Clearly, there was a misunderstanding.
I didn't wrote you are a type 4 and never meant to. I wrote "which is" to indicate that what I called "personality defense" behavior is characteristic of type 4. I mentioned it as a information, as an example, nothing more. Yes, I won't deny that it seems to me, the source of your concern that I call "personality defense" behavior is ego.
I thought, you would think I think you are type 4, but I wanted to mention my opinion on type 4s -which would seem my intent is assaulting- so I wrote "My intent is not accusing you nor condemn you but I want to mention this" to ensure my intent is "not accusing nor condemning type 4s" I also I excluded you from type 4s. It seems it caused an unintended, even opposite outcome. But I don't deny that it seems to me you are type 4. Because you remind me of someone I know. Maybe that's why I subconsciously wrote like you are type 4 and didn't realize you would misunderstand. Therefore I'm sorry for the misunderstanding.
Even though, it seems to me you disliked my thought. It seems to you, being type 4 worth to dislike for. It just my opinion therefore no need to dislike. I don't think being type 4 is a fundamentally bad.
or insinuate that I’m a politician trying to “win”
I didn't wrote anything about you are trying to win or something. What actually I did is pointing out that your unresponding to my questions and lack of stating reasons is similar to some political leaders. Yes, the technics you used (probably unintentionally) especially in your last post may help you to win as a political leader. You can accept it as a compliment actually.
that’s your own ego protecting itself.
I will consider if my ego protected itself. It would be better if you state your reason like I wrote to you before about why it's important to state your statements with reasons.
You didn't state any reason therefore all I can do is wonder: Because I continued?
I am not the only one pointing out that you conflate ego, super ego and what you call personality, together. I’m not talking about your definition of “ego”. Why would I?
I didn't force you nor accused you for it. I'm actually amazed how did you conclude that.
I won't accept an opinion just because you are not alone. They burned people just because they thought the world is not flat. The same people probably believed their god sitting on clouds. I hope you won't think I'm accusing you as if you are an ignorant or something, these were just examples.
I wish people wouldn't believe something is true and/or it makes it truer just because they are not alone. Or else, they may fall from the cliff like sheep herd.
I’m not disagreeing with you.
Then how do you explain this:
"The “ego” I’m referring to is that part of my self that intermediates between my base desires, the id, and my conception of societal rules, the super-ego. I need my ego because it is what tells me to run the red light if it’s in the middle of nowhere and there are no other cars around, or to stop if it’s broad day light and I’m at the top of a hill. This is not the same as being egotistical, or egotism, which might be what you’re thinking of as ego."
Your statement means you disagree with my theory of "personality is the one what decides". Because, after all of my explanations, you stated it without giving any reason. I'm not forcing nor wanted you to agree or I'm claiming I'm right. I would just like to know why you don't agree so I can understand if I'm wrong.
Also, it seems you stated it as it's out of the question like it's an objective truth because you didn't stated any reason. That's why I stated I want the reason of your opinion(s). I stated my reasons so you would understand it's my opinion so the sharing of idea would go beyond clashing our opinions. Therefore I felt like you didn't move an inch.
You’re disagreeing with me.
I have no reason to disagree with you because you didn't state your reasons. You only state your opinion. That's why I asked some questions but you didn't answer (not that I'm accusing of you). And I don't agree (it doesn't mean I disagree, I still couldn't decide because there is no reason) with your opinion and I wanted to know why you don't agree with me (I'm writing again: I didn't meant to as a forcing you to accept my opinions, I meant it to state I want your reasons) and why we are walking along different roads.
A further thought, I think you seem like type 1 (I didn't meant it as a bad thing) because you remind me of my mother, she is also an INFJ. She makes statements like it's objective truth and won't share her reasons. When you ask her reason, she look at you like you are the most retard person ever and won't share the reason. But ironically, she sometimes misunderstood you as you were disagreeing with her. Therefore, she tries to do the right thing by doing the obviously wrong thing. Also, she sometimes thinks, you somehow know how/what she is thinking and intent 100% without any real reason. Yes/no, I mentioned about my mother as a information, an example. Not that I'm claming you are type 1.
Let’s make that clear. Maybe ask yourself why you feel so threatened.
I didn't. Yet again, I'm amazed how you conclude that. Why would I feel threatened? We are just sharing opinions. It's not a matter of life and death or something.
