LSE's and cutting people out of their lives
Hmmm comment about LSE's and getting over things like relationships and stuff like that, or removing undesirable people from its life.
It's funny, from my perspective, after I do that, no one is ever the same. And I cannot really change that even if I want to change how I relate. It sort of just goes to this neutrality, I'm not sure how to explain it.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Numbness? I do it too. Actually it takes a real lot, but if someone crosses a certain line with me, I won't hate them, or wish them bad, but I shut down. Certain other things that are not even bad might even trigger this in me. I just feel like at one point I was very invested in someone, and then, something they did or maybe my realization of several things that they did, made me quickly change my mind. It is a line. Never to the point of being completely disassociated, but I cannot feel close gain. I would not wish harm, or pain, I just cannot give them my "all" anymore. Disconnection may happen. (I am drunk and unable to form good thoughts, sorry.)
EII 4w5
so/sx (?)
That's a pretty good description I think. IME, the break has very much to do with sundering the bond between the LSE (though I agree that I can do this to a point) and other person, even though there may not even be any hard feelings left afterwards (well, there may be a few obviously) and they may even want the old feelings of closeness back.Originally Posted by Christy B
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
In my experience LSEs find it very difficult to get over separations.
[]
| NP | 3[6w5]8 so/sp | Type thread | My typing of forum members | Johari (Strengths) | Nohari (Weaknesses)
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
I've noticed this with an ESTj friend of mine as well--w/ ppl w/ whom he's had a falling out.
Personally, I don't relate to it and I dunno, maybe it's type related..? After a fight/relationshp-end, if someone approaches me with a sincere apology, (mentioning specifics and how it won't happen again,) I'll usually welcome them back with open arms... In fact, I can't think of an instance where I've rejected it, or felt neutral toward someone making amends... I mean, it might be (probably would be) different if they went after one of my family members or something, but if it's just a verbal fight, or a falling out (as often happens in relationships,) yeah, welcome back.
It's not even the matter that someone "wronged" me, it's more a new maximum for the relationships is set. There is a ceiling on how far the relationship can go, and I find myself unable to go past it, even in instances where I might want to.
I generally don't hold angst against people. But also, in terms of former relationships, it seems like when I really let go and get past the point of no return, there really isn't anything there.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Yeah, I def feel what you're sayin here... I only really know one ESTj--he's a very good friend though--and he's similar to what you describe.
I dunno if it's true for all IEEs, but for me, re: relationships, I'll "really let go and... there really isn't anything there"--but there is no point of no return... I mean, something can happen that will rekindle that feeling... For example, recently, this ex I dated in high school--there really wasn't anything there, trust me haha--started IMing me, and now there's defnitely a lot there again... All it took was some time, an apology, and some sweet words.
I wonder if this is type related or what though?
Fi + Se, imo (to pull a Dioklecian).
Oh noes, UDP is ESI, I've heard it suggested, but I didn't want to believe it!
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
Could it be
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
Bingo. The same with SLIs, except that they are introverts and thus more independent.Could it be
[
You know what? You're an individual, and that makes people nervous. And it's gonna keep making people nervous for the rest of your life. - Ole Golly from Harriet, the spy.
Could either of you expand on this, please..? I'm interested.
I think that's more related to the HA being stronger/less valued than the DS.
LII-Ne
"Come to think of it, there are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and the Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare!"
- Blair Houghton
Johari
to continue with what was said in the last post
--- I expect other people to manage and develop relationships. That is what I need the most help with. So when I don't see that, or a relationship "ends", or becomes locked, then the consequence is as such.
Also, read the Fi block description of the ESTj strati profile, in articles. It explains a lot there.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
yeah, I totally agree with this. I'll just emotionally shut off on people, if I feel they cross some sort of line. I can't explain what that threshhold is, because it isn't some quantifiable set thing. But a dimension of betrayal certainly plays into it. It's just like where there once was emotional connection, or some sort of emotion, there is nothing. It isn't hate or dislike, just emptiness. Nothing that person does can touch you anymore.
allez cuisine!
wow, even if they apologized sincerely..?
Well said.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
Furthermore, it seems something I am unable to control. I'm not aware of what the threshold is either, yes. But I don't know.
Maybe it is related to Ni polr and weak Fi too. Because its like you've closed all options for the person.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
yeah, because it isn't about their intentions, it is about the impact of their actions on me. I guess cutting people off is like a defence mechanism, it's about protecting me from them in the future. I can't explain this properly, it just happens inside, everything on my part just goes away. I can easily maintain surface relations with that person, in fact it almost makes it easier to be friendly. But on a fundamental level, it can never go back to the way it was before the break.
