Random ideas

[1981slater]

1) I promise I didn't read this before

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

2) "The friend of my friend is mine"

So the benefactor (friend) of my benefactor (friend) is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

3) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

So the supervisor of my supervisor is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

4) "The FIFA World Cup is exciting"

I hope so

[redbaron]

wow Slater! I was expecting something more random than that! I like it.

p.s. my kids have been watching the world cup soccer games, they're SO into it. lol Bores me to death!

[The Exception]

1) I promise I didn't read this before

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

I like these descriptions!

2) "The friend of my friend is mine"

So the benefactor (friend) of my benefactor (friend) is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

3) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

So the supervisor of my supervisor is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

In both cases, the benefactor of your benefactor and the supervisor of your supervisor would be your super-ego type. You can be friends with your super-ego but your super-ego is in your opposing quadra, and in general is likely to not be as satisfying relationship as a same quadra one.

4) "The FIFA World Cup is exciting"

I hope so

I hope so too. I haven't really been following it. I was hoping the US could eke out a victory rather than a tie.

[717495]

Battery-opperated collapsible garden. I think it'll do wonders, but I don't take the credit. Thank you The Directors Bureau.

[ArchonAlarion]

Eco-friendly vibrating apparatus

[717495]

Lol changeable easy-to-assemble art.

This is why Si's don't need duals, they have the internet.

[Brilliand]

1) I promise I didn't read this before

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

What does a spiritual aggressor do?

2) "The friend of my friend is mine"

So the benefactor (friend) of my benefactor (friend) is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

Friend: Same quadra (or possibly, dual)

3) "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"

So the supervisor of my supervisor is my friend?
I don't think so, since I find most SEEs annoying

Enemy: Opposite quadra (or possibly, conflictor)

[1981slater]

What does a spiritual aggressor do?

Creation is aggression, a mental aggresion in fact: it consist of changing what already exists and bring sth new. Most people hate changes and get scared with some Ne. Try to use some Ne when surrounded by betas and gammas: they prefer to fall rater than follow your Ne. Fuck them

[Gilly]

Hmmm...see the thing is, I respect people as sort of spiritually self-contained entities for the most part, not really bothering to change their minds or convince them of something, unless I see them coming into error, so to speak; if it's clear to me that a person is killing him/herself inside or believes something that I believe to be invariably detrimental, then I will pretty much break them if I feel the situation is appropriate, using whatever means necessary to "right the wrongs," but otherwise I try to respect people's boundaries and let them believe whatever works for them.

Generally speaking, however, I do think "spiritual caregiver" is a fairly good way of describing the consistent manifestation of relations between myself and some Se dominants; Se creatives not quite so much.

[Gilly]

Creation is aggression, a mental aggresion in fact: it consist of changing what already exists and bring sth new. Most people hate changes and get scared with some Ne. Try to use some Ne when surrounded by betas and gammas: they prefer to fall rater than follow your Ne. Fuck them

Nigga please. We just think it's stupid when you overstep your bounds to attempt to affect people's internal self-composition.

[Krig the Viking]

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

Dude, that makes large amounts of intuitive sense. Let's see if I can analyze it further:

If an extraverted element is in the Ego, it is an Aggressor in that field (Se-Egos are "Physical" Aggressors, Ne-Egos are "Spiritual" Aggressors, Te-Egos are "Mental" Aggressors, and Fe-Egos are "Emotional" Aggressors).

If an introverted element is in the Ego, it is a Caregiver in that field (Si-Egos are "Physical" Caregivers, Ni-Egos are "Spiritual" Caregivers, Ti-Egos are "Mental" Caregivers, and Fi-Egos are "Emotional" Caregivers).

If an extraverted element is in the Super-Id, it is a Victim in that field (Se-Super-Ids are "Physical" Victims, Ne-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Victims, Te-Super-Ids are "Mental" Victims, and Fe-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Victims).

If an introverted element is in the Super-Id, it is an Infantile in that field (Si-Super-Ids are "Physical" Infantiles, Ni-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Infantiles, Ti-Super-Ids are "Mental" Infantiles, and Fi-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Infantiles).

I like this. It's more balanced and intuitively feels "fuller" than Gulenko's original conception of the Romantic Styles.

[silverchris9]

1) I promise I didn't read this before

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

Just wanted to say, I quite like these.

I don't find that I am an emotional aggressor or a mental infantile, though. I think your leading function is more applicable here than your creative. Certainly in the "physical" realm I am a victim, but in the spiritual realm, yes, I've always liked the idea of taking care of someone spiritually, or even a whole group of people. But more focused on the one other person.