Is it because I wanted to know your opinion and you make me feel like you don't care about my questions? I'm not assuming but I can't find a good reason why you didn't answer my questions. You could just answer "I don't know" and/or "I follow Freud and/or my opinions therefore your questions are silly" then it would be okay. I don't know if you think I will judge you or something. Because you are silent about the subject, my Ni mind easily find more than a reason of why you didn't answer my questions.
Is it because I have been cautious, mentioned my intent and what I think would be better if you did? I was preventing to avoid any misunderstanding and trying to properly share ideas like I'm right now.
If I have to feel anything about it, it would be "disappointed" because it's an interesting and fun subject IMO, it's a great chance for me to improve my opinions so I can learn new information and I can replace my opinions with better ones yet no one shared anything new to me. At least, I hope my opinions will be useful.
Indeed, this is why you’re having trouble dealing with differing opinions.
I don't have a problem with differing opinions. I have a problem with your opinion because you don't state your reasons therefore your opinion stay as empty. Maybe you thought I was disagreeing with you because I asked you questions? I didn't ask them to mean "answer them if you can" or something. I even wrote "please" so to make it clear that I want your reasons and I wouldn't seem rude.
I think you are so focused on me, you can't realize what you are doing. Also, maybe you take all the seemingly negativity you can find about me and connecting it with yourself by using Ni for some reason, therefore you think I disagree with you, I felt threatened and I have a problem with differing opinions? Maybe you following some bias about me so you can't see the real me and you misunderstand what am I doing?
Maybe it seems I disagree to disagree. I assure you I'm not. I'm just being cautious to accept opinions, that's all. I even wrote I will consider to re-define what is ego and search for new parts even though you didn't give me a reason., didn't I?
Here is a blog post about boundaries and why they’re needed. It also explains the difference between boundaries and walls, two other things you conflate.
https://blogs.psychcentral.com/impe...-healthy-boundaries-why-do-i-need-boundaries/
I actually could disagree with you on this one because there is a reason.
I actually didn't conflate boundaries with walls. I didn't mean it as a walls. I especially used the term "closed cage" and "protected by ego" to mean ego is like an overprotective mother. For example, I meant it as a more like kingdom's boundaries (a fortress with a gate guarded by soldiers). If I was considering it as walls, I would say "closed box". Maybe you misunderstood what closed mind people actually is and/or somehow you misunderstood what I meant because I wrote: "they are like a wall". Well, it was just a comparison, I didn't state it as "closed mind = wall".
A closed mind is not like a closed box, because there are external data and information entry but closed mind may excludes them, even it expels them if they get in, without a fair reason. Therefore their personality is like inside of a closed cage (for example: hiding in the basement of their mother's house, protected by their overprotective mother). Their mother is like ego, also who protect them may be their father (superego) therefore, the personality in this case like hiding in their father's basement. Of course the personality could be protected by their mother and father too. The personality obeys mother and/or father therefore it's not the one who decides, it actually obeys.
I will explain why I think (IMO) I (I wrote "I" intentionally to mean why I don't need it but you misunderstood as why people don't need it and maybe also you meant it as I'm wrong and I need it) don't need boundaries and why I think strong personality is enough and how/why id, ego and superego causes hindrance:
Metaphorically, let's think, the kingdom as a brain and let's name this kingdom "kingdom x". Think the information contained in genes and memory as citizens. Think the personality as a king of the kingdom x. Think ego as the army who protects the kingdom (anything inside of it) therefore they protect boundaries. Think superego as the law about which people can cross the boundaries. Think the people outside of the kingdom x as external information, and I will name these people as "strangers". Think id as advisor of the king.
In this scenario, let's think a stranger from another kingdom wants to defect to the kingdom x. The person claims he is an engineer and his kingdom is destroyed. He swears he will be loyal to kingdom x.
Let's think, if the superego is healthy then the law states that everyone who is useful may cross the boundaries. If superego is unhealthy, they won't let strangers in, even they expel citizens.
No matter if superego is unhealthy/healthy, the soldiers always has to call the king so he will make the final decision. The king may obey the rules or not. The king may listen to his advisor, soldiers and citizens, obey them or ignore them. The advisor doesn't understand the usefulness of the strangers but he is an expert at which kind of stranger will destroy the kingdom but of course, sometimes he overreacts. Also, the advisor may decide to start a coup d'état using the army to prevent the king from destroying his own kingdom. If the soldiers think the king isn't enough, they start a riot and dethrone the king hence soldiers run the kingdom.
