LSE? LIE? SLE? Something else?
Brief backstory: I met him through online dating. He lives a ways away from me, but we've been messaging for awhile and finally met up. These are initial observations and ponderings.
----
He's very intelligent, but he also has a "if I can't see it, it doesn't exist" mindset, especially when it comes to practicality. His default is that if it isn't immediately apparent and if it doesn't make logical sense, then it's questionable at best. But he also is more than smart enough to extrapolate and infer. In fact, he's very deft at it. Very quick at making mental connections. Furthermore, he uses that understanding to try to make emotionally intelligent decisions. However, I don't see him as being emotionally adept. I think he does as well as he does at being relationally sensitive (which isn't huge, but it's present at least) from a combination of experience and applying logic.
Whenever I had an opinion or made a statement, it seems like he asked for why I thought that way, how I could back it up. And he seemed to want me to have opinions.
----
He's more serious than I thought he'd be based on his punctuation style and emoji usage. Extroverted, but also cautious. Emotionally reserved, more than the average person for sure.
I have not got much visceral emotional responsiveness from him. As in his eyes and face stayed fairly static and I could only "see" to a certain relatively shallow level. And, yet, we were still able to engage and talk for awhile. Which is weird to me and a bit puzzling.
With most people, when I try I can make an emotional connection, even if just light and passing, it's a genuine emotional touching. When I encounter people where either I can't reach them or they close off, usually conversation doesn't really happen. Neither of us feel a need to keep trying to connect and it's all good. When I end up in a good conversation with someone, it's because we match on certain levels, including me feeling good about how they feel about me (if that makes any sense). I can "see into" them.
In this case, he wore an emotional mask but still wanted to converse, beyond when he could have reasonably left if he wanted to. And it was genuine conversation, curiosity, exchanging of ideas, humor, etc. (although the humor was limited). So unlike most people who if there's a wall or incompatibility we just part ways, he acted like he wanted keep trying. But his face only really softened a few times. (Twice I caught the softer look when I looked up at him while perusing menus.)
-----
I think he only sort of cares about how others feel. Sometimes he acts like he feels he should care more, but doesn't, and that's a spot of weakness.
All that said, he's very morally judgey. He essentially said he cares more how people feel if he sees them as being good and kind and easy to get along with. If they're trouble-makers he doesn't care at all, and might even enjoy their suffering.
He's really big on hard work and effort being the path to success. Don't give excuses. If you're not succeeding you don't want it enough.
----
Respect is a big deal.
I was telling him about my European adventures, and he wondered about the French being disdainful of Americans. I told him that in my experience, if you at least make a good faith effort to try to speak French, they're so much happier and nicer.
He acted doubtful so I told him an anecdote about my sister and I visiting a restaurant, trying to speak French and being treated kindly, then watching an American woman come in speaking only English and the staff's visible change in attitude toward her.
He still seemed skeptical, so I said something along the lines of how it's a matter of respect - do you respect their culture enough to try to speak their language to them? And it's like a lightbulb went on in his head and he was all for the idea after that.
----
The first part of the date felt like an interview or interrogation, haha. I didn't mind it, except I was trying to read a menu and it's hard to do both at the same time. Questions with follow up questions. Lots of data gathering, little to no focus on feelings. He did check himself at one point, realizing/observing that this approach might be off-putting.
----
We delved briefly into sports. I said I have a love / sadness relationship with a local team, and that I was currently annoyed with them for getting rid of my favorite players. "Who are your favorites?" he asked. I blanked on their names, so I stalled for time by recalling "the one who goes after mascots" (and we had a brief discussion about my dislike of those masked horrors).
"What's his name?" he asked. It took me a few seconds to recall first the player's nickname and then his real name.
"You must not like them that much if you can't remember their names."
-----
We talked Fi a bit. Not using that term, of course.
I said I like most people. He seemed surprised.
He introduced the hypothetical scenario of us getting locked into the room with all of the current fellow diners. He said most he could get along with. A few he'd hate. And a handful he'd trust / feel close to.
I said that with probably at least half, I could find some way to connect with and bond, to the point where they'd be practical allies, even perhaps friends. He seemed surprised again and said he was impressed by that. (I said it's just a strength I have and others have different strengths...)
He wanted more clarity on what the bonding meant and would look like. I explained about varieties of bonds and differences of strength levels.
He took issue with the word "bond" at that point, and seemed especially to focus on how some people glom more onto me than I onto them. I allowed for the word "attachment" as a suitable substitute in that case.
-----
Especially near the beginning, he would talk while looking around the room and not at me.
----
He had a contained, fidgety energy. He didn't actually fidget, but I could feel that type of tension.
-----
He saved my life (possibly). We got to an intersection and suddenly felt his hand grabbing my arm and pulling me back. A car I hadn't seen was coming up pretty fast.
That's not necessarily type related, but now you know more about me, lol, and how close you got to never reading this.
-----
With only one in-person interaction, it's very hard to make sweeping type decisions, but I'm curious if any of you have any insights or things to look for next time (if there is a next time) based on your experiences. The emotional distance thing is particularly interesting, though I'm not sure if I explained it well.
LIEs, does this sound like it could be you? LSEs? SLEs...?
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Kill4Me
I'm alive, and I'm glad you are too!
As soon as the conversation turned to respect, I would've probably subtly steered it in another direction. As for the discussion on the people in the room, I would be more likely to talk about the general "people-vibe" of those around me, or about specific things about specific people and such. Basically, there's no way the conversation would've worked the way it did if you were with a SLE.
Makes sense. Thank you! I can get all theoretical in my head, but it helps a ton to have real live person feedback.
