Based on my last two strong connections to infantile women I think so.
Printable View
Based on my last two strong connections to infantile women I think so.
i took advantage of an infantile yesterday
(J/K)
How?
Seconded.Quote:
Originally Posted by wacey
Be more selective, or not. There are people, of all types, who use and take advantage of others. Ideally shouldn't this kind of thing be pretty balanced if both people are healthy? I think romance styles need some revision.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman
:hello:Quote:
Originally Posted by lemontrees
No. Caregivers can take advantage of other caregivers to care for people they love or themselves. Infantile get into a super rot and try to fender for themselves by whatever meager ways that they can get by. Also Vicims too can take advantage.
It's sort of like when aggressors rape their victims. Only gentler (with lube).Quote:
Originally Posted by wacey
How, by getting lots of attention.
Infantiles and Victims also know that they can manipulate people emotionally ppl who like them a lot can be somehow manipulated
I'm really trying to see what is meant by this?Quote:
Originally Posted by Park
If it feels like manipulation and it doesn't feel good....make it known.Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman
I asked my husband whether he feels like I take advantage of him, and he looked baffled and said maybe he takes advantage of me, at which point I probably looked baffled.
Manipulation isn't really intended. The infantile wants someone to show that they will take care of them so that they can make a show of earnest gratitude (least they disappoint their caregiver and show contempt or an unappreciative attitude towards the one offering their care, and the last thing a good infantile wants is for the caregiver to feel unappreciated and thus make them search for someone who will give them the appreciation they crave), and the victim wants the aggressor to have to put in a bit of effort (least they themselves bore the aggressor of course, for easy conquests do not delight aggressors as much as a seemingly hard-won victory, and the last thing we victims want is to bore our conqueror and thus cause their eye to wander towards "new" lands as it were).Quote:
Originally Posted by Airman
It's really just nature running its course on this front. The "manipulation" only looks like it is from the outside looking in if we assume the relationship is otherwise healthy and stable. Romance, in my eyes, is more linked to instinct stackings and attachment styles. Yet, in the end, the aggressors will hunt down their victims and the caregivers will search for a good infant. Each erotic style draws its complimentary style towards itself. Victims attract aggressors, infantiles attract caregivers. It's just how things happen, and smart people know how to roll with it. It's not really manipulation in many cases, it's just the dynamic the couple has developed. Outright malign manipulation is usually the result of one or both sides having an unhealthy and unstable attachment style.
Yes I agree w you. If I were to think in terms of big conquests I'd be an aggressor then. I prefer a big conquest. It also puts some extra strain on my part. I don't think anyone finds an easy conquest as interesting as a small conquest.
I don't really buy ppl being strict orientations like babies and mommies- so I will take your question a bit deeper to mean 'Is it easy to take advantage of somebody that cares about people?'
There is a heartwarming scene I like on Once Upon a Time that I often post to people, where Cora thinks Emma will be easypickins for manipulating because she's a heartfelt goody goody, but instead this is what happens:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqlOdZ5kEuI
No, it's not a weakness to care- just always make sure you are also caring about yourself.
Ah, w b&d's post in mind, I will put in that I can see how SLIs could be taken advantage of. LSEs too, possibly, but to a lesser degree imo bc they seem less soft to me. I have ascribed this to weak, valued Fi, though.Quote:
Originally Posted by BulletsAndDoves
I was in a relationship w a kind SLI (now married to someone else, and still a close friend) whom I saw other women take advantage of in relationships, and I could imagine my husband's even deeper kindness and loving nature being taken advantage of as well. I did not and do not do that, though, bc it would just seem...dirty and wrong. Not all SLIs are so sweet, ofc, but the ones who are could probably be taken advantage of (just like everyone can be, but possibly more easily if they believe they are loved).
Infantiles need to learn and develop life skills so that they aren't dependent on someone else or risk taking advantage of them. Caregivers need to relinquish control and make others responsible for performing their own duties. Relationships and the duties required should be split as evenly as possible.
