An INFj's opinion about ESTjs
As I learn more about ESTjs, I feel embarassed to be their duals. Based on my observations, they are generally boring, unattractive, rounded, look too mature for their age and not very intelligent.
The worst thing is duals are supposed to be quite alike.
(It doesn't help that I am in a bad mood today.)
What do you mean? I don't understand that part. Are you saying that all ESTjs are supposed to be alike? That we're supposed to perceive our duals all the same way? That INFjs are like ESTjs? Or something else?Originally Posted by eunice
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
yeah sounds like a bad day. I know several ESTJs who are in good shape! INFJs that are attractive and fit as well. Type doesn't influence appearance at all. Being stylish and fit and those sorts of things are an individual thing, NOT a type thing. So, in conclusion, you don't have to date a boring rounded person, and you are probably not a boring rounded person yourself, so no worries. There are lots of hot ESTJs out there! Don't settle for a boring one (which should be fine as INFJs tend to be naturally picky) and you'll be fine!
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
Actually, the things you list are not what really bother me. You can go around those if you love someone enough.
Bad moods are good to express frustrations...
Nah no wai! ESTj's are great. I understand the bad mood tho. Let me tell you my impressions though. I find them very interesting. They are very confident and like to keep busy and know about current events. I can understand the booring stereotype though as some other types could sometimes think this. The ones i know are fine in the looks department, some even really cute.
Not very intelligent is extremely off the mark though. I know a Doctor, a Network Engineer and a Small Business owner. ESTj's are some of the clearly intelligent people ive ever met. They think so sharply and quickly, have incredible memories and soak information up like a sponge.
Last edited by meatburger; 03-07-2008 at 01:07 AM.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
That INFj looks like an INFj I know here at school, same sort of way of holding her bf
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
No way. They are hot. In general I think most people find LSEs physically attractive, especially since they take care of themselves so well. They are also really intelligent. They know A LOT of stuff: current events all over the world, historically significant (and insignificant) things. Really, you can usually bring up any topic with them and they will know something about it.
They are almost always intelligent, but they may lack imagination. For example, I know an LSE-Te whose favorite author is the "suspense" novelist Mary Higgins Clark. Just out of curiosity I read one of her books and almost died of boredom because to me it is so predictable. Weak Ne I think. I don't hink this makes that particular LSE boring, just that he likes an author I find boring.
They can be somewhat predictable, with likes and dislikes, and not changing their preferences very often, but I really like this, because it seems stable, and lets me know where I stand with them. Because of this they seem easy to please.
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
If you're unhappy with your duals as a type (rather than with individuals who happen to be your duas, which is something else), either you haven't really understood what your dual is, or you have mistyped yourself.
If you imagine your ideal companion - someone so perfect that you don't think such a person may exist - and describe that person in detail, usually others will recognize that as an idealized version of your dual.
, LIE, ENTj logical subtype, 8w9 sx/sp
I dated an ESTj for two years, and we're still good friends. Yes, he could be quite loudly opinionated sometimes, and set in his ways, but he was also a lot of fun to be with, and quite the gentleman. He had a trim, almost aristocratic look about him, probably due to his excellent posture. And he was very, very smart.
Oh, and a great dancer, too. I loves me my ESTJs*.
*Well, not all of them, but you get the idea.
INFj / EII
4w5
Diese Tage, die leer dir scheinen
und wertlos für das All,
haben Wurzeln zwischen den Steinen
und trinken dort überall.
The only ESTj i know is a man whore, and a firefighter. He's not dumb, and definitely not boring. He likes to burn shit with me.
"Those who make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities..."
- Voltaire
Male ESTj's I know all think that their it, but in a laid back way. I like them!
Why are those the only options? I do understand that it makes logical sense for a "dual" to exist if you look at people as having an absence of certain qualities that someone else has, and putting the two together would form some sort of balanced unit. However, this implies a lot of things, such as being able to determine what will make a person whole.
I'm under the impression that rarely people know what they "want" or really "need" at any given time, and what you think you want during a certain time might change later on. To me this an incredibly difficult question to answer. Also, sometimes things you want might actually be detrimental to what would make you happy in the future. What I mean is that I could say "my idealized partner will help take care of me because I don't pay attention to my personal needs." In this case, yes it is something I want, but if I manage to improve on it without depending on another person, wouldn't this actually give me better self-esteem and a feeling of achievement? Wouldn't this result be better than having someone do it for you instead?
.
How can a person fufill their accepting functions on their own?
every time you post pictures of you and your friends, i think of moving to australia!
.
.
