Intertype relation you find least attractive, and why

[UDP]

Are you particularly un-attracted to your contrary and quasi-identicle?


Ok, bear with me on this. I am not talking about raw physical attraction. Not just looks. I'm talking about a sort of chemistry that you feel with people. It is not totally separate from looks, because how someone looks (and moves, etc), is a part of someone's appearance. But it is a sort of chemistry you feel. I feel it right away when I'm around anyone, especially women. I am always hyper aware of compatibilities and how smoothly information is exchanged, and other various chemistries, if you will.

Anyhow, what I am getting at her is the person you feel this LEAST with. I wonder if there is any relation to this at all. I'll explain how it is for me, and then you can say if you feel anything similar or not.



Far and wide, the least attractive (as described above) type of person - which in this case is female - for me, are beta STs. This is nothing against their character or person - I know more than one great beta ST women. I'm just saying myself, what I feel attractive to. So don't be offended.

Why?

Well I'll first explain the difference between ISTj and INFp females, for me. INFps are at least "interesting", and more significantly, they seem very feminine. For me, that "F" quality is very much a significant thing for me - and maybe that's just my own individual perk. But INFps are "more attractive" to me from a general sense, as I described in the opening paragraph. I think functionally, however, I work better with ISTjs, simply because I can actually work with them. I don't think I can work with INFps. But nevertheless, I can be "attracted" to them.

Why am I not attracted to ISTjs? Or ESTps?
For one thing, the Ti+Se facial expressions are just extremely unattractive. They is a sort of stare that they have, the blank look on their face, with a certain sort of intensity, and it is just not at all welcoming. (Don't take this the wrong way, anyone, but honestly, that is probably the least attractive expression I've ever seen on a female).

Out of all the female beta STs I've been with, I don't think I've ever felt any real chemistry. I've found some physically attractive in terms of having an appealing body, absolutely. However, in terms of what I described above, there is just nothing there.

It's like they don't provide me with anything that I don't have. They don't really have any of the qualities that I find particularly attractive.


I'm wondering if that makes sense to other people. Do you relate?
Like, if you are ENTp, do you find INTps and ENTjs fairly unattractive in terms of chemistry? It is something different from your conflictor, who just seems to be distinctly "no contest", or just "yeah that's interesting, but I know there's nothing really here". Contrary + quasi-identical just seem to have this very obvious wall of "nothing at all is here", to me, at least - in terms of relational chemistry.

I don't mind working with contrary+quasi. But relationally, it's just nothing at all.

[UDP]

Optional background:

One thing that inspired this was me meeting with an ENFj (m) and his girlfriend (beta ST female, likely ISTj). I understood their attraction to each other socionically, but I was thinking about the people involved.

Being a guy, I was thinking about the girl and how I relate to her and her attractiveness, and how she relates to the ENFj. It struck me as odd, because, I could just never, ever, ever see myself with that girl. Nothing was wrong with her, mind you. She just absolutely was not "my type". It was good to see the ENFj and the ISTj together, because it was something i'd never really seen before, an ENFj male and beta ST female operating together. It seemed so foreign to me.

Not foreign as in unbelievable, but just, for a lack of a better term, backwards.


I've had other experiences with beta ST women and seeing them in action and in relationships, and I've always had the feeling of how incompatible we are. Other very notable instances are an ISTj with an INFp male, and an ISTj with an ISFp male.

[Jimbean]

I am not so sure if it is type related.

Case in point: I know of one intelligent and hardworking ISFj (ESI) that I love the hell out of, another ISFj that I work with is lazy (talks a lot to hide it) and takes a long time to figure out simple organization planning.

[Joy]

SLE, LSE, and (to a lesser extent) SLI... because they're ST and don't have creative Se, I imagine. I have power struggles with LSE's and have a really hard time relating to them because of their Ni PoLR's. SLE's... I'm not even sure why. SLI's are just impossible to motivate.

[Logos]

Whichever relation at the time deals with ugly people.