In this case, superego is healthy:
If soldiers are healthy people, they obey the rules therefore they have to learn if what he says the truth. So, they call a citizen who is an engineer to test if the stranger tells the truth or not. If the citizen is enough to understand the value of the stranger, they welcome the stranger to the kingdom x if the king decides so. If the citizen isn't enough, the citizen may think the stranger won't be useful, may even think incorrectly that the stranger will be useful.
So, soldier's call the king for the final decision:
Let's think, the bad king always trusts the judgment of the citizens therefore the kingdom x has some useless strangers who also have a negative impact on the citizen(s). Of course, by pure luck, there is also useful strangers too.
Nor bad or good king (not enough) may sometimes make good calls, sometimes not.
A good king would know who is useful precisely, the king even somehow knows how to make useless strangers useful: The king finds the best part in strangers and can able to make them better at it. Therefore, his kingdom is in a golden age. Sometimes citizen and advisor also make good calls but it doesn't matter. Their king is so good, they won't even need soldiers to protect the boundaries. Therefore, apparently they have no boundaries. He deals with all the strangers personally, he defects all the enemy by himself. The king is so powerful and good leader.
Which by this metaphor, I meant that there are no ego effected boundaries, the strong personality may be the boundary itself as you can think it so. Which is why I wrote; you don't need boundaries if your personality is strong and strong personality is enough. Therefore I don't think I need boundaries. Like I meant it as I don't need tv because I already have books, therefore, I can entertain myself by reading a book. Maybe I don't have to learn the news. If I want to I can learn it from the internet. You can even think it as I don't need tv because I already have a tv. It doesn't make a difference.
If soldiers are unhealthy, they may think their kingdom is good enough already therefore they won't let any stranger without even calling a citizen, they may even think the strangers will ruin the purity of their kingdom (that's why I think type 4s has a problem with being different, they value purity). Therefore they may not call the king, even if they do, they may persuade the king to not let the citizen in.
Also, healthy soldiers may not call a citizen to verify if the stranger who claims he is stronger lying or not. They are a soldier, therefore they claim they are expert at strength or anything related that make them think the stranger definitely help the kingdom to be powerful. They still call the king, but may persuade the king to let the stranger in. If the king is bad and not good enough to make the right call, he is easily persuaded. The stranger may indeed powerful, or he may be apparently strong but coward or no wish to help others.
If the advisor is unhealthy, he will persuade the king therefore they won't let the strangers in.
If the advisor is healthy, he may even help the king the make the right decision if he needs.
If this metaphor isn't enough then I will explain why I'm not someone who is having trouble dealing with differing opinions then I will make explanations about the reasons of why I think these about boundaries:
If I was still having a trouble dealing with differing opinions then I would still cry about why do I have to obey the society like when I was 4 years old.
Nobody cares your life, they care about themselves, they act selfish, you have to pay to get something, there is something people called country, etc. It was shocking to learn these when I was 3 years old. I was asking and tried to understand why people are enemies of each other. They make us watch war videos about my country's independence war at the nursing home when I was 4. I was thinking about why people have to kill each other. Yes/no, there wasn't anything related to gore but there were explosions so you could clearly understand people get hurt. Therefore I learned the death. Because they stopped moving collapsing to the ground after they were running for some reason. I hoped they will move again.
While I thought how bad life is even though I was 4. Everything caused me deep pain, all these negativity of people, etc. therefore I was crying for everything. People act like my trouble is nothing.
I had the obey the society. I had to do I didn't want to do. I had to keep it to myself and accepted to go the destination which is nowhere without even object. I had to obey the society because it's what you should do to survive. Which is why no one really can prevent sublimating of their own identity. Therefore having boundaries is meaningless because you can't expect others to obey your boundaries and having boundaries also means the boundaries may be bad but because you set the boundaries so fixed like unhealthy type 1 or type 4, even though people begging you, you won't erase the boundaries. Is that what you want?