Yeah I think we survive on our own but how good is that survival. It's probably neutral. I think with a partner it can be worse with the wrong type of partner, but also better with the right type of partner. I don't think we can get what we need re our accepting functions just by reading and stuff. Like getting Si by setting time aside to relax, they may set the time aside, but they're still as high as a kiteTheir dual-seeking block? What do you mean by fulfill? I guess if I feel like I need some TeNi to solve a problem - I just read things on the subject, and find good advice. If someone needs TeSi, they can hire someone, read, set aside Si time to take care of themself, whatever. Someone needs Fi, they develop good friendships with others and so on. We all do manage to survive without a partner. . . Life should be better in a relationship, not meaningless and hopeless without one.
Well I don't mean that by need someone that is for a meal ticket or maybe to fill up a lack of having friends. What I mean is that I think that were all good at somethings and bad at others, like socionics describes. If you can find a partner who is good at the things you aren't good at and vica versa then you are good for each other, which sounds like it would make life more enjoyable for both, and also easier to solve problems and bounce ideas off cause the two of you like, see whole part of picture.If you can't take care of yourself and your own needs, and you'e expecting someone to do it for you, there's a problem. Which isn't to say that dual partners can't or don't enhance each others lives or can't make things easier for each other. I see for instance Slacker_Mom's relationship as her and her husband working as a unit, both doing what they do best. But I'm pretty sure she didn't marry him because she needed him.
This is exactly what I mean.
.
I am a parasite looking for a host.
Anyway, your duals do sorta "complete you" if they're not leeching off each other, both doing their part working toward the same goal or direction.
Kinda like they're unconsciously taking care of the other person's weaknesses and they appreciate each other for it, and there comes the mutual respect.
At least that is how it seems with my SEE friend and I.
INTp
sx/sp
.
But aren't they parasites only if they don't give anything back? Healthy duals don't leech each other but instead engage in a trade. I buy food from the shop because otherwise I wouldn't survive. I can't grow food myself. So do I "leech" the shop? Would I be a better person if I instead learned to grow food myself. Of course not. It is just effective that some people specialize in growing food, some in selling food, and some in doing something else. Duals trade functions for functions. No leeching there. Just specializing in what you are naturally good at, giving that to the other person and expecting their goody goodies in return.
.
Yeah we understand the leeching point of it. I think people just like to say dual completes you because they like the idea of something spiritual going on. And thats fine. If your waiting for your dual to begin to live your life yes thats a problem. One that I also suffer from a bit because i know that getting a decent girlfriend will be a nice addition to things. I see it like what the others were saying though. Its an effective team. Why do many businesses turn into multinationals? Because they were founded on teamwork. Mr Hewlett and Mr Packard for example. Its great to be able to do things your self but if someone else can cover your weak points, it will allowing you to focus on the strong. Thats brilliant.
@Impliedcome to Australia u can be friends too. Friends are the best part of my life.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Diana, what do you mean by dependence, do you mean financial dependence? I don't see a relationship as financial dependence.
I kind a relationship, especially duality as a sort of symbiont relation: I've had partners in the past were they've not been able to provide the sort of psychological help I would like at times, and I've sometimes felt they've not been able to appreciate what I feel I can offer.
I really don't know how you arrived at these thoughts from my comments - they have nothing to do with what I said (unless that's precisely the point).
Same as above.
What I meant has zero to do with being incomplete alone, or needing someone, or being dependent on someone, etc.
What I did mean is simply this. Assuming you want to be around other people in the first place - not necessarily even for a longer-term or deeper relationship - and according to socionics (since in discussions here I assume that it works), the concept of your dual is someone who in principle you'd enjoy being around with - whether for work or a chat or whatever. If your immediate response, upon reading how the type who's supposedly dual is supposed to be ,as a concept, is, "how boring/evil/annoying" etc etc, then, I think that either you're mistyped or you haven't understood that particular type correctly.
That is all I meant.
.
Obviously.
However, as humans, we are relational creatures built with a need to interact with others. Not everyone is created (or evolved, whatever) the same. Each person is unique. People have differences - different strengths, weaknesses, interests, skills, habits, beliefs, perspectives, histories, cultures, etc. In that sense, no one is "complete." No one has everything - all the strengths, weaknesses, etc. - contained in them all at once. Interaction with others, give and take, compensates for any negative effects of that incompleteness. I would go so far as to say that living in isolation is not really living at all.
Socionics is one way of dividing up and categorizing one aspect of those differences between individual and then making a model of how that aspect of ourselves relates to other humans. According to socionics, a dual is someone who makes a good balance in the personality (or whatever word you want to use) aspect of ourselves. A dual is the one who helps fill in the gaps of our incompleteness in that regard.
