Erotic Styles Applied

[Shytan]

As much as I do understand erotic styles and what Quadra exhibits which, I can't seem to understand real-life tendencies. Like how do people act victimy? Gimme examples peeps! I do know that as an infantile I sometimes fake sickness to get attention from a loved one, and Aggressors are pretty authoritative naturally.

[Bertrand]

victims imply they're being asked (unfairly) to sacrifice, but announce their willingness to go along with it anyway, or to otherwise rise above it, in order to signal their virtue (in the form of devotion to the object of their affection)

[Shytan]

victims imply they're being asked (unfairly) to sacrifice, but announce their willingness to go along with it anyway, or to otherwise rise above it, in order to signal their virtue (in the form of devotion to the object of their affection)

Could you use a specific situation to illustrate what you're saying ?

[Bertrand]

Could you use a specific situation to illustrate what you're saying ?

Ni is all about imposing a narrative on the situation in order to influence the outcome (whether the immediate, or downstream effects). So while an EIE might say things and act consistent with the idea that they're being victimized by something the aggressor, or anyone really, is asking them to do, they will try to use it in order to influence the other to conform to their will, whereas gamma victims tend to go not try and change the immediate outcome (will) but influence the feelings of the aggressor. You might say beta victimhood is a passive aggressive way to actually get the other to move or act in some way, whereas gamma victimhood is to win over the heart, or Fi, of the other by going along with it but subtly pointing out the sacrificial nature of doing so.

EIE or IEI would say something (regardless of its truth) "you're so impatient!" if you asked them to, for example, do their job (regardless of whether or not the situation warranted it in actuality) in order to get the person to back off (Se effects). the implication here is you're being unreasonable by way of timing, which may or not be the case--the point is to craft a "moral image" of the situation and attempt to pass it off

LIE or ILI would do it with a sad look in their eyes in the hopes you would notice and appreciate they're in some way suffering for your sake (Fi effects)... they would rather you appreciate them than back down, whereas beta actually wants to manipulate your actions (i.e. they aren't oriented at their dual's Fi so much as their Se, in the case of beta--whereas the reverse is true for Gamma)

my first post had a gamma flair to it, but here I laid out how both quadras tend to do it. it mainly has to do with Ni trying to influence the views of the people involved by trying to create shared impressions (a narrative or subtext) by reifying assumptions made by the Ni user about what's really going on

for myself, when gamma victimhood is well founded its usually very effective, because it strikes at the heart, but in a legitimate way. its essentially a sacrificial moral plea, that when legitimate, is noble, and is merely requesting that each party live up to their (probably shared) moral standards, which is really just an opportunity to be a better person, which is always a good thing (in this way victim and aggressor both help eachother, when healthy)

there's nothing really wrong with beta victimhood except that it tends to get used on everyone, despite being subconsciously oriented only towards their dual, and comes off as way more (passive) aggressive and inappropriate. its outrageous, a lot like their duals. if the world was only beta quadra it would be quite harmonious (well, up until the infighting and wars of "unification" started), but since everyone else gets these self serving narratives pushed on them its just annoying and potentially dangerous--because they tend to seize the initiative rather than rely on mutual conscience (giving the other Fi a say) as in Gamma. beta Ni has a tendency to create mobs because it creates conclusions in the minds of its thralls rather than suggestions that have an opportunity to pass through the filter of conscience in the Fi of the target. its far more domineering than cooperative (aristocratic v democratic)--all it has to do is pass the robotic Ti check which unless the person is a connoisseur of Ti moral philosophy is probably more concerned with efficacy (Stalin's "plans") than atrocity

if beta can put others, especially alpha quadra, in a position where Fe becomes less relevant (as in abstract moral choices--i.e. voting, or pressing a button to murder people you can't see), they only need to slip past Ti, which is pretty easy, especially vs alpha ethicals, which is how you get nice people voting for Trump, etc

[Olimpia]

This should be moved to the Socionics discussion...

