This is from an interview with an ESTJ from another forum:

"There are two ways of protecting someone. One, by giving them lots of hugs and comforting words and warm chocolate drink and a cozy bed. Two, by giving them a sword and teach them how to use it, so they can learn to protect themselves.

My way is the second way. It's a harsh way and is not easy to understand. You'll probably gonna hate me for that, especially because I won't say anything to justify my actions. But once you get it, you'll know how much I love you. And like JLo said, my love don't cost a thing. Not even a nice feedback. You can continue to hate me if you want. I won't mind."

I really, really relate to her words.

Yet often I will take the first route because it's easier... but what I want to do is slash and burn so that the person can rise from the ashes stronger and better than before. I think my inaction might be due to being brought up in a highly Fe environment + a whole bunch of cowardice + lack of confidence.

What do people think is a good way to protect other people? Or is it better for people to learn to protect themselves completely on their own?

I don't see the two as mutually exclusive - You can comfort someone first, and then help them learn how to protect themselves.



To borrow from the world of boxing - you don't put someone who's never laced up a pair of gloves straight into a match with the world champ. He'd get murdered, so you protect him from that. Instead, you present him with a series of surmountable challenges in the form of competitors who are always just slightly better than him.

_________________
What would the world be, once bereft
Of wet and of wildness? Let them be left,
O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet. - Gerard Manley Hopkins

You always sum it up so well, DC. And with good metaphors to illustrate your point.

(I think that's one of the reasons why topics never stay active on the 'verse for very long. There are several members like you who make such sound responses early in the discussion that it's hard to contribute anything more.)

_________________

I don't believe in tough love. I don't think that helping someone see how to take control of their own life and make positive changes needs to involve tearing them down. I prefer to provide a listening ear, and then prompt them with questions to help draw out their own answer (instead of just telling them what I think). Much of the time, people know what they need to do, they're just avoiding it, maybe because it feels overwhelming, or they don't feel capable, etc. That is where the INFP healing process comes in; they need to heal emotionally before they can take he steps they need to change.

If some thinking needs to be corrected, then it can be done so gently, which I think is more effective as its less likely to put people on the defense.

Hmm. I prefer to flow from the first into the second. I know from personal experience how much the harder approach can overwhelm sensitive people, particularly as it seems to be the standard approach for most people. The thing I hate most of all is to feel as though people have no regard for me as an individual, and want me to submit to some larger group or cause. Therefore, I start off by comforting and protecting, and giving people gentle guidance and reassurance. I slowly ramp up the intensity, if required, and if it still isn't working, I just take a break or give up until they change their tune. You can only help people who want to help themselves, but it is a very messy and subjective thing and depends greatly on the individual.

I know that sometimes, despite me appreciating a softer approach more, a full-on drill sergeant approach can be more productive. Only used sparingly when necessary, though. Given time to simmer and take it in perspective, I will usually thank the person in the end, if it was their attempt to motivate me. Even resentment and one-upmanship can be a powerful driving force, as I like to be challenged. Though it must be said that some people are just plain cruel.

I think DC mostly nailed it.

_________________

We are beyond our own ability to define ourselves - we can only describe what we think we are.

I am definately more the first approach, althought the estj-way is not without merit. But I'm no estj, that's not my strenght.

When I work with the kids I am more like a safe haven, and that is okay with me. I am somewhat good at being that, and I believe the world needs safe havens. Other people can deal with the tough love and demands and all that. There are many other people at work where this comes naturally.

If a person was completely dependant on me, like having my own kid or something, I might had to try to make some adjustments, but in a kindergarten/school enviroment with alot of other grown-ups, I think I can afford being in a different role. Kids will learn that life is tough without me telling them that.

Hope this approach has something to it, and that I am not making it hard for the other adults :S

_________________
Is the cup half-full or half-empty? Neither, the cup is the rightful domain of air,
and water are the imperialistic invader that must be fought by all means neccesary.
Drink it.