Actually, now that I think about it, the creative is applicable, just secondarily. I do want someone to sort of "take care of me" as far as logical thinking is concerned. I want to sit down and say "okay, take all these pieces and fit them together for me, pretty please?" And I can see how at times I want to pursue people emotionally, that is, work hard at getting them to display the emotion I want, be the "leader" emotionally. But again, only secondarily.

[Krig the Viking]

Yeah, I can see how I am helpless as a baby when it comes to the physical realm, and yet more confident and aggressive when it comes to "spiritual" things. However, the biggest resonance for me is the "mental caregiver" thing -- I feel that very strongly when interacting with ESEs, like I want to take care of all their logical problems so they don't have to worry about them anymore.

And of course I definitely appreciate "aggression" in the emotional sphere -- somebody needs to break through my multiple layers of armour to get to my deepest, real emotions, and bring them out.

[Crispy]

I can see how this may make typing a bit easier if you just look for which socionic realm you are most vicimized in xD

[thePirate]

1981slater, brilliant observations.

Dude, that makes large amounts of intuitive sense. Let's see if I can analyze it further:

If an extraverted element is in the Ego, it is an Aggressor in that field (Se-Egos are "Physical" Aggressors, Ne-Egos are "Spiritual" Aggressors, Te-Egos are "Mental" Aggressors, and Fe-Egos are "Emotional" Aggressors).

If an introverted element is in the Ego, it is a Caregiver in that field (Si-Egos are "Physical" Caregivers, Ni-Egos are "Spiritual" Caregivers, Ti-Egos are "Mental" Caregivers, and Fi-Egos are "Emotional" Caregivers).

If an extraverted element is in the Super-Id, it is a Victim in that field (Se-Super-Ids are "Physical" Victims, Ne-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Victims, Te-Super-Ids are "Mental" Victims, and Fe-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Victims).

If an introverted element is in the Super-Id, it is an Infantile in that field (Si-Super-Ids are "Physical" Infantiles, Ni-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Infantiles, Ti-Super-Ids are "Mental" Infantiles, and Fi-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Infantiles).

I like this. It's more balanced and intuitively feels "fuller" than Gulenko's original conception of the Romantic Styles.

and a brilliant analysis by you Krig

this analysis correlates with my experiences

well done ******s

[Crispy]

Uh oh...
If Gulunko's sexual styles match with only the PHYSICAL realm descriptions...
Sex is only a physical act, and not a spiritual one.

[DirectorAbbie]

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

It makes prefect sense to me.

[silverchris9]

And of course I definitely appreciate "aggression" in the emotional sphere -- somebody needs to break through my multiple layers of armour to get to my deepest, real emotions, and bring them out.

Oh, I see, that's a good explanation of what emotional aggression would be like. In which case I must say, ESEs are consistently emotionally aggressive. Like, all the time. I can be like that sometimes, but I feel that I'm more aggressive with making other people feel as I want them to feel, not that I force other people to be emotionally open. Well, actually, now that I think about it, I actually do create conditions such that the person may feel pressure, even if I consider it to be light pressure, to "open up". Shrug.

If an extraverted element is in the Ego, it is an Aggressor in that field (Se-Egos are "Physical" Aggressors, Ne-Egos are "Spiritual" Aggressors, Te-Egos are "Mental" Aggressors, and Fe-Egos are "Emotional" Aggressors).

If an introverted element is in the Ego, it is a Caregiver in that field (Si-Egos are "Physical" Caregivers, Ni-Egos are "Spiritual" Caregivers, Ti-Egos are "Mental" Caregivers, and Fi-Egos are "Emotional" Caregivers).

If an extraverted element is in the Super-Id, it is a Victim in that field (Se-Super-Ids are "Physical" Victims, Ne-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Victims, Te-Super-Ids are "Mental" Victims, and Fe-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Victims).

If an introverted element is in the Super-Id, it is an Infantile in that field (Si-Super-Ids are "Physical" Infantiles, Ni-Super-Ids are "Spiritual" Infantiles, Ti-Super-Ids are "Mental" Infantiles, and Fi-Super-Ids are "Emotional" Infantiles).

So we take care of people with our primary introverted element, aggressively apply our primary extroverted element, expect dominance by the extroverted element we most lack/desire, and expect support from the introverted element we most lack/desire. That's interesting.

[Aiss]

Uh oh...
If Gulunko's sexual styles match with only the PHYSICAL realm descriptions...
Sex is only a physical act, and not a spiritual one.

They're actually "romance styles" and are about relationships. Look at wiki?

[Crispy]

Even so, Romance sounds more emotional than physical.

And he may say Romance Styles but he implies sex as part of this.

[Aiss]

Even so, Romance sounds more emotional than physical.

And he may say Romance Styles but he implies sex as part of this.

