Do "Childlike" types take advantage of "Caring" types?

[Eliza Thomason]

... I also read about attachment theory and realized my mom quintessentially gave me successful caregiving. ...

The most important tenet of attachment theory is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for the child's successful social and emotional development, and in particular for learning how to effectively regulate their feelings. Fathers or any other individuals, are equally likely to become principal attachment figures if they provide most of the child care and related social interaction.[3] In the presence of a sensitive and responsive caregiver, the infant will use the caregiver as a "safe base" from which to explore. It should be recognized that "even sensitive caregivers get it right only about 50 percent of the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory

Soupman, you were fortunate to get good attachment parenting. Attachment parenting was what I was into before and after my son was born, and it sure is the most rewarding way to parent. I am grateful for all I read on this at the time, particularly Dr. Sears book on it, because it is in contrast with a lot of the parenting advice that tends to be shot at you by relatives, friends and neighbors (which is usually designed to make babies be "independent").

Reading the theory helped me make choices that I am so glad I made, that helped my son in so many ways. He just lacks fears, in contrast to so many of his peers growing up. Its an advantage to take into life, that fearlessness. He was quite attached as a baby because that is how babies naturally are and I did not try to change that - and people did advise me to! I remember being warned that he would become a mama's boy because he did not want to be left in the nursery for church like the other toddlers - and I accommodated that (and most anything else he signaled he did not want). But I held onto the understanding that meeting his attachment needs as a baby meant he would be more confidently independent as he grew (vs. attached-to-mama because he had to seek the security needs he did not get as a baby) - and it turned out just that way - he was always comfortably confident and independent as he grew - as a child, and then as a young man. That fearlessness and that base of inner security - it is a real help in adulthood. I am most grateful that I could give him that parenting most thoroughly because we did not divorce until he got older, and even though the marriage was not good, because of it, I was able to be home with him and in every way available in those formative years. [You can still attachment parent if you work outside the home, particularly if both parents are on board with that goal, but even without that you can still endeavor, and it will benefit]. Also I attribute the way he is so great and natural with kids to attachment parenting. Kids are just drawn to him, and I think a lot of that is because he has it in his mind that kids are to be paid attention to and responded to. And kids light up with that kind of respectful attention.

Well, I know this is a side topic, not the topic of the thread, but I when I saw attachment parenting mentioned, I just wanted to share that I was the best thing I did as a mom, that it was not difficult, but rewarding to do. (Its not hard but takes commitment). I needed the help of the "theory" because it is against how most of our parents raised us and against how our culture tells us how we should raise a baby. That book also gave me confidence to be strong in this endeavor. There were other ways I came up short as a parent, including his later having a "broken home". But I can look back and say I am so glad for the attachment parenting, and for its long good effect.

A happy, attached baby:

[Chae]

The thing is, that process has to be mutual in the first place. If one takes advantage of the other, the other first has to let them. It's not blaming it all on the Caregiving type, it blames the two sides. On the other hand, if the way of taking advantage is so clever that the Caregiver doesn't notice it or is guilt-tripped/forced into it et cetera...?

It boils down to individual case and health level, you can see how difficult it is to make generalizing statements. It's also a question of how apt Childlike types are at manipulating by default.

[The Reality Denialist]

Basically if the victim and caregiver comes from the same quadra then you are going to cover each other's weak spots bit better. Alpha caregiver and infantile delta: I can see the mess of not being able to handle certain kinds of things. What I have experienced with deltas is that I become some sort of troubleshooter on certain 'inconvenient' matters from their perspective and as I'm in good terms with kids [=goofy uncle] they might see me as someone to look after them when needed (however running it effectively through out a day...).

[ghost of forum past]

It depends on the semantics of "taking advantage". I think it could be argued that all types unconsciously take advantage of complimentary types due to the way that the super-Id functions of one type evoke responses from the ego functions of a complimentary type.

As I understand it, the OP is referring to the idiom with a negative connotation. The truth is that those with moral integrity will not take advantage of others in this way.

[Saoirse]

I don't think this is broadly true. Maybe it applies to you, or to these two women, or to just these two relationships--two is not a large enough sample size to accurately generalize from. You're saying X happened twice -> you hypothesize that X is always true. I think there's a lot of good theory in this thread already, about why X shouldn't be true from a Socionics/psych POV, so I will just provide some specific counterexamples, 'cause you know that's how I do as a Te valuer / an EII who always loves talking about personal experiences .

(I am assuming that by "take advantage of," you mean "receive a lot from without giving much back.")

