u seem obsessed w/ periods lately...Originally Posted by Parkster
u seem obsessed w/ periods lately...
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
k dont wanna b mean
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I just watched the whole video (both parts) and read through this entire thread. Based on what I've seen I'm going to go with EII for baby. It seemed like baby was supervising hkkmr throughout most of the video and in this thread. The fact that he got along better with April rather than glam makes EII even more apparent. I remember woof saying before that anything insulting coming from an ILE is almost always unintentional, so I hope that put things in perspective.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
Does it not strike anyone as odd that the way I’m reacting to hkkmr and the way the Delta NFs in this thread (Raver, fenryrr, WorkaholicsAnon) are reacting to him is so completely different? And, in fact, they seem to exemplify exactly the sort of understanding, diplomacy, and agreeableness that hkkmr seems to value in his duals/illusionaries? When he’s describing-creatives, what he’s actually describing is Mr. Rogers -- Delta NFs. I can’t imagine a Beta NF being all that thrilled about being seen the way hkkmr describes them.
Also, am I the only one who sees hkkmr’s conception of Beta and Delta as the complete reverse of the general consensus on these quadras? He sees Betas as the far more peace-loving quadra, and Deltas as more aggressive. His impression of SLE -- someone who goes "I'll never talk to you again, you don't care about me" when they don’t like someone, and “expects a high standard of decorum, grace and charm in her friends” – is nothing like any SLE I know.
He interprets what I say hyper-literally, with no comprehension or appreciation for dramatic effect or color (the
Some of you might be wondering why I’m getting so hung up on this. It’s simply because literally nothing about the EII typing makes any sense! Neither in terms of intertype relations nor functional make-up. I don’t understand how people are seeing me as Si-valuing, or Se-PoLR, or Te-dual seeking. You’ll notice that I have no problem at all with the SEI typings. That at least has me in a Merry > Serious quadra, and doesn't turn my intertype relations into complete nonsense. I also would have little problem with an ILI suggestion – that at least still has me at-dual seeking, and
-dominant. (Although, I think I’m allergic to
, lol). Heck, I even said IEE would be a better fit than EII.
Also, I want to throw this into the game. I wrote these blurbs on the Victim/Aggressor (which I redefined as Conqueror/Prize) way back, based on my own experiences. They’re stereotypical and overgeneralized, but I still identify with a lot of it:
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."
Challengers/Prize: 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.Can people really imagine an EII identifying with these?The Victim will at first put up a fight. He will build simultaneously a feeling of tension and comfort between himself and his partner. The Aggressor must undertake these challenges with grace under fire. She must never show anger. Must never show weakness of will or affection. Most importantly, she must not break under the strain of the tension her partner is building. In fact, must be comfortable and at home with the suspense - excited by it, even. This tension will build to an almost sadistic and animalistic apex. When the suspense becomes suddenly unbearable, the Victim will at once soften to his partner's advances. Will say by word or by gesture: "I am yours." And will submit himself to his partner's appetite and allow himself to be entirely vulnerable, such that the purest form of intimacy can be achieved. The Victim's greatest pleasure is to see how happy he is making his Aggressor. The intimacy will build until climax.
Then all cools for a while. Warm, affectionate feelings remain, but the gauntlet is thrown down once again to be scaled once more.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
No.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
@Baby
fwiw, I don't respond well to the way hkkmr 'argues', either. It often feels too much like he's going off on a monologue. He also doesn't seem interested in figuring out where a misunderstanding might have occurred and adjusting for it, instead just continuing onto whatever path his mind was pre-set on. And I've had consistent problems with him taking things out of context, and then adding in things as if I, or the other person, was arguing those additions rather than what they were actually arguing about. Arguing with him requires being decent enough at logical connections and patience to sit there and pull his monologues apart to find/show him the errors of context/interpretation made...which I'll never have the ability/patience for. I've found that it's just easier for me to not even bother engaging him in even the simplest of conversation, because even simple ones turn into some bullshit non-contextually related monologue.
