Optimal Identical Relations/Subjective Ordering of Intertype Relations

[Little Timmy]

I've been thinking about how Identical relations can vary depending on whether the people concerned "accept" the strengths and flaws of their sociotype or not. Now, this isn't exactly type-related since being comfortable with one's self is a matter of self-esteem I suppose, but my question is: How does liking oneself affect the way people experience Identical relations? Surely someone who's comfortable in their own skin wouldn't mind so much being with someone who's like them, and someone who constantly sees fault in themselves/dislikes certain attitudes of theirs would probably be uncomfortable with someone who shows the same flaws.

So in "optimal" Identical relations, both parties have healthy* self-esteem and so they accept each other's flaws or at the very least aren't critical of them, and in sub-optimal ones, well, you know how it goes.
The thing is, aren't Intertype Relations (the 16 different combinations you can make by pairing the 16 types) relatively set in stone? I think there's an official ordering somewhere, and Identical relations are supposed to be the 2nd "best" matches for any given type, but if there's an optimal and a sub-optimal scenario (and perhaps a scenario where one party has healthy* self-esteem and the other one doesn't) then this ordering isn't true most of the time. I also wonder how self-esteem influences not only Identical relations but all the other ones as well, and as far as the ordering goes, maybe two healthy* conflictors could actually get along pretty well.

Any thoughts on this?

[Hope]

Identical relations aren't supposed to be 2nd best matches anywhere afaik.

There are descriptions for each identical pairing by some socionics authors like Strat for example. Not all identical types relate to each other the same way (some are better/easier some are worst/harder) since all the types have different IEs. According that, the relation has a works or not according the seeking function for example. So it doesnt have so much to do with self esteem according theory, but the actual "program" of each type. Though, healthiness totally influences not just identical but all kind of human relations imo. However, the differences between types are not merely arised by psychological health but psyche structure (IEs), model A.

Then, subtypes are important, identical subtypes has better chances to relate in good terms to each other while different subtype increases the feeling of alienation or deficiency.

About the conflicting relations falls into the same pattern, the problem is not merely their mental health (which can influence ofc), but the fact that they cant/dont provide the necessary information and dont correspond to the needs of each other in a proper way, even when they do it in appearance, at first glance. They actually can feel attracted or charmed for each other since they are quasi identicals of their duals (and use the same IEs), but it results their values are very different.

In fact, the idea of conflictors rejecting each other instantly doesnt has so much support according authors (also is different in each pair aswell). The sensation of discomfort, frustration and disappointment arises with the time, when they start knowing each other better and see the partner doesnt fill the expectations (not intellectual ones, but by program). Duality operates in the opposite way, they become better and better with the time in case they dualize (and some pairs are hard to dualize too).

However I'm one to think that true love can keep ppl together, despite their types. I do think that two conflictors cant love each other and stay together if they want. Some itr descriptions talk about couples of conflictors married and remaining the same way, coping with each others faults. I think true love exists despite types.

[Tallmo]

But identical (types) are often different as individuals. So you cant assume that. Identity is not identical personalities. I know several SEIs who are totally different from me. Like day and night.

That being said. I think accepting yourself helps. Because identicals have the same cognitive weaknesses they can start projecting on each other.

In identical relationship you absolutely need complementary subtype. I see this all the time in identical couples. They always have different subtype. For example D-LSI + N-LSI. But this goes for all relationships.

Conflictors can often like each other on the surface. Even be friends. But it is impossible to get close. Its hidden conflict that never emerges because both back off before that happens. Maturity can help. You take the relationship for what it is and dont expect too much and dont meet too often. And get your intimate needs fulfilled with other types.

[Little Timmy]

Identical relations aren't supposed to be 2nd best matches anywhere afaik.

Here's the sources where I got the relationship "ordering" thing:
http://www.socionics.com/rel/rel.htm
http://sociotype.com/tools/ (click on Intertype Relationship Calculator)

The second one is based on a mathematical model (MM for convenience) of socionics and "weighs" compatibility based on Type and subtype, or more specifically the "usage level" of different functions. Identical relations have a high compatibility % since there's no conflicting elements and the functions they're most adept at, are valued by both parties. The ordering seems to be the same for both sites, so they probably used the same criteria to grade them.

