# Shame and Punishment



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Hello SJs! How are you? Haha. I have a question for you. When someone has done something that violates your SJ values, do you shame him in any way as part of his punishment? If so, how? If not, why not?


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

You're asking a very biased question here, with quite a fair bit of assumptions. Let's break it down. 

Assumption #1: You assume that SJs deal with people who violate SJ values by punishing them. 
Assumption #2: You assume that SJs hold all values in equal regard. 

You haven't said explicitly that any of your statements apply to all cases, but the tone of your statement seems like it. 

*Now, let's turn the question around and ask you, why do you put up these sort of assumptions there?*


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

We can categorise our responses to such things into 3 possible ways: we LIKE it, we IGNORE it, or we PUNISH it. 

Rarely do you see stuff being liked, but there is a possibility if it better suits the person's goals. Consider the example of using a more expensive toothpaste, for example. It would go against the SJ value of being conservative with money, but might better fulfill the goal of preventing tooth decay which would cost more time, pain and money. 

Most violations are ignored, unless they constitute a threat which needs to be addressed. Do we honestly have time to go and initiate fights for no good reason?

The ones we have to address - it really depends on the nature of the problem. *You cannot assume a one size fits all approach to things. * Does shaming work for all of them? I doubt so. 

Besides, since everyone is different, it is inevitable that everyone does stuff that violates our values. It doesn't matter whether we are SJ or NF or NT or whatever. Obviously, if we were to punish every single one of them, you might as well punish the whole human race.


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> Hello SJs! How are you? Haha. I have a question for you. When someone has done something that violates your SJ values, do you shame him in any way as part of his punishment? If so, how? If not, why not?


No I don't attempt to shame them.

Spending time plotting to shame them doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile. If they really crossed the line, I am most likely to sever ties with them. If it is something small, I probably won't do anything. It might annoy me, but life goes on.


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

jamaix said:


> No I don't attempt to shame them.
> 
> Spending time plotting to shame them doesn't accomplish anything worthwhile. If they really crossed the line, I am most likely to sever ties with them. If it is something small, I probably won't do anything. It might annoy me, but life goes on.


Agree... my first thought was, "Why the hell would I do that?" In general, I don't have the time, energy or interest to worry about what other people do/think. I'm quite tolerant if it's someone in my life, and I really don't give a crap if their not.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

I'm too "slow" mentally to try to do something like that after they offend me. I still wouldn't even if I was more clever though.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

What are SJ values?

And to think that I would "punish" someone for crossing my values is rather silly. I make mistakes and cross other people's boundaries or values, so it only seems reasonable that others would make similar mistakes. It's not the end of the world.

OTOH, if it is habitual or intentional, then I wouldn't punish them, but I would distance myself from them in an effort to pursue stability.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

My SJ husband doesn't shame and punish people for violating his values. And I wouldn't say SJ's all share the same values. I've known an SJ whose parents were Anarchists. She held strongly to the values she was brought up with but clearly an ESFJ. Not that all SJ's believe what their parents believe, but like any type, they're influenced by what their parents believe.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> You're asking a very biased question here, with quite a fair bit of assumptions. Let's break it down.
> 
> Assumption #1: You assume that SJs deal with people who violate SJ values by punishing them.
> Assumption #2: You assume that SJs hold all values in equal regard.
> ...


1. If you decline punishment then the question is moot, isn't it? So, no, I didn't make that assumption. The choice of shaming is self-evidently conditional on the decision to punish.

2. If every member of a group had to hold the same values and in equal measure for the group to have any identifiable values, then it would not be possible to speak of American values, or Christian values, or any kind of commonly-held values, would it not? SJ values simply means the core values shared by _most _SJs.

Now, let me turn this around and ask, why are you so defensive?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> We can categorise our responses to such things into 3 possible ways: we LIKE it, we IGNORE it, or we PUNISH it.
> 
> Rarely do you see stuff being liked, but there is a possibility if it better suits the person's goals. Consider the example of using a more expensive toothpaste, for example. It would go against the SJ value of being conservative with money, but might better fulfill the goal of preventing tooth decay which would cost more time, pain and money.
> 
> ...


