Results 1 to 34 of 34

Thread: Communication Styles vs Romancing styles?

  1. #1
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Communication Styles vs Romancing styles?

    Originally Posted by Igxfl
    Well, there are the communication styles, based off the rational functions.
    http://www.slideconsulting.com/Commu...groupings.html
    Something I realized, looking at this: The Romance styles are based on Irrational Ego functions, whether as Base or Creative functions.

    However, the Communication Styles are based on the Rational function in the Base or Demonstrative slots.

    Not quite sure what to think of this...Why did Gulenko do it that way? Rather than grouping the types based on shared Rational Ego functions?

    Or, what if the Romance styles were based on the Base and Demonstrative functions instead of both the Ego functions? Then the Aggressors would be SLE, SEE, LSE, and ESE. Victims would be IEI, ILI, EII, and LII. Caregivers would be SEI, SLI, ESI, and LSI. And Infantiles would be ILE, IEE, LIE, and EIE.

    That would mean one each of Aggressor, Victim, Caregiver, and Infantile in each Quadra...Boy, would that turn everything sideways or upside-down or something...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  2. #2
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Wow, the type descriptions on that site are maybe the worst I've ever read!

    As far as the justification for Gulenko's erotic attitudes, for whatever reason he decided that judicious/decisive was a good demarcation line and from there went on to claim that sensors typically seem to do something for intuitives on a more concrete level (showing initiative or care) and intuitives seem to have a more receptive role. I'm not sure why romantic attitudes couldn't be discussed from a merry/serious perspective or whatever, but either way I tend to think of them as inhabiting a rather intuitively sensible but justifiably skeptical part of socionics terrain.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  3. #3
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  4. #4
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.
    can you say why?

    i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.

  5. #5
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.
    What makes less sense to me is the types where the irrational function is the Creative function. In my limited observation, ESE's can resemble Aggressors, ESI's resemble Caregivers, EII's resemble Victims... And on through the other types.

    In other words, I think it kind of makes more sense, in a way, to group according to Base and Demonstrative functions.

    But, what do I know...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  6. #6
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    ESEs very much seem like caregivers to me, and EIIs very much seem infantile. I think it's just specifically about sensing and intuition. I don't think it matters if it's a the creative function.
    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.

  7. #7
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I just realized that it was Gulenko (apparently) who came up with the Romance styles. So, is it inconsistent of him, then, to group his Communication style types differently? Are his Communication styles more theoretical? Or did he base them off of extensive observation and surveying of various representatives of each type?
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  8. #8
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why would it be inconsistent? Maybe communication styles are affected by different things than romance styles. Why would everything work the same way?
    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.

  9. #9
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

    SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
    LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
    and so on.

    Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

    Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  10. #10
    aka Slacker Slacker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    North Korea
    TIM
    IEE
    Posts
    8,819
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why? What's the vale in further categorizing them?
    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.

  11. #11
    Snomunegot munenori2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Kansas
    TIM
    Introvert sp/sx
    Posts
    7,739
    Mentioned
    30 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    can you say why?

    i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.
    That wasn't exactly what I had in mind, the "empty" receptivity part, but I couldn't think of how exactly to describe the other half of it. That and the bias, probably my bias, of sensors generally being the one to be aware of their own sexual interest first and then to, you know, initiate.
    Moonlight will fall
    Winter will end
    Harvest will come
    Your heart will mend

  12. #12
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    Why would it be inconsistent? Maybe communication styles are affected by different things than romance styles. Why would everything work the same way?
    All good questions. And maybe they are affected by different things.

    But then, for instance: As IEE, my "communication style" is "passionate." But what if I find "sincere" to be a better descriptor of how I communicate?

    Which all brings me back to the original question in my original thread ("Rational Ego Function Styles"): Why are there no "groups" based on shared Rational Ego functions? Are there really that unimportant that no one has bothered to observe them extensively? And, would it be worthwhile for someone to do so?

