the preference to cook foul food in your househould even if offends everyone else? After all it is your right to eat.

I know. I'm complicating my thoughts. I have just been wondering about how far one is able to assert personhood rightfully, or if it is at all a discussion of morals. I hope I make sense. Haha
 
The limits are as far as you're able to handle the pushback appropriately.

That being said, it's better to move further away from people the more you feel some need for individuality/independence.
Existing among humans necessitates compromise.
 
Thank you for your answers.

I'm thinking about this in the context of exerting your right to enjoy life whenever there is inconvenient though non-illegal harm done. For example, I like music and I like to play it loudly as in it fills my room to the problem of my roommates (as an example). Or say, my roommate likes offensive food and doesn't mind eating it even if it offends others. Should I stop playing music that loudly? Would you if you were in my position or would you defend your right to enjoy your music which is after all emanating from within your own gadgets? It's not illegal to listen to music. I suppose that's basic decorum but only if you were willing to subscribe to the unspoken societal decree among your roommates. Of course it would be different if the rules were stated in the lease agreement which then makes you a violator of a pre-existing law. But what if there are no laws?

To what extent is it right to assert preference even if it is at the expense of the experience of the community and vice versa? And what if the community is an other as @aeon has mentioned in a relationship. Surely the relations change because there is an intent to appease a desired company. But what of the community as a whole? Is it okay to fight for the preference to cook foul food in your househould even if offends everyone else? After all it is your right to eat.

I know. I'm complicating my thoughts. I have just been wondering about how far one is able to assert personhood rightfully, or if it is at all a discussion of morals. I hope I make sense. Haha

To be extra clear, are you talking roommates (no space to yourself) or housemates? Are you with acquaintances or entirely new people?

I guess it's part of the "adventure" of striking out into new territory. I'm hoping that you'll be able to weather this to a point where you may find opportunities to bond and come to some reasonable compromise. It's tough adapting to new people. Here's hoping there are no incorrigible assholes amongst them.
 
To be extra clear, are you talking roommates (no space to yourself) or housemates? Are you with acquaintances or entirely new people?

I guess it's part of the "adventure" of striking out into new territory. I'm hoping that you'll be able to weather this to a point where you may find opportunities to bond and come to some reasonable compromise. It's tough adapting to new people. Here's hoping there are no incorrigible assholes amongst them.
Oh! Highly theoretical example up there. I mainly meant housemates in this example. In my actual, personal case, we all don't care for each other which is perfect.

The question is on my mind as I try to process my readings for this week. It's a discussion on rights and to what extent it can or should be asserted depending on given conditions. But as I sat with it, I thought about removing the conditions and just wondered about our right to express our individualities through preference. It got stuck in my head so now i'm just endlessly ruminating and I can't seem to find answers that aren't context based, mostly.
 
I like playing music at volume. My roommate is often not home, so I take advantage of that and crank it up. To a limited degree, I will do so while he is here, but that’s generally when he is getting ready for work, and I play those things we both enjoy, or I play things I think he might like. That said, I only play at volume between 10am and 9pm. I have also checked the sound in the rest of the apartment, and outside the apartment. Some things are bass-heavy, and I want to be sure I’m not being unreasonable.

Food? I’ll cook anything at home, and at work I voluntarily never reheated fish, or certain African foods that were foreign to my coworkers palates, or those that would permeate the insides of the microwave. I also will not eat around someone if my choices would be contrary to their well-being, or strongly held values.

Of course, some people are dripping with entitlement, and they think their locus of control is outside their body, such that they have chosen to give me grief about my choices. In those cases where I was keeping to myself, or being reasonable in my expression, WTF? For example, people who leave a note on my car because of my Hello Kitty sunshade, commenting on my sexuality or what would be appropriate for my gender—they can go fuck themselves.

Overall, I don’t want to disturb anyone, so I avoid the most-likely things. I don’t tend to feel constrained by that.

Cheers,
Ian
 
@mintoots I think that the answer lies somewhere in the concern that underlies your question and what is your temperament. For example, I cannot enjoy loud music if it’s disturbing to others. The very effort of asserting myself in their despite ruins my enjoyment of it. It stops becoming a pleasure and becomes a boundary contest which I find anything but enjoyable. This is regardless of whether I have an actual right to play it loudly.

If I become aware there is a problem then I’ll try negotiating - see if there is a time I can do my thing that fits in with others. In a shared house, see if the others too are looking for time and space to do their intrusive things and sort out some give and take.

