Sexual attractiveness

[Hashish]

Do you think that there is a correlation between sexual attractiveness and type? I think that more attractive people may be more often ESTP and ISTP for example, because there are very confident types.

[Expat]

Some people might think that that's precisely a reason not to find them attractive --

[redbaron]

Do you think that there is a correlation between sexual attractiveness and type? I think that more attractive people may be more often ESTP and ISTP for example, because there are very confident types.

But you're assuming that confidence=sexual attractiveness and that's not always the case. I find shy types very attractive. The sexiest thing about a man is his smile and I don't mean the man who's smiling all the time and at everyone. KWIM? Sure there is a sense of being at home in your own skin that is attractive but I think any type can exude that, it's just a matter of maturity.

[tcaudilllg]

Just thought I'd mention it...

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

Psychological health is vitally important, too.

[redbaron]

Just thought I'd mention it...

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

Wow okay, so I'm not understanding this at all. Could you elaborate. Specifically what is "exertion type" and what do you mean by a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object?

[UDP]

ESTps are not sexually attractive to me at all, nor ESFps. Nor ISTps either, honestly. They can be extremely beautiful in physical appearance, but sexual compatibility is more than that.

[FDG]

Just thought I'd mention it...

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

Psychological health is vitally important, too.

A load of cr...

Anyway what a person finds attractive is a very personal matter. There is no strong correlation moreover because different social groups value different things, and confidence is also usually related to specific fields and rarely universal. This said, I find introverted women to be extremely more attractive than extraverted. In fact, the more the extraversion, the more I am repelled.

[redbaron]

Anyway what a person finds attractive is a very personal matter. There is no strong correlation moreover because different social groups value different things, and confidence is also usually related to specific fields and rarely universal.

I agree.


(that quote in your signature line always cracks me up, btw )

[drd252]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

[KSpin]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

I'm going to guess that you're just thinking in terms of physical attractiveness, right?

[FDG]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

If there were universal traits that are considred attractive, and if a specific type were to possess all those traits, then the given type would be universally more attractive.

[drd252]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

I'm going to guess that you're just thinking in terms of physical attractiveness, right?

No. When I say attractiveness, I mean the total package of physical attributes and mental attributes. A woman can be drop-dead gorgeous (physically), but if she's hasn't got an intellect capable of sparing with mine, then she's not attractive, and therefore not worthy of anything beyond casual interaction/friendship.

If there were universal traits that are considred attractive, and if a specific type were to possess all those traits, then the given type would be universally more attractive.

True. However, those ifs are very iffy; an "if, then" statement would be better than your "if, and if, then" statement. Universally attractive traits are almost certainly non-existent, due to the cursed nature of our subjective experience; the second "if" is even more speculative.

[Slacker]

Physically, different people are attractive in different ways. It isn't so much specific traits as how the traits work together. So two people who look entirely different can be equally attractive.

Personality-wise, what is considered attractive varies wildly from person to person.

[tcaudilllg]

Just thought I'd mention it...

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

Wow okay, so I'm not understanding this at all. Could you elaborate. Specifically what is "exertion type" and what do you mean by a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object?

Well I don't fully understand it myself. (it's intuitive at this point) But let's see if we can relate it to existing research.

Studies have demonstrated that the average of a population is the most universally attractive. Averaged artificial faces, for example, will leave a person spellbound. In the case of a highly contrasting IM-IE type combination, you have VI traits of very different types converging to create one structure. The result is a very "averaged" face.

Of course, non-distinctive hereditary features are very important too, or else a face does not meet the "average".

[KSpin]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

I'm going to guess that you're just thinking in terms of physical attractiveness, right?

No. When I say attractiveness, I mean the total package of physical attributes and mental attributes. A woman can be drop-dead gorgeous (physically), but if she's hasn't got an intellect capable of sparing with mine, then she's not attractive, and therefore not worthy of anything beyond casual interaction/friendship.

If there were universal traits that are considred attractive, and if a specific type were to possess all those traits, then the given type would be universally more attractive.

True. However, those ifs are very iffy; an "if, then" statement would be better than your "if, and if, then" statement. Universally attractive traits are almost certainly non-existent, due to the cursed nature of our subjective experience; the second "if" is even more speculative.

And you don't see how your need for an Intellectual type of woman can have anything to do with your type?

[drd252]

I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated

I'm going to guess that you're just thinking in terms of physical attractiveness, right?

