i know these have been discussed a million times, but i'm curious about the current general consensus/take on them.
answer poll, discuss your answer, etc.
they do a good job of describing sexual behavior
they do a good job of describing romantic/"woo"-ing behavior
they create labels for the interplay of perceiving functions regardless of the type of relationship
they describe something else not listed
they are useless and describe nothing
other
they are useless and describe nothing
Mostly because I'm single and don't care to change it atm.
So much for me tapping into my Ne side.
Nothing in particular really. I'm just me. My education on socionics though is still a work in progress. I'll probably be more confident where I fall sooner or later.Originally Posted by Ashton
They are applicable..evidence may be not be explicit though since everyone is raised differently. I think in one-on-one situations they become most apparent, if indeed types have functional needs.
1,000 post...
Meaningless objects with meaningful associations..
Last edited by EyeSeeCold; 02-23-2011 at 04:31 AM.
(i)NTFS
An ILI at rest tends to remain at rest
and an ILI in motion is probably not an ILI
♫ 31.9FM KICE Radio ♫ *56K Warning*
My work on Inert/Contact subtypes
Socionics Visual Identification(V.I.) Database
Socionics Tests Database
Comprehensive List of Socionics Sites
Fidei Defensor
idk how it is for Ne-Creatives, but I think the following video is a pretty good depiction of stereotypical Ne-Base behavior during love-making (don't worry, there's nothing explicit in this scene-- just implied).um...for those who think the erotic roles describe sexual or romantic behavior, how would you describe this likely playing out for infantiles? i have yet to see a serious summarization of "sexual infantilism" that makes any sense to me argh.
...it's in quotes because I originally posted it in another thread.
Maybe it'll help you, maybe it won't.
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
LOL who is the little old lady trying to poison everyone
The landlady. The whole movie is a riot. Except for the parts with Carol Channing; she's annoying.LOL who is the little old lady trying to poison everyone
The part I was specifically pointing out is in the middle, from about 4:00 to 5:35. Millie and Freddy (name? may be remembering wrong) are "parking."
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASE
I think they describe an aspect of close relationships. They are present in more than just romantic relationships, though. I would include good friendships. I have definitely seen how all of the "erotic" attitudes play out in my own friendships. I don't think its exactly what some of the descriptions make it out to be but it's definitely there.
“No psychologist should pretend to understand what he does not understand... Only fools and charlatans know everything and understand nothing.” -Anton Chekhov
http://kevan.org/johari?name=Bardia0
http://kevan.org/nohari?name=Bardia0
Just like the Reinen dichotomies, the names are misleading and they're taken too seriously sometimes, but there's something there anyway. I actually prefer them to the Reinen dichotomies but neither are great. Also, "infantile" means "Ne/seeks Si". With some extrapolation about what that could look like. "Caretaker" means "Si/seeks Ne". Just like with the Reinen dichotomies, it might be better to look actually at the functions instead of creating new redundant and misleading classification systems. But Ne is variety, creativity, trying new things. Everyone likes to do that to some extent, so it's more about focus or priorities or trends. Creativity, physical sensation, intensity, etc. Everone wants all, but which IE matches up with which of those?
Having said that, I think what of it is relevant is visible in all romantic/wooing behavior, including sexual behavior. What's always annoying about this discussion is that we all think the sex we have is completely different (and dramatically better) from the sex everyone else is having. It's pretty silly.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I agree, the EA seem to play out in any close relationship, it's just an observable aspect of Super-id at play, Gulenko just took it a step further by explaining how it manifests in relationships (thought I'd say the "erotic" label is a bit counterproductive as it only focuses on one type of close relationship)
yes, this
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
for me:
sexual- yes, kinda
romantic/friendship - no
slater's extension should be taken into consideration.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
they're mostly just misleading. they create the false impression that P functions are more important in determining sexual behavior than J functions.
yeah, this remains my take. if they're based on the ego and superid i don't see why they would only play out in romantic situations since these functions come into play all the time. they have helped me conceptualize what "Ne ego/Si superid," etc., look like, so i wouldn't say they're completely useless, but they've also been confusing because of the "erotic" label, which i agree is counterproductive.
i think slater's extension is potentially pretty cool and interesting but i really don't know how it actually plays out without more information like examples or descriptions - if this kind of stuff is out there, i haven't seen it, but i'd like to.
ha, this actually made me stop & think about that. This is what I came up with:
sensation
ecstasy
compassion
structure?
creativity
intensity
passion
reaching a goal
Te & Ti were the hardest to come up with. lol
Thumbs-up for Starfall's descriptions.
And ... there must be something to this, because the clip from Thoroughly Modern Millie made me wanna pack up my vag and go home: antithesis of sexy to me.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Just so I know we're clear...Millie is the IEE...idk what Freddie is...
Millie=Me
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASE
Haha, no worries here. But I do mean really, truly, incredibly not sexy to me, none of it, which I find amusing to no end.Just so I know we're clear...Millie is the IEE...idk what Freddie is...
Millie=Me
I guess there's nothing remotely NSFW that I can link to that I do find sexy.Starfall had a link to something a while back that she thought looked like a good representation of Beta sex, and I agree.
Last edited by golden; 02-25-2011 at 05:41 AM.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Yep. Of course I wouldn't wanna say that THIS is exactly what Beta sex would have to look like. But ... yeah. It works.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
x
My idea is simple: not only do relationships (romantic and non-romantic) involve the interaction of one side of our "personas" (physical, for instance), but all our four dimensions (physical, mental, emotional and spiritual) meet each other. When it comes to interquadra relations, all of them fit. In fact. duality is the best relationship because duals protect weak points of the partner (infantile-caregiver) and stimulate the strong (aggressor-victim).
The physical interaction (sexual and non sexual) is key in relationships. Alpha NTs hate (I think) cooking, cleaning, etc. which is why they need alpha SFs caregiving behaviour. A relationship, of course, depends on more things.
The spiritual aggressors throw possible scenarios in which the current situation may evolve or should be driven to. Si egos love this behaviour. Se do not accept changes changes easily and prefer the Ni approach.
Etc etc, there are lots of threads in which the equilibrium between functions is explained.
Last edited by 1981slater; 02-25-2011 at 09:06 AM.
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Spiritual aggresor (Ne): jokes about absurd things
Spiritual caregiver (Ni): understand them but prefers to refrain from doing so
Spiritual infantile (Se): does not understand them and gets angry
Spiritual victim (Si): "that's so weird...I like it!"
ILE "Searcher"
Socionics: ENTp
DCNH: Dominant
Enneagram: 7w6 "Enthusiast"
MBTI: ENTJ "Field Marshall" or ENTP "Inventor"
Astrological sign: Aquarius
To learn, read. To know, write. To master, teach.
Hm, there is something to be said about the role of rational functions, but as for the purely physical aspect, that's the irrational part.
Yeah, the whole film is pretty darn Delta, I think...maybe a little bit of Gamma/Alpha. No Beta (good for me, bad for you
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASE
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