[Joy]

I'm in a contrary relation

I was with my contrary for like 4 years. It sucked, but we were physically attracted to each other, could trust each other, and found each other intellectually stimulating. Why did it suck? He never DID anything. And I had to throw huge embarrassing fits in order to get him to understand that I was upset about something. I really hated acting that way, it made me feel desperate or something, but it was all he'd respond to. Eventually I just trained myself to stop caring about being upset. He also said that my enterprising nature was the least attractive thing about me (and it's probably one of my favorite things about myself). And anytime it was unhappy I could logically understand his perspective and therefore thought there was something wrong with me (instead of realizing that we just weren't compatible).

[UDP]

I am not so sure if it is type related.

Case in point: I know of one intelligent and hardworking ISFj (ESI) that I love the hell out of, another ISFj that I work with is lazy (talks a lot to hide it) and takes a long time to figure out simple organization planning.

You're not really understanding the point I'm making.


I'm not really talking about the individual characteristics of a person, being lazy or not. Or being attractive or not. I'm talking about a certain psychological chemistry.

Quasi-identical is another one for obvious reasosns. There's no glue. At all.

Right, that feeling.

[jessica129]

For one thing, the Ti+Se facial expressions are just extremely unattractive. They is a sort of stare that they have, the blank look on their face, with a certain sort of intensity, and it is just not at all welcoming. (Don't take this the wrong way, anyone, but honestly, that is probably the least attractive expression I've ever seen on a female).

Someone told me this the other day to my face...obviously minus the socionics speak but basically said he found my expressions unattractive. Really rough hearing that. I just focus very intensly on things and don't take into account how my expression is at that moment.

[Sirena]

I just focus very intensly on things and don't take into account how my expression is at that moment.

I do this too.

[munenori2]

I don't know enough to pin this specifically on any single type, but the bitchy, mean, cruel types? That probably means like all the worst of a lot of types though.

[FDG]

Probably comparative. Usually discussion with ESTjs degenerates in a matter of minutes.

In terms of romantic relationships, I could not see myself with an ST, unless the ST had learnt how to deal with people decently (which is hard to find - some LSI's I know do, but not many. Some Se-SLEs are also generally not "pushy" in a bad way, more enthousiastic, and those I can bear) without trying to command them.

[munenori2]

Maybe so, but I'm going to drunk post over your legitimate post, so there. This obviously is a good sign for ESTj's everywhere.

[07490]

I think comparative partner produced less chemistry than contrary partner, it is a huge turn off when you know that the person acts like you but their thinking and point of views are completely differently than you. I dont know about physical attraction from contrary and and quasi-identical, I have seen way more relationship from the both as opposed to comparative.

[Rubicon]

My parents are ESTj/ISTj - yeah - pretty much what UDP was describing. They sort of admire some aspects of each other from an objective point of view, but there's very little warmth or apparent attraction between them.

[Ms. Kensington]

Quasi-identical is another one for obvious reasosns. There's no glue. At all.

Supervisor/supervisee is just extremely ghey. I don't feel I need to explain it.

Comparative is just extremely annoying, I find, because what they do naturally is often quite bothersome to me.

And conflictor is so unrealistic I don't need to begin to explain why.

I think that covers all of my basis.

wanted to explain some points from my perspective on these relations.

Quasi, I have gotten along with them on the point of some intellectual discussions and my clinginess. I think it comes out when i start to get closer to a person. This is probably a sign of unhealthiness sure.

In real life i've seen supervisory couples, and have been trying to figure out how they work. I think some types are more prone to these. I think I know an ISTj-ENTp couple. ISTj has told me that she wont be in a relationship where the guy is better than her at something she does. I feel out of all the guys she's dated her husband is the one who can kick her butt at something she doesn't attempt, and thus is valuable to her. But for me, I get attracted to my supervisee ENFp only superficially but soon tire with them (and im sure they me).

Comparative I take back any comments because i thought you meant lookalike, which i could see working in many situations.

Conflictor I've actually seen a few of these but they might have been dual relationships if not for constant fighting. I think these can work as long as the couple never gets extremely close.. like i could see it working in situations where their activity is kept at a distance and more in the social sphere. Marriages of convenience, or ones in which there are a lot of family or children.

