I usually first try to detect any signal of interest, and fail at it. Then delude myself they're there, and act anyway. Right after I act, though, I'm not really able to keep on pushing, so there has to be some responsivness.
I usually first try to detect any signal of interest, and fail at it. Then delude myself they're there, and act anyway. Right after I act, though, I'm not really able to keep on pushing, so there has to be some responsivness.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I'm sorry to be so intimidating, it's perhaps my outfit. I have a little question: are you sure I don't know *anything* about the situation? No hurry, think about it, to make sure you give me the correct answer.Originally Posted by Hydrangea
To be able to answer you, I need to know how badly you mean.
This is why I avoid putting personal anecdotes on anonymous forums. If I put something up on these forums then it's up for dissection.
The mode of goodness conditions one to happiness, passion conditions him to the fruits of action, and ignorance to madness.
Chapter 14, Verse 9.
The Bhagavad Gita
Lol, you're not intimidating, just a hurting idiot.
And so, Hydrangea drove a spike into the heart of the beast.
NE00000WH!
Ugh. I wish I couldn't just recognize that a relationship with the person would be unrewarding and short-lived, because then maybe I'd have enough "experience" to be confident with some girl who was theoretically worth having a relationship with (not that I know terribly many---any?---of those). Of course, you can always just persuade yourself that you don't know and any relationship could turn out to be more than you expected. But then I'm afraid that leads to persuading yourself not to end things in order to avoid hurting other people. Which turns into persuading yourself that you love some girl you don't love so you can get married. Which turns into persuading yourself that you're happy while living in permanent middle-class doldrums when in reality you could have had it all, rolling in the deep.
I'm not so much afraid of being hurt myself---I mean, I have coping mechanisms, and I know what they are. I'm more afraid of hurting hypothetical-girlfriend. But love involves hurting and being hurt, and it's another arena of life where you just have to do as little harm as possible.
Anyway, me personally, I awkwardly (and usually drunkenly) try to flirt, and have no idea how to go about it, nor what are positive and negative signals. I attempt to indicate (too subtly) my intentions (if positive, if forward), but cannot say anything overtly for fear I have misread the situation (once a girl had me sitting on her lap, and she wouldn't let me get up, and she clearly wanted it because she made out with like three guys at that party and she kept biting my shoulder. I had no idea how to proceed. I am rather an idiot). I am much better at damping things down by acting noncommittal.
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.
I dont think there is much sense to be worried about hurting the other. If the terms of what belongs into relationship is accepted by going into relationship that also includes the potential and possibility of being hurt, but also the possiblity of the opposite and blossoming of the relationship. So if one goes into the relationship one should accept to work for the positive outcome and have faith in it enough to iniate. But the reason that it might fail isnt reason enough to not try it. One needs just some courage
I kind of agree with ineffiable to some extent, although I understand hydrangea's dilemma.
I think personally if I was pulling the strings, I would be satisfied by telling the guy why you're leaving him + followed by leaving him. Deliver the blow in a single coup de grace and give him the benefit of at least a clue as to why he failed.
Then again some people may not be comfortable with that or it's not their style. Further telling a person one reason why they failed usually will lead to another question, and another and another and so forth. It can draw on endlessly, the person asking the questions in a way is on a quest to win the person back... but really its draining the other person dry of energy and making things worse.
That's why I personally support the notion of giving them a clear decisive response and then cutting it off in a swift coup de grace. The person will feel pain immediately at the start, but slowly they will have a thread to ride on for self-development. Something they can work on, and when they feel like they've achieved that, the pain will disappear and they can move forward a better, stronger, person. Hence why its a coup de grace... not a dagger in the back.
also not thread related here is the link to what the expression coup de grace means http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_de_gr%C3%A2ce ... its linguistic gold imho
I'm curious, does this apply equally to men and women aggressors?
I know a woman I suspect is SLE-Ti and am trying to figure her out. She doesn't seem like she'd be the chaser so much as the chased (though still very much in control). Perhaps she is really LSI-Se.