[Aylen]

As much as I do understand erotic styles and what Quadra exhibits which, I can't seem to understand real-life tendencies. Like how do people act victimy? Gimme examples peeps! I do know that as an infantile I sometimes fake sickness to get attention from a loved one, and Aggressors are pretty authoritative naturally.

I don't think this has a lot to do with erotic styles tbh but I suppose it depends on the motivation behind it. It could be related to various things, like feeling unappreciated or just wanting some attention from your loved ones, yet not knowing how to ask for it. Is this something you actually do to manipulate a romantic partner or do you do it with family members too?

I would not use the label "victim" so literal when it comes to the styles . Lots of people play victim in the colloquial sense every day. I think it is a bad term and should be changed to avoid misunderstanding. I guess infantile is a pretty bad term too though. I know I got the wrong idea when I first heard "infantile". It rings of immaturity which can also apply to any type.

[Aylen]

Ni is all about imposing a narrative on the situation in order to influence the outcome (whether the immediate, or downstream effects). So while an EIE might say things and act consistent with the idea that they're being victimized by something the aggressor, or anyone really, is asking them to do, they will try to use it in order to influence the other to conform to their will, whereas gamma victims tend to go not try and change the immediate outcome (will) but influence the feelings of the aggressor. You might say beta victimhood is a passive aggressive way to actually get the other to move or act in some way, whereas gamma victimhood is to win over the heart, or Fi, of the other by going along with it but subtly pointing out the sacrificial nature of doing so.

EIE or IEI would say something (regardless of its truth) "you're so impatient!" if you asked them to, for example, do their job (regardless of whether or not the situation warranted it in actuality) in order to get the person to back off (Se effects). the implication here is you're being unreasonable by way of timing, which may or not be the case--the point is to craft a "moral image" of the situation and attempt to pass it off

LIE or ILI would do it with a sad look in their eyes in the hopes you would notice and appreciate they're in some way suffering for your sake (Fi effects)... they would rather you appreciate them than back down, whereas beta actually wants to manipulate your actions (i.e. they aren't oriented at their dual's Fi so much as their Se, in the case of beta--whereas the reverse is true for Gamma)

my first post had a gamma flair to it, but here I laid out how both quadras tend to do it. it mainly has to do with Ni trying to influence the views of the people involved by trying to create shared impressions (a narrative or subtext) by reifying assumptions made by the Ni user about what's really going on

for myself, when gamma victimhood is well founded its usually very effective, because it strikes at the heart, but in a legitimate way. its essentially a sacrificial moral plea, that when legitimate, is noble, and is merely requesting that each party live up to their (probably shared) moral standards, which is really just an opportunity to be a better person, which is always a good thing (in this way victim and aggressor both help eachother, when healthy)

there's nothing really wrong with beta victimhood except that it tends to get used on everyone, despite being subconsciously oriented only towards their dual, and comes off as way more (passive) aggressive and inappropriate. its outrageous, a lot like their duals. if the world was only beta quadra it would be quite harmonious (well, up until the infighting and wars of "unification" started), but since everyone else gets these self serving narratives pushed on them its just annoying and potentially dangerous--because they tend to seize the initiative rather than rely on mutual conscience (giving the other Fi a say) as in Gamma. beta Ni has a tendency to create mobs because it creates conclusions in the minds of its thralls rather than suggestions that have an opportunity to pass through the filter of conscience in the Fi of the target. its far more domineering than cooperative (aristocratic v democratic)--all it has to do is pass the robotic Ti check which unless the person is a connoisseur of Ti moral philosophy is probably more concerned with efficacy (Stalin's "plans") than atrocity

if beta can put others, especially alpha quadra, in a position where Fe becomes less relevant (as in abstract moral choices--i.e. voting, or pressing a button to murder people you can't see), they only need to slip past Ti, which is pretty easy, especially vs alpha ethicals, which is how you get nice people voting for Trump, etc

[Chae]

Yeah. Do I have to repeat it for the 1000th time? Victim - aggressor = rape, Infantile - caregiver = pedophilia. That's extremely harmful and doesn't play out IRL. I've heard justifications for that in all corners here, that's the worst part of it. Open your eyes. That theory with its terms is fucked up. Don't even try to come at me and/or make it legit with your fantasy bs.

