I noticed at one stage, that I seem to need resistance to respect a girl. Otherwise it's like she's just a piece of meat. One that probably wouldn't taste that great. With the look that some girls seem to have.
It's like I actually find myself having to be careful not to push too hard with most girls. And I don't want to have to be careful all of the time. That said recently I've been careful in situations where I don't have to be.
The relation (being supervisory) is not ideal in a socionics sense, you're correct. But I met him in 1990, long before I knew anything about socionics (and probably before you were born ) and we hit it off. I'm not one to subscribe to the notion that you should only marry your dual, even if you know about socionics. I love him still after all these years (married 14 of them!) so I'd appreciate it if you'd cut out the fruitcake nomenclature. Besides, I have other ESE friends and I like them too. (the SLE I was talking about is a friend who is married to one of my IEI friends and the four of us do things together so it's not as if I'm going about seeking SLE guy friends to take the place of the ESE or something. Just to make that clear).
IEI-Fe 4w3
yeah i can do that about half the time....but you know life for me is stressful right now. i just started a new job where everything is effed up, i'm working a second job, taking care of my kids, dealing with my ex, and trying to have a relationship. so the other half of the time, sorry, feels like way too much work.
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
That's why I generally don't identify with Agressor much. Not to sound full of myself, but I think it's because I've never had to try. Any guy I've ever wanted has felt the same way. I just strategically place myself in situations that makes one thing lead to another. It's so easy. I guess if it weren't easy for me, I'd have to actually try. I sound so full of myself. Just stating facts.
Are you asking?
I can't speak for my subconscious, but on the surface, I know I "torture" my victims to induce feelings if they don't already have some for me. This can go on even to the point of even anger. I have to take things slowly, I need intense experiences first before I could enter something as grand as a relationship. Otherwise I wouldn't "feel it" and I wouldn't care much for neither the person nor the relationship.
The powerplay is less controllable though, it's a spontaneous thing. They give and show and I take and hide.
There's no real such thing as romantic erotic attitudes... it's all just HYPE. At least, not to the extent people are usually expecting. You can not say, how a type wants to be loved, or how a type will love, because everybody is different. Everybody has completely different approaches to love, romance, and relationships. And even that dynamic may change during their lifetime, due to having had some changes in themselves. There seems to be some sort of an extremely generalized pattern of a person's overall way of behaving in the "erotic attitudes", but I don't really think that it has anything to do with romantic relationships or love life.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
There is misapplication, I think it's taken to mean degrees of lust or something similar. It's merely a measure of presentation and power-play. Aggressors have power and try to exert it in time, Victims resist the impact. Caregivers have a need to supply for others, Infantiles take this help willingly while helping Caregivers in other aspects. From this there is a difference in preference of attitudes toward relations.
No, that's EXACTLY what I'm talking about. It has nothing to do with power-play and all that other crazy BDSM crap that people are thinking of - that's definitely not related to types.
Yeah, I think although the descriptions are a bit over the top, I think they are simply just illustrations with some truth to it.
I think our instincts of how we give/receive love are type related, just like in our dual-seeking function, we have expectations.
Like in my past relationship with an ENFP, I persistently did what I could to show my love through dedication, time sacrifice and actions that took a toll on me. Ultimately she didn't really appreciate these things though, and I could see she didn't really love me. Is it because she's a bad person? No, its just that she had a different way of expressing and receiving that was not compatible with my instincts.
Well then that's your problem.
But it's a "problem" that is presumably fairly common to Ni- (and perhaps Fi-)leading types. And a problem which Se (and perhaps Te-)leading types are particularly apt to solve.
This is a pretty straightforward deduction from the theory: party one has an intense interior world, with which they identify strongly, and which is by nature difficult to communicate. Party two has an interest in experiencing as much as possible, knowing about things in the most straightforward ways possible (that is, what is closest or most analogous to 'seeing' or 'touching' or 'manipulating').
It makes sense that party one would try to hide that interior world (about which they feel passionate, but which they are uncomfortable sharing), and that party two (if they are interested in party one) would try to uncover said interior world.
This has happened rather predictably with just about every SLE I know, romantic or not, and if I were ILI, it would probably happen more with SEEs.
Se egos are generally interested in "more than meets the eye," especially if it's "a lot more than meets the eye," it defies expectations in a pleasing way, like a piece of music, and stimulates the suggestive function by providing an "unclear symbol" which will gradually reveal itself, but never completely.
(I'm trying to follow the "more paragraphs" rule. I'm not likin' it...)
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
But why wouldn't you open up to people, most people open up to people. Are you led to believe... that some kind of an arbitrary sense of resistance, is type related? That's the problem with Socionics... or at least the people's interpretation of it. They think that pretty much everything is "type related", even your own shortcomings.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
...there's a difference between "opening up" to people period and being fully open and revealing your "innermost self." If nothing else, this proves the point of socionics: people's ways of being can be so radically different that whereas to one person it makes no sense at all to be "closed," and it's even seen as unhealthy, to another person, it's only natural to be guarded about your interior self.
If I met you, you would think I was a pretty "open" person, and I am about the vast majority of things. But I'm extremely closed about the things that are closest to me, and I'm quite conscious of that. I think that, rather than talkativeness or something, is a socionics-related trait.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
But we're identicals though, so how do you explain THAT. But isn't "opening up" just a matter of personal choice? Isn't it just a matter of trust, a matter of how comfortable you are with yourself, and others? Aren't most IEIs fairly "open", anyway?
How did this conversation come about from gulenko's erotic attitudes?
The sidelines: a good place to be.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
why do people keep bumping these old threads? it always ends up just tossing over the stale meat.