Yeah, I relate to mine rather well. The challenger/prize hits oddly close to home, especially since it says this is about unconscious attitudes, and I think they define my pattern of behavior towards women rather well.
Yeah, I relate to mine rather well. The challenger/prize hits oddly close to home, especially since it says this is about unconscious attitudes, and I think they define my pattern of behavior towards women rather well.
The ISTp one seems about right for me. I do take stuff like that pretty seriously and people have told me that I tend to "lecture" people, even thought not very often.
„Man can do what he wants but he cannot want what he wants.“
– Arthur Schopenhauer
The Aggressor/Employer's spot on for me, though I'm probably a hair more Victim-y than the central point of that grouping; hell, anything on the Se/Ni continuum will make sense to me when sent my way and I'll know what's up
p . . . a . . . n . . . d . . . o . . . r . . . a
trad metalz | (more coming)
fits me well
The Gamma ero-styles ring true with my requirements and experiences.
Beta has definite sex appeal but the dramatics become draining.
Delta reads like a co-dependent trap/BDSM dungeon. Too much pathos.
Alpha sounds like diaper play and nanny fetishes, i.e. fucking creepy and gross.
one thing that seemed off about eii was the description here was completely foreign to me and I always related to the aggressor/ employer one the most. it could be watered down a tad for me though. its more about getting to pet a soft belly and not like some "rah submit!" thing. I'm attracted to people who are hard nuts to crack and the process of getting them to soften towards me is really gratifying. like when they let me influence them I feel like I've accomplished something. it actually means something and its genuine if its not easy to do. and in the employee description it talks about someone worthy who can withstand their quirks and thats something I take pride in proving. so there's a reciprocity.
I don't relate to any of them.
Alpha sounds like a weird, boisterous daddy-child fetish roleplay
Beta sounds like an abusive rapefest
Gamma is just creepy
Delta fits otherwise perfectly, but I don't quite relate to the teaching stuff. Sounds weird.
wtf ? thats totally foreign to me. Is it for this reason I amPseudo-Caregivers/Students: ENFp, INFj
These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendence to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.
?
"The final delusion is the belief that one has lost all delusion."
-- Maurice Chapelain
That accords with ESI push-pull dynamics described here:Originally Posted by kassie
The "conquerer" description in this list sounds more aggressive than I actually am. The idea is right though, in that I do want someone who is an equal, who isn't fragile and won't break. I don't think I'm actually sadistic though. I've made men cry, and beg, and grovel, obediently follow, and even change their beliefs to agree with me BUT the fact that they did so rather easily, and without me really doing anything (I wasn't trying to make them do anything) made them hard to respect. Sure, having someone so willing to submit to you can be a bit of a power trip, but it's ultimately unsatisfying.
With someone who is my equal, there is mutual submission, but not in a weak or grovelly way. You can be vulnerable and open and have it come from confidence and trust, rather than something gross and pitiful. I want to be able to give myself to someone AS MUCH as I want him to be mine. No upper hand, no one disadvantaged. I don't want to rule over or be ruled - I want a partnership, a team. There's always an element of competition there, challenging each other, but that's the best when you're equally matched. It's fun, often playful, and helps you both grow.
Obligatory repost:
Gulenko's Male/Female Romance Styles/Types
Source1. Female types
1.1. "Caring" woman, or a "woman-mother"
Inclined to take care of their male partner. Are attracted to the weak, but intelligent men, who are subject to it in everyday affairs. She was pleased to protect, support, cheer up. Such qualities of character that in the mass consciousness does not cause people to respect the male, the woman forgives or finds it perfectly acceptable.
1.2. Woman "Aggressor"
All the while trying to compete with men, including in erotic relationships. Inclined to irony, ridicule over the opposite sex. Likes to feel more competent than men in any business. During lovemaking expects men fawning, flashy weakness, emotional instability.
1.3. "Victimization" woman
The ideal of a woman is physically strong man, reminiscent of the super-American militants. She wants to endure his power to resist its onslaught, to feel like a victim. In the love games prefer different forms of warfare, inflames passions partner. Women of this type often are inherent masochistic traits. True, not all of them are aware of this report.
1.4. "Infantile" woman, or a "woman-daughter"
The ideal of the woman is a good and experienced, well-adapted to life the man is usually older than her age. In the presence of such men, it feels a little girl, almost all dependent on it. In the game of love he prefers psychological factor of spiritual conversation, disposing the music, to create conditions for relaxation. Above all, appreciate the indulgence and attention.