My duals (LSE): I do receive a lot of caregiving from them (interpreting abstruse financial documents, professional guidance, taking care of the practical things like dinner reservations and getting tickets), but I think I also provide them with a lot of happiness in return, if their continued seeking of my company is any indication. I'm one of the few people (the only person?) they can talk to about their deepest fears. I've made it clear that I admire them deeply, so they feel safe with me. They are not scared of my judgment. I understand what matters to them before they tell me or even before they know themselves, and I reassure them about these things.

My beneficiaries (SEI): The most caregiving I've received from SEIs is when I have romantic troubles and they soothe me in a very motherly (albeit unproductive) way. I think this is a very small favor among friends and definitely one I've repaid many times over (though my soothing is less motherly, more a mix of emotional release and planning how to solve the problem). In untroubled times, they enjoy my Ne way more than I enjoy their Si.

My activity partners (SLI): My lady SLI friends and I mostly get along on the basis of loving our work, working hard, and appreciating other people who love their work and work hard. I don't think there's much caregiving in either direction here, though if there's any at all, it must be from me to them, using my Fi to help them with stereotypically female issues that they do not grasp naturally. My two favorite male SLI romantic interests, one of whom I dated for a bit: I think they are actually looking for someone MORE infantile than I am--that they would trade much of my professional capabilities and sense of responsibility for more carefree whimsy.

All that being said, I do think what Subteigh said is true:

Based on my own limited observation, Infantile types may certainly seem to take advantage of more practically-inclined types, if only because what the Infantile offers in return seems less readily apparent.

It's very tangible when an LSE does things for me: providing concrete advice/knowledge (Te), helping manage the annoying details of money/health (Si), and asserting/defending my preferences for me (Se). What I do for an LSE is hard to pin down and probably invisible to everyone external to our relationship. I don't know how to make concrete the idea that I do things like: my LSE friend once expressed discomfort with how his friends thought it was weird that he was happy about his ex-girlfriend's accidental pregnancy (with his child) -> knowing that he doesn't actually care much about society's opinions, I wondered what was actually bothering him about that -> I told him I think he will be a good father -> it felt like a weight was lifted off of his shoulders--when I asked him about his friends again, he seemed not to care about their opinions anymore.

[inabox]

Eh ... sure; any type can take advantage of another type if they are ignorant or malicious (more of the latter).

I have seen that SEIs and ESEs are more prone than others to take advantage of my Ti polrs (ESTjs too, to an extent).

[Exodus]

In addition to what I said before I'd like to add that the Te dual-seeking behavior can also seem like this.

[Rebelondeck]

I have trouble attaching adjectives such as childlike, caring, submissive, etc. to specific types except to arouse dialogue. These behaviours depend on so many other factors; any type, under the right set of circumstances, can exhibit them. I've often seen two people of the same type exhibiting opposite ends of the spectrum, anywhere from saintly to evil or aggressive to passive or animated to almost dead - some behaviours, one wouldn't expect from a certain type. The environment would have to be carefully controlled to make such adjectives applicable - they're certainly not core......


a.k.a. I/O

[Suz]

No. Caregivers can take advantage of other caregivers to care for people they love or themselves. Infantile get into a super rot and try to fender for themselves by whatever meager ways that they can get by. Also Vicims too can take advantage.

I have to agree with this.

[Suzaku]

It can be a cycle. Anyone is capable of childish behavior unintentionally. Call the behavior infantile to break the cycle, set boundaries, and talk about it. If it doesn't change then yeah there could be a situation where a person is infantile and takes advantage of a caring person. Often times people aren't even aware of their behavior being that way because maybe that's what they're used to doing in response to something rooted in their personality that maybe we don't know about. Or someone could have a deep rooted fear of conflict and acts childish.

If the behavior never stops... You have an issue.

[Hope]

Yes.

[WinnieW]

"Taking advantage of caring types"
An negative aspect of Hidden Agenda, maybe.

[Bertrand]

I think the idea is they both take advantage of eachother, but aren't ashamed to admit it because its not victim/aggressor dynamics, where some kind of power advantage is conferred by playing games over who owes who what. rather they just "take advantage" (at least in Te valuing), but its not loaded with negative connotations. they can admit it and love eachother at the same time no problem. they can admit they need eachother and acknowledge they get stuff out of it without feeling like its some kind of betrayal of a platonic ideal of pure idealic sacrifice on both ends. in the end, this lends a purity that probably, in reality, closer approximates such an ideal anyway. declarative vs real humanism begins with humility and a part of that is not trying to pretend one isn't getting stuff