I mean, I don't think I'm a particularly touchy or overly sensitive person. It takes quite a bit to get to that stage. I'm not going to go cold on a person because they told a crappy/offensive joke. I am if I feel physically/sexually threatened/harassed. Or if they do something I see as an emotional betrayal of our friendship - like trying to play games with my emotions or push me to give them a particular emotional response that I have no interest in expressing. If those things happen, what is the point of apologising, even with the utmost of sincerity? I can never trust them to not do it again. And that's expressed by moving to a place where they never can do it again.
ETA: Just wanted to agree with what UDP said above - it isn't some conscious decision or something even controlled. It just happens.
allez cuisine!
No, it's got nothing to do with apologizing. It isn't about that. This isn't about hating someone necessarily. It's about some sort of distance or something.
I am not sure how to remedy it, honestly. I've only had this really happen to a few people. Like, what made me write this thread, was that I spoke with my ex recently, and it was so strange, because connection and chemistry was gone. It was not even applicable.
It was...... like out of place. I am still friends with this person, we had a good discussion. But there was a movement towards romantic remarks, and it was totally unnatural and unfitting, and it was just empty. It was a strange neutrality. So I am unsure if I can ever see that person in the same way again.
consequently, this is *related why I am sure I could be with one person forever, so to say.
Last edited by UDP; 05-02-2008 at 04:21 AM. Reason: * related
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
I'm not sure how it would be Ni PoLR or weak Fi. Options are Ne (I'm simplifying a bit, but trying to explain why I think what I said earlier). If you're cutting someone out, then, that's Se (you're neglecting the possibility of them reentering in the future). And the fact that you're actively controlling your relations is Fi. I think. INFjs would find cutting people out of their lives difficult (so maybe you have a point in that occasionally they have to, and ESTjs could help them with that if what you're saying is true, but would ESTjs be the best judges of who to cut out?).
Retired from posting and drawing Social Security. E-mail or PM to contact.
I pity your souls
You don't seem to be understanding what I'm getting at. You seem to be interpreting as me forcibly cutting off all contact with a person. Are you reading the thread?
It sounds like you are still trying to see things through the ESI lens...(Are you serious?)
I've only had this really happen to a few people. Like, what made me write this thread, was that I spoke with my ex recently, and it was so strange, because connection and chemistry was gone. It was not even applicable.
It was...... like out of place. I am still friends with this person, we had a good discussion. But there was a movement towards romantic remarks, and it was totally unnatural and unfitting, and it was just empty. It was a strange neutrality. So I am unsure if I can ever see that person in the same way again.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
It has to do with what comes after that stage. After someone has been vomited out, there is a period of time where you simply cannot talk about them, etc. And then after that, that feeling wears away, and its just a sort of emptiness.Relations with its disappointed people Of shtirlits it vomits without any regret and tries hence about them not to think. Any reference about these people to it is extremely unpleasant. (when to it about them they resemble, it usually it puckers and it turns away.)
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
That seems like a plausible explanation for this kind of activity, but I think others could be equally so, mostly from a perspective of subtle differences (semantics, gradations in the context, etc). Fi + Se probably does go about things in this manner, actively so.
What I think is being desribed here is a more passive event (I prefer to think of it more durationally as a process, but ESTj's seem to me to experience it more as a sudden 'break', even if things may have been leading up to it for a long time). It isn't so much a choice that someone is no longer worthy, in a way it seems to lack that kind of confidence. Rather, it's almost a feeling of ambivalence. In their eyes, something that seemed worthy of their trust and the investment of their emotional life erupts into uncertainty. That kind of closeness and that kind of vulnerability might seem to them like hugging someone whose holding a knife. Distance becomes requisite for their protection. I'm of course speculating very much here. Please correct if I'm way off base.
Now, they might want to get back to that old way of being. They may desire that more than anything, but we are dealing with an unconscious response (I'll let that wave in the wind and let you be the judge of what exactly that entails, if anything). As has been said, this doesn't prevent getting along ok with the people that are now at arms length. Sorry if I'm spouting off something more general than type-specific, but that's kind of what I've seen, or at least interpreted, in my experience with the ESTj's in my life.
Moonlight will fall
Winter will end
Harvest will come
Your heart will mend
hmm, interesting. When I cut off contact is is for a specific reason and I need to logically decide to do it, to ensure I stick to it.