@Skeptikon That doesn't sound fun at all :(
Wouldn't it be more psychologically comfortable if infantiles/caregivers just let their personalities play out in their relationships naturally? It wouldn't work very well in the long term if we weren't able to be recognized for our contributions and had to constantly do things we hate/are awful at. I'd imagine this give and take between caregivers and infantiles is what would draw them together in the first place!
Taking advantage happens across the board, but I do think some Se-polr and Se-DS types are extremely inclined to it. You just have to learn to bail as soon as they show signs. Anyone who "needs someone to make them want to" do what's necessary in their lives is going to latch on and suck you dry. If they can't be bothered to even try taking care of themselves, they don't deserve for someone else to do it for them. They aren't OWED a perfect cozy life where they get to do all the things that matter to them, though quite a few of them believe this and will find any rhyme or reason to become someone else's dependent. Rather than going for types, go for people who are independent and you should be fine.
I think I do take an advantage of caregivers, it does not happen consciously or by a force, but it does happen somewhere in the subtitles.
Of course. That may be the norm in some cultures.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fay
didn't you say you have a diagnosis of NPD @Airman?
I have read that people with NPD are quite easy to take advantage of because they see everyone else as existing to serve them, and they are so stuck in that mentality that it doesn't occur to them that someone else might be using them instead, until it's too late and they've been used.
I mostly agree with what you said. I just wanted to add the fact I've been attracting Childlike types too, not just Aggressors.Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Whenever a Childlike type tried to "lure me in" with their Childlike tactics, I have usually responded negatively and confused, haha.
I believe that we will attract the complementary (or identical, sometimes) Romance Style the more we are in our own element. Meaning, the more we are being ourselves.
It is too easy sometimes to be mistaken for the wrong Romance Style when you are exhibiting your Role function too much in superficial encounters. I think those Childlike guys picked up on my (superficial) Si, thinking I would provide it to them once they have shown their childlike enthusiasm. Oh, how they were wrong, haha. The big reveal was always irritating for both.
Regarding Infantiles "taking advantage" of their Caregivers: It might seem that way to the Infantile, because they are focusing on bringing forth their Ne in order to get Si back. However, this is a mutual exchange. The Caregiver will take care of the Childlike, in exchange of receiving childlike enthusiasm, idealism and the like. If both people are healthy, mutually and sincerely interested in the other, the exchange of Ne-Si will be symmetrical and not one-sided. Hence no one takes advantage of the other in total. Benefitting from someone's strengths to override one's weakness is not automatically "taking advantage" of them. If it goes both ways, it is a mutual and positively reinforcing exchange.
P.S.: This feeling of someone taking advantage of the other would technically be the strongest in Benefit relations, because the information exchange is asymmetrical there, and the Beneficiary receives more of what they need than the Benefactor. In that manner, I could see how an ILE might feel they were "taking advantage" of an LSE's caregiving (Si), same for IEE with ESE. Having said that, the Beneficiary is actually rather unaware of them "taking advantage" of their Benefactor's Creative function. Additionally, the Benefactor is perceived to be in a "higher" position (by both) and less prone to being influenced by their Beneficiary's demands. So, there is not much ground for true conscious manipulation.
i think caregivers like to be taken advantage of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SisOfNight
This makes me remember that all human relations have a political side to them. On the benefit relation yes it corresponds to my exp with ILEs irl. The EII doesn't only demand Si back but Se and Te as well from an LSE.
Basically putting this as an equation she's giving Fi and Ne and demanding 3 IEs so 3>2 she's receiving more than giving.
They would only truly take advantage of them if they were acting in a dishonorable way and taking advantage of a lack of critical judgement on the part of the caretaker. Sometimes people need help. Why not get people to help you?
@Airman
you get three IE's in return. They give you their demonstrative as well. At least they should if they want to be making a favourable impression.