2. Men types
2.1. "Careful," man or "man-father"
Experienced and attentive to the spiritual world woman partner who knows how to position it to yourself patronizing courtship. In the game of love very much appreciates feminine tenderness and vulnerability, waiting for his admiration of life experience and skill.
2.2. Man "Aggressor"
This sociotype has a tendency to violent mastery of a woman. In the game of love loves to show fight. Can afford to rudeness, and sometimes causes women to pain, both physical and moral. Expects women subordinate force.
2.3. "Victimization" man
Idealizes the imperious woman. Adapts to its tastes, it respects the endurance and stamina. The behavior that emphasizes its dependence and obedience, then bursts out of control. In a relationship with a woman subconsciously waiting for instructions, tricks, reproaches. Do not give similar reactions, unwittingly provoking their manifestation.
2.4. "Infantile" man or "man-child"
Dependent, naive in worldly affairs, expects the business women and emotional support. Unwittingly underlines its little noticed, killings ability, failure to adapt to life's struggle. Respect to women experience and responsiveness to their concerns.
edit: derp marie just posted a better version of this in a different thread
Last edited by Crispy; 02-03-2012 at 05:46 PM.
ILI (FINAL ANSWER)
I don't really understand what this means. Is this when they stop acting like Scrooge?Aggressors/Employers: ESFp, ISFj
These types, like the conquerors, express their sexuality openly. In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life. They are won over by indirect acts of submission, and are thrilled when their love interest (in the case of the "psuedo-aggressor" type) acts unlike himself. In a partner, they are looking for their equal - someone whose solid facade they can break down piece by piece.
I want to understand how this applies but I am not sure. I tend to be kind of shy in real life but generally have set opinions about things. I generally act somewhat emotionally accommodating towards people, which doesn't necessarily reflect my inner state. In a close relationship I love being able to bitch and moan and criticize and confront.
I had this manager at work who was like a female Scrooge. She acted sort of mean but deep down she was a total sweetheart. She had this scratchy smoking voice and she made new people cry. She made me cry, but I took her seriously and worked harder and was always conscientious about her criticisms. Eventually she grew to see me as a good person, and she kind of stopped criticizing and would blame other people instead when something went wrong.
There's not much to go on here. I'm somewhat okay with an opponent, even intellectually, only that I'm not into playing games. Although they are both heavily similar, LIEs are more on the side of spontaneity and motivational drive which is a good thing.Pseudo-Aggressors/Employees: INTp, ENTj
These are types who exhibit aggressive tendencies in their everyday life, and as a result tend to carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. They typically are not comfortable with connotations of the word "victim" - implying a certain weakness, effeteness, and lack of dignity. In searching for a partner, they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking" so to speak.
Sexual expression and equality are things I prefer in women I'm attracted to. I'm not a fan of overt submission, though I'd be completely okay with subtle submission where each partner takes command of the aspects of the relationship they naturally are experts of.Aggressors/Employers: ESFp, ISFj
These types, like the conquerors, express their sexuality openly. In daily life they may tend to be rather submissive and as a result may tend to carry over these tendencies into their romantic life. They are won over by indirect acts of submission, and are thrilled when their love interest (in the case of the "psuedo-aggressor" type) acts unlike himself. In a partner, they are looking for their equal - someone whose solid facade they can break down piece by piece.
Again, I do enjoy sexual expression even in an overt way and putting up a challenge. I'm not into direct and full submission though, relationship dynamics are multifaceted to the point that I wouldn't be okay with stereotypical roles to just accept, conform and play along with. I'm not into sadistic displays of any kind of affection, or non-affection for that matter, it's psychologically unhealthy behavior, in my opinion.Conquerors: ESTp, ISTj
These are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They will express their own desire without reservation. They are won over by direct shows of submission (only after feeling that they have earned it). He will be insulted if his romantic interest gives him his title without question, and bored if the fight is too easily won. He, like the Pseudo-Aggressor and the Challenger, is questing to find his equal. Someone he can play his almost sadistic games with without "breaking."
I do like a challenge, but games can turn me off. I'm not looking for a prize to own, at least not overtly.Challengers/Trophies: INFp, ENFj
These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag. As a result, they may appear (both to others and to themselves) rather amorphous and can take on qualities of the other romantic attitudes, depending on the situation and who they are "challenging."
