My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
EII-LSE victim aggressor is just fuel for the fire that most EIIs are trying to put out to begin with.
i think i have an idea of where you're coming from. i guess what it comes down to is that every single one of the 16 types will approach things like romance and communication differently based on functional arrangement including the position of all of their functions - base, creative, demonstrative, etc. and the theories placed on top of that like the erotic roles and stuff are extras outside of the model that make more categories to help with conceptualizing things. they're...supplemental? so you could keep creating categories to narrow them down further if you really wanted to but it isn't necessary. does that make sense?
idk. i think this thread needs Ti or sth. lol.
My life's work (haha):
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/blog.php?b=709
Input, PLEASEAnd thank you
I don't see why EIE and LIE would be infantile either. goes hand in hand with . It's out of place to see one toss out a singular direction or need in favor of something Ne-like. And LIIs and EIIs generally do not goad or challenge people in a way Victim does. Some EIIs might be meek, but that's what a Victim is. A Victim could be cocky or purposely play a lot of games.. what they want is someone to meet the challenge (theoretically speaking).