I didn't assume a "one size fits all solution". I simply asked what role shaming plays in your punishment of people who violate your values. So what are the ways you use shame? How do you decide whether to use it? Do you use it for its value as a deterrent? What are some examples of situations where you used shaming?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

niss said:


> What are SJ values?
> 
> And to think that I would "punish" someone for crossing my values is rather silly. I make mistakes and cross other people's boundaries or values, so it only seems reasonable that others would make similar mistakes. It's not the end of the world.
> 
> OTOH, if it is habitual or intentional, then I wouldn't punish them, but I would distance myself from them in an effort to pursue stability.


Is it "silly"? If your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't shame her by reminding her of her vows? Maybe mention it the next time you fight? Or don't people do that kind of thing in arguments? Remind each other of their failure to meet expectations and obligations?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Is it "silly"? If your wife cheated on you, you wouldn't shame her by reminding her of her vows? Maybe mention it the next time you fight? Or don't people do that kind of thing in arguments? Remind each other of their failure to meet expectations and obligations?


Silly and immature.

If I find their actions objectionable, I seek a sincere apology. If that is not forthcoming, then I distance myself from them in a manner that protects me.

No, I don't seek to shame others into a desired behavior. That is manipulative and controlling.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

niss said:


> Silly and immature.
> 
> If I find their actions objectionable, I seek a sincere apology. If that is not forthcoming, then I distance myself from them in a manner that protects me.
> 
> No, I don't seek to shame others into a desired behavior. That is manipulative and controlling.


Maybe you're above that, but do you think most people are, too? Many people act in immature and silly ways at times, especially in their closest relationships when their buttons are pushed.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Maybe you're above that, but do you think most people are, too? Many people act in immature and silly ways at times, especially in our closest relationships when our buttons are pushed.


Did you start this thread to bolster your own ideas and theories, or to seek information?

Contrary to popular belief, SJ's don't follow a specific set of values, and people are immature regardless of their cognitive preferences.

You asked a specific set of questions addressed to SJs. I'm an SJ, so I gave you my response.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

niss said:


> Did you start this thread to bolster your own ideas and theories, or to seek information?
> 
> Contrary to popular belief, SJ's don't follow a specific set of values, and people are immature regardless of their cognitive preferences.
> 
> You asked a specific set of questions addressed to SJs. I'm an SJ, so I gave you my response.


I simply asked a follow-up question, but I can see this won't go anywhere. Thank you for your input.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Hello SJs! How are you? Haha. I have a question for you. When someone has done something that violates your SJ values, do you shame him in any way as part of his punishment? If so, how? If not, why not?


I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you put out a for-instance? I don't ever think, "Haha! My friend violated my personal values, now I shall shaaammme them as punishment!" but it is possible that I might do something that might be seen as 'shaming' that I do not see as such. For example, depending on the situation or something, I might express disapproval or possibly tease them light-heartedly, or . . . it really depends on the actual situation. Example please?


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> 1. If you decline punishment then the question is moot, isn't it? So, no, I didn't make that assumption. The choice of shaming is self-evidently conditional on the decision to punish.
> 
> 2. If every member of a group had to hold the same values and in equal measure for the group to have any identifiable values, then it would not be possible to speak of American values, or Christian values, or any kind of commonly-held values, would it not? SJ values simply means the core values shared by most SJs.
> 
> Now, let me turn this around and ask, why are you so defensive?





ae1905 said:


> I didn't assume a "one size fits all solution". I simply asked what role shaming plays in your punishment of people who violate your values. So what are the ways you use shame? How do you decide whether to use it? Do you use it for its value as a deterrent? What are some examples of situations where you used shaming?


Look, we also don't know what kind of intent you have there. What we can see is your post here. 