They may, for example, give the victim half his aggressor, the psuedo-aggressor a little victim, the caregiver a bit of his child, etc. They react best, however, to those who do not "break" as a result of their games, but grant them a level of autonomy. Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner.
Catering to someone's needs is off-putting. There are some aspects of it I'd probably enjoy but overall and eventually, the submission-dominance dynamic would push me away. What also turns me off is making someone the center of your life which the description seems to imply.Pseudo-Caregivers/Students: ENFp, INFj
These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendence to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.
No. I have the tendency to impart knowledge so definitely no. It's not something I'd want in a female partner.Teachers: ESTj, ISTp
If I were to describe this type's approach to love, it would be "serious." He approaches his love interest almost with the intention to "teach." This can quite possibly rub the object of his affection in the wrong way, possibly interpreted as condescension. Like the childlike type, he may tend to live "outside sexuality" and may have to intellectualize it in order to be comfortable. He is looking for a worthy pupil.
The intellectual exchanges would be alright to some degree, but too much cerebral activity is off-putting. The absence of direct physically-sexual initiative would make the relationship seem lacking. I can "deal" with a partner's behavior but protecting their ego(what it seems to be describing) sounds too demanding.Childlike Types: ENTp, INTj
These types seem to exist outside their own sexuality. Sex is to be metabolized psychologically for them in an almost roundabout way - as an emotional entity, or possibly even an intellectual exercise. In a partner, they are looking for someone who will deal with (and protect) their quirks and understand their sexuality on the same intellectual/emotional level.
Again, I'm not into center-of-my-life relationships, and ego protection, maternity, sympathy, insincerity & overt care are definitely turn-offs.Caregivers: ESFj, ISFp
These are those types who openly express their need to "protect" and care for their romantic interest. In conversation may often lend a sympathetic ear (which, depending on the person, may be interpreted as insincerity, but it's exactly what the Child-like type is looking for). They are looking for someone who will not only accept their paternal/maternal tendencies, but welcome and thrive on it.
On the whole, I'm not into explicit and/or extreme submission and domination. I don't support "catering" and insincere ego stroking. I'm already certain of what I want out of a relationship. That is one of a more or less equal standing where there is authentic mutual ego-building through partnership in doing activities, spontaneous and facetiously aggressive sexual expression, aiding one another in (daily) challenges, the instillation of mutual motivation to improve upon oneself, natural leadership in respective areas of expertise etc.
(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
I suppose I am somewhat maternal, but this seems to be overall caregiver-ish...rather that infantile. I'm confused.Pseudo-Caregivers/Students: ENFp, INFj
These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendence to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.
And I would hide my face in you and you would hide your face in me, and nobody would ever see us any more.
The alpha NT one is weird and I don't know if it fits. I'm not quite sure what "Sex is to be metabolized psychologically for them in an almost roundabout way - as an emotional entity, or possibly even an intellectual exercise" means exactly, but the other two sentences fit well. But the delta NF fits my IEE friend perfectly. She can be very maternal at times, but in her relationship needs to be taken care of/acknowledge/infantile'd.
Last edited by FoxOnStilts; 02-14-2012 at 02:45 PM.
If I poke the guy in the armpit and threaten him in various ways just to get on his nerves, does that make me a challenger/trophy?
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
I don't relate to the "childlike" description. I was overall agreeing with Gulenko's metaphorical namings of the Erotic Attitudes (Romance Styles), but these ones are pretty explicit descriptions.
What strikes me most is the idea of rationalization of sexuality of Alpha NT types which does not happen in my case at all, nor I am aware of Alpha NTs I know IRL doing so. In fact I observe it in many others - generally Ni valuers - and I find it odd. I don't talk much about sexuality because I don't see much to talk about, I find it instinctive and emotional, having little to do with my other activities. I separate clearly the sexual related activities from my intellectual puruits, I don't see any connnection and I may behave inconsistently accross the two. To me sexual life is a vulgar topic, as it is talking about eating and sleeping, and yeah, I prefer the approach of Si types, they don't make a big inellectual fuss out of it.
I find the idea of being openly "taken care of" by a motherly figure or other sort of authority in the field as disgusting, kinky and fancy. I don't think the corresponding style applies to Alpha SFs either. Yes, IME they are persons wo take care of and consider one's peculiarities, however that is not mental (rationalized), they do not openly express it, but it is shown in action. In fact seems to me that once Alpha SFs are asked about an obligation to take care of someone, they have a tendency to deny and quit. It is all spontaneous and goes without words. IMO Alpha SFs want rationally to be free from obligations and they are not the typical person in services like child care or nursing (rather Fi types).