The answer lies too in the force of need behind your issues. For example if you are at school learning to be a professional chef or a musician then you have a stronger need in the kitchen or in your playing of music than if it’s just a leisure choice. Or there may be medical grounds for your choice of food. Again, personally I’d explain this to anyone who might be affected- people are usually very accommodating if they understand there is a hard need behind a situation that inconveniences them.

I’m afraid my answer is very INFJ though lol. I strongly dislike it when others intrude on my space without care or thought, and I try not to do the same to them. If I do intrude then it spoils my enjoyment of the thing. I’m very intolerant of a sense of ongoing low level conflict. Maybe I sometimes envy those folks who don’t care - but they seem to be very closed in on themselves, so no, I don’t really.
 
Thank you for your answers.

I'm thinking about this in the context of exerting your right to enjoy life whenever there is inconvenient though non-illegal harm done. For example, I like music and I like to play it loudly as in it fills my room to the problem of my roommates (as an example). Or say, my roommate likes offensive food and doesn't mind eating it even if it offends others. Should I stop playing music that loudly? Would you if you were in my position or would you defend your right to enjoy your music which is after all emanating from within your own gadgets? It's not illegal to listen to music. I suppose that's basic decorum but only if you were willing to subscribe to the unspoken societal decree among your roommates. Of course it would be different if the rules were stated in the lease agreement which then makes you a violator of a pre-existing law. But what if there are no laws?

To what extent is it right to assert preference even if it is at the expense of the experience of the community and vice versa? And what if the community is an other as @aeon has mentioned in a relationship. Surely the relations change because there is an intent to appease a desired company. But what of the community as a whole? Is it okay to fight for the preference to cook foul food in your househould even if offends everyone else? After all it is your right to eat.

I know. I'm complicating my thoughts. I have just been wondering about how far one is able to assert personhood rightfully, or if it is at all a discussion of morals. I hope I make sense. Haha
Not sure how food is offensive. They're not try to eat you are they?
 
If your preference is offensive to the community or the other, though not necessarily illegal, will you assert it? If the preference of the community is offensive to you and only you, will you defend it or join the crowd? At which point on the line should the fulcrum rest to ensure the balance between the rights of self and community?


This depends purely on the topic and situation.

I have a lot of ideals and ideas that do not mesh with "the community". It is often possible to find another community. Other times, the community shifts over time to align with my ideals more closely. I'm more willing to do things my way when I view the majority as unethical. I'm less likely to make waves when I have the impression that the preference is unique to me and would cause waves. Right now, I'm reassessing that.

Regarding food: Well, I'm vegan and have been for over 30 years. It used to be rare. Now, not so much. I definitely would not change anything about that to suit others and I resent people who try to make me. I don't push it on people, though. I'm highly unlikely to stand out with food or refreshments in any other way. I do like durian, but I've only had it in coconut shakes at Vietnamese restaurants and at home with friends who also like it. A lot of my friends are chefs or great cooks and are not vegan at all. I let them bring gear to my house to cook for our parties. It's important everyone feels included and has fun.

Sex, sexuality, and gender are big ones for me. I am much more liberal than the community. It's so much more fun to be alive when you're not a prude.

I strongly dislike causing waves and upsetting people, but sometimes my response is, "Fuck you people."
 
The answer lies too in the force of need behind your issues.

’m afraid my answer is very INFJ though lol.
I suspect it is likely center to the self and the identity, hence the inherent variety of the preferences involved and therefore their competing co-existences.

Allow me to take this a notch higher or deeper, I don't know.

In the case of a housemate/roommate dynamic, the competition is within the territorial sharing inside the house. Presumably, that is harmless enough. Now let me digress a bit farther though somewhat parallel to the analogy of the existence of, say, bees vs humans. Both bees and humans share the earth as a territory. Both species (as well as many other competing species) have their own interests in their survivability. Bees are not subjected to human laws so that sets legality on the back burner of this discussion. Although humans could make laws to protect bees, let's just say it is non-existent at this point. When a Bee stings a human, it dies. Therefore, in the name of its defense, it has much more at stake than the human. Both species may assert their needs (no longer just rights). If a human is allergic to the bee, it -human- can kill the bee. Here, we have the competing interests of humans and bees. A kindly personality would likely say, the world is big enough for both of them, may they co-exist peacefully-----which is easy, really, right? Like duh, no brainer, let's just peacefully co-exist. But some bees are aggressive and some humans are just downright crazy, and presumably, conflict is bound to arise. How does fate/nature/god/universality decide the fittest survival of any of the competitors? Who gets to win/live and why? Why do they get to be the drivers of society and thus the writers of history?