For example, one of my boundaries is not making noise. I expect silence in my house unless it's absolutely necessary. But people do what they want. My brother listen to music even after midnight therefore we can't sleep. His boundary is doing anything he wants (from listening to music to cutting a wood, don't ask me why). Yes, we asked to erase this boundary of his and at least tried to compromise (at least make no noise while we are sleeping) but he doesn't care. What should we do? Beat him until he understands? Kick him from the house? Call the police? Kill him? Suicide?
What I meant isn't boundaries fundamentally bad. What I mean is, because people have boundaries, it doesn't always get along with others' boundaries. Therefore some people win, others lose. Having boundaries cause problems. Therefore when others violate it, it causes negative thinking and/or feeling. When you can't prevent people from violating it, it disappoints you, makes you sad. All you can do is hope: People won't do anything selfish, therefore hoping they are healthy. If not, hope that you can endure it; hope that it won't pass the breaking point.
Also, in the example of the article you share; Chris, yes, can ask her to not the pick his flower. She may obey or not. People do what they want. You can't always stop it. If she doesn't obey, depending on the law, Chris can stop her legally or not. Maybe she had a boundary for allowing others the pick the flowers. If she not obey then it means she doesn't want to erase this boundary of hers. Then the reason is; she doesn't want to sublimate her own identity, according to you. Which I didn't understand why this means it shouldn't happen and why it means violating the identity. Because of one thing, it doesn't mean you lose your identity. I don't think, my brother wouldn't sublimate his own identity if he would agree with making no noise. He is an INFP and type 4. Therefore you can understand why he won't accept our boundaries and doing whatever he wants. He expects us to obey his boundaries. When we cross his boundaries he considers it as threat to his identity. No, he is not a little child biologically. His body is 30 years old, but his mind is like a teen. Sometimes you have to sublimate your own identity for others. Even if it means losing your identity. I won't care anyone's identity if they are selfish. They can shove their identity and boundaries up into their arse. Yes/no, I don't think all INFPs and/or type 4s is similar to my brother, I hope so.
While yes, I like to listen to something whenever I want too. That's why I use an earphone. So people enjoy the silence. But my brother doesn't even accept that believing it's bad for his health. It's not bad for health if you don't increase the volume too much. If you can make the equalizer setting properly, you will hear everything clearly even in very low volume without needing a quality earphone. He doesn't care about our well-being. It's actually better with listening to it via earphone. Because of our house's acoustic, the sound amplifies outside of the room so you can hear it more clearly outside of the room. Therefore, he increases the volume to hear it more clearly but in the process he causes headaches. He knows it but he doesn't care.
I will also explain the reason of why boundaries is an illusion. And why there shouldn't be boundaries.
For example, when some stranger talks about their problem without asking me if it's is okay to talk about it, I wish to punch them in the face and I also resist. If my ego is healthy, I may listen to them wishing; silence and I hope it won't happen ever again. These wishes are my ego's wishes. Which is the source of boundaries. My id considers other people's problem as toxicity, I feel like I'm exposed to radiation and feel like I'm dying faster. While my superego says: "don't punch them in the face, yes it makes you feel bad but it won't kill you. it's just words. so listen to them and won't say anything to hurt them or they may feel they are worthless". Which is the reason why I think we need healthy superego instead of a healthy ego. The advices of my superego makes me more at ease and cause me to relief but still, my ego makes a fuss about this decision. You may think, the ego is unhealthy. Then I will explain it later.
I caught between my id, ego, superego. I said "I" intentionally to state that my personality was caught between my id, ego and superego. Therefore I thought I should listen to my ego. I was beliving the healthy ego nonsense but there is no such thing. Healthy ego sets boundaries that make me feel better but boundaries not always possible. It causes you the burn the bridges. For example, I sometimes yelled to my brother to make him turn off the music so he cares because he ignores you if it's a suggestion. He sometimes did turn off, sometimes there was blood. Nothing changed, it only prevents it temporarily. Somehow sometimes he thinks I'm okay with noises now and start it again. So the history repeats itself again and again∞. Yes, there is a permanent solution but I won't choose it, I can't even. No matter what, I felt guilty thanks to my superego. It may be easy to deal with my brother. How could I deal with strangers about my boundary of sharing no trouble? Wearing "I don't care your trouble" t-shirt all the time? Yell "shut the fuck up" so they won't do it again? Isn't that a bad thing to have this boundary?