Of course, if you're an unhealthy person before a relationship (friendship, romantic, whatever) with one's dual, then you're going to likely continue being unhealthy while in that relationship. If you're chronically unhappy before, you're probably going to be chronically unhappy after. If you're crippled before you're likely going to remain crippled. There's more to a person than personality. And there's more to a relationship than taking advantage of someone. But, at the same time, neither is anyone complete on their own. There's always something you can give to others and others can give to you simply because we are all different. A healthy relationship finds a balance in that, and I think a big point behind socionics duals is that it's easier to find that balance with them. Easier and more fulfilling.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
Yeah i certianlly do agree with this. I asked an INFj friend what she wanted and she said "Funny happy, kind guy". Or something like that. Doesn't quite sound like her dual to me (not to say they cant be these things). Sounds like she was describing her mirror more. If you asked me what i wanted 5 years ago i certianlly wouldn't have described an ISTp. Probablly would have thought i needed a feeler. I also think ISTp's floating around there probablly aren't looking for ENFp's. The probablly cant even conceptualise what we are or what we are like.
Yeah i dont think Expat would argue with this though. But given you are a certian type, reading about your dual and understanding them fully should lead to you being attracted to them.
Last edited by meatburger; 03-04-2008 at 11:27 PM.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
.
It seems we have different ideas of "complete."
I am not saying that without your dual you are a failure as a human being, that you are incomplete in that sense. No, not at all. There's a reason we're different from other people, so there's no flaw or failing in that, especially in being the best that we are designed to be. I am saying that without human interaction we will starve, if not physically then mentally, emotionally, spiritually, etc. We need other people. It's humbling and highlights vulnerability, but it's true and to ignore it is dangerous.
You're right, that's probably a better way of putting it, what duals do.I would disagree with that take on it, because imo the dual is not filling in gaps. If it were that way - your best match would be your conflictor. It is the similarities more than the differences between duals that make them easier to get along with. It's really not a matter of balance, but rather a matter of being complementary to each other.
The difference between complementary vs. gap-filling could be illustrated like this. . .
Complementary:
--Ice cream is ice cream by itself, perfectly good. Alone it's something. Cake is cake by itself, also perfectly good. Cake with ice cream is the two together complementing each other.--
Gap-filling:
--A pie crust by itself is edible, but not particularly great. Pie filling by itself is also edible, but not preferred. Only together do they make a complete pie. They each are parts to one whole.--
My view is that none of us are missing anything, we're each complete - but we work better with some people than with others. Cake and ice cream go well together, but ice cream with beef stew, not so much. We can understand beef stew, but it's not our best or most natural partner if we're ice cream. Better to keep the two separate than go mixing them up. Can you tell I'm hungry? Anyway, I think duals are very similar in some key ways, and you're not balancing each other out as much as you're enhancing the flavor of the other.
I think you're missing part of my somewhat separate point, though - the give and take (that happens in every relationship) needing to be balanced to be healthy. And how in socionics a dual is somebody (I believe - if I'm wrong in that somebody correct me) with whom that healthy balance is easier to achieve. Not that that's all that a dual does, but that's one part of it.
If you want to argue whether or not socionics is correct in how it divides people and predicts interactions, then that's one thing. But it's another thing to deny the need for healthy give and take in human relations. Or even that people have different needs (or gifts) than others.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
.
Yeah, I was going to say in the other one that I don't think we're really disagreeing. If there's anything, it's just a slight emphasis on individuality vs. community, with you going the individuality rout and me the community one.
And a lot of what I was saying was just a general sort of thing, not necessarily directed at you specifically.
Anyway, yeah, I think we're pretty much of the same opinion on it all.
Oh, to find you in dreams - mixing prior, analog, and never-beens... facts slip and turn and change with little lucidity. except the strong, permeating reality of emotion.
.
Then I misunderstood. The way you mention duality in bold is something I agree with, but I don't get that from the posts I read here in the forum. I don't like how duality is put on this pedestal as being the best type of relationship for every aspect in your life: "The solution = your dual, they will help you out in all the things you lack." I think an important factor here is that I might have not yet read "the" socionics reference, as in the authority on the subject. Is there such a book or article?
-----
I completely agree with the point Diana is making, and I am sure that type-wise I'm INFj. It doesn't have to do with not needing people in general, it has to do with being in any type of relationship where you depend on another person for things that you can actually develop in yourself, which could give you a better sense of personal aptitude and fulfillment by developing them. I'm not talking about people who are in a wheelchair and can't perform tasks, it's different... I look at it applying more to the social aspects of a person as well as the mental.
Well, it also might have a lot to do with your goals in life. To me, personal growth and development is one of my big goals. It frustrates me that I will become dependent on someone when I can learn to do it myself, and have someone have that power over me, since I depend on them. I understand the positive aspects of surrending things with the right person, but it should be a choice rather than an actual need.
