Communication Styles vs Romancing styles?

[pianosinger]

Originally Posted by Igxfl
Well, there are the communication styles, based off the rational functions.
http://www.slideconsulting.com/Commu...groupings.html

Something I realized, looking at this: The Romance styles are based on Irrational Ego functions, whether as Base or Creative functions.

However, the Communication Styles are based on the Rational function in the Base or Demonstrative slots.

Not quite sure what to think of this...Why did Gulenko do it that way? Rather than grouping the types based on shared Rational Ego functions?

Or, what if the Romance styles were based on the Base and Demonstrative functions instead of both the Ego functions? Then the Aggressors would be SLE, SEE, LSE, and ESE. Victims would be IEI, ILI, EII, and LII. Caregivers would be SEI, SLI, ESI, and LSI. And Infantiles would be ILE, IEE, LIE, and EIE.

That would mean one each of Aggressor, Victim, Caregiver, and Infantile in each Quadra...Boy, would that turn everything sideways or upside-down or something...

[munenori2]

Wow, the type descriptions on that site are maybe the worst I've ever read!

As far as the justification for Gulenko's erotic attitudes, for whatever reason he decided that judicious/decisive was a good demarcation line and from there went on to claim that sensors typically seem to do something for intuitives on a more concrete level (showing initiative or care) and intuitives seem to have a more receptive role. I'm not sure why romantic attitudes couldn't be discussed from a merry/serious perspective or whatever, but either way I tend to think of them as inhabiting a rather intuitively sensible but justifiably skeptical part of socionics terrain.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.

[ashlesha]

Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.

can you say why?

i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.

[pianosinger]

Caregiver-/Infantile- makes a lot of sense to me, given the nature of . Aggressor-/Victim- makes less sense.

What makes less sense to me is the types where the irrational function is the Creative function. In my limited observation, ESE's can resemble Aggressors, ESI's resemble Caregivers, EII's resemble Victims... And on through the other types.

In other words, I think it kind of makes more sense, in a way, to group according to Base and Demonstrative functions.

But, what do I know...

[Slacker]

ESEs very much seem like caregivers to me, and EIIs very much seem infantile. I think it's just specifically about sensing and intuition. I don't think it matters if it's a the creative function.

[pianosinger]

I just realized that it was Gulenko (apparently) who came up with the Romance styles. So, is it inconsistent of him, then, to group his Communication style types differently? Are his Communication styles more theoretical? Or did he base them off of extensive observation and surveying of various representatives of each type?

[Slacker]

Why would it be inconsistent? Maybe communication styles are affected by different things than romance styles. Why would everything work the same way?

[pianosinger]

What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
and so on.

Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...

[Slacker]

Why? What's the vale in further categorizing them?

[munenori2]

can you say why?

i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.

That wasn't exactly what I had in mind, the "empty" receptivity part, but I couldn't think of how exactly to describe the other half of it. That and the bias, probably my bias, of sensors generally being the one to be aware of their own sexual interest first and then to, you know, initiate.

[pianosinger]

Why would it be inconsistent? Maybe communication styles are affected by different things than romance styles. Why would everything work the same way?

All good questions. And maybe they are affected by different things.

But then, for instance: As IEE, my "communication style" is "passionate." But what if I find "sincere" to be a better descriptor of how I communicate?

Which all brings me back to the original question in my original thread ("Rational Ego Function Styles"): Why are there no "groups" based on shared Rational Ego functions? Are there really that unimportant that no one has bothered to observe them extensively? And, would it be worthwhile for someone to do so?

I know, 1981slater came up with a popular system already, expanding to include the Rational elements, using the same "romance style" terms. And that's a great start. But why not differentiate?

Maybe the Rational elements might be looked at in the context of working relationships, for instance. A sort of, what types make the best business partners sort of thing.

[pianosinger]

Why? What's the vale in further categorizing them?

I don't know. I'm just in that sort of mood right now, I guess.

[ashlesha]

i do think it might be interesting to examine the rational functions further as slater did but i'm kind of wary about suggestions to change whats already pretty established (having EII-LSE be victim-aggressor, for example).

[pianosinger]

i do think it might be interesting to examine the rational functions further as slater did but i'm kind of wary about suggestions to change whats already pretty established (having EII-LSE be victim-aggressor, for example).

Yeah, I know...really. I was more just being hypothetical with the idea of rearranging the Romantic types. But, it was to make a point...Just don't ask me what that point was...

[stray]

EII-LSE victim aggressor is just fuel for the fire that most EIIs are trying to put out to begin with.

[ashlesha]

Yeah, I know...really. I was more just being hypothetical with the idea of rearranging the Romantic types. But, it was to make a point...Just don't ask me what that point was...

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.