In the article you shared, the guy can call the police so she won't bother him anymore in case she doesn't listen to him if the laws allow it. But there are factors that beyond the protection of the law that makes my boundaries pointless.
I don't want to live in this hell. I can't be myself in this world. Therefore it makes my boundaries pointless. Yes, no one violates my garden, but they violate my preferences and the society actually approves it. Normal people don't think so as I'm, therefore some laugh to me, some get upset. That's the way it's. Who am I gonna complaint about it? Who cares? If I said someone that I don't want to listen to their problem people would think how selfish I'm, how what I think is wrong, what a bad person I'm, people would run from me like a plague. In reality, telling your problem to me is pointless because I'm not Jesus, I have enough problems to deal with it, it's their problem, what actually they need is a solution and they should be the one who should help themselves. I would tolerate if they wanted a solution but some people just want sympathy, they want to listen lies. When you give advice, they think you are a smart ass (some people may listen to everyone's advice and choose the one that made them feel better which is not the right choice always). If you give them sympathy then you become arse licker. When you tell them you don't care, you become selfish. If you just punch them in the face you become criminal.
Actually, my healthy ego caused me to be a robot like others. I was just kidding myself to be happy by falling into the illusion of the hedonism of materialism which we called "happiness". I wasn't selfish thanks to my healthy superego, but I was going with the flow like others. While I still cared for others sincerely, I was caring about myself more. Therefore I thought it's okay to use others to gain if they let me. When someone failed, I was laughing with others to them, and the guy who failed also laugh at it too, so it's okay right despite he broke his leg? I dreamed an ideal wife, ideal kids, ideal house, even an ideal car. I forgot my dreams, who I was and I accepted the life I had. But, I was chasing the happiness like a robot. It seemed so wrong. But I didn't realize the reality of the condition I fell into until I discovered how/why I didn't act like myself.
You know what?: Unhealthy ego forces you to masturbate your ego. Healthy ego prevents the need for masturbation but if it seems close to being unhealthy, it causes ego masturbation. Also, healthy ego makes you think extra ego masturbation wouldn't hurt. Isn't that why people want and want and want∞?: "it's nice to have a tv in living room. oh, you don't want your tv than give it to me so I can put it in my bedroom though I probably won't watch it because I don't even watch the tv in living room much but it doesn't hurt, right?".
I thought I grew as a person but what actually happened is, my personality buried inside my ego. I let my ego and my superego control my body.
I was so different than I was. I set boundaries compatible with what I want and what society approves to ensure my happiness. I burned the bridges. I was right, morally and legally, therefore society would think I'm right. I should protect what I have, right?
Then I realized I don't want to be this guy. I want to be myself but I don't want to be caught between my id, ego and superego. I (my personality = me) needed conciliation.
I accepted: I already lost it. No matter what I do, I will die and be nothing (therefore I'm technically already a nothing) like I was before therefore it doesn't really matter what happened/will happen. Life is a very trivial matter but people think it's important therefore they think there is trouble. To me, there is no trouble.
So, if the activity that causes noise makes my brother happy then it's not a big deal. He lives in this hell like the rest of us. It doesn't worth to take his happiness from him to make myself happy. What I should do is: tolerate it but not as obeying, but accepting the reality that I can enjoy the music, it doesn't have to hurt my well-being, even it did hurt me I will recover (so my id stopped complaining). My boundary (no noise) was pointless (I can't ensure the silence without leaving my house or kick him) but until I erase it, I would be disappointed so I erased it (so my ego stopped complaining). Accepted, my happiness not worth more than others' happiness and it doesn't worth to make a fuss for it (so my superego stopped complaining). And finally, I'm not the guy who would care only about my own happiness, and I won't ensure it even it means to hurt others (so I stopped complaining).
I also feel better about listening to their problems. Life is so bad therefore they tell their all problem to a stranger like me for some reason. I just listen and I do what I must do for them depending on the situation. I feel bad in the process for them. What else I do? They can think I'm a smart ass, ass licker or whatnots. They can accept others' advice therefore they may make the worse choice. I don't care.
I don't think I lost my identity after all these. I actually grew as a person for real this time. I see it as an improvement. I may have to lose my identity If it's necessary and it should be, depending on the situation. What matters is improvement IMO.