(Currently working on a new model w/ new terms and explanations to abolish the old one)

[Olimpia]

I remember one animated Socionics video that showed the dynamic of Victim-Aggressor well in a constructive manner.

There was a shy girl and a boy who was into her, she'd playfully run away from him. They might have played hide and seek, actually. Anyhow, she was taking a walk in the woods. Some wild animal attacked her. She fled, ran for her life. The guy saw what was happening, and attacked the wild animal. He defeated it. And then the two got together.

The "Damsel in Distress" trope applies rather well to the IxI-SLE dynamic (to a lesser extent to EIE-LSI and IxI-SEE, and almost not much at all to LIE-ESI).

Here is a typical example of an Ni lead "Victim" needing physical help from an "Aggressor" who gets things done. (I think she's IxI-Ni in that game and he is SLE-Ti. She's ILI-Ni in the following games.)

That is the first introduction to her character in the game series. I thought it was so stereotypically Victim-Aggressor.

 

[ApeironStella]

Yeah. Do I have to repeat it for the 1000th time? Victim - aggressor = rape, Infantile - caregiver = pedophilia. That's extremely harmful and doesn't play out IRL. I've heard justifications for that in all corners here, that's the worst part of it. Open your eyes. That theory with its terms is fucked up. Don't even try to come at me and/or make it legit with your fantasy bs.

(Currently working on a new model w/ new terms and explanations to abolish the old one)

This. Also, it seems to encourage both parties to just simply stay with their stronger sides and expect someone else to do things for you with Caregiver-Infantile dynamic. It seems like an excuse to be an asshole and make others do shit for you while you stay in your fantasy world or theories or some other stuff.

I am not even going to go into Aggressive-Victim here honestly.

[Chae]

This. Also, it seems to encourage both parties to just simply stay with their stronger sides and expect someone else to do things for you with Caregiver-Infantile dynamic. It seems like an excuse to be an asshole and make others do shit for you while you stay in your fantasy world or theories or some other stuff.

I am not even going to go into Aggressive-Victim here honestly.

Yep! It's an unbalanced system where one partner takes advantage of the other. Completely unhealthy and anti self-development.

[Olimpia]

The "Victim" has a certain degree of helplessness, primarily when it comes to romance but sometimes to simple everyday life as well (this applies best to IEI). That makes them look like "victims". Gamma NTs will basically be very unsure about what they are doing, most of the time. They will be reticent, at least initially. LIEs can project assertiveness from time to time, but they still need reassurance and some amount of guidance from their partner when it comes to romance. They've got the Se HA to make them more direct, but also the weak Fi that makes them unsure in regards to appropriately navigating interpersonal relations. ILIs have it switched to an extent; they can understand interpersonal dynamics a bit better thanks to Fi HA, but they will be much more passive than an LIE in the "courting process". They need someone to make them get "involved" somehow. IEIs and EIEs may have less trouble with getting involved; their strategy lies primarily in attracting someone to them like nectar attracts the bees with their Extroverted Ethics; especially EIEs can be brilliant at that. Their Fe can work like a charm, literally – a bright smile, a sparkly laugh, a warm voice. In contrast to Gamma NTs, their emotional nature is much more fickle. They also have more troubles with everyday living, especially the IEI tends to require more or less practical help in certain ways. What all Victims share is this deep feeling of helplessness, their emotional centre is like the sea, it is constantly in flux; and they feel like this applies to romance in general, feelings are never entirely "fixed" or certain. (This applies to all Dynamic types, aka Caretakers too.) They need someone to be more steadfast and secure in their approach to romance.