Personally, I like the ESTj personality. The very significant issue I have, or the most I encounter, is the moral character with some of the individuals... I get along well with ESTjs that have a conscience desire to improve on their morality, with the others I don't. Actually, I don't even bother to develop anything with anybody when a certain moral character red zone level is reached. And I'm not saying like "they should say excuse me after leaving the dinner table." No... more along the lines of cheating, having complete disregard for another's thoughts and feelings, deep pride, selfishness, expecting things of others and not on themselves, crazy lust, etc. I am not judgmental at all (though in the past I must admit that I was), but I find it really repulsive when someone does these things without remorse, or with no effort to improve on them. Based on the previous to previous paragraph, I would help someone develop the personal growth as I grow too, or it might happen that I actually instill the desire for it by accidental influence, but I don't want to be depended on for taking care of that aspect all the time.
I actually agree with hkkmr's opinions.
On the other hand, I don't think that duals complement each other's weaknesses. I have discussed it with Ashton once. In fact, each type is not necessarily weak in their fifth and sixth functions. Duals get together because of their compatibility in their strong functions, rather than trying to "complete" each other. For instance, for both ESTjs and INFjs, they are both strong in Fi, Ne, Te and Si. Moreover, the first two functions need not be the strongest eg. an INFj's two strongest functions might be Fi and Te on top of Si and Ne, rather than Fi and Ne. Rather than a case of having "opposites attract", the case of duality is "likeness begets likeness". Besides their personality, it could also be VI-wise.
As for my opinion about ESTjs, I admire their work ethic and thoroughness in solving in problem. However, to live with them or/and having them as part of your family is a different thhing.
I meant INFjs are like ESTjs.
Cool. I will be beat you hands down.Breathe deep. Shake the stereotypes from your shoulders. Shake the bad real life experiences from your shoulders too. Repeat after me....."Don't judge a type or a quadra by their annoying rogue representatives."
Dang. I can't even take my own advice.Let's have a whining party, eunice. I can whine louder than you.
-WHINES PATHETICALLY-
I just find Beta types on average more attractive than Delta types. Just a personal opinion.
I don't know what you mean by "being incomplete". If you mean "mentally unhealthy" then you should first heal yourself. If you start a relationship so that the other person might somehow magically "heal you" then it doesn't work and could be considered leeching. But accepting that you have strengths and weaknesses and that some other person might be able to offer something for you in that area is not leeching. Your defensive posture suggests that this discussion is not going to go anywhere. Perhaps you can teach me some spanish but that's pretty much the only contribution you are likely going to make.
I can write your answer so you don't have to:
"Why is it so hard to understand this: If you seek to complete yourself by being with another person you just cannot have a real relationship. You leech. Are you dumb or why cannot you see it? What did they feed you when you were a kid?"
Then I could answer:
"As I said this discussion is not going anywhere. We are probably talking about the same thing but phrasing it differently. Your view of course being narrow and me seeing the big picture."
Then you could rephrase your position in some way which doesn't get any closer to understanding and just increase the level of defensiveness (is that Se?) and then I would be pissed and start inserting random insults here and there between the lines. Then you would go "aha! a character flaw" and start throwing in criticism against my character (and you would keep doing this in other threads too for purely subjective reasons).
Well, at least it would be quite balanced exchange of futility. However then some other Gamma's would join you and start parroting your comments in a beavis & butthead style. At this point it would get really annoying from my point of view because neither you nor the parrots would have any intention at all to consider what I say just but keep pushing some specific wording down my throat.
So it makes no sense to go on with this. All in all it would be more beneficial if you just accept that my POV is very good and definitely worth considering.
I dont think anyone actually suggests its healthy to NEED your dual. Perhaps being with them for a while you would forget how to take care of yourself in some ways but i dont see that as a problem. I dont have one and im surviving.
I think personal development works best in the areas you're best at. Say you cant draw, and you have never shown any talent in drawing. Sure, you can put effort into learning it and what will happen? You will get from totally crap at drawing to very average (at best). I see things like Si like that. You cant really develop those things, so why not get them for free. Its also like that with Ne for ISTp's. They cant just say "ooh perhaps i will start using Ne. They might as well have me use it for them. As i use my dominant functions more, i feel happier and hone them to the point that i can derive maximum benefit of them. Not bogging down on something like Ti which i will never be good at.
@Eunice. Perhaps you are not an INFj?. It seems odd to me you would find you're opposite quadra most attractive. I see that they are physically attractive, INFp's even maybe slightly more on occasion but thats all.
Last edited by meatburger; 03-05-2008 at 08:20 AM.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Reply With Quote
