Do they exist? I'm skeptical. If so, point them out.
Homosexual ISTps and ESTjs
Do they exist? I'm skeptical. If so, point them out.
I have not honestly ever met one.
Nor have I.
Looking for one?
It'd be nice.
The only homosexual delta STs I can think of are Richard Chamberlain, Neil Patrick Harris, and maybe George Takei.
Huh I thought Takei was IEE. Uh, anyway there are plenty of homosexual Beta NFs if you want to step outside your comfort zone.
I'd trust jxtes, esp based on his location.
I know plenty of homosexual beta NFs, and believe you me if I wanted one of them I'm sure I would have taken my chances. But alas, no such individual has come my way.
But yeah, I make this thread because I feel like delta STs are the most stereotypically masculine of the socion, and it'd be good to know that at know of at least one homosexual individual who fits this criterion.
You sir have vulgar notions about my person.Originally Posted by Ryu
ololol
Are you talking about male homosexual delta STs?
or both genders being homosexual?
I still don't know any gay delta STs, either way, though.
Both genders will be acceptable. It'd probably easier to find delta ST lesbians though, or at least ones that seem stereotypically butch.
Now that I think about it, Paula Poundstone comes to mind.
Delta ST women seem to be drawn to effeminate guys or non pushy, non ST guys, based on my limited experience with delta ST women.
I've been approached by a few homosexual males. I think they were all betas, honestly.
OH OH OH
WHAT ABOUT TIM GUNN
Other than Ryu, there probably are a lot of gay delta STs. Do you know about gay bears? Sexual preference doesn't necessarily have to be related to masculinity/femininity.
I know one IRL. They're out there anyway.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I think Delta ST women are more likely to be dykes.
There are some stereotypes about what "masulinity" and "femininity" are, and about their relationship to homosexuality. I would guess the same percentage of SLI men are gay as any men, and the same percentage of SLI women are lesbians as any women. It seems from what I've read that homosexuality is a fairly random occurance, except that later-born sons (like 3rd and 4th sons) are slightly more likely to be gay than first and second born sons.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I know an ESTj who was dresses up in old ladies underwear. He's most likely gay
An insanely obvious IJ type. The only delta he has any likelihood of being would be INFj.OH OH OH
WHAT ABOUT TIM GUNN
I'm only gay for delta NFs.
And also some attractive beta ST females, because they also seem like guys to me
Yeah, Maritsa is good at saying people type as SLI - there's no question about that.I often think of my SLI brother as a spoilt princess living on a pink cloud or something.He oozes aristocracy and walks like a male runway model.However, he has a girlfriend...who chases after him.Like,he won't take the initial to take her out (he admitted that he doesn't even care to break up with her.She can go whenever she wants to. :S).Also,he has a mysterious sophisticated aura along with great humour.Actually, I never thought of him as an introvert since he looks very in control and comfortable at the same time in social gatherings and does not miss a chance to go out with people.I put him up for VI and the only person who answered was Maritsa.It was a good one,though!
Your bro is using some of that inherent maleness that is instinctually appealing - confidence, independence, etc. Act like a king and you'll be treated as one, someone said.
hahah SEI for women and SLI for men,right?
It's weird how well the SLI description fits him but he's rational damn it! (the tim gunn post reminded me of it)
Meh. I don't know/can't think of any. I suppose that there are some in all likelihood. I'm going to keep my eyes peeled for them now. I can think of one guy I know who's probably some variety of Te type and probably gay. But I don't know if he's gamma or delta, or even if he's definitely a Te type. But he could very well be SLI.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Yeah that's how they are, they can seem a little arrogant to people who arn't used to their suave walk and talk, but to your type they can be very annoying...many introverts like myself are very social; social -ness has nothing to do with introversion. SLI are funny, writers, all kinds of bunch.
@Arctures TIM GUNN seems to be ESxx
-
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
For the record: according to user Smilingeyes this is related to clubs: NTs are socially closed, SFs are socially open. STs and NFs are a bit of both.many introverts like myself are very social; social -ness has nothing to do with introversion.
In my experience, though, the social openness seems to be related to small talk vs. big talk instead. Extrovert NTs do socialize a lot, but tend to be confronting in speech to the point of creating/destroying friendships and attractions at random, thus not always being very socially effective.
As a general rule, thinking of INT types as the most quiet and secretive and of ESF types as the most open and socially active works, but anything in between tends to be ambiguous.
You're homosexual, too, labcoat ?
Nope. 100% straight.
Oh, okay.
By the way, nice club descriptions
Better ask just to make sure
He seems like an insanely obvious Fe PoLR to me.
also how could I have possibly forgotten Ian McKellen
Last edited by Galen; 03-21-2010 at 02:19 AM.
This is a very common issue. And it's easy to see what this is really about, behind the socionics illusion. You might think you're different, and you are in many ways, but what you're talking about is something that *all* gay guys whine about.
What you're really upset over is that you can't find a gay guy you really get along with. It would be great if you did.
But the problem is, why you can't find what you want, is you have too many notions in your own head about what 'gay' means, that you get either dissapointed or annoyed or bored (or all of the above) when encountering an actual, open homosexual. You create a 'self-fulfilling prophecy' in other words. You're much more mystified by the idea of what you think you want rather than what reality shows itself unto you. But based on the thoughts you have, who could blame you?