I used to think people could change, and so was always staying friends w/ people who promised they had "changed," but I was always dissapointed in the end. So then I changed my outlook and decided some bridges need to be burned (goes against that natural ENFp approach to maintain options, but I realized having some bridges in tact meant some mean people could still get into my life, so now I burn a lot of bridges on purpose).
I haven't witnessed this in ESTjs myself, because a good ESTj friend of mine actually put up w/ a lot from a friend of hers that wasn't very nice, and even when she knew she should cut it off (and did) I could tell she didn't really want to.
Also I knew an ESTj friend of mine (and that relationship between us needed to end) but he didn't really accept it and kept contacting me for a long time. So I think ESTjs are more complex than we're giving them credit for. I also knew another ESTj who would like keep old pictures of friends she didn't even talk to anymore.
When I fully decide it's over, I can easily never think of that person again (so long as I have good reason not to). Otherwise, if I'm unsure whether that person meant to do well, or could still be good in my life, sometimes I will think of them for a long time. But I don't see a lot of difference here as far as what the the ESTjs are saying. I think any type, after being truly betrayed will easily cut the tie, move on and not look back.
It's only in those gray area situations where this sort of thing becomes difficult.
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
Yeah, completely agree here. It's an automatic defence mechanism to protect me from getting hurt. The image of hugging someone with a knife is *very* appropriate. I remember the word 'neutral' being used someone in this discussion - that's what it is. Emotional neutrality to blunt that knife (to push that metaphor to the extreme...!) Basically am agreeing with munenori2's analysis.
I think we may be thinking of different situations here. I'm sure that most people, irregardless of type, would want to cut bad/destructive influences out of their lives because logically, they know they should do so. That's common sense. But when I talked about cutting people off emotionally, I mean something that just happens internally where I once had strong emotion towards someone, it just shuts off and there is nothing there. I can very easily put up with a lot of crap from many people because at a fundamental level, I just don't care what they think. They cannot hurt me because I haven't let them into a place emotionally where they can. But there are people who can hurt me (emotionally), and it is *that* category of people I'm thinking of here, who if they cross a line, that's it, they're out of that category. It's a different line for everyone.
And this is something that happens internally. It is not the obvious external no longer being friends with someone. I still appear perfectly friendly with some of those people I know I've cut off emotionally. Sure, the surface friendship changes too sometimes. But that's not where the actual difference is, for me.
My ENFp friend thinks this is utter bullshit and a terrible way to respond emotionally. And I do see why she thinks that. I know that she's far better at hanging on to friends, keeping those friendships. She tries to understand why I do this, but I think we just fundamentally respond so very differently to things other people do to us. Is her way better? Very probably. But it doesn't change the fact I am going to respond the way I do.
allez cuisine!
As the ENFp in question, all I can say is here, here! I find the ESTj tendency to emotionally 'deaden' toward people confusing and inexplicable in the sense that I intellectually understand what they're doing, but can't really 'get it'.
I think even what jewels was talking about establishes the difference very strongly in that jewels 'burning bridges' deliberately to prevent future hurt demonstrates the ability to consciously and deliberately manipulate relations to protect oneself. LSEs aren't able to do this. They can't manipulate relations between themselves and the other person. They can only do what they do have control over: themselves - and even then, it's not really control since it happens, like auto-pilot.
I spent hours a few weeks back trying to resolve a knotty emotional situation between a SLI and a LSE. Suffice to say, little success, but a lot of emotional pain blasted my way from both of them that they couldn't seem to communicate to each other. I was exposed first hand to the defense mechanism of Delta STs in all their glory and all I could think about was how emotionally brittle and uncertain they were and how determined they were to 'get in first' - neither could really SEE that the other person was vulnerable and hurting - they both thought the other person was in perfect control and just hurting them, essentially, because they wanted to/could. It made me go: ARRRRRRGH.
ARRRRRGH x 5. =(
(
)
3w4-1w2-5w4 sx/sp
You're absolutely right. This is why delta STs are diametrically opposed to beta NFs.
Yeah. That's so true. Amazing.I spent hours a few weeks back trying to resolve a knotty emotional situation between a SLI and a LSE. Suffice to say, little success, but a lot of emotional pain blasted my way from both of them that they couldn't seem to communicate to each other. I was exposed first hand to the defense mechanism of Delta STs in all their glory and all I could think about was how emotionally brittle and uncertain they were and how determined they were to 'get in first' - neither could really SEE that the other person was vulnerable and hurting - they both thought the other person was in perfect control and just hurting them, essentially, because they wanted to/could. It made me go: ARRRRRRGH.