You are not a Ni valuer, so get off the tribune. You are a bland naturalistic person as normal for a Ne type, deal with it.
I'm long done with people telling me what I am and what I am not here. So thanks for the gratis analysis, but sorry about my disinterest.
If you don't have anything else to offer...
(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
Hmm, strange.. I always thought alpha SFs were the archetypes of nursery teachers
This is not a comprehensive sample by any means, but I know four alpha SFs (3 ESEs and one SEI) who work in nurseries. My ESE sister is also great with children and old people and the like. I strongly dislike children and so do one IEE and one ESI friend of mine. (Though I also know one other IEE who used to work in a nursery. )
Not in The Ineffable's country full of gamma SFs.
On thing I want to know from you first: how you find the following terms to have a common archetypal root: "the nurse" VS "THE BONVIVANT"Hmm, strange.. I always thought alpha SFs were the archetypes of nursery teachers
This is not a comprehensive sample by any means, but I know four alpha SFs (3 ESEs and one SEI) who work in nurseries. My ESE sister is also great with children and old people and the like. I strongly dislike children and so do one IEE and one ESI friend of mine. (Though I also know one other IEE who used to work in a nursery. )
There are lots of fat nurses. They are fat because they eat, drink, go to parties and avoid going to the gym. From 9-17: nurse, from 17-9: bonvivant.On thing I want to know from you first: how you find the following terms to have a common archetypal root: "the nurse" VS "THE BONVIVANT"
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.
That's what I was thinking. You may now sit down and shut up.
From what I've seen of social interactions I'd group all IJs and EPs as "aggressors" and IPs and EJs correspondingly as "victims". Quite a few of the so-called 'infantiles' behave very much in an aggressor way that I can't even tell a difference. Probably because they prioritize Ji and thus focus more on their own introverted judgements - in romantic sense what they want and whom they want to pursue, while IPs and EJs act more of a 'victim' to external dynamics.
Enneagram seems to have a significant impact, too, as do one's prior experiences, confidence levels, etc. I know an ILE 3w2 who will voraciously pursue his romantic interests, e3 being one of the assertive types, and an IEI-Fe 4w3 who acts like an aggressor in the initial stages of courting - he has a sort of sporting interest in the whole process so frequently initiates and pursues though socionics sez he should be a victim. In general I don't find romancing styles to be that clear-cut in practice.
Tried throwing gauntlets at SLEs - they just pick them up and throw them back at me. Erotic styles fail... These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag.
That second sentence I can't really relate to. If somebody doesn't go well with me I don't start playing some tagging games with them.
My impression is that erotic styles like a good deal of socionics have been subjected to overly behaviorist interpretations e.g. aggressors chase victims until cornered at which time it culminates with a violent rapefest. My experience is more in line with this part - "obediently follow, and even change their beliefs to agree with me" - in that aggressors and other statics seem to test in how likely you are to just go along with their judgement and adopt their values without counter-challenging them - there is more of a psychological element to the 'chase'.
yeah, ESEs are the kind to put a priority on enjoying themselves and having fun in life, hence the name "Enthusiast" or "Bonvivant". looking up "bonvivant" in the dictionary, it's defined as "a person who lives luxuriously and enjoys good food and drink" - nothing to do w/taking care of people, it's more about making sure everyone is enjoying themselves. to me it seems like ESEs often spend too much time doing superficial things that don't hold much meaning in the long term, but of course i am their Supervisor type who values Ni.On thing I want to know from you first: how you find the following terms to have a common archetypal root: "the nurse" VS "THE BONVIVANT"
Last edited by glam; 02-05-2012 at 03:48 AM. Reason: missed the point
YES. I feel the same way.
Yeah that is true. I don't even know where some people got these ideas from, perhaps wandering the speculative fields of rationalization on this "Caregiver" potentially misguiding notion.
But what if it is a Fi thing, and not necessarily ESI? Sounds to me like that, I personally don't find any connection between that and Gulenko's original attitude, which is related to Se.YES. I feel the same way.