(note: this is not to suggest in any way that I'm "better" at arguing or other, I have plenty of faults. But it most definitely feels like Ti polr hits when he does this shit.... in that it requires extended ability/valuing working with Ti just to have a conversation with the dude.)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Imo, IEI are a bit different in this respect from the rest of the Beta Quadra and the diplomats of the quadra. Imo XLE's have a high standard for decorum, grace, charm while at the same time easily offending others. I think also that EII/ESI are also very diplomatic, kind, friendly as well. I think all the IXFX can be easy to like individuals. What I was describing was how I admire Glam and the IEI's I've known and not saying that no other type are like this. I still think you can be IEI, you're everything that I would say about Glam and April as well, both people quite dear to me!
It's interesting that you interpret me so literally. I was not being literal at all. Of course I recognized a conflict was brewing, but I was trying to be diplomatic and set it aside so we can be peaceful again.He interprets what I say hyper-literally, with no comprehension or appreciation for dramatic effect or color (theWhat I was trying to express was my lack of desire for a conflict and that I don't think there should have been a conflict and that this conflict that's occurring is not important.
I'm not sure what I can do or say to get past this. Starfall said the thing that I really wanted to say and a lot more clearly then I will ever do.
I'm not going to talk about Baby's type as it's not important for me to type him and I've never consider my type opinions important except as a hypothesis to be investigated.
I think I should however answer a few questions.
Baby was diplomatic and agreeable. I don't think my description of Glam and why I like her and other IEI's has anything to do with your type.
I think quasi's are pretty similar in many ways.
I think what threw me about your response was that you kind of ignored all theIt's interesting that you interpret me so literally. I was not being literal at all. Of course I recognized a conflict was brewing, but I was trying to be diplomatic and set it aside so we can be peaceful again.
AAnd probably responded in kind. Okay I'm not going to hark on about you being LXE anymore, lol. Maybe it's just because we're both dudes. But even the male SLEs I know are pretty skilled at reciprocating good feelings for other guys in a socially acceptable fashion. They're the ones who make up nicknames or complex handshakes/greetings, and pull it off while still maintaining their manliness.
hkkmr, I appreciate you saying this. Just like Starfall, I never had any issues with you either. As I said above, I like you and think you're interesting and enjoy your insights. But in the discussion that just happened, I felt you weren't listening to me. I know you said you didn't want to talk about my type, but I'm confused if it's even possible for anyone to disagree with you and still remain IEI in your eyes?-PoLR. Can't it just simply be a matter of disagreement? Does it have to be Socionics-related?
When Gilly first came to the forum, we actually had a bit of a spat (I think it was about Thoreau, lol). At the time, he thought I was EII and hitting his PoLR (he typed himself as ILE at the time). The reality was that I was actually wrong about Thoreau's type, and Gilly was probably right, and I was just too stubborn to listen to his arguments. (I realized this while reading Walden about a year afterwards and discovering how. goddamn. boring. I found it, lol. I had thought he was some intuitive type based on his mystical leanings, but Gilly had typed him SLI or somesuch.) It was just a transitory disagreement. Time passed. Things blew over. Now Gilly is probably one of my favorite people on this forum and I don't think he feels like I supervise him or anything. Not every communication problem is Socionics-related.
You said you already decided I was EII before we met. It seems like you essentially went in predisposed to see the differences between me and glam and the similarities with the EIIs that you know. We tend to see what we want to see. I've tried to give ample evidence on why EII just doesn't fit but it feels like nothing I say really can sway you now that you've decided to see me as EII.
EDIT: I wrote much of this BEFORE I read your recent responses, hkkmr. So I don't feel as heated or as offended as before and don't feel the need to drag it on any further so I'm cutting the rest of it.
Last edited by Animal; 05-12-2012 at 02:10 AM.
Thanks ann, that's pretty much exactly how I felt about the whole exchange. (See above.) Although it's kind of hard to think it's Ti-related for me. I never have disagreements like this with ILEs. Just to be sure my concept of an ILE is actually an ILE and not some other type, this dude is ILE, right? Because, if so, I get along with these sorts of people really well and it's what I thought hkkmr was more like in person.