He implies approach to a relationship. There's little physical focus in the descriptions; it's mostly psychological - like aggressor/victim enjoying "power games" over more playful dynamics preferred by caregiver/victim.

Since you don't care to check the sources (Te-ignoring, yuck):

Aggressor

This romance style is defined by focus on which is static, irrational, and extroverted. This means that an Aggressor sees attraction to another person as a static state, which he feels it is up to him to change in the direction more in agreement to his preference. This accounts for an Aggressor's inclination to take the initiative in approaching the object of his interest and being "relentless" in his pursuit, as well as, even during an established relationship, continuing to try to "shake things up" or "get things moving". If his partner is not receptive to such behavior, this discourages the Aggressor, and results in his interest cooling off.

... others are largely analogical. That is, focusing on a relationship part of a relationship. Yes, sex is part of it, but that's not the socionics focus here, I think - in fact I've seen some machine translation of an article about sexual attitudes specifically, by Gulenko I think, but I'd have to search for it.

[Crispy]

His descriptions of = Aggressor, = Infantile match up with slater's Physical styles but are opposite to the Spiritual. So (assuming slater came up with reliable descriptions) Gulenko was describing romance as a physical rather than spiritual manifestation.
Maybe I should've left out the sex.

Change to:
Romance is a physical act, and not a spiritual one.

[Brilliand]

His descriptions of = Aggressor, = Infantile match up with slater's Physical styles but are opposite to the Spiritual. So (assuming slater came up with reliable descriptions) Gulenko was describing romance as a physical rather than spiritual manifestation.
Maybe I should've left out the sex.

I think the Infantile descriptions include what slater would call "spiritual aggression."

[Crispy]

I know, but since Gulenko called = Infantile (physical) and not = Aggressor (spiritual), that should mean Gulenko was concentrated on Physical rather than Spiritual aspects, at least when he came up with the names Aggressor and Infantile.

[Aiss]

His descriptions of = Aggressor, = Infantile match up with slater's Physical styles but are opposite to the Spiritual. So (assuming slater came up with reliable descriptions) Gulenko was describing romance as a physical rather than spiritual manifestation.
Maybe I should've left out the sex.

Change to:
Romance is a physical act, and not a spiritual one.

I'd suggest understanding romance styles first, then discussing slater's ideas.

I'm not entirely sure what exactly do you mean by romance as a "physical act" but not "sex". Except for treating emotions as "chemistry", I can hardly find a suitable interpretation.

I know, but since Gulenko called = Infantile (physical) and not = Aggressor (spiritual), that should mean Gulenko was concentrated on Physical rather than Spiritual aspects, at least when he came up with the names Aggressor and Infantile.

... slater's ideas are just what he named his thread, random ideas. I actually think they're pretty good but that's not a start point, it's something based on romance styles, which obviously can't take from it. It's like learning dual-type theory first, then model A, and reinterpreting because of viewing it as IM type with all its limitations.

At any rate, infantile:

This romance style is defined by focus on Ne, which is static, irrational, and extroverted, with perceptions focused on possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that an Infantile sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to "get moving" by actively thinking of variations of the present static state. This accounts for an Infantile's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person's being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even "weird" side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as "childlike". This focus leads to a sort of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by Si, so he welcomes help from others in that area.

That's the crux of the matter, I think. N/S x static/dynamic pretty much sum up the attitudes described.

[Crispy]

I'm saying IF Gulunko had in his mind Romance as Spiritual, he could have just as well said is the infantile type and is the aggressor type. But since Gulenko had Physical in his mind for Romance it came out the opposite.

EDIT: To clarify, I'm only talking about the one-word descriptors Gulenko uses for the romance styles: Infantile as the Title for Ne Ego Romance Style refers to the Ne ego's infantile physicality, not his aggressive spirituality. I'm just saying his one-word title concentrates on the physical aspect.

[1981slater]

Creation is aggression, a mental aggresion in fact: it consist of changing what already exists and bring sth new. Most people hate changes and get scared with some Ne. Try to use some Ne when surrounded by betas and gammas: they prefer to fall rater than follow your Ne. Fuck them

For instance, working with narrow minded people is disgusting and exhausting. They prefer their business to go bankrupt rather than listening to good advice. On the other hand, beta and gamma "scientists" are narrow minded too

[Krig the Viking]

Physical aggressor, spiritual infantile

Physical caregiver, spiritual victim

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental aggressor, emotional infantile

Mental caregiver, emotional victim

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

Mental victim, emotional caregiver

I just want to say again, 1981slater, having mulled this over for a few days, this is really one of the best insights I've come across in quite a while. It gives such a fuller understanding of the underlying dynamics of how relationships work, and I keep seeing ways in which it applies in real life, in my own relationships and those of people around me. Well done!

