what are the dual types that are the least likely to want children?

[redbaron]

in your opinion? Or are there any?

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[strrrng]

lol @ this thread

[Khamelion]

don't think it has much to do with type or let alone pairing types.

i would think personal goals and physical limitations are more relevant. as well as how one or the other was raised....and their own ideas about children that are unrelated to socionics on too many levels to make this kind of conclusion.

maybe their reasoning behind not wanting to or wanting to might point towards certain functions, but other than that...

[redbaron]

IEI + SLE imo. i already know one such old couple (him=IEI, her=SLE) without children but not this made my mind.

fwiw, my IEI/SLE brother/SIL don't have any kids and I'm not sure they intend to.

[mikemex]

Se quadras < Si quadras

[Ezra]

I think it depends on the couple.

[unefille]

I think it depends on the couple.

Stop being NOW!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Se quadras < Si quadras

You're usually smart Mikemex, but you just pulled that one out of your ass.

This is not socionics related. Maybe you could argue that accidental pregnancy is for valuers more though. It's usually the Betas that run the sexual education courses.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Joy]

IEI + SLE imo.

That was the first thought that came to my mind, but I think it's all about the individuals involved, really.

I know an SEE who does not want kids. Or more specifically, she does not want babies. I've wondered if it has something to do with having Si as an ignoring function.

[JRiddy]

That was the first thought that came to my mind, but I think it's all about the individuals involved, really.

I know an SEE who does not want kids. Or more specifically, she does not want babies. I've wondered if it has something to do with having Si as an ignoring function.

Yeah, there's probably an easy way to make sense of something like this.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[mikemex]

You're usually smart Mikemex, but you just pulled that one out of your ass.

Maybe. I never claim that my opinion is the ultimate truth. But I've got that impression because, on average, Se quadra couples tend to have less children. At least the ones I know and I know many.

[Kristiina]

Perhaps most duals are equal, but kids are a less likely event when the woman is a thinker, especially when she's making a career.

Si/Ne valuing types have a kid because it's nice to raise someone.
Se/Ni valuing types have kids to have progeny.

[JRiddy]

Perhaps most duals are equal, but kids are a less likely event when the woman is a thinker, especially when she's making a career.

Si/Ne valuing types have a kid because it's nice to raise someone.
Se/Ni valuing types have kids to have progeny.

I think it has far more to do with culture and socialization than type. Oh yeah, and logical type women are of course the ones who want to have a career ... :/

Seattle and San Fransisco both have very low populations of children. This is because the dumbasses who live in those places think kids will "cramp their style." I hate them.

[Trevor]

by: Viktor Talanov

3. The desire to have three or more children

Managed to get an answer to this question of 172 people with diagnosed type (Fig. 3). Among sotsionicheskih signs, judging by the results of the most beneficial effect on chadolyubie have intuition and positivism. Another noticeable effect sotsionicheskih functions: clearly stimulated, and so much inhibits the desire to have many children. Clearly expressed, and the dependence of the clubs: Scientist wants to have many descendants, and the practice is not - it can be assumed that they see in them dokuku and extra mouths. Humanists and social occupy middle position and vary little (at the desire of humanists in a significant number of children did a little bit more). From Blocks depending not.

Frankly speaking, the result is encouraging. Egoist does not want to have many children. In the old days, the negative side is compensated for the reproduction of a higher propensity to take up sex in the absence of reliable contraception in public funds. Now, contraceptives, the glory of God, good. If you believe that human desires and the reality at least somewhat correlated to life, the «Scientist» in our civilized times, is all, more opportunities to keep the peace offspring than the «experts». Why the author does not hide this fact of joy? It is not because he himself Scientist. The matter is otherwise. Just this world of Scientist is not seen evil, but because of selfish practitioners (to which belong, for example, almost all government bureaucrats and officers of secret services) - as long as you want. In the past one hundred years of this evil in all countries - with the obvious bust. Sensory manifestations around too obvious surplus. Sensor, as the social, as well as practitioners, we must not only violence but also the widespread reign of inefficient consumption patterns of society, which is thoughtlessly devour and blow the earth's resources entirely without benefit to the future of its day.

Therefore, the increased propensity Scientist to spread their genes are pleased (well, except for the ILI - a god with him). For full of joy not only lacking confidence that the club membership at least as a heritage ... It is not investigated this matter plainly, is not investigated, alas.

But still encouraging. So, not yet extinct, it means that more will live.




Fig. 3. The desire to have three or more children. The largest chadolyubie as seen showing LII (sub-sample of 15 persons), LIE (5) and EII (11). The least desire to have many children (and hence the tendency to a gradual run-off of its genes from the population) show SEI (8) and LSE (true for LSE results unreliable - its sub-sample was composed of only 3 people).


Source: http://www.newsocionicsmodel.narod.ru/Five_items.html

[redbaron]

that's funny. I know an SEI and EII couple, they both come from large families. She wanted lots of kids and he wanted only two. They ended up with two.