The issue is, that the DCNH subtype theory (if that's what you meant by "subtypes") disregards the MM, since it implies that people of a certain subtype have extra "usage" of some functions over others, so people can't simply be placed in a scale, say, an ILE that uses a lot of Ti is an ILE-1Ti or 2Ti or 3Ti according to the MM, but what if it's an ILE with a D or H subtype? So the ordering doesn't hold true when subtypes are considered either and my initial idea of Identical relations (and all other relations) being subjective is correct. My point is, there's the "official ordering" derived from a MM (which I believe is the most accurate way of representing the range of human personalities) and there's theories within socionics that contradict it, and observations that contradict it as well.

I agree that "generally" (suppose we were to study 50 cases of duals/identicals and 50 cases of conflictors), duals and identicals get along better because of valued IEs and conflictors... conflict with each other since they value opposing functions, but there's too many exceptions to the rule to actually make a theory that works ~99% of the time, and that's because there's factors that go beyond valued IEs which are the basis for "grading" relationships in the first place.

As @Tallmo said above, identity doesn't imply identical personalities, and the MM works under the assumption that two people in an Identical relationship have the same % of valued functions without considering the factors that also affect how people get along, be it likes/dislikes, similar upbringing, shared experiences, etc., and like I mentioned before, self-esteem.

(I ended up arguing with myself a bit, since I really thought the MM was the most accurate representation of personality types as they work in real-life but there's really a lot more to it, so I'm glad I heard your opinions on this)

[Tigerfadder]

I think things such as DCNH for example play a role. Its not just what you are comfortable with, being accepted for your flaws at your upbringing home etc, but also what position in the groups you are comfortable taking on. I guess is a bunch of things.

Most comfortable being in identical what I think goes from delta to alpha, in the clock of socion order reverse. If you want one.

[Hope]

True love isn't real. It's Disney marketing material.
There is physical attraction i.e. love at first sight which is just your body recognizing similar facial aesthetics.
There is psychological attraction i.e. Socionics.
That's it.

Physical attraction and psychological attraction are not love. At least not the part of love I was speaking about. Attraction doesnt make couples stay together in the long term.

Conflict relationships may have physical attraction but they will NOT have psychological attraction. In fact it will be the opposite: repulsion. "coping with each others faults," is a euphemism for censorship.

Not true.

Neither person has faults, rather they are perceived as faults by the other party. So each person coupes by censoring themselves, They think, "Should I tell my partner X....nah it'll start a fight." This is an example of increasing psych distance. If a couple ignores these issues and stays together that's insanity, not true love.

Thats pure idealism and demonstrates immaturity and lack of experience in ltrs.

No offense intended.

[FDG]

I think things such as DCNH for example play a role.

I think the opposite, DCNH should be completely forgotten.

I have been "close" to LIEs who are CEOs and those who are musicians and the relationship is still very similar. Hell, I even know a LIE housewife and the relationship still feels quite similar.

[Hope]

@domr

Attraction is chemicals in your body. But you can think what you please, why should I care?

Anyway, a Fi Ego type that cant recognize love beyond mere physical attraction is kinda strange.

[Hope]

Fi is morality not love.

4D Ne Base. I've examined reality and true love does not exist.

Fi is ethics of relations, not morality. All types have moral (personal sense of good and wrong), not all give importance to ethics (behave decently in favor of others).

Anyway, feeling the restrain of oneself in relations as 'censorship' is basically unethical and has little to do with strong valued Fi ethics. Having the urge or valuing the exposure of hurtful and negative emotions in relations is more likely Fe.

4DNe base is not examination of reality, is intuition of possibilities (present, future), Ne doesnt examine, thats logic. So whatever you examined with Ne wasnt reality or you wasnt examining reality at all, but intuiting it.

All of that looks more Ti Ni valuing since you are basing your idea of reality (subjective and structural logic, Ti) in a single previous experience (intuition of time, Ni) and not in the present and future possibilities (Ne). Then, valued Te business logic find practical use for self restrain in interactions (ethics of relations Fi), which you feel as censorship.

Funnily, I had a similar discussion about love with an IEI male in the past. He said specifically the same argument, he thought it was 'wrong' to restrain himself in favor of a partner and have to accept, support and forgive his partners fails (and then you believe we all have no fails, hmm).

