.
Which types tend to get laid?
.
Last edited by suedehead; 04-08-2016 at 04:27 PM.
All women types
This is definitely not type related.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
No it is:Originally Posted by Birdie
Top are SEE
ESE: pleasure hunters
SLE: conquers
LSE: your business man
EIE: miley cyrus
IEE: adventurous hippy
LIE: your adventurous researcher
ILE: goofy outgoing nerd
LSI: Controlled robot
SLI: lone artisan
Bottom ILI and LII
lol
What about ESI?
Sure they are above Miley Cyrus but below the technocrats:
Top are SEE
ESE: pleasure hunters
SLE: conquers
LSE: your business man
SEI: casual party goer
ESI: blends with the world
EIE: miley cyrus
IEE: adventurous hippy
LIE: your adventurous researcher
ILE: goofy outgoing nerd
LSI: Controlled robot
SLI: lone artisan
Bottom ILI and LII
You forgot IEI, haha.
my EII sx/so ex (whose pic everyone had the pleasure) would get more women (students included) than many SLEs kinda anytime.....if he wanted to.
Your can do attitude will fit in right in to PUA, or have given up on that already?
what a weird thread
I think you could find a correlation, but its clearly not a causation. Se types are naturally inclined to pursue, and the act of being vulnerable and possibly being rejected is something not everyone is willing to do. So that inclination is good for getting laid. Everyone would like to have a perfect bombshell do all the work for you in order to connect with another person, even if only just sexually. But that doesnt really happen, so the peoole who dont pursue ever end up with a non bombshell who pursued them. Just the act of going out of your way to show your interest in someone is tremendously helpful.
Being happy is another matter. But just sex? Yeah just risk the shame of being rejected. Problem solved.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I find this post constructive but cannot mark it as constructive (wtf) so I am just going to do this awkward thing and say it.
Everything interests me but nothing holds me.
The grass isn't greener on the other side....
If you are a dominant prickish alpha male drug dealer (and black) you will get pussy very easily and girls will fly to you. However, it's still hard to find a special relationship, it's still hard to know if any of those girls really care about you or just because you have a big dick. You still feel depression and hurt... being an alpha male isn't going to miraculously solve all your problems. Attracting the lowest common demoniator of humans/basic bitches isn't the same as a special relationship that makes you smile.
Heterosexuality isn't a cure-all for life's ailments. People tend to think that, but it's not true.
Do it anyway.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
SLE and SEE extroverted aggressors
Heterosexual problems.
Anyone can struggle, but if you have a job that pays okay money, have nice things like a place of your own, a car, and preferably are hetero (granted gay and bi men I know seem to have no lack of sex in their lives), then I can really say it means you are butt fucking ugly or your attitude is fucking disgusting, or you just don't try. If your demeanor is stiff or whatever the fuck, try practicing smiling in the mirror until it hurts. Learn to laugh instead of pining over pussy. People who can laugh in spite of the shit raining down on them tend to be at least moderately attractive.
Use dating sites. Some are free. It doesn't make anyone a loser. Just don't be creepy or demanding. No woman owes you shit. But she can tell if you only see her as a piece of meat. Your own mind has set you up for failure, though. Not sure why I bother replying because nothing I or anyone says will change the facts. But seriously, if you'd start with laughing at shit, you'd already improve your chances exponentially.
Says the mid twenty year old SEE virgin (shut up, mu. I'm making a point to be ironic). The difference between you and I, however, is I know I'm sexy whether I've gotten laid or not.
everything this Person says now sounds like some writing on the restroom walls of a psychiatry hospital.
Socionically -speaking I see Ne polr in putrefaction (add e4 sp/sx to it) stuck on a track that clearly doesn't work and beating a dead horse. Maybe dualizing is real and the whole theory is not wrong..?
