Yes!Originally Posted by uncivilized
When I was younger, I'd always crush on the guys who were the best in PE class.
Yes!
When I was younger, I'd always crush on the guys who were the best in PE class.
lmao, i'd always crush on guys who were intellectually killing it. one of those guys *was* an SLE though, he was sort of hermetic (sp/sx) and read about everything and when i didn't know something would explain it to me as if *anyone* would knowYes!
When I was younger, I'd always crush on the guys who were the best in PE class.... luved it, haha
Sp/Sx SLEs, do they even exist?lmao, i'd always crush on guys who were intellectually killing it. one of those guys *was* an SLE though, he was sort of hermetic (sp/sx) and read about everything and when i didn't know something would explain it to me as if *anyone* would know
It sounds more like that intellectual hermetic sp/sx guy was rather SLI-Te.
(Te = "what everyone (should) know(s)")
P.S: And yeah, I was never really attracted to guys "killing it intellectually" per se, haha.
Though I'd like them to be somewhat witty, of course...
I wish that you will find a very nice SLEYes!
When I was younger, I'd always crush on the guys who were the best in PE class.
He will be commander general of such and such and willl know how to cook.
-
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
lolYes!
When I was younger, I'd always crush on the guys who were the best in PE class.
How about the possibility of meeting an LSE instead because they tend to become the best at something that they pick up. How do you recognize them from SLE
Dual type
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
From afar they may look the same, but at a closer distance and with enough "soul probing", you can see whether they are Se or Te lead - the difference is pretty clear to me.
Besides that, EP temperament is much more flexible and likes "going with the flow" and adapting to the situation opposed to EJ.
At the end of the day, the Quadra values will come forward...
LSE can put on an Fe (Role) facade, but they don't truly value it. Most of the time, they don't care for having boisterous laughter in an interaction. They don't mind it as much as an Fe PoLR would, but they are not really attached to it. Whereas an SLE (esp. Se subtype) will try to "force" to have an Fe-inclusive interaction in certain ways. (The Ti subtype less likely so, but they will look out for interactions that have the "Fe factor", whereas LSE is totally fine without it.)
Most importantly, an LSE will belittle someone's Ni or find it insubstantial, too fickle. Whereas an Ni-seeking type like SLE will welcome insight in the future and gain inspiration/motivation from Ni.
At last, the Aggressor Romance style is remarkably different from the Caretaker one. Aggressors are much more stimulated by "chasing" someone and winning their admiration, whereas an LSE Caretaker will like to find someone they can teach and take care of in certain ways.
I swear I'm not picking on you, Sis (you probably hate me by now), I just wanted to point out that while I agree with romancing styles in general, especially at the beginning of the relationships, these roles can later become muddy. My dad is LSI for example, Se subtype, and he can be remarkably patronizing and "teachery" with my EIE mom and me. Teaches us the correct way to clean or do things for example or is smartassy about the ways of life. He's also very worried and protective of us (e6). I've noticed that in several other LSI's (imo all SJ's are like that to an extent) and E-types.It's not always related to Si ego.
I actually don't hate you at all, haha.I swear I'm not picking on you, Sis (you probably hate me by now
Sure, many males can fall into this patronizing role from time to time. This depends a lot on the interaction between the people... As in, being frustrated and feeling superior intellectually makes most people fall into the role of the "know-it-all" teacher, though this is mostly the case for 4D Te types.
But yes, not only ST Caretakers want to teach. I just tried to point out the overall vibes of the two different Romance styles. I feel like the Demonstrative function may skew the expression of the romance style from time to time. For instance, LSI has got 4D Si, so they may exhibit occasional bouts of "Caretaker" behavior; same for LSEs and their 4D Se sometimes resulting in a playful aggressiveness.
There can be several layers to Romance style expression. Categorizing them into Victim/Aggressor and Childlike/Caretaker is a way to capture the main theme of each style.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