Based on my own limited observation, Infantile types may certainly seem to take advantage of more practically-inclined types, if only because what the Infantile offers in return seems less readily apparent. (The same is also probably true of Victim types, in general). The nature of the relationship will also affect exactly how the situation is perceived of course.
Infantiles take advantage of non-caregivers. There is a blur between inantile/non-caregiver and Infantile/Caregiver duals. Such is the case with all romance styles.
If the person seemed to be of the most benefit, they either aren't your dual, simply deeper into their style than yourself due to previous relationships, or aren't your corresponding romance style. That's from least likely to most likely.
Good insights in this thread.
Agreed, it may seem that way, especially to types that don't value Si.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Si types can become dependent on others for their interests and overall life plans, for example.
Learn to spot the quality in the root. That way you can lift her and pull her from the garden. Otherwise you get weeds.
I think I read this on a flower pot once.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pookie
Quote:
Originally Posted by sorrowsofyoungwerther
You are an infantile then given that you look for someone to provide stability whilst you bring all the fun to the table.
This is very interesting insight, thanks for responding
@Maritsa What do you think about this?Quote:
Originally Posted by End
Maritsa, I also read about attachment theory and realised my mom quintessentially gave me successful caregiving. However, another interesting note is that INFJs offer excellent caregiver support, the emotional and psychological growth often the ESTJ instinctively lacks and needs nurtured like a child (or being in the position of a willing subordinate).
Quote:
Originally Posted by attachment theory
This makes a lot of sense to me. "A man needs a few hurdles to jump" is a word of wisdom I heard a long time ago and there is always turht to this, IMO. In romance, yes, and speaking as a mom and a teacher, I see it in male children too - not talking about romance there but in activities and subtle conversation. ("Last one in's a rotten egg!" is a big boy motivator, i.e.). In general, girls like relating and boys like little challengesQuote:
Originally Posted by Airman
Some women seem to habitually overlook the hurdle thing and thereby continually sabotage what could have been something.
But, then, maybe in many cases these were the wrong guys for them, anyway. One of the forum members (I forgot who/where - please let me know if you remember) recently commented that some types in romance seek to love and others seek to be loved. Those seeking to love might be more bold and more frustrated by "dating rules" that say they should hold back a bit.
In other words, everybody needs to grow up! :biggrin:Quote:
Originally Posted by Eureka
I think End was correct in saying that being labeled as "infantile " doesn't mean that INFj can't provide care because we can. I think that an infantile type wants a strong and capable logical person to take care of major framework of things so that the infantile can operate within those boundaries. Buying a house or fixing the driveway. Making big decisions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Soupman
Within child emotional care I would say infj is patient and calm whereas ESTj is authoritative and wants quick results to establish external order. Infj wants to explore the emotional inner world of the child and wants to learn who they are and what is their inner world like in an accepting and safe warm and calm way. Estj just wants to make sure things are orderly operating well and copacetic.
Yes, LSE wants gratitude for their work and EII likes to say it "words of affirmation " is that being manipulative? Maybe sociologically yes because we do have hard wired social and tribal rituals.