The "Aggressor" lacks said helplessness and is instead much more steadfast in their interest, but also can be coarse and too unrefined in their approach. Especially the SLE can be like a bull in a china shop. Similar to LIEs, being also weak in Fi, they don't know exactly what they are doing; they just know how to make their interest in someone known or visible (and that is all the IEI really needs). SEE and ESI are much more skilled at approximating the "best" approach, they are much more "smooth" thanks to better Ethics, but SEEs still tend to be somewhat unusually "direct" at times. This reminds me of a story where the girl was like "I am so tired, I think I am gonna pass out." And the SEE who was interested in her said: "Would it be weird if you woke up in my room?" Also, "Aggressors" (primarily male Se leads) tend to move "too fast" in relationships. That's why the hesitant nature of the Victim can be beneficial to Aggressors; it makes them slow down. Furthermore, Aggressors like to see their effect on someone else. When their partner blushes, or holds back, they can be thrilled. They love a good challenge; someone who is too easy to get, bores them. The Aggressor-Victim dynamic can resemble a tournament where the "prize" at the end is the Victim's love.

The "Childlike" is essentially like a less "aggressive" and much more playful version of the "Aggressor". They can also be more direct, but it is usually in the form of making jokes, being playful, messing around. ILEs resemble SLEs when it comes to being like a bull in the china shop, and IEEs are the most suave and flirtatious of the Childlike types in general. Russell Brand is a good example of the direct but playful nature of the "Childlike" romance style. There is a certain eternally hopeful or innocent nature to the romantic interplay of Childlikes with other types, no matter how sexual their innuendos may become. It reminds me of this early "childlike wonder" little kids have about the world; in "Childlikes", that is how they see and handle romance. In my experience, many Childlike individuals also like to tease a lot, similar to that young guy in elementary school who'd tease the girl he liked (that is especially characteristic of ILE men). A Childlike type is looking for someone to appreciate their rants, musings, and little antics; who can channel them into something worthwhile; someone who takes them "under their wing".

The "Caretaker" loves taking care of people, to "take them under their wing", to guide and teach them about life, how to live well, and so forth. In that manner, the Childlike-Caretaker dynamic is similar to a Parent-Child relationship. Or rather, the Caretaker is the Childlike's "Guardian". Someone who helps with regulating the Childlike's life. Especially IEEs can have very chaotic and unorganized lives (because of being Ep as well as Ti PoLR), so they benefit well from an SLI who brings some structure into their lives, makes them relax and smell the roses, and not forget or overlook important details. EII and LII don't lack as much structure, but they greatly appreciate someone teaching them how to live practically or how to interact with people in an enjoyable manner. Teaching and caring about the welfare of their partner, the "Caretaker" experiences a feeling of accomplishment and fulfillment, and is constantly being entertained by the "Childlike", for "Childlikes" are never boring and always introduce new concepts, ideas, ways to look at the world. "Caretakers" easily get stuck into a rut in their lives, especially SLI and SEI, so they benefit greatly from the "Childlike" showing them new ideas to "play" with.

[yeves]

As much as I do understand erotic styles and what Quadra exhibits which, I can't seem to understand real-life tendencies. Like how do people act victimy? Gimme examples peeps! I do know that as an infantile I sometimes fake sickness to get attention from a loved one, and Aggressors are pretty authoritative naturally.

victim, based on an ILI:
- doesn't behave like he's fully responsible for his decisions; decides on smth, then blames the circumstances and other people when things aren't going well
- feels at mercy of women in his relationships, looks up to strong women who take responsibility onto their shoulders (often SEE, ESI, & LSI type of girls)
- will eat smth unhealthy, feel sick and complain about it, but doesn't like it if anyone else complains about their health in his presence, squeamish

[Hope]

I don't see romancing styles as a justification for being dicks or having an unbalanced relationship.
As long as I've experienced, this traits are present even when the people don't know about socionics or any other personality system. I think that socionics as a very useful tool for actually understanding and developing into relationships dynamics, at least, the romancing styles has been useful to me and my understanding of people. Also I wouldn't use different names because I think this are extremely accurate -its calling things by its name- and it doesn't imply any paraphilia.