I've gotta get me a sexy aggressor lady.
lol thats a good idea
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
i think that's kind of normal isn't it? i tend to find myself circling around people or to the side of people. i don't really make eye contact much unless:
a) i want to provoke someone a little
b) we're having an "intense" interaction
c) i want to keep some distance
a - i tend to back off a little, if someone seems to get overwhelmed by too much eye contact, then resume, but tend towards a little overwhelming rather than a lot overwhelming.
b - some people get faster / more rapid / more intense with more eye contact, but it's more engaging, and i get bored of conversations that lack intensity easier.
c - for some people i find that they want to get to know you more, and find you more interesting or something if you make less eye contact, and sometimes i find that having a front of kinds is a good way to maintain distance, and it's easier to maintain with more eye contact et cetera, it's kind of like reducing and kind of curiosity of the unknown by being known, but boring.
Why do you make eye contact if you want to keep some distance?
yeh everyone plays games, especially the ones who say they're not into playing games.... they're the worst...
i decided to clarify already
it's kind of like if you don't speak too much, don't make eye contact too much etc you can seem easier for others to want to get closer to, but if you'd louder, more direct etc you're harder. but if people want to challenge that you have to be rediculous, with outlandish ideas or something.
that said sometimes i don't care that much about keeping distance, 'cos i won't see the person again. so i'll just like not care about boundaries and distance and shit. and just figure it'll be over soon enough.
does that make sense?
the most recent example i can think of about wanting to keep distance, but not seeing the person again, was some girl who was saying that i looked bohemian and i was like no i don't, and then she tried another angle, i can't remember what it was. but she kept trying to flatter me in a sanguine glib way or something with mistruths. although i didn't make eye contact with her, and maybe if i had it would have helped me maintain distance. i just had that other feeling, that she may take it as interest.
Last edited by Satan; 11-05-2011 at 02:58 PM.
Clarity resolves these issues.
Basically, victim males try really hard to be like aggressors when trying to pick up someone? I'd assume they only do that out of compensation, for if they actually went for an aggressor, they would not have to do that.
I could only see that approach working with fellow Victims. When both people are Victims, someone has to strengthen their "Aggressor side", and put that forward, otherwise I cannot see how a relationship between two Victims would start.
In the couple of victim/victim relationships I was in, in my quadra, I took the aggressor role but only after they made the first move. I didn't really pursue until I knew I had to keep it going because I was interested in seeing where it lead. I had been in relationship with SLE before that so I kind of knew what to do. It was not easy on the practical, day to day aspects, but they were a lot of fun.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I was thinking about how I don't relate a lot to the Victim thing, but some of what was mentioned does make sense.
I do provoke responses from people. I think I test for certainty. I typically enter a Socratic dialogue where I am asking my partner for more information or clarification.
I love for things to be explained to me in Ti. It feels very comfortable. Like I finally found a source of information I can just listen to and trust.
I also saw in this thread that Victims will test their partners to see if they are worthy. I have been accused of doing this, but I don't consciously do it. I don't think this is a healthy thing though.
So if I think about it I want a steadfast and certain partner I can trust to take away my doubts and indecisions. In that way, I can see myself as a victim wanting an aggressor.
I have been attracted to very strong women, they usually have a very powerful aura about them. I think it's because of what I said above.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
I actually don't like the name "erotic attitudes" but anyway, they way I see it it's just how people behave in romantic relationships.
Let's just say we keep the name. I agree that the victims have high Ni.
In my experience, I always know what I want, and I always expect something to happen, so I'm the one who's in control, and I initiate my aggressor to do that thing to me.
And this could be anything.
Even in the early stage like flirting. I ENJOY flirting. And I tend to test people, ask questions, in a playful way, I like to see their reactions (kinda like to match with my Ni I guess) and I can see if someone can keep up with my game, they're must be my aggressors, SEE, ESI, LSI, SLE. Especially SLEs.
This is how I feel about it, I think as an EJ we are pretty in control or at least would like to be. The idea of victim isn't something I'd naturally call myself.
The testing and playing around for a reaction is kind of a victim thing, you are provoking a response to test their "strength" in a way. I do this exact thing.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
4w5 sp/sx