From now on, I will reply to what is written in the article you shared:
If I was Chris, she could pick the flowers if she wants. It's not a big deal to make a fuss about it. And I don't understand why it's bad to pick the newspaper to his doorstep. Clearly, Chris is sick. I wouldn't mind dog poop and it's not a big deal if it chases the birds away. Which I don't understand how actually stating you don't want dog poop and you don't want the dog scaring the birds in your garden prevents it. Dogs doesn't care who is the owner of the garden. It just poops wherever it wants. Doesn't care about birds. People can't always control the behavior of their pet. Of course, they could control it by keeping it under surveillance and they may force him to not do something which they may not always successful. When he is free from chains shit happens therefore the only solution would be: chain the dog to his doghouse or something all the time which is I dislike. The garden needs care time to time therefore I or someone who I'm hired could take care of the poop in the process of cleaning it and taking care of the grass and flowers. It would be like sport to me. I don't mind if the children playing in my garden and messing it. I would encourage kids to clean up the mess themselves so they will learn responsibility, in turn, they can play in my garden and I can even give them something valuable if it's not enough. Also, it's a good opportunity to use them to clean the garden without hiring someone or let others doing it. I can persuade the kids' parent if they think making them work is bad by mentioning teaching responsibilities and getting ready to work life so they will get used to it. I would even pay to them if it's not enough. It's also a good opportunity to hire the kids for errand(s).
you’re not responsible for how others feel or behave.
The statement stated as overgeneralizing therefore it's not true for all situation. We are all responsible for how everyone feel and behave if the cause is ours. Even if we aren't the cause, we should care about people's mood. It's our responsibility. Of course, I wrote "care" not "lick their ass", not "sacrifice yourself". Also, I won't gonna ignore someone if they are hurting themselves as the statement seems to encourage it.
Boundaries allow you to let go of worrying about how others feel and places accountability squarely with the individual.
It depends on accountability. We all have responsibilities that we have to do even though we don't want to do. Sometimes, what I want doesn't important, what we want is important. I wouldn't want to make someone upset by being selfish. I will do what I should do, of course if it's necessary. For example, if your children expect you to be with them (about their school) but you don't want to then it's being selfish, you should be with your children.
When you clearly communicate your boundaries, people know how they’re expected to behave.
In my experience, people don't care about your subjective boundaries. They may care if it's objective which people call "common sense" and/or law. It depends on the person. If they are healthy, you may don't need to state boundaries.
Some people have ridiculous boundaries, especially about marriage. For example, some people want to sleep on another bed, alone. Some people don't want a kid, but they want dogs. What if I don't want a dog? Like most people wouldn't want a kid and you searching for someone who wants dogs except kids or other animals?
Some people end the relationship because of your hobbies. They don't even tolerate one hour a week practice of a musical instrument. You are dead to them because they can't tolerate it for one hour a week. Your whole existence isn't important than their one hour a week of silence.
Yes, they can have any boundaries they want as long as they don't hurt others. But I wish for all people to have boundaries that cause win-win and easily accept to erase their boundaries for other people to prevent being selfish. But no, they have some stupid list (boundaries) and you should obey them. I wish anyone good luck because they need it.
You don’t need to be 100% sure before you act.
While I think no matter what, there will be always a possibility to cause you to fail, I think you have to be 100% sure before acting. At least it will decrease the chance of fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The article is mostly useful to understand why boundaries may necessary (even though she wrote it like boundaries fundamentally good), she didn't mention anything about the bad side of boundaries like unrealistic ones; the ones that hurt the people and/or the people who set them. Therefore what she wrote not the full aspect of the healthy boundaries. But of course, if you suspected it and you want to resolve your conflicts and/or want to learn more, you have to pay $22 to buy her book to "help" yourself. There are some people on the internet would give free and better advice than her. Probably she misleads people so they will have problem(s) therefore they will pay her.
Look at her. How she seems sincere but she actually wants to suck all of your money:
This article reminded me an advice that someone gave to someone about being confident: The person said "do what you want. don't care about others. they should obey you. you go gurl!" Can you understand the biggest problem with this advice that can cause a lot of problems? Or you gonna share another article (which defends the only subjective positive side of the point of view that leads you to buy a book so you can learn the "truth") without asking my reasons?
And I hope people won't completely trust these articles. Yes, not all of them may not completely useless but people should be vigilant about which opinions they should adopt.