ARRRRRGH x 5. =(
When we are agitated, our already limited sense of relationship goes through the window. And then it just becomes a fight to the end, with full on blinders. It's like a darkness sets in, and the only option we have is to just attack, every which way possible. That's kind of the really bad times. What I said in my original post is sort of after that period dies down, where what is left is just nothing.
But during the bad times especially, it really helps to have NFs around, particularly delta ones. One time I was SO bad, so desperately wrapped up in that bad state, that I drove an INFj to great lengths and come out and basically ethically rescue me. I realize now what happened, particularly after reading your last comment here. .... I'm thankful.
ANd yeah, sometimes when I feel things might be heading toward that bad place, especially if I don't have someone I can trust to sort of give me clear insight on what's going on, I'll just shut down kind of, and be wary, because I'm ethically unsure of things.
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
yes they do, but they don't care about people enough sometimes to not care what happens to them after they break.
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
Some people seriously need to evolve. Nobody should feel entitled to act this way.
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
You think?
Well, they need to evolve.
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
Into a?
An advance model of themselves. Of course.
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
Actually, I'm going to have to disagree. I rather think, provided that the line is a pretty reasonably drawn one, everyone is entitled to act this way. Everybody should have a point where they can say, this relationship is actually kind of toxic to me, this is when I should detach for my own well-being's sake. And even better, if that is achieved without rancour and lingering enmity. While some (most?) types can leave a crack for future reconciliation, I actually think it is someone's prerogative not to leave a crack at all if they want to simply move on for good. I mean, I understand what is being described - they're not doing it purposely; it is just that the person no longer means what he/she did. And this all happens subconsciously. I think if there's evolution at all (I prefer 'maturity'), it will be in terms of where that line is drawn, and an ability to appreciate what was worthwhile in what was shared before. But I think it is perfectly acceptable to have a line that, once crossed, it just is no longer reasonable to hang around for that chapter to maybe possibly be reopened perhaps, when it may be healthier to accept closure and move on.
This doesn't happen for me quite like it seems to for LSEs, but my most recent experience left me with something like what is described. One day, once you've decided, the emotional attachment is gone (perhaps for an LII, it follows a conscious decision). I emphasise that the separation was amicable. In theory, for my case, I acknowledge the door is left open a crack, but really - I think I could not feel the same again. LIIs think about stuff more consciously, so here is how I see it. I mean, in theory, people deserve second chances, but some losses of trust is such that, if one is looking for a second chance, a human does not live long enough for enough of the lost trust to be re-earned in time, because I think trustworthiness needs to be backed up with a consistent behaviour over time. A serious inconsistency would require a very long period of subsequent trustworthy consistency to negate the clear evidence of untrustworthiness. It may be better for both sides not to attempt this, because it would be a long wait and perhaps the other party would be better off beginning with a different person with whom he has not yet personally broken a trust with. I understand that some (maybe Fi dominants?) prize a high fidelity to the significant feelings shared in the relationship no matter what, as they "know" with a certainty that they're real. But bear in mind other types do not "know" intuitively for certain that feelings - even the most special ones - are real, and therefore prize more highly the evidence of character traits that indicate an ability to give sincere emotional commitment, and the concrete signs of such commitment. The lack thereof, throws into suspicion the feelings that were felt, as perhaps having been false or misguided. After all, humans can often be duped and misled to feel emotions that are not based on anything real and lasting. Whereas it is a lot harder to fake character and consistency.
LSE have no problem cutting people they don't love even if these are wonderful human beings.
In intimate relations they will cut off those who don't serve them...
LSE often talk or find people to talk to as a "sounding board" some call it "using". This sounding board is "I'll talk to you, but I'm not doing it to get any sense of feedback and reassurance, just so that I can come up with my idea of what I'M going to do" because they want to feel in control of their lives. I often find that with many LSE they forget that the person they are talking to are their own person despite setting rigid rules of conduct and exchange. This can lead to an unhealthy LSE to solicit sympathy and not at all seek the other person's comfort or respect that they have needs too. LSE just aren't good with compromises.
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 10-17-2013 at 05:32 AM.
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
I just don't think along those lines for what i consider a healthy relationship to be though. To me a healthy relationship is one where both parties recognize behaviors that show each other that you love them. These behaviors include affection, talking, showing a level of concern for one another when they are sad, worried or upset about something, showing remorse when you did something bad or wrong. I think a healthy relationship calls for apologies and for two people to reconcile and work out their problems. An unhealthy one is certainly lacking your own willingness to admit to your faults; some LSE are just incapable of doing that.