[Ritella]

weird thread. i want children, but then i think about all the work and it just seems...exhausting.
i think 2 is a good number, and only if I were married to an LSE.

[Ritella]

Si/Ne valuing types have a kid because it's nice to raise someone.
Se/Ni valuing types have kids to have progeny.

yes, i agree with this. i might slightly change Si/Ne to "it's interesting helping someone flesh out their potential."

[jessica129]

Who knows the psychology behind this. All I know is I want kids so bad. Sadly this will probobly get put off til i'm in my thirties. I couldn't see myself having more than two. I'd like to space them a few years apart to give them the attention they need and what not. More than two and i'd feel like there would be too much competition/me not giving them enough attention. I go thru my baby phases...this is definetly one of those times.

[Creepy-male]

Woot!

Deltas are dying off!

EDIT

Living proof.

The only reason I'm alive is because my dad's a Gamma.

[forgetmenot]

I would love to have children and I could have them let's say in two years time but I don't think it would be possible due to the lack of the partner
I know ESTp who would like to have many children (25)

[1981slater]

Perhaps we are asking the wrong question, since most people end up having kids. IMO, the right question would be "which types are willing to have children before age 25,30,35,etc?" My opinion about this: socionics rationals want to set up in life as quickly as possible (read: "I want a mortgage, being married and 2 kids before 25") whereas irrationals prefer freedom ("I am not getting married until I'm 40").

Sensors develop their bodies very quickly and they are "adults" at age 18-20, and start to age in their 40s. On the other hand, intuitives look younger than they really are and don't reach their peak until they are 30 or so, thus, they start to age in their 60s.

Nevertheless, so many traits are related to this issue that it's difficult to find a correlation between Socionics and it.

[Creepy-male]

Sensors develop their bodies very quickly and they are "adults" at age 18-20, and start to age in their 40s. On the other hand, intuitives look younger than they really are and don't reach their peak until they are 30 or so, thus, they start to age in their 60s.

Absolutely. This is an excellent analysis.

Would you say that Intuiters are more prone to dementia?

[1981slater]

Would you say that Intuiters are more prone to dementia?

If dementia means ("thinking too much"), definitely.

[Creepy-male]

Well, if one says that Sensers, being seated in the body, are prone to early degradation of the body, would it not follow logically that Intuiters, being seated in the mind, suffer early degradation of the mind?

[Warlord]

Like anyone would want to have babies with ILIs

[forgetmenot]

Well, if one says that Sensers, being seated in the body, are prone to early degradation of the body, would it not follow logically that Intuiters, being seated in the mind, suffer early degradation of the mind?

[ArchonAlarion]

I think this has absolutely nothing to do with type.

[redbaron]

Like anyone would want to have babies with ILIs

lol! I have an ILI friend who's married to his dual. They have four, two biological and two adopted.

[1981slater]

Well, if one says that Sensers, being seated in the body, are prone to early degradation of the body, would it not follow logically that Intuiters, being seated in the mind, suffer early degradation of the mind?

makes sense, but idk what to say

On dementia: intuitives daydream too much, whereas sensors are more pragmatic and find easy ways of being happy.

On degradation: if most sensors start to age at 40, I wouldn't call it degradation. If one sensor start to age at 35, I'd call it degradation. We don't have to compare sensors' aging speed with intuitives' aging speed.

[ArchonAlarion]

Well, if one says that Sensers, being seated in the body, are prone to early degradation of the body, would it not follow logically that Intuiters, being seated in the mind, suffer early degradation of the mind?

Dude that is just wrong.

Sensors seated in the body????

wtf


That is MBTI BS plain and simple

[Warlord]

Well, if one says that Sensers, being seated in the body, are prone to early degradation of the body, would it not follow logically that Intuiters, being seated in the mind, suffer early degradation of the mind?

Body decays from use because of oxidation. Mind improves from use because of growth of neurons.

[redbaron]

kids are great--they're funny and cute, interesting and intelligent.

they're also LOUD (especially when you have three of them) and they'll eat you out of house and home before they're 10.

I couldn't imagine life without them.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Brilliand]

Body decays from use because of oxidation. Mind improves from use because of growth of neurons.

Actually, they both do both. The body grows stronger with use, and wears out. The mind grows stronger with use, but it also has more difficulty learning later in life, because of the crowd of other knowledge it must be related to and verified against.

Following the same assumptions you're following here (that ArchonAlarion rejected), Sensors would have strong, old bodies and weak, young minds, whereas Intuiters would have strong, old minds and weak, young bodies.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[Creepy-male]

Dude that is just wrong.

Sensors seated in the body????

wtf


That is MBTI BS plain and simple

Looks like someone had a humor malfunction

Definitely not Ne-leading.

[ArchonAlarion]

Looks like someone had a humor malfunction

Definitely not Ne-leading.

Lol technically I'm not. Ti ENTp means Ti is my mode function (leading)

Also, people do post things like that with serious intentions. So sorry for not catching that, but its an easy mistake.