I think of this in the context of human interests as well, i.e. competing states, competing ideologies, or competing husbands and wives. It becomes obvious to me that the orders of civilization seem to have been arranged by the dynamics of this competition. It seems random, but it could also be highly relative to contexts and givens. The colonizers of old likely became colonizers because of a steadily intensifying habit of survival while the rest of the colonized, having little need for competition, became a bit more passive. For example, many Native American societies in the past conceive the graces of the Earth (food) as food to share. Although there were competing tribes, the land was tilled for the community to share and there was lesser need for conquest. The Mongols surely would not agree, though we could possibly deduce that their aggression was acquired due to the harshness of their existence.

Essentially, up to when and where do we take the habits of competing? The assertion of preference seems a very simple exercise to the individual but what occurs at the core, seems to be the same values that fuel the issues that affect the larger world. We're all fighting to survive. So it intrigues me whether or not humanity, in general, can reach a point of compromise. Does all of humanity have the capacity to acquire the hippie disposition of "let's co-exist"? Hence, my asking here. I want to know what you guys think. I did of course suspect that it would boil down to individual values. It's just an interesting thing to reflect upon: in this world of competing interests, whose interests should rightfully exist? I suspect, what is allowed by nature is what is a relative winner... so then civilizations that have collapsed are simply just non-survivors? Losers? So I ask, to what end do we fight for our own preference?
 
Last edited:
This depends purely on the topic and situation.

I have a lot of ideals and ideas that do not mesh with "the community". It is often possible to find another community. Other times, the community shifts over time to align with my ideals more closely. I'm more willing to do things my way when I view the majority as unethical. I'm less likely to make waves when I have the impression that the preference is unique to me and would cause waves. Right now, I'm reassessing that.

Regarding food: Well, I'm vegan and have been for over 30 years. It used to be rare. Now, not so much. I definitely would not change anything about that to suit others and I resent people who try to make me. I don't push it on people, though. I'm highly unlikely to stand out with food or refreshments in any other way. I do like durian, but I've only had it in coconut shakes at Vietnamese restaurants and at home with friends who also like it. A lot of my friends are chefs or great cooks and are not vegan at all. I let them bring gear to my house to cook for our parties. It's important everyone feels included and has fun.

Sex, sexuality, and gender are big ones for me. I am much more liberal than the community. It's so much more fun to be alive when you're not a prude.

I strongly dislike causing waves and upsetting people, but sometimes my response is, "Fuck you people."
The more I receive your guys' answers, the more I form this conception of the world as having to be necessarily highly varied. In nature, highly diverse ecosystems are deemed much healthier. I suspect it must be the same for ideologies and values too. The more diverse the worldviews are, assuming they are able to find their rightful place of existence in this world, I theorize that the world becomes a much better place. This epiphany increases my appreciation for the LGBT rainbow as well as other plights for acknowledgment forwarded by "minorities". There is a need to diversify our points of view! It ensures societal survival as a whole and not just as a single, "special" collective. It seems survival is simply a combination of assertion and what is allowed by context, which is possibly environmental as derived from historical precedents. It's such a wonderful call for the celebration of differences.
 
Allow me to take this a notch higher or deeper, I don't know.

Just following your expanded thought a bit further ....

I don't think we can expect the issues to remain the same as we move from layer to layer up and down Maslow's Hierarchy. Rules change by layer, and when survival is at stake then the choices become very hard edged. Further up, the issues and the possible compromises become more complex, but become less visceral. If my housemate insists on making food that I am extremely allergic to and risks my life, that's very different from upsetting me with the smell. I can't compromise on the first, but maybe on the second I can accept the smells if they accept my loud music.

All human communities are compromises - from families up to states. I guess if I find that my development and sense of who I am is stifled or harmed in a particular community then I can either challenge or withdraw or supress myself. Equally, if my insistence on asserting myself stifles others then that too is not a good thing. And so the roundabout spins LOL
 
Does all of humanity have the capacity to acquire the hippie disposition of "let's co-exist"?

Nope

the more I form this conception of the world as having to be necessarily highly varied. In nature, highly diverse ecosystems are deemed much healthier.

Yup

so then civilizations that have collapsed are simply just non-survivors? Losers? So I ask, to what end do we fight for our own preference?

If you look at it this way, all civilizations are losers given enough time.
New things constantly arise out of the ashes of the old.
The "losers" are just helping the future happen faster. The "winners" create more problems for longer.
 
Sex, sexuality, and gender are big ones for me. I am much more liberal than the community. It's so much more fun to be alive when you're not a prude.

I strongly dislike causing waves and upsetting people, but sometimes my response is, "Fuck you people."

Victory.gif
Love3.gif
Victory.gif


Be the We,
Ian