Anyway, if you think in Disney tale when reading the word love, its because your experiences have been limited, love is a decision, attraction is attraction, nothing to do with loving others. Because if 'love' doesnt exist beyond chemicals, what feel most parents for their kids? Is it sexual or psychological attraction?

[ashlesha]

If issues come up in a relationship you should be able to bring them up and look for some kind of compromise or resolution instead of stuffing them down because your experience with the person tells you they'll dismiss or get angry or misunderstand. That's what I got from what @domr said. I don't think there's anything unethical or Fe about it.

[Hope]

If issues come up in a relationship you should be able to bring them up and look for some kind of compromise or resolution instead of stuffing them down because your experience with the person tells you they'll dismiss or get angry or misunderstand. That's what I got from what @domr said. I don't think there's anything unethical or Fe about it.

I dont know what that has to do with everething said above. How ppl chose to solve or cope in relations wasnt the topic of conversation, but he saying that its impossible to relate to conflictors in ltr and if so it was because of censoring ourselves (clear not Fi) and saying that love doesnt exist beyond attraction and science (again not Fi valuing).

[ashlesha]

This is where I got it from.

Conflict relationships may have physical attraction but they will NOT have psychological attraction. In fact it will be the opposite: repulsion. "coping with each others faults," is a euphemism for censorship. Neither person has faults, rather they are perceived as faults by the other party. So each person coupes by censoring themselves, They think, "Should I tell my partner X....nah it'll start a fight." This is an example of increasing psych distance. If a couple ignores these issues and stays together that's insanity, not true love.

[Hope]

This is where I got it from.

Its cool that you focus on your own understanding and subjective interpretation about other ppl statements and conversations (and intrude in them, lol), but hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed). Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Now if you come to defend that you or he have the right to exposing your unconformities to your partners thats cool. I'm not against that and that wasnt my focus in the conversation. You both have the right to do whatever you want in your relations. But you or he cant come to say to me that 'love' isnt real beyond attraction because your own subjective experience of reality proves that. Thats a phallacy.

[at sirac son of sirac]

Love is chemicals in your body. Physiological.



psychological attraction does make people stay together because it makes people want to communicate with each other.



True. That's exactly what conflict relationships are like. You are not free to express yourself because your natural tendencies offend the other person.



I have no clue what you are stating.

I've already typed you non Delta as you know, based on your preferences, EIE is most likely.

I thought about whether to respond to you, as I don't like misunderstandings and back and forths.

But, despite myself, I thought I should explain to you for you, love is not 'just chemicals'.

Biologically speaking, a cell, and an organism is greater than the sum of its parts, which is called holistic.

The approach your taking is called reductionism, which does not fit biological organisms: science sees your body as greater than the sum of its parts.

Love, consciousness, awareness are holistic, are things greater than ourselves.

As is our soul, our body, and becoming born again, we become spiritually alive.

I think if you accept Christs sacrifice on the cross for your sins, believing in his death, burial and resurrection, through faith alone, as your only way to Heaven, therefore becoming spiritually alive, it will help you.

Otherwise, to think as you do, your love, passions, body and mind are of no greater worth than a cockroach or a tree, which is degrading to you and not true.

[ashlesha]

Its cool that you focus on your own understanding and subjective interpretation about other ppl statements and conversations (and intrude in them, lol), but hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed). Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Now if you come to defend that you or he have the right to exposing your unconformities to your partners thats cool. I'm not against that and that wasnt my focus in the conversation. You both have the right to do whatever you want in your relations. But you or he cant come to say to me that 'love' isnt real beyond attraction because your own subjective experience of reality proves that. Thats a phallacy.

They're clearly saying you should be able to express your needs in a relationship. Dunno why its so complicated or bothersome.

[Hope]

They're clearly saying you should be able to express your needs in a relationship. Dunno why its so complicated or bothersome.

Its like you read but you just understand everything based in your own projections instead of what it means in the context.

[ashlesha]

Its like you read but you just understand everything based in your own projections instead of what it means in the context.

I dunno, I see you extrapolating a bunch of motivations and infering things that weren't in the post, so ditto?