    I know, 1981slater came up with a popular system already, expanding to include the Rational elements, using the same "romance style" terms. And that's a great start. But why not differentiate?

    Maybe the Rational elements might be looked at in the context of working relationships, for instance. A sort of, what types make the best business partners sort of thing.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  13. #13
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Slacker View Post
    Why? What's the vale in further categorizing them?
    I don't know. I'm just in that sort of mood right now, I guess.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  14. #14
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    i do think it might be interesting to examine the rational functions further as slater did but i'm kind of wary about suggestions to change whats already pretty established (having EII-LSE be victim-aggressor, for example).

  15. #15
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    i do think it might be interesting to examine the rational functions further as slater did but i'm kind of wary about suggestions to change whats already pretty established (having EII-LSE be victim-aggressor, for example).
    Yeah, I know...really. I was more just being hypothetical with the idea of rearranging the Romantic types. But, it was to make a point...Just don't ask me what that point was...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  16. #16
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    EII-LSE victim aggressor is just fuel for the fire that most EIIs are trying to put out to begin with.

  17. #17
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    Yeah, I know...really. I was more just being hypothetical with the idea of rearranging the Romantic types. But, it was to make a point...Just don't ask me what that point was...
    i think i have an idea of where you're coming from. i guess what it comes down to is that every single one of the 16 types will approach things like romance and communication differently based on functional arrangement including the position of all of their functions - base, creative, demonstrative, etc. and the theories placed on top of that like the erotic roles and stuff are extras outside of the model that make more categories to help with conceptualizing things. they're...supplemental? so you could keep creating categories to narrow them down further if you really wanted to but it isn't necessary. does that make sense?

    idk. i think this thread needs Ti or sth. lol.

  18. #18
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    idk. i think this thread needs Ti or sth. lol.
    yeah, really...but then, that would probably spoil my fun...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  19. #19
    stray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    864
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I don't see why EIE and LIE would be infantile either. goes hand in hand with . It's out of place to see one toss out a singular direction or need in favor of something Ne-like. And LIIs and EIIs generally do not goad or challenge people in a way Victim does. Some EIIs might be meek, but that's what a Victim is. A Victim could be cocky or purposely play a lot of games.. what they want is someone to meet the challenge (theoretically speaking).

  20. #20
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    can you say why?

    i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.
    Hm... thinking about it further, I see the Romantic Attitudes as hinging on /. knows what it wants and pursues it (Aggressor). finds the physiological imbalance and corrects it (Caregiver). and are receptive to these behaviors due to being their complementary functions. That's not to say that and do nothing for their duals; but I don't really see how it relates to Caregiver/Infantile and Aggressor/Victim, unless you want to argue that Infantiles display childlike behavior.
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  21. #21
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    Hm... thinking about it further, I see the Romantic Attitudes as hinging on /. knows what it wants and pursues it (Aggressor). finds the physiological imbalance and corrects it (Caregiver). and are receptive to these behaviors due to being their complementary functions. That's not to say that and do nothing for their duals; but I don't really see how it relates to Caregiver/Infantile and Aggressor/Victim, unless you want to argue that Infantiles display childlike behavior.
    hmm, ok. i'm not really sure how the roles are supposed to play out according to theory. (i wonder if gulenko's article itself is around anywhere?) a lot of my understanding is based on my own experience which means i've kind of molded it to myself and i don't know if it holds. like, does what you've said mean that sensors are always the initiators? and why would that be? does it matter whether the irrational ego function is introverted or extroverted? like, i guess i see infantiles as more initiative-taking than caregivers because Ne is an extroverted function. or if not, why wouldn't it have to do with extroversion at all?

    sorry, pianosinger, i wasn't sure how to organize my thoughts well enough to make a new thread...i could delete this post later.

  22. #22
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    But this page is more specific to romantic attitudes: http://www.slideconsulting.com/Eroti...groupings.html
    yeah, these aren't bad at all.