I see these styles as the natural psychological predisposition since childhood. Personally as a caregiver, I like "infantile" types because I can have fun with them and they seem to need input or insight. I feel naturally driven to love them unconditionally (mainly IEE) and I see them somehow innocent, naive (intellectually) or in need of guidance or protection in some way. I don't see "why" this should be interpreted as pedophile tendencies, since I don't think that caregivers are into it, lol. Actually I've noticed that SLI and LSE don't enjoy so much children. I feel energized, motivated and willing when I'm in contact with childlike types (Idk how they feel with caregivers tbh). I think its just a bad interpretation of what romancing styles are.

On the other hand, I see that aggressors and victims are living constantly in the "struggle", they always see their relationships with through the glass of aggressor/victim, win/loose, survive/die etc. they even seem to perceive life as a place where are just victims or aggressors.

I'd say that this styles are the primary way of perceiving relationships (especially romance but it goes to all relationships), and it indicates the "role" that you'll mainly play.

If I have to use different terms for referring to these Romancing styles, I'd use the two basic instincts Eros and Thanatos, were Eros (caregivers/infantile) have this primary focus on LIFE in relationships (able to take care or in need of care, provide, preservation, unity, growth etc) and Thanatos (aggressor/victim) focusing in DEATH impulses (referring to traumatic experiences, disintegration, suffering, destruction, surrender, acceptance, aggression, frustration, the cycle of life etc).



Anyway, this was posted somewhere else on this forum, I hope it help you to undestand how this romancing styles manifest.

Erotic Attitudes

If you are coming from MBTI please note that Socionics assigns j/p letters differently than MBTI. Do not translate your MBTI type directly to Socionics type!!! This will lead to erroneous interpretation of your intertype relations. To read how Socionics differs from MBTI visit the introduction to socionics page. To find out your Socionics type, you can take socionics tests listed on socionics tests and socionics resources threads, read through type and subtype descriptions, find your valued information elements, or make a thread in What's My Type subforum using the questionnaire form for input from other forum members. Prior participation in forum discussions usually leads to more feedback on typing threads and more accurate typing suggestions.

If you have questions about socionics intertype relations, you can post your inquiry in the Intertype Relations Subforum, or alternatively inquire about it in the forum chatbox (to access forum chat and read hidden sections of the forum please post an introduction to get your account activated).


Related discussions and links

Wikisocion - Romance Styles
Communication Styles
(to view full tag searches you'll need to be logged in)
"Romancing styles" tag search
"Victim" tag search
"Aggressor" tag search
"Caring" tag search
"Childlike" tag search


Note: The names of romancing styles should not be translated literally. Romancing styles terms "victim", "aggressor", "childlike", "caring/caregiver" do not carry the same meaning in socionics as the colloquial everyday use of these words.


Viktor Gulenko has proposed four groups of romance styles, also referred to as "erotic behavior" groups or "erotic attitudes". Other socionists, such as Valentina Meged and Aleksandr Bukalov, have also written on how type influences behavior in intimate relationships, but discussed typical behavior within quadras. Gulenko's approach was to find common ground between types of different quadras. Obviously, all interpretations in this area assume, or conclude, that the greatest degree of compatibility in that area is between dual pairs.

Gulenko's romance styles are defined by the irrational element in the individual's Ego functions:

Aggressor: Se in EGO block: SLE, LSI, SEE, ESI
Victim: Ni in EGO block: EIE, IEI, LIE, ILI
Caring: Si in EGO block: ESE, SEI, LSE, SLI
Childlike: Ne in EGO block: ILE, LII, EII, IEE

"Romance styles" refer specifically to romantic/sexual interaction -- displaying physical attraction, interest, and desire, flirting, and sexual behavior present in romantic relationships. These styles apply much less to relationships between friends or business partners.


A more detailed description of romancing styles provided below was not written by Victor Gulenko, although it is often misattributed to him, but another western socionist.

Psuedo-Aggressors/Employees: LIE (ENTj) ILI (INTp)

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/Employers: SEE (ESFp) ESI (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: SLE (ESTp) LSI (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/Trophies: EIE (ENFj) IEI (INFp)

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: IEE (ENFp) EII (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 attendance to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.

Teachers: LSE (ESTj) SLI (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 (ILE) INTj (LII)

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: ESE (ESFj) SEI (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.


the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/101-Erotic-Attitudes