[Bertrand]

love being just chemicals is one of those things that gets thrown around a lot, but it really just depends on what you mean. love can be measured in terms of chemicals, in principle at least. so its not wrong in some sense to say love is chemicals, but to say its "just" chemicals cuts out the entire phenomenological experience of love, which doesn't start from the point of view of reducing everything to measurements. it starts from the point of view of human experience and freedom, so in that sense love is both a decision and a state of being. if from the point of view of phenomenology you say love is just chemicals its an obviously untrue and repugnant statement, because it implies that human freedom is an illusion and that experience is just a byproduct of physical determinism, therefore that meaning is an illusory product of physical processes and that whatever you think you feel toward your SO is less real than what amounts to an X Ray. in any case, this debate rages all over the internet. "love is just..." is just fertile grounds for projection. its like saying "God is just..." or "existence is just..." its a product of preferred psychological ordering principles the language people choose to associate with their experience. for rationals they tend to favor the judgement, but I would say its because they're no less human beings and subconsciously trying to manage affective processes and perception. from my point of view, we came up with the idea of chemicals itself as a product of love, not that love is a product of chemicals.... to determine which is more real we have to ask ourselves which is more useful, to measure love or to experience it in its fullness?-- perhaps neither is more real and they are complimentary ways of approaching it, but people nevertheless have their subjective preference that they embody even if they deny a subjective preference in words and retreat to "no this is absolutely the way it is"--there is a kind of hubris there, because you never know what you cut yourself off from if you deny alternate ways of looking at an issue

[Hope]

I dunno, I see you extrapolating a bunch of motivations and infering things that weren't in the post, so ditto?

Where I infered and extrapolate things exactly?

For having communication, humans invented language and terms. In that way, we can understand words with a same meaning and having a common ground which allows communication. In that way, an apple is an specific fruit for example. You and I think in the same thing because we have a concept attached to a word. Thats how ppl can communicate. You have problems understanding correctly the meanings of terms and often you push your own projections and interpretations into others ppl words. Its not the first time you do it.

Then you come to say that I'm infering stuff where I'm just talking about what strictly he was saying (his own words and nothing more and the strict meaning of his words, and he quoted me at first just to say them) and what functions means in socionics theory which is the main topic and reason of this forum.

I dont know from where you are taking that he's stating that ppl "should be able to express their concerns in relations" when he was clearly saying that "coping in relations is censorship -he gave examples- and love doesnt exist beyond attraction and disney movies". Nothing more. I dont know why you cant simply read that and get the meaning of the words right instead of projecting your own insecurities into everything all the time.

[ashlesha]

Where I infered and extrapolate things exactly?

hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed).

"should I tell my partner x" refers to censorship of words.
The words probably have some emotional component, sure, but to reframe it as "he doesn't want to hold back his feelings, Fe!" seems convoluted.

1. Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship.

2. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably.

3. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Three (3) guesses/inferences.

He also didn't say love isn't real. He said "true love" which I will go out on a limb and GUESS means the sappy/soulmate/Disney phenomenon.

[ashlesha]

I don't see why it matters if love is just chemicals or not. We feel it and act on it either way.

[Hope]

hes clearly saying that coping in relations is censorship of our own emotions (because emotion is what one experience when our boundaries are crossed).

"should I tell my partner x" refers to censorship of words.
The words probably have some emotional component, sure, but to reframe it as "he doesn't want to hold back his feelings, Fe!" seems convoluted.

1. Thats Fe. He's not seeing another possibility (Ne Fi) for relations other than censorship.

2. His vision is limited to his own past experiences, probably.

3. He believes "love" doesnt exist because the only possibilities he sees for it is Disney (Fe emotive merchandising) or passion (Se focus).

Three (3) guesses/inferences.

He also didn't say love isn't real. He said "true love" which I will go out on a limb and GUESS means the sappy/soulmate/Disney phenomenon.

My sentences about how his statements are not "guessings" are based in socionics theory and his own words.

guess verb: to give an answer to a particular question when you do not have all the facts and so cannot be certain if you are correct.

Inference and guess are not synonyms, btw.

in·fer: deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.

His statements were explicit. I didnt infer anything. My conclusion is based in his statements and the concepts of socionics theory.

The words meaning were took from dictionary.