You have asked a loaded question - that presupposes that SJs punish anyone who violates their values. As pointed out earlier, the premise that SJ values exist is already problematic, and subject to interpretation. 

Maybe you might not have intended the question that way, or perhaps English might not be your first language, but for someone with 5000 posts, nearly 2 orders of magnitude more than me, I don't think this is a factor. 

What might be self evident to you isn't always the case for the reader, especially in the face of a loaded or leading question. There are plenty of trolls that come here to rant about ISTJs and ESTJs, by putting up loaded or leadingq questions.


----------



## cheapsunglasses (May 13, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> There are plenty of trolls that come here to rant about ...


^nods in agreement


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Oswin said:


> I'm not quite sure what you mean. Could you put out a for-instance? I don't ever think, "Haha! My friend violated my personal values, now I shall shaaammme them as punishment!" but it is possible that I might do something that might be seen as 'shaming' that I do not see as such. For example, depending on the situation or something, I might express disapproval or possibly tease them light-heartedly, or . . . it really depends on the actual situation. Example please?


There is another thread running now on this site about the "death of marriage". If you peruse the comments you'll see in how little regard many people now hold marriage. All types marry but it might be supposed that SJs take their duties and obligations more seriously than other temperaments. Why? Because SJs report the highest rates of satisfaction with marriage among all temperaments. This suggests SJs value their marriages more than others, so much so, one might say marriage is an SJ value since they, more than others, appear to enjoy marriage and do what they have to to make it work. 

Now, if you're in one of these marriages and your husband doesn't perform his duties I assume you will remind him of his failure. If this is something you feel is particularly bad--like driving recklessly and totalling the car, or forgetting to pick up the kids from school, or making advances on the secretary at work--then you might not only punish him the one time but also remind him at other times of his transgression. Reminding him of his past failures is a form of shaming. It brings out into the open his failings and makes him feel bad, feel shame. And this is done deliberately.

Make sense?


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> There is another thread running now on this site about the "death of marriage". If you peruse the comments you'll see in how little regard many people now hold marriage. All types marry but it might be supposed that SJs take their duties and obligations more seriously than other temperaments. Why? Because SJs report the highest rates of satisfaction with marriage among all temperaments. This suggests SJs value their marriages more than others, so much so, one might say marriage is an SJ value since they, more than others, appear to enjoy marriage and do what they have to to make it work.
> 
> Now, if you're in one of these marriages and your husband doesn't perform his duties I assume you will remind him of his failure. If this is something you feel is particularly bad--like driving recklessly and totalling the car, or forgetting to pick up the kids from school, or making advances on the secretary at work--then you might not only punish him the one time but also remind him at other times of his transgression. Reminding him of his past failures is a form of shaming. It brings out into the open his failings and makes him feel bad, feel shame. And this is done deliberately.
> 
> Make sense?


I see.
If I was in that situation...(and I could be totally wrong because I'm not even vaguely married) I don't think I would particularly bring up things in order to 'shame' the person. But if we were arguing, say, he had been flirting with some girl, and there had been several incidents where he'd been flirting with other girls...I might bring that up. Because all those little incidents were symptomatic of a larger problem -- he is not keeping our vows, isn't committed to an incident. If it was one time, maybe it would be different, I'd try to figure out what made him behave that way. But if it's one incident in a series of related incidents, I'm not going to see it as an isolated incident. But I wouldn't bring it up over breakfast, either. Maybe I could see bringing it up . . .casually...jokingly perhaps...to 'show I'd gotten over it'. IDK. I tend to get over things pretty quickly, if I think the root problem is resolved.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Oswin said:


> I see.
> If I was in that situation...(and I could be totally wrong because I'm not even vaguely married) I don't think I would particularly bring up things in order to 'shame' the person. But if we were arguing, say, he had been flirting with some girl, and there had been several incidents where he'd been flirting with other girls...I might bring that up. Because all those little incidents were symptomatic of a larger problem -- he is not keeping our vows, isn't committed to an incident. If it was one time, maybe it would be different, I'd try to figure out what made him behave that way. But if it's one incident in a series of related incidents, I'm not going to see it as an isolated incident. But I wouldn't bring it up over breakfast, either. Maybe I could see bringing it up . . .casually...jokingly perhaps...to 'show I'd gotten over it'. IDK. I tend to get over things pretty quickly, if I think the root problem is resolved.