[Crispy]

Yeah being an emotional victim haunts me too Krig

[Krig the Viking]

Yeah being an emotional victim haunts me too Krig

Haha, actually I was thinking mainly of the "Mental Caregiver" part when I wrote that post, but it does haunt me, yes.

[1981slater]

I just want to say again, 1981slater, having mulled this over for a few days, this is really one of the best insights I've come across in quite a while. It gives such a fuller understanding of the underlying dynamics of how relationships work, and I keep seeing ways in which it applies in real life, in my own relationships and those of people around me. Well done!

Thank you

[Azeroffs]

I really like this. I think this fits really well.

I've always felt mentally aggressive, and it has taken a lot of restraint to not offend people and stay off sensitive topics. Even when I was younger, I always had a tendency to correct people or tell them how things "really are", and it didn't take long for me to realize people don't like that and that I have to hold my tongue and be more sensitive(maybe not enough Fi-types in my life?). I have had moments of a kind of "spiritual care-giving". If I can shift to certain thoughts, I find I often lead people to a new take on life or help them figure out more about themselves and how to approach life. Some have really appreciated it. These instances are rare tho. I don't know if I really relate to being a "physical victim." However, working with my uncle to fix up my great Aunt's house has reminded me how physically inept I can be. I can still hear my uncle saying "Let me do it." I've also had people get mad at me because I am seriously unable to make a decision on what kind of food to eat. If it's just me I'll just pick something to get the decision out of the way, but I can't/won't make a decision for others. "I don't care" is my response 95% of the time. I can be pretty emotionally infantile. There have been times where I've become hypocritical in a rage and not cared. I tend to be pretty emotionally selfish as well. If I'm angry/sad/w/e enough, I don't care how it affects you or anyone else. "This is how I feel. I can't change it." That might be more of a human trait rather than socionics one tho.

[1981slater]

A new idea: those with dominant base function ("accepting" types) have what I call "a frozen face". Those focused on their creative function ("producing" types) have a lively face. Of course, ethicals' faces are more lively than logicals'.

What do you think of this?

[Krig the Viking]

Hmm. I know that rational subtypes are supposedly thicker-skinned, while irrational subtypes tend to be more sensitive. That would correlate with your theory for rational base types, but not irrational base types.

[1981slater]

Hmm. I know that rational subtypes are supposedly thicker-skinned, while irrational subtypes tend to be more sensitive. That would correlate with your theory for rational base types, but not irrational base types.

According to my observations

Frozen face

ILE Ne
SEI Si
LII Ti
ESE Si !!!
LSI Ti
EIE Fe
IEI Ni
SLE Ti !!!
SEE Se
ILI Ni
LIE Te
ESI Fi
LSE Te
EII Fi
IEE Ne
SLI Si

Lively face

SEI Fe
ILE Ti
LII Ne
ESE Fe !!!
SLE Se !!!
IEI Fe
LSI Se
EIE Ni
SEE Fi
ILI Te
LIE Ni
ESI Se
LSE Si
EII Ne
IEE Fi
SLI Te

[The Exception]

My face tends to vary between frozen and lively. Depends on who you ask and in what situations. I tend to be more sensitive than thick-skinned. So probably more of an irrational subtype but I'm not ruling out normalizing yet because I relate to most of Gulenko's description.

[Krig the Viking]

According to my observations

Frozen face

ILE Ne
SEI Si
LII Ti
ESE Si !!!
LSI Ti
EIE Fe
IEI Ni
SLE Ti !!!
SEE Se
ILI Ni
LIE Te
ESI Fi
LSE Te
EII Fi
IEE Ne
SLI Si

Lively face

SEI Fe
ILE Ti
LII Ne
ESE Fe !!!
SLE Se !!!
IEI Fe
LSI Se
EIE Ni
SEE Fi
ILI Te
LIE Ni
ESI Se
LSE Si
EII Ne
IEE Fi
SLI Te

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that ESE and SLE don't follow the pattern you've observed?

[1981slater]

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that ESE and SLE don't follow the pattern you've observed?

Yes, they don't follow the pattern I've noticed

[717495]

Physical infantile, spiritual aggressor
Mental victim, emotional caregiver

I need to work on the "emotional caregiving" part . The other ones seem to fit great.

Physical victim, spiritual caregiver

Mental infantile, emotional aggressor

This actually appears to make even more sense.

Cool idea.

[1981slater]

I need to work on the "emotional caregiving" part . The other ones seem to fit great.

Person 1 (static): That girl lieks you
Person 2 (Te): How do you know?
Person 1: The smile, the giggles, she gave you her phone number, she sent you a picture of herself naked
Person 2: , I'm not sure, u wrong
Person 1: ...