[ashlesha]

"im guessing he doesn't see any other possibilities therefore I infer he values Fe" includes both.

Anyway I was just trying to help clear up a misunderstanding and it's a clusterfuck now so whatever.

[Bertrand]

well, I do think people speak from their super ego quite often, the important thing is to look to what they do (before committing to typing). very few people actually live out those words, except for some hardcore LSIs etc

[Raver]

I've been thinking about how Identical relations can vary depending on whether the people concerned "accept" the strengths and flaws of their sociotype or not. Now, this isn't exactly type-related since being comfortable with one's self is a matter of self-esteem I suppose, but my question is: How does liking oneself affect the way people experience Identical relations? Surely someone who's comfortable in their own skin wouldn't mind so much being with someone who's like them, and someone who constantly sees fault in themselves/dislikes certain attitudes of theirs would probably be uncomfortable with someone who shows the same flaws.

So in "optimal" Identical relations, both parties have healthy* self-esteem and so they accept each other's flaws or at the very least aren't critical of them, and in sub-optimal ones, well, you know how it goes.
The thing is, aren't Intertype Relations (the 16 different combinations you can make by pairing the 16 types) relatively set in stone? I think there's an official ordering somewhere, and Identical relations are supposed to be the 2nd "best" matches for any given type, but if there's an optimal and a sub-optimal scenario (and perhaps a scenario where one party has healthy* self-esteem and the other one doesn't) then this ordering isn't true most of the time. I also wonder how self-esteem influences not only Identical relations but all the other ones as well, and as far as the ordering goes, maybe two healthy* conflictors could actually get along pretty well.

Any thoughts on this?

Socionics only explains a fraction of our personalities so our level of health, enneatype, tri-type, instinctual stackings and psychological issues all factor in and impact our relations with others. When you look at identicals, there is a strong similarity in how they interact with the world and others, but lots of differences when it comes to other aspects of their behavior.

I like to think of our personalities as having multiple layers and Socionics only explains one of them. For example, I could have more in common with a non-IEE rather than an IEE because of non-Socionics factors. In other words, Socionics is overrated in describing personalities and our relations with others, but if you take into account its limitations, it can be quite useful.

[Hope]

"im guessing he doesn't see any other possibilities therefore I infer he values Fe" includes both.

Anyway I was just trying to help clear up a misunderstanding and it's a clusterfuck now so whatever.

Thats your own subjective understanding of my reasoning and the situation, so you are the one who is inferring (concluding not based in my statements) and guessing, that's why you have to put words in my mouth and construct that sentence above.

Anyway, I'm not guessing, he's not seeing other possibilities as he quoted me and stated that love doesnt exist (he's not expressing uncertainty nor possibility) and coping means censorship (which is not true, even going by the meaning of the verb cope).

If we truly wish to help we should be sure we understand the situation correctly, we are objective enough and we are basing our conclusions in true facts, otherwise, instead of clear we make more mess of something that was very simple and clear enough in the beginning (and not your business, but whatever). If you just wanted to say that you believe ppl should feel free to express their concerns in their relations whatever their functions are, simply say that. No need for inventing stuff or trying to make me look as if my words are mere guessings and inventions. You dont have to throw mud to the logic of others to make your ethical points.

[ashlesha]

Public forum posts are entirely my business and I didn't say anything about being too subjective until you threw the accusation out at me so your "mudding others" statement is hypocritical.

[Hope]

Public forum posts are entirely my business and I didn't say anything about being too subjective until you threw the accusation out at me so your "mudding others" statement is hypocritical.

Guess who where accusing who at first.

If you are going to make something your business at least have the decency of understanding what your read and what your own words mean when making accusations.

Btw, those are subjective opinions:

If issues come up in a relationship you should be able to bring them up and look for some kind of compromise or resolution instead of stuffing them down because your experience with the person tells you they'll dismiss or get angry or misunderstand. That's what I got from what domr said. I don't think there's anything unethical or Fe about it.

I don't see why it matters if love is just chemicals or not. We feel it and act on it either way.

[ashlesha]

Guess who where accusing who at first.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1256362

Dude..

[Hope]

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...=1#post1256362

Dude..

Out of context for 1000 time. That wasnt a personal accusation, was a reply of your intruding with your own subjective interpretation of what his words say instead of what they really mean.

