Which club do you find least attractive?

[Joy]

By that I mean, which do you generally find yourself least attracted to having a relationship with.

The choices are ST, SF, NT, and NF.

[Slacker]

Hmm, oddly probably other NFs.

[Logos]

The Mickey Mouse Club.

[Joy]

Yeah.

[Slacker]

I take that back. I have a ton of NF friends.

I don't know.

[Joy]

I take that back. I have a ton of NF friends.

I don't know.

Unless they're "friendly" friends, this is irrelevant.

[Joy]

I was wondering if one's least favorite club (relationship wise) may be indicative of their subtype.

An intuitive subtype NF's least favorite might be SF's. An intuitive subtype NT's least favorite might be ST's. An ethical subtype NF's might be NT's. Etc.

[Joy]

I was wondering if one's least favorite club (relationship wise) may be indicative of their subtype.

I might add that when I think of any club besides ST's. NF's would be next in terms of least differentiation from mirrors/quasis/contraries. Then NT's. When it comes to SF's though, I can't not have a hard time distinguishing from mirrors/quasis/contraries.

[Phaedrus]

I don't have relationships with clubs.

[Joy]

prude

[Joy]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=12929

But even so, ST's are the reason I know I'm not Beta or Delta.

[Iconoclast IX]

By that I mean, which do you generally find yourself least attracted to having a relationship with.

The choices are ST, SF, NT, and NF.

It varies, based off three factors: (1) Gender. (2) Quadra. (3) Rationality vs. Irrationality

Least favorite out of males: A tie between SF (Alpha SF in particular) and ST (ST rational, specifically)
Least favorite out of females: Again, ST rational and SF (this time, either Gamma or Alpha).

[Logos]

Fellow NTs probably. What they have, I already have, and I do not want more of something I can already provide for myself.

[Ms. Kensington]

well.. for me it's SFs. (then STs). Probably most attracted relationship wise to NFs.

EDIT: actually now that i think about it might be equal.. but i still slightly more repelled from SF than ST.

[hellothere]

probably NTs (just going by the people who I have some idea of in real life).... or SFs

[Logos]

I don't have relationships with clubs.

Just one-night stands then for ya, eh?

[FDG]

I don't have relationships with clubs.

+1

but if i really have to: shallow SFs, too nerdy NTs, cold STs, dramatic NFs

[Expat]

From empirical evidence -- that is, from among the people I have had relationships of any kind with - probably STs. However, it is really splitting hairs since one of my best friends is LSI, and a lifelong friend is SLI.

Regarding anything resembling romantic relationships, though: I can include SF, NF, and NT, but not one ST.

[Joy]

I have, unfortunately, been with an ST at more than one point. An LSE and an LSI. I've never been with an NF.

Serious relationships: ESI, LSE, LSI, LII, ESI

The one with the LSE was the worst, followed by the one with the LSI.

I wouldn't mind an NT partner. It would be unbalanced, yes, but there would be a high degree of mutual understanding (even in opposing quadras, at least to some extent), and probably some common interests. If nothing else it would be a stimulating partnership.

The only NT I could see myself with would be an identical. I've learned from experience that contrary relations, while convenient, are disastrous in the long run (though in a subtle way). And there's a reason I've never been with an irrational type.

[Blaze]

who i've had relationships with: SLE, EIE, ESE (a fling), IEI, SLE, IEI. in that order.

so, i reason that the people i've actually had relationships with beat out other types, so the other types must be the worse since they didn't even get in the game. therefore for romantic relationships, from worst to best i'd have to say:

NT haven't been any
SF only one and it was a fling
ST there've been 2, one sucked the other lasted 15 years
NF there've been 3 and 2 of these have been good

[machintruc]

I get along with :

Light Socials - they're very attractive
Light Humanitarians - they're attractive too, even if they look retarded
Light Pragmatists - don't trust those myersian caricatures, Light ST's are cool people
Heavy Researchers - they may look geeky, but they are quite friendly

I don't get along with :

Heavy Socials - too pushy for me, but SEE's may be quite cool
Heavy Humanitarians - too tape-recorder-like for me
Heavy Pragmatists - too narrow-minded for me, I don't like alpha male nerds
Light Researchers - I can't find what's appropriate to say because they make me feel wanna kill myself

[MysticSonic]

ST, probably.

[BLauritson]

Purely hypothetically, I'd say STs. Haven't really had enough experience to differentiate, but I wouldn't imagine myself enjoying a romantic relationship with an ST that much. I could be wrong of course.

[Suomea]

Hmm, oddly probably other NFs.

Nod, prolly other NTs for me.

[Megan]

Least attractive is hard to say, maybe NTs and NFs because I just don't find intuitive males... especially NF males sexually attractive even when I like them a lot . Most attractive is ST by far.

[mikemex]

SF.

[Mediator Kam]

I could never get along with Beta NF for sure

Maybe Delta NF, but idk.

[Ezra]

Romantically, STs.

[FDG]

I generally get along pretty well with ISTx girls, better with ISTp than ISTj probably. But I am sure we'd both be clueless in a romantic relationship.

[xyz]

Um, Extreme SF's?

[FDG]

What makes you think that you personally are clueless in romantic relationships?

I mean, I know I disagree with almost everything you say on relationships, but clueless is the last thing I'd think of you. Really you seem like you'd be quite a sensitive partner.

Oh yeah, I don't have a problem with being sensitive-attentive to other people's needs. My cluelessness is mostly in the "how does the other person feels towards me" department.