  23. #23
    So fluffeh. Cuddly McFluffles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    TIM
    ESI
    Posts
    2,780
    Mentioned
    28 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    hmm, ok. i'm not really sure how the roles are supposed to play out according to theory. (i wonder if gulenko's article itself is around anywhere?) a lot of my understanding is based on my own experience which means i've kind of molded it to myself and i don't know if it holds. like, does what you've said mean that sensors are always the initiators? and why would that be? does it matter whether the irrational ego function is introverted or extroverted? like, i guess i see infantiles as more initiative-taking than caregivers because Ne is an extroverted function. or if not, why wouldn't it have to do with extroversion at all?

    sorry, pianosinger, i wasn't sure how to organize my thoughts well enough to make a new thread...i could delete this post later.
    I don't have time for a lengthy post at the moment. This might help, though. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=21353
    Johari/Nohari

    "Tell someone you love them today, because life is short; shout it at them in German, because life is also terrifying."

    Fruit, the fluffy kitty.

  24. #24
    RSV3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

    SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
    LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
    and so on.

    Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

    Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...
    I'm not sure about the hard and soft approach, but on a somewhat related note, I personally subdivide one's romance style into a primary romance style and secondary romance style--based on (1) whether that person is static or dynamic, and (2) the person's subtype strength.

  25. #25
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis View Post
    I don't have time for a lengthy post at the moment. This might help, though. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=21353
    um, i'm curious what about that thread you think might help when you have the time, if you don't mind. there are a fair number of threads around about the erotic roles. do you think i'm an aggressor or something?

    Quote Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
    I'm not sure about the hard and soft approach, but on a somewhat related note, I personally subdivide one's romance style into a primary romance style and secondary romance style--based on (1) whether that person is static or dynamic, and (2) the person's subtype strength.
    is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?

  26. #26
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post


    is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?
    yeah, I'm curious about this, too.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  27. #27
    Haikus
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    MI
    TIM
    IEI-Ni
    Posts
    10,060
    Mentioned
    223 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well I am very victim-y I guess.

    I've been told this all my life. "You play the victim." "Omg you're such a little victim." "That sounds like a victim." "Why do you act like such a baby victim all the time?"

    VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM.

    I guess it's true. =) But it's not like I can help who I am and what romantic/erotic style I prefer. ((haha i'm doing it again)) Because I like hot as hell estp boys throat fucking me.

  28. #28
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pianosinger View Post
    What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

    SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
    LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
    and so on.

    Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

    Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...
    Another idea: What about "active" and "passive"?
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  29. #29
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ashton View Post
    Yes, I have scanned through that and am in the process of reading further.

    It does divide the types up more, like I was looking for. But, not in the way I would have expected (by Base function or by Creative function). But, I will certainly be looking at it and considering it more to see if it makes sense to me.
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

  30. #30
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,635
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's a basic misnomer which is the source of much misunderstanding when we deal with erotic types, namely that they indeed were ideated as erotic types, not romance style. For anything purely sexual, the perceiving function seems an appropriate starting point, since it's what gives people direct access to the "physical" realm. For "romantic" styles, then I believe the base function generally takes over.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  31. #31
    RSV3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    190
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    um, i'm curious what about that thread you think might help when you have the time, if you don't mind. there are a fair number of threads around about the erotic roles. do you think i'm an aggressor or something?



    is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?
    I don't have any links other than to other threads on here when I've brought it up, but I'll try to summarize the theoretical basis.

    Romance styles, as Gulenko defined them, are nothing more than a manifestation or characteristic of the ego block, in particular the irrational element in the ego block. Thus the same analysis that applies when comparing any other characteristic(s) of a particular block of Model A also applies equally to romance styles. As such, you cannot consider the ego block in isolation. There is no reason to doubt that a romance style would also not manifest from the super-ego block's irrational element.