They're clearly saying you should be able to express your needs in a relationship. Dunno why its so complicated or bothersome.

But ok. If It made you feel bad sorry. Anyway I cant say you understand clearly by the means and without no projections what you read. Thats the origin of this conversation in fact.

[ashlesha]

I wasnt out of context. I merely posted a link.
*twilight zone music*

[Hope]

I wasnt out of context. I merely posted a link.
*twilight zone music*

...a link out of context since you didnt posted the link of your own post. heh

[ooo]

anyway I think censoring oneself comes natural to Fi, it's not like it's bad or inauthentic, it's just that they tend to overthink what to get out of them so yeah.. many things left unsaid for the sake of it

(sorry for abusing the word natural lately)

[ashlesha]

I'm confused by the censorship thing. Everyone chooses not to say things sometimes. @ooo can you say more?

[ooo]

ps, I was seeing this show where this guy has sex with this virgin woman and she's scared but he manages to convince her and so they do it and it lasts 10 seconds and he's super happy and says "thank you thank you! you made me so happy! let's go back home now", and she's very disappointed by it all and so she asks " UGH is this what love is?", and so he replies "love! love! love is something you make, and then it's over", which made me think a lot, for seriously that's not love, that's biology, attraction and sex, love is just an idea... but ideas move the world too

[ooo]

@ooo can you say more?

well Fi is internal feeling and judicious, so it's described as being very enigmatic and even cold looking by a shallow look. while inside it may hide a volcano and depths of which none around has any idea (quoting Jung), this itself should point towards the fact that Fi individual choses not to share all that they're going through with the world, if the common perception is one of the like. this to me is telling of how Fi people "censor" themselves, don't let it out many times and are even reluctant in doing it with the people they keep close. it's not like they say *beep* *beep* instead of using rude words, it's that they won't be ready to share it all with most people in most occasions, normally... and it's not like this is inauthentic, for this shows already what they are, they're like that. i think self censoring is good in many occassions, as well. especially with people~

[ashlesha]

Idk, I don't know any introverts who wave it all out there. And I know a couple Fi creatives who totally do lol...

[ooo]

Idk, I don't know any introverts who wave it all out there. And I know a couple Fi creatives who totally do lol...

I get it, and no doubt culture plays a part for the constitution of types as well. Anyway for the Fi creatives I know, this works as well. IEEs are usually very tactful, they know how to approach someone, and this means to be able to keep their mouth shut infront of things they don't agree with, let's say they're not too judgemental, which is something that SEEs instead can be. For example, I've found out from common friends, that my SEE bestie uses to complain about me at my back, nothing serious, but it's not smth he tells me when we're together, and when I found out I was actually so pissed. but then I thought well ok, that's what he thinks, and he actually complains with me of all things and the things people do so why expecting he didn't do the same about me with someone else? But I won't hear a bad word about me coming from his mouth, 'cause he's preserving our relationship like that I guess. I have many things that irk me about him for example, but I've never voiced them with anyone and just eclipse them over the good I feel when with him... IDK anyway, all this theory is confusing me~

[FDG]

I get it, and no doubt culture plays a part for the constitution of types as well. Anyway for the Fi creatives I know, this works as well. IEEs are usually very tactful, they know how to approach someone, and this means to be able to keep their mouth shut infront of things they don't agree with, let's say they're not too judgemental, which is something that SEEs instead can be. For example, I've found out from common friends, that my SEE bestie uses to complain about me at my back, nothing serious, but it's not smth he tells me when we're together, and when I found out I was actually so pissed. but then I thought well ok, that's what he thinks, and he actually complains with me of all the things and the things people do with me, so why expecting he didn't do the same about me with someone else? But I won't hear a bad word about me coming from his mouth, 'cause he's preserving our relationship like that I guess. I have many things that irk me about him for example, but I've never voiced them with anyone and just eclipse them over the good I feel when with him... IDK anyway, all this theory is confusing me~

This is a typical defect of SEEs which makes them lose a lot of reputation.

[ooo]

This is a typical defect of SEEs which makes them lose a lot of reputation.

I think I'm talking too much in here lately.. like "do as I say and not as I do", I should take a rest eheh