Might I ask you what is the language in your sig? Is that Turkish? Oswin sounds like a Turkish name.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Might I ask you what is the language in your sig? Is that Turkish? Oswin sounds like a Turkish name.


The language is Russian (song lyrics) Unfortunately I don't speak any Turkish; I'm not sure about the name 'Oswin' . . . it's not mine, it's from Doctor Who)) One of the characters was called "Oswin" in an alternate life where she was a computer genius, so it seemed like a suitable name for an Internet account. Plus, I find it an oddly pretty name)


----------



## Mynixi (Dec 3, 2014)

If someone does something against my values, I honestly do nothing. It's not my business what other people do. If I think what someone's doing will harm himself/herself or others, I will advise against it and explain to the person why I think he/she shouldn't do it, but that's about it. People have their own opinions and values and I respect them, but I want to make sure others don't hurt themsleves or others the best I can.

However, let's say someone I'm in a relationship with does something that really hurts me, I'll make sure they know how much they hurt me by telling them how it made me feel because I don't want it to happen again - I guess that could be interpreted as shaming in some cases.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Oswin said:


> The language is Russian (song lyrics) Unfortunately I don't speak any Turkish; I'm not sure about the name 'Oswin' . . . it's not mine, it's from Doctor Who)) One of the characters was called "Oswin" in an alternate life where she was a computer genius, so it seemed like a suitable name for an Internet account. Plus, I find it an oddly pretty name)


OK, it looked Russian but I leaned towards the name. So you are in Russia? These are not easy times there with the sanctions and oil prices. What is it like on the ground?


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

You can see the difference in approach to the question. 

OP: Tries to find instances where reality fits hypothesis. Not quite sure what is prioritised here. 

SJ: See if hypothesis fits reality by bringing up hypothetical cases until the hypothesis is proven wrong, or enough cases are run that the hypothesis can be taken as generally true. Reality is prioritised over theory.


----------



## Sangmu (Feb 18, 2014)

All I want for Christmas....is for an STJ to spank me.

:blushed:


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> You can see the difference in approach to the question.
> 
> OP: Tries to find instances where reality fits hypothesis. Not quite sure what is prioritised here.
> 
> SJ: See if hypothesis fits reality by bringing up hypothetical cases until the hypothesis is proven wrong, or enough cases are run that the hypothesis can be taken as generally true. Reality is prioritised over theory.


I've never heard an SJ do that. Usually they just say, "that's the way it is", and if you ask "why?", they usually say, "because" and get angry that you even ask. Just look at Niss when I tried to ask a follow-up question.

I gave three examples that serve as the template for how shame is used. The template is the reminder, "this is what you're supposed to do--don't fuck up again". The examples can be easily multiplied using this template. This is the hypothesis. I will start a thread here to test it.


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

WhateverLolaWants said:


> All I want for Christmas....is for an STJ to spank me.
> 
> :blushed:


You have masochistic fantasies. Or you are a troll. Keep far away from us. 



ae1905 said:


> I've never heard an SJ do that. Usually they just say, "that's the way it is", and if you ask "why?", they usually say, "because" and get angry that you even ask. Just look at Niss when I tried to ask a follow-up question.
> 
> I gave three examples that serve as the template for how shame is used. The template is the reminder, "this is what you're supposed to do--don't fuck up again". The examples can be easily multiplied using this template. This is the hypothesis. I will start a thread here to test it.


We won't just consider your 3 examples. We will go back and remember from our own experiences and so on. If our experiences give a different conclusion than your eamples, we will distrust whatever conclusion derived from the 3 examples. 