[Ms. Kensington]

Ok.. so for me personally, I have the least attraction with maybe Se-ESTp (i think i find the Ti ones attractive), Ni-ENFj, I think, some of these i actually find repulsive even though we can talk at length. For some reason i cringe thinking about being in sexual situation with them. It's probably really hot for an Se creative though! It's weird because I probably find INxp some of the MOST physically attractive types to me. One example of an Ni-ENFj to me is on youtube, he is the creative director i think for Google? I dont want to place any links here though because i really like what he has to say but dont want it to get back to him.. isnt that the most crazy thing ever? But yeah. Also ESFp. when it's bad, its really bad and ".." but im sure there is some male ESFp out there i think is hot. in fact im including this type in my next category because i have a small sample size of ESFps.

Next least attractive is probably ISTj ESTj ESFp ISFj. It's weird because... some of these people it is very much like ".." especially with ESFp, but i think it might have to do with me being female and preferring a "manly" man.. so if they are male and Se and like me then it can be superficially attractive. ESTjs I always do find attractive but as I've said elsewhere, it's an attraction that is against my will. I can't stand the way they seem to ignore my intellectual skills. I find this more present in male ESTjs than female ones, on average.

ENTj i find only slightly more attractive than this last group. Similar to an INFp but i get much less leeway in flirting with them.. fizzles out like 20x faster, and there's no hope of rekindling anything.. with an INFp i think i would be hot for them forever but I would get increasingly diminishing returns from them in terms of their attraction for me.

[jessica129]

This thread is highly offensive. I don't look down on any type as a whole. Everyone is different.

[Jimbean]

You're not really understanding the point I'm making.


I'm not really talking about the individual characteristics of a person, being lazy or not. Or being attractive or not. I'm talking about a certain psychological chemistry.

That is what I am talking about. Chemistry does not have much to do with type for me. It has a lot more to do with individual characteristics.

[Logos]

You're not really understanding the point I'm making.


I'm not really talking about the individual characteristics of a person, being lazy or not. Or being attractive or not. I'm talking about a certain psychological chemistry.

Yes. And my psychological chemistry tells me when someone is unattractive and ugly.

[Wynch]

Yes. And my psychological chemistry tells me when someone is unattractive and ugly.

QFT

[Rubicon]

This thread is highly offensive. I don't look down on any type as a whole. Everyone is different.

Stealing hotdogs is highly offensive.

[Blaze]

yeah well the thread is a little bit offensive to the ST's who are takin it on the chin.

i'd venture to say that T women, by and large, don't fit the feminine stereotype, so T men, esp will say that T women are not attractive to them. but i know a lot of F men who say they are attracted to T women. so there.

[Khamelion]

Any type interaction that involves me being bored and/or the other person being bored with me is the least attractive. If I'm getting something out of it than I'm good...and its a bonus if they get something out of it too.

[BLauritson]

i'd venture to say that T women, by and large, don't fit the feminine stereotype, so T men, esp will say that T women are not attractive to them. but i know a lot of F men who say they are attracted to T women. so there.

I'll admit I've been attracted to more F women than T women in the past, but femininity had absolutely nothing to do with it. I've known a fair few F women who are more tom-boyish, but that's never bothered me at all. Plus I've known at least one LIE woman in the past who was actually somewhat feminine. So there

[Rubicon]

yeah well the thread is a little bit offensive to the ST's who are takin it on the chin.

i'd venture to say that T women, by and large, don't fit the feminine stereotype, so T men, esp will say that T women are not attractive to them. but i know a lot of F men who say they are attracted to T women. so there.

Mm - the problem is that only T men have responded so far. Let's hear it from the F men! :-)

[munenori2]

In my experience the types I've most often found attractive are ExTx's. Part of this is that they always seem to know what they're on about, like they've got their lives put in order in a way I can't ever quite manage. ExTx women also seem to come off as slightly stubborn and more likely to stick to their guns about things, which I admire.