    With respect to information metabolism, there is a major divide between static elements and dynamic elements: they'll either be in the mental block or the vital block. As such, competition will never be between a dynamic and static element; however, the two static irrational elements are always in competition: the more the person uses one, the less the person uses the other; so whenever you are examining a manifestation of the ego block, you have to also consider the competing super-ego block. Now, it's a given that the ego is the dominant and preferred information metabolism pathway, which is why the ego block's irrational element constitutes the primary romance style. In certain situations however, the super-ego block's romance style can also manifest--this depends on a number of factors. One's secondary romance style will have a more significant role the stronger the person's rational subtype is, and vise versa, the secondary romance style will play a more minimal role the stronger the person's irrational subtype is.

    Statics will always be a combination of aggressor and infantile; dynamics will always be a combination of victim and caregiver. Here's a link to a crude illustration of this I made a long time ago, ignore the big circle on the left and just look at the two smaller circles on the right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=13346

  32. #32
    fka lungs ashlesha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    TIM
    Fi/Te 641 sp/sx
    Posts
    12,630
    Mentioned
    635 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RSV3 View Post
    I don't have any links other than to other threads on here when I've brought it up, but I'll try to summarize the theoretical basis.

    Romance styles, as Gulenko defined them, are nothing more than a manifestation or characteristic of the ego block, in particular the irrational element in the ego block. Thus the same analysis that applies when comparing any other characteristic(s) of a particular block of Model A also applies equally to romance styles. As such, you cannot consider the ego block in isolation. There is no reason to doubt that a romance style would also not manifest from the super-ego block's irrational element.

    With respect to information metabolism, there is a major divide between static elements and dynamic elements: they'll either be in the mental block or the vital block. As such, competition will never be between a dynamic and static element; however, the two static irrational elements are always in competition: the more the person uses one, the less the person uses the other; so whenever you are examining a manifestation of the ego block, you have to also consider the competing super-ego block. Now, it's a given that the ego is the dominant and preferred information metabolism pathway, which is why the ego block's irrational element constitutes the primary romance style. In certain situations however, the super-ego block's romance style can also manifest--this depends on a number of factors. One's secondary romance style will have a more significant role the stronger the person's rational subtype is, and vise versa, the secondary romance style will play a more minimal role the stronger the person's irrational subtype is.

    Statics will always be a combination of aggressor and infantile; dynamics will always be a combination of victim and caregiver. Here's a link to a crude illustration of this I made a long time ago, ignore the big circle on the left and just look at the two smaller circles on the right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=13346
    this is interesting...but i think accepting it would require a significant shift in how i think of types. like the role function being sort of a secondary base, demonstrative being a secondary HA, etc. intuitively i kind of like it, but i wonder how this sort of thing would be observed and what it would mean for typing and relationships.

    the idea of Se and Ne occupying the same "space" is what i was trying to get at with my previous post re: initiation. i don't see how Ne could be the passive or receptive side.

  33. #33
    I'm a Ti-Te! Skeptic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    US
    TIM
    ILI
    Posts
    522
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves View Post
    Well I am very victim-y I guess.

    I've been told this all my life. "You play the victim." "Omg you're such a little victim." "That sounds like a victim." "Why do you act like such a baby victim all the time?"

    VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM.

    I guess it's true. =) But it's not like I can help who I am and what romantic/erotic style I prefer. ((haha i'm doing it again)) Because I like hot as hell estp boys throat fucking me.
    congrats
    Quote Originally Posted by erotic groupings View Post
    they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking"
    Hell to the yeah


    But really now, we can do better than 'childcare' and 'rape' because those aren't exactly how I see people courting one another.
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
    |
    To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

  34. #34
    not gonna be around as much anymore
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    TIM
    C-IEE
    Posts
    1,258
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by laghlagh View Post
    the idea of Se and Ne occupying the same "space" is what i was trying to get at with my previous post re: initiation. i don't see how Ne could be the passive or receptive side.
    Yeah. As Ne-Base, I was definitely the "aggressor" in my dating relationships. I was the typically the one who showed the clear interest, who was "pushy" when necessary, who took the initiative...
    My life's work (haha):
    http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
    Input, PLEASEAnd thank you

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •