In my opinion, all should pause and take note of Ragman's observation here.
But this too is a matter of perception. I, for one, didn't find it nearly as insulting as some of the reactions. And like I said, it's the same thing. You say:
"I posted the information after observing members judging another member who saw something, felt something, perceived something differently than they were perceiving it."
And in doing so, you provided implicit judgment to those who did not perceive their behavior to be insulting. In doing so you forwarded your perception of it as insulting.
I perceived it as insulting because I felt that it was insulting. Also the subject of the judgment stated that she was insulted. I did not ask the others to change their opinions/feelings. I was suggesting, through my comments, that they change their behavior re the subject of their criticism.
The whole narrative is imploring the reader to change their ways by not wanting to change the speaker's ways. But set that aside and see if this explanation works:
What is wrong with trying to change people other than the fact that it can offend them? If they were invariably not offended by it what would the problem be?
The problem isn't trying to change people, it's about offending people. The text may be a useful way to arrive at the goal of not offending people necessarily but the underlying logic is self-contradictory by wanting to change the meddlers and by not first understanding and then accepting their position.
Kiersey is not dealing with changing people's behavior. Kiersey is dealing with the effect of attempting to require somebody else to feel more or less strongly or see it as you see it in a given situation in order for that other person to be acceptable to you.
The plea for understanding is a plea to not so quickly judge somebody through our own perceptions and emotions but rather allow the other person their own perceptions and emotions. It is to resist making assumptions about the other person purely based on the fact that the other person perceives and feels differently than we do. The only ‘change’ involved is a request - not requirement in order to be acceptable, but a request - for understanding.
So I can appreciate that you see that helping people understand others can include a motive of wanting people to change in order to be able to do that. Perhaps you can appreciate that I see it as providing information/tools to people so that they are better able to choose to understand or not and that I see that as different than attempting to change people. Neither of us have to be wrong.
"Insulting" is a matter of perspective just as "naive" and "gullible" is and can be just as insulting to boot.
Yes, but understanding requires appreciation for the fact that a person is insulted when the person tells you that s/he is insulted. Kiersey appreciates that one person will be insulted and another not insulted in a given situation and neither needs to be branded evil. It breaks down when A requires B to see it as A sees it in order to be acceptable.
And how is it not a judgment of the people who have the unattractive quality of wanting to change others? How is it not contingent on whether or not you accept the same degree of weight to the "judgments".
It's a two-way street. Just as one can be more understanding to an individual who places more emotional weight on terms like "soft-hearted" etc the individual taking offense can show more understanding to those who don't.
Judging people for having the unattractive quality of changing others is a different issue than what Kiersey attempts to help us see. If we can accept that if one way is right for A and another way is right for B so that both can be right, then we have achieved a degree of harmony in a relationship. If you are soft hearted and I am hard nosed in any given situation niether of us has to be evil. We can disagree or disagree on the appropriate action to be taken, but if we employ Kiersey’s process, I will not judge you as wrong because you are not tougher and you will not judge me as wrong because I am not more gentle. We are more likely to arrive at the best compromise if we allow each other our own emotions and feelings.
One person loves flowers and thinks they make the environment more aesthetically comfortable and pleasing. Another is conscious of the expense and water usage and wants available funds directed to something more practical. Both can be absolutely right and a reasonable compromise is more likely to be achieved if each appreciates the others’ wants and needs.
, , , ,my point was that wanting to change you isn't the problem, it's the offense caused or the offense taken. If I were to say:
"Gee Fox, I'd love it if you were more liberal, you should change!"
It may not be nearly as offensive to you if I were to say:
"You are the dumbest person I know."
Even if I have no desire to change you in the second sentence it can be far more offensive, and my point was that the desire to change people is not the inherent problem
Agreed that insulting for one’s own satisfaction is not necessarily an attempt to change them. In fact, I suspect some people want the other people to continue to behave offensively to justify the abuse and contempt that is heaped upon them. That's a whole different thing than what I am referring to here though.
There is a world of difference between saying that you see conservatism as an unacceptable ideology and telling me that I need to change my ideology in order to be acceptable to you.
If you tell me I am dumb/naive/gullible/immature etc. etc. etc., you wound me. That may be your intent to satisfy your own desire to hurt me or put me in my place. Or you may believe that it is for my own good and indeed that may be your intent out of love or concern or decency or whatever, but nevertheless you tell me that I am unacceptable because I do not see things, relate to something, believe, or feel as you do. And that will almost always be detrimental to a relationship and erode or eliminate opportunity for understanding, mutual cooperation, and harmony.
For me to inform you how your words or actions affect me is not necessarily an attempt to change you, however. If your loud music is a problem for me, I am not suggesting that it should be a problem for you too, but simply asking that you refrain from making it a problem for me.
People differ on what the appropriate degree of controlling behavior is though. Nobody here wants to advocate either extreme, so it's all contingent on the interpretation of degrees that the passage does nothing to resolve.
The passage assumes controlling behavior is not good, and seeks to forward that perspective. And doing so is not functionally different from the perspectives being forwarded that were objected to.
If the passage took its own advice, it would seek to understand then accept the controlling behavior instead of forwarding its own point of view.
In Kiersey vernacular, it is for each person to decide what they do or do not consider acceptable and it is not up to us to decide that for them. In this context controlling behavior is informing another person that their emotions or wants or desires are wrong and they must see it as you see it in order to be right. (Rhetorical ‘you’ of course.)
The passage informs that such controlling behavior creates disharmony and unpleasantness in relationships and sometimes blocks effective communication and cooperation. It does not require anyone to change their thoughts and feelings in order to be acceptable. And it separates a person's impressions of anything from the person's behavior.
Bill sees that Jake is being dishonest and manipulative and is concerned that Tom is being suckered. Bill informs Tom of what Bill sees.
Tom informs Bill that he is aware of Bill’s concern but he (Tom) has it under control and is fine.
Bill now has this additional information from Tom and allows Tom his own perceptions, emotions and wants and respect him by accepting those as right for Tom. Tom allows Bill his different perceptions, emotions, and wants even though he doesn’t share them.
This is a desirable and edifying goal according to Kiersey.
In the same situation, Bill informs Tom that Tom is stupid (or any number of other judgmental adjectives) because Tom isn’t acting as Bill thinks Tom should. Bill is annoyed that Tom is so dense or whatever and Tom is resentful at being treated like a fool or whatever.
A toxic element is introduced into the relationship and can block effective communication and/or effective compromise and/or cooperation between the parties.
The motive for expecting the other to feel, react, respond, appreciate, reject etc. as we would is because we believe ourself to be right and the other wayward because he or she is different. That is what is meant by attempting to make the other into a ‘carbon copy’ of ourselves. It is a metaphor and a pretty good one at that. .
.I have no idea how it was intended, but I'm not going to take offense.
However, just in case you were trying to offend I will leave the ultimate insult to you to be read only in that precise scenario:
"You should change!"
My intent was to inform you that I no longer hold a negative opinion of you that I once did. You have informed me that I did not communicate that effectively. So I now know that I need to say it differently in order for you to understand. I no long hold the opinion that you are either snotty or a tight ass. I was not attempting to offend in any way but was rather trying to be charming. I appreciate that you did not see it that way.
I now know that I should indeed probably change my method of communicating with you. I will choose to retain my own feelings in the matter, however, if that is okay with you.
Disclaimer: Do I practice this stuff I teach religiously and without exception? Of course not. I never claimed to be a saint or that I choose to do the smart thing in every circumstance. But when I remember to use it, it has rarely been without merit.