No. When I say attractiveness, I mean the total package of physical attributes and mental attributes. A woman can be drop-dead gorgeous (physically), but if she's hasn't got an intellect capable of sparing with mine, then she's not attractive, and therefore not worthy of anything beyond casual interaction/friendship.

If there were universal traits that are considred attractive, and if a specific type were to possess all those traits, then the given type would be universally more attractive.

True. However, those ifs are very iffy; an "if, then" statement would be better than your "if, and if, then" statement. Universally attractive traits are almost certainly non-existent, due to the cursed nature of our subjective experience; the second "if" is even more speculative.

And you don't see how your need for an Intellectual type of woman can have anything to do with your type?

I'm all too aware of that. When I said "I don't see how type and and attractiveness could possibly be correlated " I was speaking objectively, which was the tone of the topic originally; ofc there's subjective correlation between attractiveness and type

[FDG]

True. However, those ifs are very iffy; an "if, then" statement would be better than your "if, and if, then" statement. Universally attractive traits are almost certainly non-existent, due to the cursed nature of our subjective experience; the second "if" is even more speculative.

I agree, that's why I don't believe that there's a type which is generally more attractive than all the others.

[KSpin]

I don't understand where you're coming from, to be honest. I was being objective aswell... *scratches head*

Edit: I agree that there may not be a universal attractiveness scale, but certain types are more likely to be attractive to, say, us INTps, than other types. Hence the possibility of correlation between type and attractiveness.

[porntips]

This probably goes without saying, but strong Fe gives its possessor an advantage at manipulating the component of attractiveness that isn't physically determined - poise, facial expressions, flirty glances etc.

And IMO it's INFp's who do this best.

EDIT Fe hidden agenda -> i can't be objective about this.

[reyn_til_runa]

Just thought I'd mention it...

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

Psychological health is vitally important, too.

Neat idea and it makes sense on an intuitive level.

Simple analogy.

Perhaps person x knows how to cook, but comes across a box of spaghetti and mistakes it for sculpture fodder, thus neglecting the relationship between pasta and large pot of boiling water. End result may be a quirky creation, but if the subject whose "attractiveness" (or tastiness in this case) in question is the plate of cooked spaghetti, then we'd come up short. I don't quite understand how the relationship between subject/object directly translates into physical attractiveness, but I can see that one's perception of his own beauty would likely stem from the dynamics of this relationship. It gets very complex when we add layers of subject/object relations and then begin to question which is the X we are solving for.

I recently had a conversation with my friend about an experience she had while staying with a host family. She had told me that the mother informed her that there was a white sheet in the bedroom where she could place her suitcase.

I quickly turned our conversation into a study of subjects/objects at hand - hostess, visitor, suitcase, carpet, sheet, bed being the most obvious. In addition, several potential objects, all of which depended on the function of other objects, emerged. One of those was DIRT. Think about assigning the dirt to various actual objects in the scenario. Was the mother suggesting that the dirt on my friends suitcase not dirty the carpet (thus assigning greater value to the carpet)? Was she suggesting that my friends clean suitcase should not be dirtied by the filth on the carpet (thus assigning greater value to the suitcase)? Perhaps there was no relation to dirt at all. Perhaps there was just a cluttered room with piles of folded laundry that the mother had neglected to put away, so the mother told my friend not to worry, and that she could set her suitcase on top of the laundry. You could take it to the nth degree, but my point is that determining the value of x for any object in a system of relations becomes increasingly difficult as the variables are constantly changing depending on vantage point.

How, in the case of physical attractiveness, do you conceive of these multiple layers of subject/object? I admit to not studying much of your theory, so feel to link me to something rather than make yourself redundant.

[krieger]

Sexual attractiveness is primarily a matter of contrast between information metabolism (classic socionics) type and exertion type. The higher the contrast of the types, the higher the "good looking" level. It's an evolutionary trait: the better a person's understanding of the relationship between subject and object, the more attractive they appear. Barak Obama is an excellent example. So is Johnny Depp. And many, many other stars besides.

some comments on this; if you're going by the shorthand dichotomies you're going to have to throw static/dynamic in there too, as that one is as fundamental to temperament as ex/int and j/p. As for the other ones, your theory would give an interesting twist to smilex's quadra progressions, as then it would seem that a person would get rewarded for progressing to the metabolism type that best complements their exertion type.

combine those two things with a provisional hypothesis that there must be a contrast between the temperament of the metabolism type and that of the exertion type and you've got a world in which no one is privileged. perfection available to everyone.