Well, I'm a skeptic about everything, so I've been testing Socionics in my personal life for the past year, and so far, it is ringing true. In particular, the ESI's I have known are people whom I did not at first expect to like for one superficial reason or another (in all cases I didn't know their types when I met them or that such a thing as Duals even existed), but ended up liking them a lot. That has been true for every one of them. I've also seen how other people in my life, of other types, get attached to their Duals. So I would say that the theory is not wrong. What interests me is why it is right.
There are actual differences in what will get a woman versus a man to have sex, but that doesn't mean that men are more into casual sex than women are.
Anyone can learn to relate to people verbally, physically, etc.
Also, since SLEs came up for discussion. In my experience, SLEs are not necessarily out getting laid left and right; some of the SLEs I know have become pretty guarded, and some of them also prefer a challenge and avoid easy-to-get sex.
That's a trite generalization. Different girls are into different kinds of guys.
All types have alphas, and players, and men who are successful at having many relationships.
Yeah, I had a 20/21 year old neighbor who is SLE and most girls thought he was hot. He was attractive and I witnessed him sneaking lots of different girls out his back door so his dad wouldn't see them. Sometimes more than one girl in the same weekend. He went after me hard. I decided early on that I didn't have any interest in him that way. I don't think he was depraved but he was a player and I heard him verbally abuse his ex and knew right away that he was not worth the risk. I felt zero chemistry even though he felt something I think it was all below the waist. I am happy he moved state because his attempts on me were getting more aggressive and tiring. At first I was flattered and amused by him.
“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
reality is there to be changed and created the way you want it to be
if you go around with the attitude that your type prevents you from "getting pussy", then this is how your life will be
gay men are even pickier about who they have sex with
That doesn't gibe with any studies I've ever encountered of the frequency of sex among gay men and their number of partners. Or do you mean their assessments of people are more stringent?
socionics type =/= your personality
Lse because they are very manipulative and persistent
-
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
Onr lse coworker has slept or had sexual encounters with 10 or 15 women since the age of 17 when he was in a serious relationship. ..I do get how sensory types like sli can make a sport out of sex
Dual type
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
True. I agree. I always forget the outliers that is people who have sex in thr hundreds
Dual type
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
not to mention what arnold schwarzenegger did with women. especially in elevators.
I was a big slut in my early twenties.
what on earth does this even mean : Efficiency of girls you get
and the person above is most likely SLI>LSI btw
Lol. Take a WILD fucking guess what it could even mean given the context.
A player would be more efficient at pulling woman than a man that never interacts with woman.
And you're most likely ESI-dumbbbb>ESI-Fi btw
Last edited by Computer Loser; 05-21-2015 at 02:23 AM.
You still do not make sense
Then your English is not ok .... you should have said Efficiency of Seduction or smth. It sounded as if the girls were (supposed to be) efficient.
In the rest of your response you clearly got reactive and defensive ...which kinda means you dislike being signaled you use Te and no Se. A LII confirmed my impression ...so you're right to be pissed off. You don't VI Beta+Se creative in pics, either. A few goofy and meek attempts at smiling are not LSI.
Last edited by Amber; 05-21-2015 at 09:27 AM.
My Te is tingling…. It’s telling me… You’re a fucking idiot. SLI indeed.
Lol. Here come the pussy worshippers to the rescue.
Dude, you are freakin' ugly and boring as hell.
I dunno for sure if Words is LSE or SLE, but making WILD guesses and trying to show off as a strong PLAAAAAYA doesn't make you hot, smart, or LSI for your record.
Golden is right. Once all that stupid homophobia crap is done away with, being a gay man will be a sweet, sweet deal.
Whatever you're talking about hasn't got anything to do with what I posted, which is only about multiple studies regarding the frequency of sex, between gay male partners, and the overall number of sexual partners relative to sexual orientation. I didn't say any of this is good, bad, or indifferent, my only assumptions being along these lines: that it's probably good if you get about as much sex as you'd like to have, and good for a relationship, if you're in one, if you and your partner agree on the amount of sex you want to have.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