Well children oscillate between the person who takes responsibility towards being the rule setter and enforcer to the tender more conversationist. Both are needed. Doesnt mean that one cannot learn to do both in parenting. In a relationship I can train myself to be orderly as LSE is but my energy doesn't permit overextension and endurance so often a lot goes without being done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Soupman
Soupman, you were fortunate to get good attachment parenting. Attachment parenting was what I was into before and after my son was born, and it sure is the most rewarding way to parent. I am grateful for all I read on this at the time, particularly Dr. Sears book on it, because it is in contrast with a lot of the parenting advice that tends to be shot at you by relatives, friends and neighbors (which is usually designed to make babies be "independent").Quote:
The most important tenet of attachment theory is that an infant needs to develop a relationship with at least one primary caregiver for the child's successful social and emotional development, and in particular for learning how to effectively regulate their feelings. Fathers or any other individuals, are equally likely to become principal attachment figures if they provide most of the child care and related social interaction.[3] In the presence of a sensitive and responsive caregiver, the infant will use the caregiver as a "safe base" from which to explore. It should be recognized that "even sensitive caregivers get it right only about 50 percent of the time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_theory
Reading the theory helped me make choices that I am so glad I made, that helped my son in so many ways. He just lacks fears, in contrast to so many of his peers growing up. Its an advantage to take into life, that fearlessness. He was quite attached as a baby because that is how babies naturally are and I did not try to change that - and people did advise me to! I remember being warned that he would become a mama's boy because he did not want to be left in the nursery for church like the other toddlers - and I accommodated that (and most anything else he signaled he did not want). But I held onto the understanding that meeting his attachment needs as a baby meant he would be more confidently independent as he grew (vs. attached-to-mama because he had to seek the security needs he did not get as a baby) - and it turned out just that way - he was always comfortably confident and independent as he grew - as a child, and then as a young man. That fearlessness and that base of inner security - it is a real help in adulthood. I am most grateful that I could give him that parenting most thoroughly because we did not divorce until he got older, and even though the marriage was not good, because of it, I was able to be home with him and in every way available in those formative years. [You can still attachment parent if you work outside the home, particularly if both parents are on board with that goal, but even without that you can still endeavor, and it will benefit]. Also I attribute the way he is so great and natural with kids to attachment parenting. Kids are just drawn to him, and I think a lot of that is because he has it in his mind that kids are to be paid attention to and responded to. And kids light up with that kind of respectful attention.
Well, I know this is a side topic, not the topic of the thread, but I when I saw attachment parenting mentioned, I just wanted to share that I was the best thing I did as a mom, that it was not difficult, but rewarding to do. (Its not hard but takes commitment). I needed the help of the "theory" because it is against how most of our parents raised us and against how our culture tells us how we should raise a baby. That book also gave me confidence to be strong in this endeavor. There were other ways I came up short as a parent, including his later having a "broken home". But I can look back and say I am so glad for the attachment parenting, and for its long good effect.
A happy, attached baby:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...ambique024.jpg
The thing is, that process has to be mutual in the first place. If one takes advantage of the other, the other first has to let them. It's not blaming it all on the Caregiving type, it blames the two sides. On the other hand, if the way of taking advantage is so clever that the Caregiver doesn't notice it or is guilt-tripped/forced into it et cetera...?
It boils down to individual case and health level, you can see how difficult it is to make generalizing statements. It's also a question of how apt Childlike types are at manipulating by default.
Basically if the victim and caregiver comes from the same quadra then you are going to cover each other's weak spots bit better. Alpha caregiver and infantile delta: I can see the mess of not being able to handle certain kinds of things. What I have experienced with deltas is that I become some sort of troubleshooter on certain 'inconvenient' matters from their perspective and as I'm in good terms with kids [=goofy uncle] they might see me as someone to look after them when needed (however running it effectively through out a day...).
It depends on the semantics of "taking advantage". I think it could be argued that all types unconsciously take advantage of complimentary types due to the way that the super-Id functions of one type evoke responses from the ego functions of a complimentary type.
As I understand it, the OP is referring to the idiom with a negative connotation. The truth is that those with moral integrity will not take advantage of others in this way.
I don't think this is broadly true. Maybe it applies to you, or to these two women, or to just these two relationships--two is not a large enough sample size to accurately generalize from. You're saying X happened twice -> you hypothesize that X is always true. I think there's a lot of good theory in this thread already, about why X shouldn't be true from a Socionics/psych POV, so I will just provide some specific counterexamples, 'cause you know that's how I do as a Te valuer ;) / an EII who always loves talking about personal experiences :p.
(I am assuming that by "take advantage of," you mean "receive a lot from without giving much back.")
