This thread got me thinking http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ly-work-2.html about things. Do you want or need someone to actually need you like in a "I cannot live without you way?" Is this related to socionics, maybe quadra?
Yes
No
"I love you." or "I love you and I cannot live without you."
This thread got me thinking http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ly-work-2.html about things. Do you want or need someone to actually need you like in a "I cannot live without you way?" Is this related to socionics, maybe quadra?
"Don't marry the person you think you can live with. Marry the person you think you can't live without."
-James Dobson
Oops I thought I made the poll public but it looks like I forgot, is there any way to change this please?
I am looking forward to seeing people's responses
Sure, in idealistic romance world, yes. But in real life? I don't want to be that dependent on a person. I mean, if we naturally grow that close, and we are that intertwined (as if I have that level of trust for anybody), then that would just be... fact. I don't think my attitude would really be positive or negative about it. We'd be a unit. That would be fine.
Now, to psychoanalyze a bit, I may be downplaying how much I care about this precisely because it is something that I want so intensely (Enneagram 4 sx/so), but I think it's not something I'd ever strive for or expect in a relationship (except subconsciously). I do suspect that it would be a perennial source of a kind of background radiation of comfort, though, if I were so close to somebody else that we sort of merge or combine (anybody, really; our paradigm for closeness is the romantic relationship, but I don't care what form the intimacy takes; although I do admit that sexual intimacy, as an external manifestation, makes it a lot easier to achieve psychological intimacy, intimacy of the spirit-mind-nous-psyche). But then that person (or I) would be sure to die (and which one died depends on which one is the protagonist of the story; which one is Augustine, Tennyson, Achilles, Montaigne, Orpheus).
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.
How about
"I really like you, and I think we'll do together in the long term. You're kind of cute, too, and I see us being able to have a mutually fulfilling life together. Yeah, I think you're someone I'd like to be with, be good to, and invest romantic feelings and strong emotions with. I see us going down the same life path, and I see you as being a good life partner for me - and I think I'd be good for you, too. I'd like to love you - how do you feel about me? I'm up for giving this [love] a go..."
It's flowery in its form there, but, something like that seems a lot more applicable than me saying just "I love you" or "I can't live with out you".
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.
LOL. There are so many quotes of epic comedy in this post, especially "invest" as a verb for "romantic feelings and strong emotions." Would you seriously like that formal of a declaration of... romantic interest? And/or do you seriously expect someone to appreciate that formal of a declaration (I'm not being facetious here; I suppose it's possible that an EII would find it cute, and it's not as if SLEs don't also occasionally make interpersonal moves that some might find ridiculous).Originally Posted by Ryu
On a serious tip, have you investigated the possibility that your distaste for Fe has more to do with a distaste for a certain romantic thing? I was just thinking that it's not impossible that you actually are a Ti/Fe valuer but you just have a thing (possibly not socionics-related) against a certain way of expressing romantic feelings. I just say that because the whole dry, practical romance thing is, to me, the lynchpin for my agreeing with your LSE self-typing, but then it occurred to me that there are so many factors that go into one's attitude towards romance that have nothing to do with socionics... Not that I'm seriously questioning your type; I just know that others here do and they might have good reasons. I myself do not atm.
But yes, "I cannot live without you" in the conventional, external sense is vaguely beta, insofar as betas want passion and drama in their relationships, but I dunno, I find that nowadays most of those "I can't live without you" feelings are fabricated by one party (as in Madame Bovary) and indulged by the other. It's like people want to feel that passionate so they sort of make themselves feel that passionate without having a real grounding in the respective parties serving positive psychological and practical functions for each other. I think that most of the time when people say "I can't live without you" it has more to do with the feelings that they have attached to their partner (with various degrees of intentionality) rather than feelings their partner has inspired in them, if that makes sense, and as such they could actually very well feel the same way about another person if they made the same "investment" of feeling (darn it, that term isn't as ridiculous as I thought).