Yes, I do "prize a high fidelity to the significant feelings shared in the relationship no matter what, as they "know" with a certainty that they're real."
So, what you're saying is that an LSE doesn't know that feelings are real? "and therefore prize more highly the evidence of character traits that indicate an ability to give sincere emotional commitment, and the concrete signs of such commitment."
I'm not willing to give sincere emotional commitment to someone who hurt me, so I guess they are SOL. I can if the person made an apology and looked to repair the relationship by not letting me go, by pursuing me.
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
I'm saying not just LSEs, but other logical types too, including LIIs if I may speak for my type. I mean, obviously they're real in the sense that we feel them. But real in the sense that these feelings mean something that is long term and committed vs those lots of other feelings that are fleeting and sometimes even imagined? No, we kind of don't, not with the kind of certainty we would like and typically are used to expecting for factual logic.
Affection, concern, etc. is just Fe, some of it Si (not dissing it, coz I crave it). It means something today. But unless it springs from something more solid character-wise, who knows if it will happen again tomorrow? Remorse, is a better indication - that usually correlates with self-awareness and a set of standards or values governing behavioural choices, i.e. a degree of character strength. For example, someone who is affectionate to me because he is affectionate, or because it is the thing to do, or to return my affection, could be fickle. Someone who is affectionate to me because it is important to him that someone holding the status of his spouse/mate is shown affection, will try to do so for always (or as long as I'm his spouse), will try to do so even when he doesn't feel like it, and will feel bad for those times when he failed. See, character is testable.
I disagree that LSEs will just cut off people. They are lukewarm to people who are 'satellite' status, because these relationships haven't (yet?) qualified for serious investment, but the ones I know place great importance and have great loyalty to the people whom they consider 'friends for as long as possible' and certainly for family, across considerable distance and time. Thing is, if you've not made it to the inner circle, there really isn't anything you can do about it. As far as I can tell from my friend, and how it turned out for her numerous suitors, it's best not to invest too much more in the LSE than the LSE is currently prepared to invest in you in case it doesn't pan out and you will get hurt more than the LSE will, do not pressure an LSE to go faster along the relationship than the LSE is prepared to go as this is a good way to become cut off (preferably without disharmony), but it certainly helps if you fit nicely into the existing inner circle, especially the innermost 'family' one. An LSE won't sacrifice this for somebody relatively new to their lives, feelings schmeelings. I think in that sense they're even less likely to allow themselves be swept away by feelings compared to LII. They would sacrifice the feelings and conservatively assume that it might not have been real after all, and can quite readily move on. After all, they will still have their family and almost-family (inner circle friends). It has to do with the dynamic/static dichotomy, I guess. At least, I for one understood this better once I learned how I differ from dynamics like the LSE in the way we perceive how things are.
However, on the other thing, my LSE colleague has 'used' me as a sounding board. Although, I don't perceive it so negatively as you described. That is what he needed, and I like him so I'm happy to provide that. I don't think this necessarily means he does not consider other people's needs. Maybe not in that particular interaction, since he just wants to think aloud "at" someone and because while he is doing that, he would not be as attentive to things other than the thought process he's working through. When I'm going all Ti/Ne, I get kind of blind to any irrelevant sensory stimuli so I sort of get it. I think he's otherwise quite solicitous of others - but I think it's because he considers that he ought (notice the character motivation, rather than situational/personality motivation. I think the individual LSE's personal character matters and thus there will be significant variation within personality type on this). Anyway, just the ability to talk to someone intelligent while working out something, but without seeking actual participation, is of value to him, and I don't question that. Besides, I like it when people I find interesting volunteer to open their entire thought process, value prioritisation, etc. to me - they're offering me reams of data from the moment they start talking, and even if I contribute nothing at all, I get to view an interesting person's mind. So I guess that's why I don't mind as much; I consider it a privilege to be asked, and I get to listen to another mind that I respect but which is different from mine. Obviously this is a work setting though. Clearly you have other, possibly different issues with this in a more domestic setting.
F-types do it best. Imagine a world without dramatic breakups.
Checking whether you still have me on perm ignore.
What part of PERM IGNORE don't you understand?
Ah okay, found a Maritsa.
EDIT: Nothing constructive, Luger. I think she got if from discojoe, the guy who lieks to post cocks on the Internets. You two can be related by semen.
You three I mean.
Last edited by Absurd; 10-20-2013 at 07:10 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