[Wynch]

I seem to tend towards INXj, I'm not sure that I can logically explain that other than the fact that I want to gather-up INXjs, put them in a box, and keep them until I learn all their secrets and use them for my own devices. You always know INXj is keeping a secret from you, the bastards. You can see it in their eyes. That being said, the older I get, the more I get bored of INTj. I feel like I can do anything they can do, but I can do it with more pizazz, which is pretty yawn-inducing in a partner. So they're fun to talk to and play video games with, but I don't really want to hook up with one. (Not to mention I find most INTjs physically unattractive). I still haven't met any ISFp males, but they sound like they're made of awesome.

Least attractive? Gamma SF. I have absolutely nothing to relate to them with. They're like aliens to me. We function in opposite ways. I generally don't like EJs because they feel too schmoozy to me. Too calculatingly outgoing. Uhhh ISTj, no thank-you. I'm too free-wheeling for that.

[xyz]

I'm gonna go with Logos and say ugly people.

[jewels]

Someone told me this the other day to my face...obviously minus the socionics speak but basically said he found my expressions unattractive. Really rough hearing that. I just focus very intensly on things and don't take into account how my expression is at that moment.

wow. I can't believe someone would say something that rude! This must have been like, a guy you wouldn't date or something and was just pissed about it, because that is a really mean thing to say.

I don't think there are any types where I feel what UDP was talking about. I think I've been attracted to all 16 types at one point or another -- and that includes talking to them and seeing how they process info, discuss, etc. But I can definitely see how others could have certain types they weren't as attracted to...I think maybe ENFps can sometimes be attracted to everyone, lol.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Supervisor. I don't know the exact types but I know when somebody is supervising me damnit. It's the least attractive because I think when it all comes down to it, supervisor is the type you would feel the most shameful about if they caught you masturbating. Or any sort of erotic/personal matter.

[Mattie]

Supervisor. I don't know the exact types but I know when somebody is supervising me damnit. It's the least attractive because I think when it all comes down to it, supervisor is the type you would feel the most shameful about if they caught you masturbating. Or any sort of erotic/personal matter.

Sounds like someone has a story to tell

[yeves]

it is either superego or activity. whichever relation I have to tell the person the same thing multiple times with her insisting on doing it her way and ruining it.

[bolong]

it is either superego or activity. whichever relation I have to tell the person the same thing multiple times with her insisting on doing it her way and ruining it.

This is definitely superego.

[bolong]

Why am I not attracted to ISTjs? Or ESTps?
For one thing, the Ti+Se facial expressions are just extremely unattractive. They is a sort of stare that they have, the blank look on their face, with a certain sort of intensity, and it is just not at all welcoming. (Don't take this the wrong way, anyone, but honestly, that is probably the least attractive expression I've ever seen on a female).

This is exactly what I find very attractive, like a lens focusing sharply on its object.

[Amber]

Just by what the theory says: Super-Ego.

With ppl irl it's much more nuanced.

[Joy]

SLE, LSE, and (to a lesser extent) SLI.

Interestingly, my answer remains the same. I'm not sure about LSIs. SLEs are still definitely my least favorite. And I was mistaken on my son's father's type. He's not LSE. He's just psycho.

[Olimpia]

On an emotional/vibe level, I find my conflictor the least attractive, hands down.

Physically, they can be attractive, sure. But I just stay the hell away from them when it comes to a romantic (committed!) relationship.

[lemontrees]

quasi-, beneficiary (i have matching styles w/ my benefactor), supervisor

i find super-ego pretty attractive but i can't imagine having enough initiative to actually get things started w/ an ILI LOL

[Joy]

It seems like it's not unusual for people to feel more warmly about their beneficiary than they're benefactor, which is odd as the names and descriptions would seem to suggest otherwise. Of course, it's still assymetrical, hence the problem.

[Olimpia]

It seems like it's not unusual for people to feel more warmly about their beneficiary than they're benefactor, which is odd as the names and descriptions would seem to suggest otherwise. Of course, it's still assymetrical, hence the problem.

I suppose you are inclined to feel more warmly towards your beneficiary, because there is not the same kind of frustration in you as with your benefactor (at certain instances).
However, I'd still say I find my beneficiary less attractive than my benefactor.