SJs tend to see this kind of thing as common sense, and so they usually cant be bothered to explain things to you. If they see it as worth explaining, then they will explain things. 

Of course, the NxP tradition of always trying to challenge things and find exceptions goes on a collision course with this SJ trait. How do you fit a one size fits all approach to dealing with people? Very hard. 

Test it if you want, but you have been warned. SJs tend to not like people who ask too many of these common sense questions.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Epicyclic said:


> You have masochistic fantasies. Or you are a troll. Keep far away from us.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Shaming is a touchy subject and I am not likely to get a direct response asking SJs directly. Rather, I will open a thread and ask all if they've been shamed, especially by their parents, and what type their parents are. So we'll see if there is any correlation between shaming and temperament. I want to think about how I'm going to phrase this so the thread won't go up tonight.


----------



## Epicyclic (Aug 7, 2014)

That might be a better approach to doing things. 

If you haven't figured out, these are the kind of behaviour that is disliked here. Especially: 

- Typist responses
- "I'm always right", especially when your dogma doesn't match up to our database of facts
- Special snowflake (tends to be more of NFs)
- Flippant responses
- Asking blindingly obvious questions. Of course, maybe if your culture is different from the US that's a valid point.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> OK, it looked Russian but I leaned towards the name. So you are in Russia? These are not easy times there with the sanctions and oil prices. What is it like on the ground?


I'm in the US now. I have friends in Russia (and Ukraine -- luckily not Crimea) and they're really nervous, actually the Russian media makes it seem that the US is planning to attack Russia, they think we are going to be at war. I don't get that idea from US media, so I don't know . . . of course, I hope not...)


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Oswin said:


> I'm in the US now. I have friends in Russia (and Ukraine -- luckily not Crimea) and they're really nervous, actually the Russian media makes it seem that the US is planning to attack Russia, they think we are going to be at war. I don't get that idea from US media, so I don't know . . . of course, I hope not...)


I think Putin is trying to frighten his own people to unify them against a common enemy and take their minds off of the sanctions, the ruble, inflation, economic slowdown--ie, put the focus and blame on someone else. If the West wanted to engage Russia directly they would've intervened in Georgia and Crimea. The US isn't going to risk a war with Russia over eastern Ukraine. They've pretty much ceded that territory to Russia already. But if Russia steps into the Baltic States which are NATO members, then your friends might have reason to worry about war. 

The bigger risk right now is that the sanctions and falling oil prices are undermining the Russian economy. Putin may be tempted to relaliate by playing his gas card and freezing Western Europe this winter; or, he may feel cornerned and be tempted to escalate or start a conflict both to divert domestic attention and to use crisis to support oil prices. Falling oil is also undermining the finances of other oil-producing states that are heavily dependent on oil revenues. If this continues, one or more of these countries will default on its loans which will send ripples if not shock waves through capital and currency markets that could spill over into trade and real economic activity. Many economies in Europe and Asia are still sluggish or fragile and a shock could tip them over into recession. And then things can get very interesting as a weakened and divided Europe may invite Putin step in and take back more territory.

I think this last scenario is the more likely one. Putin wants to undermine the unity of the West and he's more than willing to let the Russian ship sink as long as he can bring the West down with it. Unless oil prices start heading north, something is going to give. But a direct military confrontation with the US is not likely, especially while Obama is Prez. So I think your friends should worry more about the economy than about war with the US.

We live in interesting times--but not that interesting.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> I've never heard an SJ do that. Usually they just say, "that's the way it is", and if you ask "why?", they usually say, "because" and get angry that you even ask. Just look at Niss when I tried to ask a follow-up question.


  @Epicyclic is correct in his assessment.

FWIW, you are entirely mistaken about niss, for you really don't have the ability to elicit any emotion remotely similar to anger, from me. To anger me, I would have to care what you think, and the reality is that I don't ... at all. But, you should remember this from our last interaction.

ISTJ just don't care.


----------