Yeah, that was me, lol. I deleted the original threads, so I guess people started to think they were just translations from one of the Russians, lol. Those descriptions basically describe my most intense, satisfying relationships.
Last edited by Animal; 05-12-2012 at 01:34 AM.
I think people get the wrong idea of me sometimes. I think a lot of people think I'm like a pit bull or something growling. When I'm just a puppy jumping around yipping with a smile. Of course if I get whacked I will bite and hulk out. Anyways I wasn't very offended at what you said, but a lot of other members were going at me as well which made me point it out.hkkmr, I appreciate you saying this. Just like Starfall, I never had any issues with you either. As I said above, I like you and think you're interesting and enjoy your insights. But in the discussion that just happened, I felt you weren't listening to me. I know you said you didn't want to talk about my type, but I'm confused if it's even possible for anyone to disagree with you and still remain IEI in your eyes?
I think I'm a lot easier IRL, because I generally got a martini in my hand and I am having a merry time.
My writing is also quite a bit different then my verbalization, as my writing is more formal, biting and not as pleasant and I try to cover more points. At work I'm a different person as well, because I am a pitbull there, think ornery chef in the kitchen.
Jazz legend Diana Krall (ESTj).
Does she look like your dual or conflictor, Baby?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Yeah, I definitely think talking online and in person can be really different. In this case, though, I don't think it's that people find your online manner unpleasant. I can definitely see how your online voice can be a little ornery or bulldoggish sounding, but that doesn't really bother me much. (In fact, I quite like people who express things strongly.) Rather, what I think people are bothered by is that it feels like you don't listen to your collocutor. It often feels like you're using conversation solely as a conceit to put your own opinions on display and hear yourself talk, and are bored/indifferent to what the other person is saying. (Not saying that's the case, but that's how it comes across, because you tend to brush off the other person's points, and just talk about what you want to talk about, which often isn't particularly relevant to what the other person was saying.) Here, watch this. This is what that conversation felt like from my end (from 0:14 onward)I think people get the wrong idea of me sometimes. I think a lot of people think I'm like a pit bull or something growling. When I'm just a puppy jumping around yipping with a smile. Of course if I get whacked I will bite and hulk out. Anyways I wasn't very offended at what you said, but a lot of other members were going at me as well which made me point it out.
I think I'm a lot easier IRL, because I generally got a martini in my hand and I am having a merry time.
My writing is also quite a bit different then my verbalization, as my writing is more formal, biting and not as pleasant and I try to cover more points. At work I'm a different person as well, because I am a pitbull there, think ornery chef in the kitchen.
To be fair, though, I think you do listen most of the time. You just often go into this "monologue mode" (as ann put it). I don't think this is Socionic-related, and certainly not anything
Aw, is she really ESTj? I just looked her up on some interviews and she seems so chill and laid back. I don't think she's my dual, but it's hard to see her conflicting with anyone.Jazz legend Diana Krall (ESTj).
Does she look like your dual or conflictor, Baby?She has a really unusual alto voice. Very smooth and silky.
Here is Ledisi, my favorite currently living jazz singer. I love the way she kills it on this song (especially when she goes up the octave towards the end -- holy shit, I get chills!):
Last edited by Animal; 05-13-2012 at 03:23 AM.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
I often don't feel people listens to me or understand me, but I react to it differently then some other people, I try to explain my position again but often in a different way. Ultimately my mode of interaction is different and it's probably somewhat socionics related.(Not saying that's the case, but that's how it comes across, because you tend to brush off the other person's points, and just talk about what you want to talk about, which often isn't particularly relevant to what the other person was saying.) Here, watch this. This is what that conversation felt like from my end (from 0:14 onward)
To be fair, though, I think you do listen most of the time. You just often go into this "monologue mode" (as ann put it). I don't think this is Socionic-related, and certainly not anything
I think this sort of communication issues occur all the time and it's not a matter of individuals trying to other brush people off(I'm certainly not the only person who's ever been accused of not listening). People do certainly brush people off and so do I. Initially when I had made my comments about sophistication, I probably felt you brushed me off relating to the reasons why I thought Jazz isn't "sophisticated" and instead focused on your own reasons why Jazz is "sophisticated". Something wasn't communicated because I didn't explicitly define what I meant when I said sophistication. Ultimately it is a semantic issue where my definitions were different than yours. I even said that Jazz is a very technical and skilled art, done by highly proficient individuals. I don't think I was listened to either, but instead of trying to accuse others of not listening to me or calling them names, I simply just explain my ideas again, perhaps in a different fashion. This is because I don't try to get personal in intellectual matters and probably a component of my
This isn't my first time at the rodeo and I've dissected the conflicts I've had in my life in a great amount of detail, I tend to take this stuff seriously as it's my PoLR and well rather painful to deal with. It doesn't really change my behavior as I'm more impulsive than controlled, but I have gained an understanding of why people have these conflicts and how people talk past each other in these conflicts. I'm not one to tell others they aren't listening to me or call them names, although maybe I should, but it wouldn't be a natural thing for me to do.
