it doesn't sound healthy... codependent or somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Printable View
it doesn't sound healthy... codependent or somethingQuote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Yes, :Ni: has :Se: in SUPERID or "child block" so he likes aggresionQuote:
Originally Posted by Aleesha
:Ne: has :Si: in SUPERID so he likes care. Something like that
There is nothing so terrible about this, really :) BTW if you are ISFP you should be CarefulQuote:
it doesn't sound healthy... codependent or something
I would think yes. But if they never get to do things their natural style I guess there will be problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheerio
Looking at my past relationships... the careful attitude fits too well. The aggressor one does to a small extent, but not NEARLY as well as Careful. It's too embarassing to get into the details... but I have been with a lot of guys who "needed" me.
By the way, if one is aggresive it doesn't mean that he never cares, or can't be tender. It means that his caress is expressed in rather aggresive form :) say kicks, pinches, pushes and things like that.
:lol: That's how I show affection, too!Quote:
Originally Posted by Michaelus
:lol:
I am playful like that, but I wouldn't call it *affection* :shock:
I'm a VERY affectionate person though. :D
That definitely fits me too :lol:
An "Infantile" INTj here :oops:, a good job my ESFj dual would seem "Careful" in the erotic department :)
I know that I asked this before, but is there anybody that does not correspond to Guenko's erotic attitude theory?
Well, I haven't met anyone :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbean
Agreed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
I have observed that Careful types tend to eventually fall into some sort of baby-talk, like "aaawwwwwwwww baaaaaaaaaaby, are you ooooooooookaaaay?" You won't hear this from an aggressor; aggressor-victim eventually get into dirty talk.
I guess I'm not a victim :( Dirty talk tends to sound amusing to me or sometimes "hostile" although in very rare cases it works. I'm not sure about the baby-talk though...maybe if it was really genuine. Wrong kind of baby-talk works as badly as wrong kind of dirty talk :(Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
I wonder if this would be a good indicator of a person's type. If so, then that would mean that I am :Se: . After what has been posted here, I am 100% sure that I am the "aggressive" type.
I know an ENTp who was very much the "aggressive" type until he was with a "careful" type.
I cannot foresee myself being with any careful type, not that I have anything against them.Quote:
Originally Posted by Joy
Then perhaps you're an intelligent ESTp. *shrugs*
So far I think it's been a pretty good indicator, in as far as you can even use it -- your saying "100% sure" also suggests more :Se: than :Ne: to me, in itself, but I suggest you look carefully at DarkAngelFireWolf69's descriptions of sexual behavior -- if you have, and you identify fully with the aggressor, then I very much doubt you are ENTp.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbean
I think it's related to the Big Five correlations :8*Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
Yeah...N-types are victims and infantiles. S-types are aggressors and careful types. I guess that pretty much sums up the distribution of power :( I don't know how well that translates to "smart" though. INTps are the smartest anyways :D but an ESTp pwns an INTp mentally and physically any day. Now what that means? I don't know :D I guess I'm not smart, hehe. *Sigh* what a start to a new day :8*Quote:
Originally Posted by Transigent
How so "mentally"?Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Well my baby-little-sister-in-law pwns everyone mentally :D Meaning in any kind of verbal sparring she just pwns (exaggerated a bit). She is quick. She has insight. She makes sense. She has won every damn job interview competition she has been in etc. But I'm better at maths! I know because I have trained her in maths. She might be really good in that too but she doesn't have the motivation to absorb into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Anyways, the post was meant as a joke mostly. I agree with Transigent. I'm tired of these "which type is better" comparisons. It is misuse of the whole typing framework. People should be compared as individuals. If you are of a certain type it doesn't automatically make you any better or worse. And I know you wouldn't accept an ESTp pwning you mentally :)
To "win" in a verbal sparring is not the same as pwning someone "mentally" -- I have had plenty of verbal sparrings with ESTps. They "win" by eventually resorting to increasingly self-assured (in appearance) statements that are not necessarily based on facts or reason, which throws NT types off-balance and puts them in the defensive since they tend to try to disprove those statements logically.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
So I can perfectly agree that they will make the impression of "winning" in verbal sparrings, especially in scenarios like jobs interviews, but that's a questionable definition of "mentally pwning" someone.
No ESTp has ever won a mental sparring with me. We go on and on and on and on and on louder and louder and louder.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
They might win job interwievs is if the interviewer is impressed by bullshit.