[pianosinger]

idk. i think this thread needs Ti or sth. lol.

yeah, really...but then, that would probably spoil my fun...

[stray]

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).

[Cuddly McFluffles]

can you say why?

i'm also a little unsure about victim and infantile being completely "receptive." like it seems there is always some give-and-take. i think with infantiles its about giving caregivers jolts of newness and opening up their worlds a bit. with victims idk as much, but maybe about creating interest and intrigue or something. idk, i just don't like the idea of being an empty vessel waiting to be pumped with Si or something haha.

Hm... thinking about it further, I see the Romantic Attitudes as hinging on /. knows what it wants and pursues it (Aggressor). finds the physiological imbalance and corrects it (Caregiver). and are receptive to these behaviors due to being their complementary functions. That's not to say that and do nothing for their duals; but I don't really see how it relates to Caregiver/Infantile and Aggressor/Victim, unless you want to argue that Infantiles display childlike behavior.

[ashlesha]

Hm... thinking about it further, I see the Romantic Attitudes as hinging on /. knows what it wants and pursues it (Aggressor). finds the physiological imbalance and corrects it (Caregiver). and are receptive to these behaviors due to being their complementary functions. That's not to say that and do nothing for their duals; but I don't really see how it relates to Caregiver/Infantile and Aggressor/Victim, unless you want to argue that Infantiles display childlike behavior.

hmm, ok. i'm not really sure how the roles are supposed to play out according to theory. (i wonder if gulenko's article itself is around anywhere?) a lot of my understanding is based on my own experience which means i've kind of molded it to myself and i don't know if it holds. like, does what you've said mean that sensors are always the initiators? and why would that be? does it matter whether the irrational ego function is introverted or extroverted? like, i guess i see infantiles as more initiative-taking than caregivers because Ne is an extroverted function. or if not, why wouldn't it have to do with extroversion at all?

sorry, pianosinger, i wasn't sure how to organize my thoughts well enough to make a new thread...i could delete this post later.

[ashlesha]

But this page is more specific to romantic attitudes: http://www.slideconsulting.com/Eroti...groupings.html

yeah, these aren't bad at all.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

hmm, ok. i'm not really sure how the roles are supposed to play out according to theory. (i wonder if gulenko's article itself is around anywhere?) a lot of my understanding is based on my own experience which means i've kind of molded it to myself and i don't know if it holds. like, does what you've said mean that sensors are always the initiators? and why would that be? does it matter whether the irrational ego function is introverted or extroverted? like, i guess i see infantiles as more initiative-taking than caregivers because Ne is an extroverted function. or if not, why wouldn't it have to do with extroversion at all?

sorry, pianosinger, i wasn't sure how to organize my thoughts well enough to make a new thread...i could delete this post later.

I don't have time for a lengthy post at the moment. This might help, though. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=21353

[RSV3]

What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
and so on.

Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...

I'm not sure about the hard and soft approach, but on a somewhat related note, I personally subdivide one's romance style into a primary romance style and secondary romance style--based on (1) whether that person is static or dynamic, and (2) the person's subtype strength.

[ashlesha]

I don't have time for a lengthy post at the moment. This might help, though. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=21353

um, i'm curious what about that thread you think might help when you have the time, if you don't mind. there are a fair number of threads around about the erotic roles. do you think i'm an aggressor or something?

I'm not sure about the hard and soft approach, but on a somewhat related note, I personally subdivide one's romance style into a primary romance style and secondary romance style--based on (1) whether that person is static or dynamic, and (2) the person's subtype strength.

is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?

[pianosinger]

is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?

yeah, I'm curious about this, too.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Well I am very victim-y I guess.

I've been told this all my life. "You play the victim." "Omg you're such a little victim." "That sounds like a victim." "Why do you act like such a baby victim all the time?"

VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM.

I guess it's true. =) But it's not like I can help who I am and what romantic/erotic style I prefer. ((haha i'm doing it again)) Because I like hot as hell estp boys throat fucking me.

[pianosinger]

What about dividing each Romance style foursome into pairs? Maybe have a "hard" pair and a "soft" pair or something like that...

SLE and SEE would be "hard aggressors"
LSI and ESI would be "soft aggressors"
and so on.

Dunno that I like "hard" and "soft" so much, but maybe some better words could be found...

Like how there are "heavy" and "light" club pairings...

Another idea: What about "active" and "passive"?

[pianosinger]

Did you try reading this: http://www.slideconsulting.com/Eroti...groupings.html

Yes, I have scanned through that and am in the process of reading further.

It does divide the types up more, like I was looking for. But, not in the way I would have expected (by Base function or by Creative function). But, I will certainly be looking at it and considering it more to see if it makes sense to me.