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.
I think what he probably was getting at here was more like "don't underestimate the importance of who you choose to marry". Not that you literally think you can't live without them.
IEI-Fe 4w3
No way. What if I die in a car accident? Why would I want the other person to suicide?
Obviously, it'd be different if such a sentence was used as a literary constuct. In that case "live" might mean "feeling alive" rather than simply "possessing a working metabolism along with a self-replicating DNA". I would somewhat appreciate this attitude, however it's still a tricky sentence. Perhaps I would like something akin to "You make me feel alive".
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
You would if you were Emma Bovary.
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.
yeah, this.
someone deciding that they cannot and will not live without you is pretty scary/fucked up. it's not romantic, it's selfish and burdensome. it degrades life. every fight becomes this overdramatic thing, where say you want to pursue something else, you're indirectly causing someone to off themself.
i mean it's cool to be passionate in general, but when someone's only passion is me, i just get sick of them. how am i supposed to be excited with you when your only excitement is me? it's like some incestuous romance, only doomed to burn out in the end. like i'll always show people i care about new things, crave new experiences with them, etc. and i would want the same in return. otherwise they're just some emotional parasite, feeding off my passions and it's annoying as fuck.
edit:
although i said no as well, your mentality for it is just gross lol. like wtf, no it is NOT like a business you cold bitch ahaha
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
Some people are obssessed with their partners, with sports, computers, tv, drugs or with eating until his/her ass explodes. Scary
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
--> perhaps Normalizing
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Yeah, I know. And I wouldn't say that's my overall view. I guess I'm just feeling a bit cynical atm.
Removed at User Request
Removed at User Request
No worries
Stan is not my real name.
I think it's called dependance.
I like the sentiment behind the "i cannot live without you" but I wouldn't take it literally. To me, it means more like "my life is so much better with you in it"- type of thing.
I think in most cases "I can't live without you" would just mean, "I can't and don't want to imagine my life without you in it". Which is a romantic sentiment I'd like to hear, if I could reciprocate. Otherwise it's just awkward, you know. I doubt anyone emotionally healthy would mean it literally. (Or this might just be a reflection of my strong identification with the Victim-Aggressor romance style?)
That works particularly well with the epic tone of beta romance.
So how does each erotic attitude handle love, what would they say?
These kinds of quotes are like reading Shakespeare or poetry, if you want. You're not supposed to take it literally guys. Don't be retards.
It kind of smacks of beta's Ni+Fe, because, there is focus on passionate feelings, almost 'overpowering feelings', which is kind of a common theme in betas that I've seen.
In think overall the more pragmatic approach that I said in my previous post here is somewhat "better" (I don't think feelings in and of themselves are important), but, I don't think it excludes how betas would go about things per se.
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.
Dobson seriously said that? Weird. You'd think a psychologist would know better than that.
Mine was no. I don't want to be in a relationship that there's no way out of. It's like business: always have an exit strategy.Oops I thought I made the poll public but it looks like I forgot, is there any way to change this please?
I am looking forward to seeing people's responses
"I love you" is cool. "I love you and I cannot live without you" makes me a little squeamish, like I'm in a Twilight movie or something.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
ahahahahhha
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nqvg0C90FhM]YouTube - How Twilight Should Have Ended[/ame]
Stan is not my real name.
It does!
That kind of intense obsessive romance is extremely creepy to me
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
The first one, definitely. I want to be loved and wanted, not loved and needed.
Hmm... to be wanted is to be enjoyed and appreciated - the wanter finds joy in their interactions with the wantee, but he makes a choice and is not forced by circumstances/requirements/whatever to be with the wantee. To be needed is to be clung to because the needer lacks something that he perceives the needee to fulfill.
I prefer to be wanted rather than needed, but I could see someone making the argument that in a way two people in love "need" each other in some ways. Still, the original question was about needing someone else to be able to live, which I think is kind of silly.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