The thing with accusations and name calling is that once that starts occuring, people will simply focus on that instead of the discussion at hand. And then nobody is really listening to anyone or anything except the conflict.
I'm much better at dissecting my experiences after the fact then dealing with them in real time so often there's little I can do to prevent conflicts or problems, but I think one of things that makes discussions proceed smoothly is to accept that sometimes for whatever reason, you won't get listened to and/or there will be a misunderstanding and that there is no ill intent.
I brush people off and don't listen to people a lot more in verbal communication vs written communication, I don't do this too often on the forum and it's sad because I often will read someone a few times before responding. It is however very difficult for me to respond to everything in detail. Also in a forum/public discussion context, I always write in a less one-on-one way as there is a larger audience who can comment on the discussion and I write it in a less personalized fashion towards the person I'm in a discussion with, as well as including tidbits for other people as I believe it is informational. This is probably not a good mode of communication for some people who desire more intimate and one-on-one discussion.
hkkmr, I'm sorry if you didn't feel like I was listening or understanding you. I was definitely listening, and tried to communicate that by actually conceded a lot of points. In-the-moment, I thought I was obviously making it clear I heard you. Reading back, however, I see how it might have seemed like I wasn't listening. I'm sorry about that. I could have been clearer about having heard you. I think we both could have probably thrown in a few "I see what you mean"s in there to make it clear that we were hearing each other. That would have solved everything.I often don't feel people listens to me or understand me, but I react to it differently then some other people, I try to explain my position again but often in a different way. Ultimately my mode of interaction is different and it's probably somewhat socionics related.
I think this sort of communication issues occur all the time and it's not a matter of individuals trying to other brush people off(I'm certainly not the only person who's ever been accused of not listening). People do certainly brush people off and so do I. Initially when I had made my comments about sophistication, I probably felt you brushed me off relating to the reasons why I thought Jazz isn't "sophisticated" and instead focused on your own reasons why Jazz is "sophisticated". Something wasn't communicated because I didn't explicitly define what I meant when I said sophistication. Ultimately it is a semantic issue where my definitions were different than yours. I even said that Jazz is a very technical and skilled art, done by highly proficient individuals. I don't think I was listened to either, but instead of trying to accuse others of not listening to me or calling them names, I simply just explain my ideas again, perhaps in a different fashion. This is because I don't try to get personal in intellectual matters and probably a component of my
This isn't my first time at the rodeo and I've dissected the conflicts I've had in my life in a great amount of detail, I tend to take this stuff seriously as it's my PoLR and well rather painful to deal with. It doesn't really change my behavior as I'm more impulsive than controlled, but I have gained an understanding of why people have these conflicts and how people talk past each other in these conflicts. I'm not one to tell others they aren't listening to me or call them names, although maybe I should, but it wouldn't be a natural thing for me to do.
The thing with accusations and name calling is that once that starts occuring, people will simply focus on that instead of the discussion at hand. And then nobody is really listening to anyone or anything except the conflict.
I'm much better at dissecting my experiences after the fact then dealing with them in real time so often there's little I can do to prevent conflicts or problems, but I think one of things that makes discussions proceed smoothly is to accept that sometimes for whatever reason, you won't get listened to and/or there will be a misunderstanding and that there is no ill intent.