My duals (LSE): I do receive a lot of caregiving from them (interpreting abstruse financial documents, professional guidance, taking care of the practical things like dinner reservations and getting tickets), but I think I also provide them with a lot of happiness in return, if their continued seeking of my company is any indication. I'm one of the few people (the only person?) they can talk to about their deepest fears. I've made it clear that I admire them deeply, so they feel safe with me. They are not scared of my judgment. I understand what matters to them before they tell me or even before they know themselves, and I reassure them about these things.
My beneficiaries (SEI): The most caregiving I've received from SEIs is when I have romantic troubles and they soothe me in a very motherly (albeit unproductive) way. I think this is a very small favor among friends and definitely one I've repaid many times over (though my soothing is less motherly, more a mix of emotional release and planning how to solve the problem). In untroubled times, they enjoy my Ne way more than I enjoy their Si.
My activity partners (SLI): My lady SLI friends and I mostly get along on the basis of loving our work, working hard, and appreciating other people who love their work and work hard. I don't think there's much caregiving in either direction here, though if there's any at all, it must be from me to them, using my Fi to help them with stereotypically female issues that they do not grasp naturally. My two favorite male SLI romantic interests, one of whom I dated for a bit: I think they are actually looking for someone MORE infantile than I am--that they would trade much of my professional capabilities and sense of responsibility for more carefree whimsy.
All that being said, I do think what Subteigh said is true:
It's very tangible when an LSE does things for me: providing concrete advice/knowledge (Te), helping manage the annoying details of money/health (Si), and asserting/defending my preferences for me (Se). What I do for an LSE is hard to pin down and probably invisible to everyone external to our relationship. I don't know how to make concrete the idea that I do things like: my LSE friend once expressed discomfort with how his friends thought it was weird that he was happy about his ex-girlfriend's accidental pregnancy (with his child) -> knowing that he doesn't actually care much about society's opinions, I wondered what was actually bothering him about that -> I told him I think he will be a good father -> it felt like a weight was lifted off of his shoulders--when I asked him about his friends again, he seemed not to care about their opinions anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by Subteigh
Eh ... sure; any type can take advantage of another type if they are ignorant or malicious (more of the latter).
I have seen that SEIs and ESEs are more prone than others to take advantage of my Ti polrs (ESTjs too, to an extent).
In addition to what I said before I'd like to add that the Te dual-seeking behavior can also seem like this.
I have trouble attaching adjectives such as childlike, caring, submissive, etc. to specific types except to arouse dialogue. These behaviours depend on so many other factors; any type, under the right set of circumstances, can exhibit them. I've often seen two people of the same type exhibiting opposite ends of the spectrum, anywhere from saintly to evil or aggressive to passive or animated to almost dead - some behaviours, one wouldn't expect from a certain type. The environment would have to be carefully controlled to make such adjectives applicable - they're certainly not core......
a.k.a. I/O
I have to agree with this.Quote:
Originally Posted by Maritsa
It can be a cycle. Anyone is capable of childish behavior unintentionally. Call the behavior infantile to break the cycle, set boundaries, and talk about it. If it doesn't change then yeah there could be a situation where a person is infantile and takes advantage of a caring person. Often times people aren't even aware of their behavior being that way because maybe that's what they're used to doing in response to something rooted in their personality that maybe we don't know about. Or someone could have a deep rooted fear of conflict and acts childish.
If the behavior never stops... You have an issue.
Yes.
"Taking advantage of caring types"
An negative aspect of :Si: Hidden Agenda, maybe.:thinking:
I think the idea is they both take advantage of eachother, but aren't ashamed to admit it because its not victim/aggressor dynamics, where some kind of power advantage is conferred by playing games over who owes who what. rather they just "take advantage" (at least in Te valuing), but its not loaded with negative connotations. they can admit it and love eachother at the same time no problem. they can admit they need eachother and acknowledge they get stuff out of it without feeling like its some kind of betrayal of a platonic ideal of pure idealic sacrifice on both ends. in the end, this lends a purity that probably, in reality, closer approximates such an ideal anyway. declarative vs real humanism begins with humility and a part of that is not trying to pretend one isn't getting stuff