Ok ok. Inaccurate use of concepts. You pwn me :) What is it with ENTjs and ESTps. Somekind of natural competition where ENTjs as benefactors refuse to give "mental respect" to ESTps and ESTps refuse to submit to ENTjs? :) I mean FDG says ESTps are pretty much the only types who can make him physically aggressive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Edit: Lol..it seems FDG with his cute avatar has already joined the discussion :P
The answer was given by FDG who, as usual, was more direct than me:Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
From the point of view of ENTjs, what ESTps use is mainly :Se: , especially when faced with :Te: superior to theirs -- and it is annoying to us that so many people can't see the difference between :Te: and :Se: arguments.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
They can have impressive Ti too if they have developed that. Strong and accurate Se combined with a strong logical analysis capability is powerful. Some of them might have developed some Fe too. Maybe even Ne and Ni at least enough to understand the main point of other people's Ne and Ni opinions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
In these cases strong SeTi coupled with some Fe and maybe some Ne and Ni and this combined with lack of Fi makes a well grounded, goal-oriented, insightful, intelligent, persuading, accurate, persisting and ruthless verbal opponent. At least gives a good sparring opponent for an ENTj :D
The result of your combo is some kind of new Lenin, something that can be found by, to be good-hearthed, extracting the 99.9th percentile in intelligence out of all the ESTps population.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Se+Fe= bullshit innuendo
Ne=they don't have any
Ti=they use it to resort to rethoric and grammar/syntax spitting
Ni=No use against an Ni creative.
I do admit, however, that they're generally better at sports.
Well grounded? BullshitterQuote:
Originally Posted by XoX
Goal oriented? Too stubborn
Insightful?This one I concede
Intelligent?Yeah, but not a type trait
Persuading?Conman
Accurate?You're joking right?
Persisting?Stubborn, rejects evidence
Ruthless?Manipulative
Here the truth exposed!
;D
Haha. I can see that ESTps really get deep under your skin :P
To proove I'm not an ESTp...I'M QUITTING THIS NOW.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
You are ALL THE SAME when arguing! Se full blast. Even the uber smart logical subtypes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraus
Is anyone else reluctant to admit their types?
I'm almost always careful, next aggressive, next infantile, and not at all victim.
ISFPs are perhaps the most openly nurturing type. The best choice if you are looking for a loving mother figure... If not - maybe you are not an ENTP. INFPs again - well they are a victim type. I cannot tell better since there is little intimate attraction. :8*Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimbean
Also keep in mind that the whole "emo-culture" is unlikely behavior for the infantile types. The preference for the gentle touch is more often the kind of love that dare not speak its name.
I'm Careful, but I don't treat anyone like a they're a kid. I am nurturing, but not bossy (well, sometimes I am, but that's an entirely different kind of thing :wink:). I am very affection, prolly one of the most affectionate people I've ever known, but only with my partner. I am also very affectionate with my child, but not as much as my partner. It doesn't come across as "taking care of" the infantile partner. The infantile types just aren't very comfortable naturally and the Careful type is good at making them feel very comfortable, safe, and secure. And it has nothing to do with dominance. The whole thing is very subtle and natural.
This is off-topic, but not off-socionics -- I think you just figured Lenin out.Quote:
Originally Posted by FDG
From your point of view, yes, probably true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kraus
How do you think people most naturally switch roles?
There are some examples where careful and even infantiles seem to switch to aggressive.
Then it seems victims can switch to aggressive so maybe aggressives can play victims too?
Can careful types fall into infantile role? I suppose infantiles can play careful roles too at least the infantiles with strong Fi.
Can anyone switch to any role or are there some natural switches you more probably do? And is this related to type e.g. to F & T axel? E.g. ESTj in infantile role would be a rare sight I guess.
Lol. I wasn't trying to describe a new Lenin there. Your Ni is flying high now guys :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Expat
Can you be more specific about infantiles switching to aggressive?Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
They can "play" victims in some moments, but the whole behavior remains aggressive. It's not just about sex, but also about the courtship and the relationship as a whole.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
I think that in a careful-careful couple, or even more so in an infantile-infantile couple, you may have such switches.Quote:
Originally Posted by XoX
I have no personal examples of that :( I just had an idea that infantile types could be aggressive in the way children can be aggressive sort of. Not in controlling way but more in uncontrolled way. Not really be aggressors but maybe look like them from the distance. Which would be clearly contradicting to the playful side of them. Nah, maybe it doesn't work if you think the victim/aggressor switch doesn't really work either.Quote:
Originally Posted by Expat
So basically you say only in identical careful-careful, aggressor-aggressor, etc pairs the switch can really be seen? Sorry I have no time to think I'm just leaving :) Maybe my ideas were not too well thought.