[FDG]

There's a basic misnomer which is the source of much misunderstanding when we deal with erotic types, namely that they indeed were ideated as erotic types, not romance style. For anything purely sexual, the perceiving function seems an appropriate starting point, since it's what gives people direct access to the "physical" realm. For "romantic" styles, then I believe the base function generally takes over.

[RSV3]

um, i'm curious what about that thread you think might help when you have the time, if you don't mind. there are a fair number of threads around about the erotic roles. do you think i'm an aggressor or something?



is this laid out somewhere you could link to? i'm curious. how do you see static/dynamic affecting things?

I don't have any links other than to other threads on here when I've brought it up, but I'll try to summarize the theoretical basis.

Romance styles, as Gulenko defined them, are nothing more than a manifestation or characteristic of the ego block, in particular the irrational element in the ego block. Thus the same analysis that applies when comparing any other characteristic(s) of a particular block of Model A also applies equally to romance styles. As such, you cannot consider the ego block in isolation. There is no reason to doubt that a romance style would also not manifest from the super-ego block's irrational element.

With respect to information metabolism, there is a major divide between static elements and dynamic elements: they'll either be in the mental block or the vital block. As such, competition will never be between a dynamic and static element; however, the two static irrational elements are always in competition: the more the person uses one, the less the person uses the other; so whenever you are examining a manifestation of the ego block, you have to also consider the competing super-ego block. Now, it's a given that the ego is the dominant and preferred information metabolism pathway, which is why the ego block's irrational element constitutes the primary romance style. In certain situations however, the super-ego block's romance style can also manifest--this depends on a number of factors. One's secondary romance style will have a more significant role the stronger the person's rational subtype is, and vise versa, the secondary romance style will play a more minimal role the stronger the person's irrational subtype is.

Statics will always be a combination of aggressor and infantile; dynamics will always be a combination of victim and caregiver. Here's a link to a crude illustration of this I made a long time ago, ignore the big circle on the left and just look at the two smaller circles on the right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=13346

[ashlesha]

I don't have any links other than to other threads on here when I've brought it up, but I'll try to summarize the theoretical basis.

Romance styles, as Gulenko defined them, are nothing more than a manifestation or characteristic of the ego block, in particular the irrational element in the ego block. Thus the same analysis that applies when comparing any other characteristic(s) of a particular block of Model A also applies equally to romance styles. As such, you cannot consider the ego block in isolation. There is no reason to doubt that a romance style would also not manifest from the super-ego block's irrational element.

With respect to information metabolism, there is a major divide between static elements and dynamic elements: they'll either be in the mental block or the vital block. As such, competition will never be between a dynamic and static element; however, the two static irrational elements are always in competition: the more the person uses one, the less the person uses the other; so whenever you are examining a manifestation of the ego block, you have to also consider the competing super-ego block. Now, it's a given that the ego is the dominant and preferred information metabolism pathway, which is why the ego block's irrational element constitutes the primary romance style. In certain situations however, the super-ego block's romance style can also manifest--this depends on a number of factors. One's secondary romance style will have a more significant role the stronger the person's rational subtype is, and vise versa, the secondary romance style will play a more minimal role the stronger the person's irrational subtype is.

Statics will always be a combination of aggressor and infantile; dynamics will always be a combination of victim and caregiver. Here's a link to a crude illustration of this I made a long time ago, ignore the big circle on the left and just look at the two smaller circles on the right: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=13346

this is interesting...but i think accepting it would require a significant shift in how i think of types. like the role function being sort of a secondary base, demonstrative being a secondary HA, etc. intuitively i kind of like it, but i wonder how this sort of thing would be observed and what it would mean for typing and relationships.

the idea of Se and Ne occupying the same "space" is what i was trying to get at with my previous post re: initiation. i don't see how Ne could be the passive or receptive side.

[Skeptic]

Well I am very victim-y I guess.

I've been told this all my life. "You play the victim." "Omg you're such a little victim." "That sounds like a victim." "Why do you act like such a baby victim all the time?"

VICTIM VICTIM VICTIM.

I guess it's true. =) But it's not like I can help who I am and what romantic/erotic style I prefer. ((haha i'm doing it again)) Because I like hot as hell estp boys throat fucking me.

congrats

they are looking for a worthy opponent - someone who is strong enough to withstand their quirks without "breaking"

Hell to the yeah


But really now, we can do better than 'childcare' and 'rape' because those aren't exactly how I see people courting one another.

[pianosinger]

the idea of Se and Ne occupying the same "space" is what i was trying to get at with my previous post re: initiation. i don't see how Ne could be the passive or receptive side.

Yeah. As Ne-Base, I was definitely the "aggressor" in my dating relationships. I was the typically the one who showed the clear interest, who was "pushy" when necessary, who took the initiative...