I brush people off and don't listen to people a lot more in verbal communication vs written communication, I don't do this too often on the forum and it's sad because I often will read someone a few times before responding. It is however very difficult for me to respond to everything in detail. Also in a forum/public discussion context, I always write in a less one-on-one way as there is a larger audience who can comment on the discussion and I write it in a less personalized fashion towards the person I'm in a discussion with, as well as including tidbits for other people as I believe it is informational. This is probably not a good mode of communication for some people who desire more intimate and one-on-one discussion.
I used the word "sophistication" and you took issue with that, based on your understanding of what I meant by that word. I clarified what I meant: I was referring very specifically to jazz's musical complexities and certain aspects of jazz culture. You were thinking of about jazz from a different angle -- not just the musical complexities, but of the smoky, seedy club scene and the sense of reckless abandon that improvisation exemplifies. Cool. The discussion could have ended there. I guess I was kind of expecting us to come to an "agree to disagree" kind of deal. That's what I was trying to do in post #51. I was trying to say: "Okay, I see what you're saying. I see that we think of different things when we hear the word 'sophistication' and that we think of jazz and the painting differently." Re-reading that post, though, I can sort of see how it might seem like I was unwilling to listen on some level.
Where I started getting pissed, however, was when you started using that discussion as an example of me being
It's hard for me to see that stuff as me hitting your
FWIW, I don't think I was judging you by
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
The example you gave regarding Fi wasn't a good one IMO, I don't see how that sentence structure is particularly reflective of Fi.It's hard for me to see that stuff as me hitting your
FWIW, I don't think I was judging you by
The descriptions you made about sexual styles were great, did you also write the other ones in the same article? It is unlikely that an EII would relate to that, so it would be interesting for you to talk about that and how you feel applies to your own courtship process - I personally think typing through relations is a little difficult as you need to make sure the compatibility you are isolating strictly has to do with what are related to the IE's, and the everyone you are taking into account is typed right. I would peg you as EII or SEI.
Last edited by thePirate; 05-13-2012 at 11:34 PM.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is
Ledisi is great, yeah. More of a modern RnB/neo-soul style singer though.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Yeah, you're right. I was pretty iffy on that, too. I dunno... what's an EII thinking when they're supervising an ILE? Whatever it is, I don't think I'm thinking that.Of those two, I think SEI is more likely. I could definitely see it as a possibility because I hang around a lot of Alphas.
Yeah, I wrote the other descriptions in that set as well. The original post was removed, but someone at similarminds apparently nabbed it before it was lost. Here are the others, if anyone is looking for them:
In my own courtship interactions, I see the ultimate sense of intimacy as one of giving up ownership of myself to someone. BTW, this whole thing will probably sound a bit perverse, lol. I feel like, when I enter a relationship, my partner takes ownership of a part of my identity that I give up willingly. This makes me extremely picky about potential partners. It has to be the right person -- someone who represents an aspect of the world I want to be a part of, but which is inaccessible to me. That's how I see people: they're not just individuals, but also represent pieces, potentials, and possibilities in the world. They bring with them their histories, friendships, childhood and adolescent environs, and their future trajectories. I find myself getting attracted most to people with a distinctive and identifiable cultural "scarrification"; those who wear their histories like adjectives -- people whose cities and lifetimes have left a definite, tangible impact on how they dress, walk, speak, and even how they smell, lol. I find SLEs (or who I think of as SLEs) are like that. My first time was with one who brought the cold, clarity of the rural Midwest to me. Most people aren't like that, though. So, in the early stages, I'll find myself playing this "touch and go" game where I try to get close enough to get to know who this person is, and if I want to give myself to them. Most people just get annoyed with this because they weren't all that into me either, lol. But sometimes you'll get someone who is definitely set on you and is persistent in letting you know they want you.Psuedo-Aggressors/Employee: 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.
Aggressors/Employer: 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.
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."