You think most gays are beta NFs. How can you prove this is true? You can't. It's just egoic nonsense, quite frankly. I don't claim to represent all homosexuals. How can I? I am smart however, and understand the 'nature of the beast' if you will.
As the thinker thinks, the prover proves. And all that. When really I think if you let go of these attachments in your own head, you might find a guy you'd enjoy because you'd stop trying to have a perspective of your mind seeing what it wants to see. This feels scary at first, because it's challenging. Then you'd be compatible and also you wouldn't be frustrated at his gayness. You might find some of his stereotypical gay ways cute rather than annoying, because you'll discover the magic beyond the mind. And of course, the frustrating unrequited crushes you get on straight men would lessen.
Of course this is all a lesson in what you already know. You don't like a guy because he's gay or straight, you like a guy you're compatible with. But in order for you to be compatible, you both have to be gay technically, but it doesn't work out if you think gay men need to 'be a certain way' in order for you to like them. Get my drift? In order for that sort of natural-ness to happen the way you want to, you have to just stop thinking so damn much.
Like Dolphin told you before, the only thing you have to do is risk your heart a little, and reach out with your emotions more and stop seeing things so much with your mind. This isn't being 'emo', this will ultimately get you what you wanted all along.
you should open up a gay therapy clinic
haha yeaaah gay therapy. I can be a gay byron katie or a gay esther hicks. Yaay for improving the vibration of gay men. <3
I will stop preaching cause I know you already know this! Just one last thing as a reminder to help you 'snap back' when you're feeling faggy and weak again:
If I am so convinced in my head that gay guys are a certain way, reality will always present itself to me that way. It has no choice not to. And of course I wouldn't find anybody I like that way because the word 'gay' is innately attached to things like weakness, cowardliness, innate inferiority, absence, lack, unwanted-ness. It's very nature is something that is pretty much the opposite of what any human being would want, no matter who they are!!!
Honey, that thinking will just drive you crazy! Because all the "gay" guys you would really like and get along with, you wouldn't ever notice! You're just attracting more of what you don't want!!!
Now I called you 'Honey' on purpose because of how stereotypically effeminate it is perceived to be, and I know that sort of thing pisses all gay men off. But that's precisely the point. People can only form to the reality in your own about head about what you've molded gay to be, you're always in the 'driving wheel' so to speak. So let's lose that victim stuff!
Didn't he have his own distinct theory on Socionics though? I think that there are a lot of Socionics terms that are honestly more like placeholders that are reminiscent of Jungian terminology that are taken too literally by those learning Socionics. And even though this is anecdotal, just from my life, I have a very socially open NeTi best friend and a rather socially closed SeFi co-worker. Those types of generalizations are dangerous for typing.
John Galliano i think might be LSE. He definitely has the big shnoz.
oh, and the winner of the second season of Project Runway Australia, Anthony Capon, seemed rather SLI (just on a superficial glance)
There are probably more than a few gay LSE and SLI fashion designers out there
The 100% qualifies as denial ;-)
Any claim you hear being made about socionics is potentially dangerous in this way. There is no reason why the statements on socioniko.net or wikisocion are any less likely to be detrimental to your understanding of the types other than that they are maybe supported by more people (be it that a lot of those people are also parroting others). By saying the generalization comes from a single user (although in a tentative way supported by me) I already allude to this difference in credibility. In case you haven't noticed, socionics is one big network of generalizations. There is no other way to understand the types than to generalize across them.Didn't he have his own distinct theory on Socionics though? I think that there are a lot of Socionics terms that are honestly more like placeholders that are reminiscent of Jungian terminology that are taken too literally by those learning Socionics. And even though this is anecdotal, just from my life, I have a very socially open NeTi best friend and a rather socially closed SeFi co-worker. Those types of generalizations are dangerous for typing.
And of course, a question for you to ponder, is whether with this new knowledge you can come to establish the types of the people concerned in a way that does fit the new generalization. Typings influence theoretical claims and theoretical claims influence typings. There is no solid ground on either side of the equation.
Damned. I can't ignore an expert's opinion on the topic...The 100% qualifies as denial ;-)
Well basically it's all subjective in nature.
In short, I recommend that generalisations aren't taken individually, that they are considered in their entirety, that is, their wholeness, when evaluating a type.
And to a degree it applies to some functional analysis I see - it is better to remember that (at least in the case of socionics), that the whole of the type is greater than the sum of it's parts.
Not that functional analysis can't work, as it does, but amateurish-type things such as "third Ne" or "you are smiling you can't be"..insert some Te/Fi type.
It's just a puzzle that when solved includes the whole picture not the pieces. I generally (that word) like to ascribe the otherness to personality, which is of course quite apparent as still being unique in everyone, even within the same type (which is why I think someone such as Gulenko is going wrong with trying to create more and more sub-types, incidentally).
Oh, i'm agreeing with you I think, just elaborating from my own perspective/experience/knowledge/words, it seems.
An I won't be pulling any of your 3 legs neither...Damned. I can't ignore an expert's opinion on the topic...
Yeah what you say is pretty sensible imo. I definitely see typing as a wholistic process like that. Taking any of the specifics too seriously tends to lead to disasters.Oh, i'm agreeing with you I think, just elaborating from my own perspective/experience/knowledge/words, it seems.
Now that's disgusting.An I won't be pulling any of your 3 legs neither...
Reply With Quote