Ahh now I got it. Didn't have "bonvivant" in my dictionary. I still don't see how taking care of people is contradictory to having a focus on enjoying life or being ESE or SEI. These seem to be the kind of activities/jobs many of them enjoy and are good at. I never said every alpha SF loves children, but by my experience most of them enjoy being around kids and, even if they don't actively seek their company, are usually very natural and non-awkward about the situation. Which I don't see happening half as much with Fi types, especially not Fi-leading.yeah, ESEs are the kind to put a priority on enjoying themselves and having fun in life, hence the name "Enthusiast" or "Bonvivant". looking up "bonvivant" in the dictionary, it's defined as "a person who lives luxuriously and enjoys good food and drink" - nothing to do w/taking care of people, it's more about making sure everyone is enjoying themselves. to me it seems like ESEs often spend too much time doing superficial things that don't hold much meaning in the long term, but of course i am their Supervisor type who values Ni.
"The ESE's fundamental desire in life is to inspire emotional well-being. Towards that end he is always in the process of creating an uplifting atmosphere and aesthetic/physical harmony, while generally making sure that people are happy and satisfied. " / Wikisocion
Sounds like a person who'd be good at recognizing the needs (physical & emotional) of others (including children) and taking care of them, which is a pretty crucial skill to have if you work in a day care.
If making sure everyone is enjoying themselves isn't caretaking, I don't know what is.nothing to do w/taking care of people, it's more about making sure everyone is enjoying themselves."
I do like odd things ("WORSHIP THE PHALLUS AND CHANT IT'S THOUSAND NAMES") some of which at first sight don't seem to have anything to do with sexuality ("LIE DOWN AND DON'T LOOK LIKE YOU'RE ENJOYING IT! BEING AN IDLE SEX OBJECT IS YOUR SOLE DUTY!"). But I still have no clue what that really means and how it should manifest.Childlike Types: ENTp, INTj
These types seem to exist outside their own sexuality. Sex is to be metabolized psychologically for them in an almost roundabout way - as an emotional entity, or possibly even an intellectual exercise. In a partner, they are looking for someone who will deal with (and protect) their quirks and understand their sexuality on the same intellectual/emotional level.
Could it be something about me phasing out to more-than-three-dimentional world during sex?
Or teasing a partner in ecstacy with puzzling questions and enjoying as the partner is unable to concentrate? Or demanding stillness while still inside someone as if to meditate in and with another being as one?
Wait, these actually are pretty quirky traits!
I also find myself in beta aggressor stuff which is pretty obvious in it's explanation.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Eh, they are certainly an improvement over past erotic attitude descriptions I've read.
mmm i'm not sure, but i don't think making sure people are enjoying themselves is necessarily "caretaking" - for example if i'm at a party and someone offers me a cigarette or a drink or something in an attempt to involve me more in the fun (which has happened to me w/ESEs) i don't feel like that is caretaking, at least not in the way a nurse or someone in a similar role would caretake.
i could be wrong here, but i don't really see Alpha SFs as the coddling types, even though i know they do "take care" of their Alpha NT duals... i think what Ineffable wrote in his earlier post is probably accurate.
I still think taking care of others' emotions by offering a cigarette is caretaking. I don't know who brought the nurses up, but I was talking about nursery teachers.If I was to hire a person to take care of a large group of children I'd probably look for someone with strong Fe/Si, as those are pretty useful skills for the job.
"Nursery teachers" and "emotional needs" are a pretty elegant way of getting out the mess you caught yourself in. The initial premise was different and because I'm Fi-PoLR, I got an excuse to not let you get away with thatI still think taking care of others' emotions by offering a cigarette is caretaking. I don't know who brought the nurses up, but I was talking about nursery teachers..
Ehh, I'm not quite following. Your premise was that Alphe SFs are not "the typical person in services like child care or nursing (rather Fi types)". My reply was that my personal experience was contrary to that (as everyone who I know to be working in child care is Alpha SF (except for one IEE) and my Fi leading friends claim they basically hate children). Now explain what exactly is the mess I'm caught in?"Nursery teachers" and "emotional needs" are a pretty elegant way of getting out the mess you caught yourself in. The initial premise was different and because I'm Fi-PoLR, I got an excuse to not let you get away with that
I find that alpha SFs are just enough retards to get along great with children.
And by that I do not mean to say I find children or alpha SFs stupid. On the contrary, I often find them having a way with acknowledging the sheer amount of things unknown = wisdom.
Then again ESEs have real retarded analysis on things at times ime.
“I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