Challengers/Prize: 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Yeah, I love that one! It definitely is more modern RnBish/neo-soulish than oldschool jazz. I like the way she brings that modern element to those old classics. Like this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_2QKgj1ZVQ
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Downloading this album... NOW.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
She's a bit chubby, but super cute. Just look at those eyes! And her puppy smile.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I haven't got the full album, but some individual songs from it and I love how she "soulifies" up some of the more classic stuff, like "Autumn Leaves."
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Yeah, she's a fine sista. Gonna listen to her album in my car tomorrow.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
How was that relationship like?
You're brother is NOT and LSE. I have an LSE radar...
I am not into that kind of thing and no I wouldn't enjoy it.
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Damn, I love me some black wimminz...
^ Yeah cool, I'll take the other one.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I don't really like to do the battle-typing thing, and it's hard for me to prove my opinion so I just try to present it. The high potential for conflict is one of the reasons I don't reveal my typings/type lists except to people I have met or know or in rare circumstances. I view typings as predictions and as ad-hoc and I take a pragmatic viewpoint on typings as a very small part of my assessment of an individual. It's a mere predictor of how will I will be able to communicate with a individual more then anything else. I spend a lot of time investigating the model and trying to substantiate the model philosophically and with psychological and scientific studies and I don't think typing is super important without the right tools.hkkmr, I'm sorry if you didn't feel like I was listening or understanding you. I was definitely listening, and tried to communicate that by actually conceded a lot of points. In-the-moment, I thought I was obviously making it clear I heard you. Reading back, however, I see how it might have seemed like I wasn't listening. I'm sorry about that. I could have been clearer about having heard you. I think we both could have probably thrown in a few "I see what you mean"s in there to make it clear that we were hearing each other. That would have solved everything.
I used the word "sophistication" and you took issue with that, based on your understanding of what I meant by that word. I clarified what I meant: I was referring very specifically to jazz's musical complexities and certain aspects of jazz culture. You were thinking of about jazz from a different angle -- not just the musical complexities, but of the smoky, seedy club scene and the sense of reckless abandon that improvisation exemplifies. Cool. The discussion could have ended there. I guess I was kind of expecting us to come to an "agree to disagree" kind of deal. That's what I was trying to do in post #51. I was trying to say: "Okay, I see what you're saying. I see that we think of different things when we hear the word 'sophistication' and that we think of jazz and the painting differently." Re-reading that post, though, I can sort of see how it might seem like I was unwilling to listen on some level.
Where I started getting pissed, however, was when you started using that discussion as an example of me being
It's hard for me to see that stuff as me hitting your
FWIW, I don't think I was judging you by
I want people to find happiness in their life and find themselves, and not try to impose a typing on another individual as some people try to do. I do have more insight into your type, but I'm hesitant to reveal them because I feel it's a source of friction between us and I am not 100% certain, not even 99% certain, and I require a great deal more certainty before I will go to bat so to speak on a prediction. I think I see a lot of angles on topics other people don't see but I've been conditioned to not reveal them to everyone because of the conflict that causes, this is one of the reasons why I am very selective and avoidant with my relationships in life and one of the reason why I think I'm Fi-Polr.
The expert has spoken.You're brother is NOT and LSE. I have an LSE radar...
Okay, fair enough.
Yeah, I think it's probably best we just leave it be. If those insights have to do with me being EII I can guarantee I will vehemently reject them.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Can you believe I spent like 20 minutes trying to find her name (so I can google/stalk her on facebook/etc.) and didn't succeed?
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
I tried looking her up, but came up with nothing. She looks really familiar, though. Like I think she may have been on a sitcom or something.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
here is the cunt option>
Btw, Ledisi - ESE?
Last edited by Park; 05-16-2012 at 09:43 PM.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Yeah, I think ESE could work. Although, she's a lot more extraverted on stage than off. Here's a pretty good interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTsiqt0yiIA
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Interesting. Thanks for the link, watching it right now.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Love your signature, btw. Great quote.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
She seems irrational in that video. My tentative typing is SEI.
Or she might just be a really low-key ESE.
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
Thanks!
Yeah, I can't decide between those two.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
