Maybe it's process-result thing. My dual asks me "did you notice how" yes I did and I know how it made me feelOriginally Posted by ryoka14
Maybe it's process-result thing. My dual asks me "did you notice how" yes I did and I know how it made me feel
-
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
This is interesting, @ConcreteButterfly. How did you put it together? I see it works well with Gulenko's Erotic types. I noticed some of the Aggressor ones, when I look up where their Si is on Model A, it works, your description works for that Aggressor type. And the description fits for my SLI husband and I.
It would be helpful if you could put types codes next to each one of those, or if someone else could. It would be much easier to consider the theory.
What I read seems to fit. I am not entirely comfortable with my IEE's but I think its just the wording. The essence of its true. For IEE, Si is in Suggestive Function, and, its not our strongest place. So our Dual has it in a very strong place. It works.
For IEE its: "Suggestive - Hesitates to initiate sex unless partner is clearly receptive. Often oblivious to their partner's discomfort and their own, can unintentionally attract or repel a partner by their mannerisms, clothing choices, etc. Evasive of strong sexual advances, but receptive to gentleness, needs a lenient partner who can go at their sometimes 'staccato' pace. Sex takes a backseat to intellectual pursuits so is sometimes sexually inert. "
The terms "inert" and "staccato" and "repelling" put me off in this description. But I'll try to consider them anyway. Its true my obliviousness does at times completely unintentionally attract, so, it must work the other way, too. I mean, as far as drawing attention - I try to look my best before I go out, and I forget about how I look when I am out, and I am definitely not trying to attract; I am in my own head, and when I do attract its a "surprise". I suppose if I repel, I shrug it off since I was not trying to attract or repel (I cannot think of an example, perhaps because I don't dwell on negative experiences. Oh, the only example I can think of is someone on 16t has told me they are repelled by me and I really can't imagine how. The explanation makes no sense to me. So, that does fit with the above notion of attracting and repelling obliviously.)
Yes, I would not initiate unless I knew my partner was receptive. In the beginning with SLI, I did initiate touch, and that's because my IEE intuition made me quite sure he was more interested than he was letting on! And I wanted to tease it out of him. (I was right! He was!). We are married now and I don't have to question if he is receptive, because he always is!
I, on the other hand, can be unprepared. Perhaps this is what is meant by that "staccato pace" and "inert" --that there are times my mind is so far from Si enjoyments. SLI is lenient about this. But I don't want to leave him hanging too long, though, sometimes its hard to know how to change my mood as fast as I'd like. Quieting my mind helps. SLIs touch helps.
To me SLI seems like a bundle of Si sensations and awareness. His hands, oh my goodness. There must be something so special about SLI hands. They can wake me up and pull me out of my mind, so fast, when my mind had previously been so far from any Si awarenesses. As Ann said here, they are very into their awareness of sensation received, but I find, as mentioned in the OP, he also attunes his movements to mine, and he has strong awareness of my subtlest responses and adjusts so we are in tune.
And I have reached the edge of how detailed as I can get!
LOL. Maybe the above answered some of that. We are Si seeking, we just don't know how to find it. And Si-base brings it.
____________
P.S. I should add, in reference to the above descriptor of Si suggestive function, that it's true - I was always adeptly skillful at evading strong sexual advances, and I am taken in by gentle advances (in my SLI husband's case, his first gentle very subtle advance bowled me over, made me completely fall helplessly for him).
Last edited by Eliza Thomason; 11-25-2014 at 08:22 PM.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
I don´t believe much thinking goes on during sex, I think "erotic styles" may be a mistranslation, "romantic styles" makes more sense. Eventually erotic styles may make more sense for irrational types.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
No, we don't.
Something like circular reasoning and forer effect
Today you've been communicating with mostly nouns. How very elliptical of you.
Using the example of violin implies that some people have a natural ability for learning the violin ergo Si must have a natural ability at sex, circular reasoning. Therefore I elaborate in the adjective you used to describe it as silky.
Forer effect is people reading a description and identifyinf with it anyway regardless of its actual preciseness.
Are you being hissy with me or agreeing with me? I get confused we are all so elliptical. Thank you for the lexigraph I think.
omg typo omg
I really don't know anymore, you were telling me and sev in chat how clever we were and it didn't seem quite honest, nowdidit.Are you being hissy with me or agreeing with me?
But I've never been mad at you. Not yet.
Would identifying as human be the ultimate forer effect...
Derail averted!
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
Or that they are skilled at that.
Now this is a story all about how, my type got changed, turned upside down. Just wait for a minute and watch chatbox right there, & I'll tell how Gem became the moderator with blue hair.
In typology central friended and praised, on the picture thread was where she spent most her days. Chilling out, selfies, relaxing all cool, And all typing some people and getting them schooled.
When a couple of girls who were up to no good, Started annoying her & her friends in the forumhood, She got in one little flame war & got pissed off & said 'I'm moving in with that exboyfriend in the forum with the socionics toffs.
So Gem pulls up to the forum for a year without being a hater, And yells to typocentral 'Yo creeps! Smell Ya later', Became a mod in her kingdom she was finally there, To sit on her throne as the mod with blue hair.
InvisibruJim
BubblesI don't have a problem with you at all, but if you want to be hi and/or jacked, goferit.lol
the mind wanders lolas for whyis involved, i kind of think the introverted/extroverted functions work in tandem and that goes for every pair not just se/si and not just in sex. its like one provides the background for the other, attention flips between both
Si - sensational part
Se - to have the "access"
F - sex is also the way of intensive emotional exchange
N - there is imaginational part
T - thoughts about what is now to do
So, is introverted sensing actually a metaphorical vagina???
Honestly, I have never seen it as something to be chased or something to be experienced as there are much more interesting things out there.
Ummm... there are logical and ethical reasons behind it as well.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Especially SiFe is sex/sensuality. In ILE this is unconscious seeking functions. And ILEs can be really into sex. SEIs are also sensual but for them it lacks the numinosity that unconscios functions have.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
This is one of those times I think we are overusing the theory for real life lol
Sadly, I’ve heard of instances where base and creative Si were...pretty bad in bed. And where Si suggestive had some aptitude. I think said experiences were from individuals who didn’t value Si, though.
Chaste so I can’t attest to mobilizing Si or anyone else’s. I do resonate with difficulty being convinced of my own attractiveness.
I imagine Si can have some use in sex. Being aware of your body and aware of the other person's body is how sex works lol.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
