i have found the 2-3 months into a relationships there's usually drama or friction. i think she digs your ass fdg but can't extricate from the other guy. you're right to keep moving forward.Originally Posted by FDG
i have found the 2-3 months into a relationships there's usually drama or friction. i think she digs your ass fdg but can't extricate from the other guy. you're right to keep moving forward.Originally Posted by FDG
ILE
those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often
theres hope, maybe due to naivete, but I honestly have no clue.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
thePirate,you're talking to dead people.
lol their still around, plus I want updates
your ILI now? dangit.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
ESTps can be very loyal. Depends on what their principles/aims are. If being morally whatever is one of their goals, they can be the most principled folks around.
However, besides that, my suggestion: have sex with a few SLEs, date around a bunch of people, while maintaining an intense but somewhat sexually charged friendship (maybe you did it once or twice, maybe you're each other's booty call, etc.) with one particular SLE (named Joanne) who you finally settle down with and marry when you're both in your mid-to-late thirties, saying, "come on, Joanne, we're both gonna get married some time, and I might as well marry you so I don't have to cheat on some poor other girl with you. Whaddya say?"
Then Joanne will say, "What are you talkin' about? Me? Married? You're kidding!" Then she'll give you a little shove, but you have to make sure that you subtly show her that you're upset by her rejection of you. Then you sort of distance yourself from her for a few weeks (or scenes), long enough for her to realize that she really needs you in her life, and then at a mutual friends' wedding (which you were going to go to together, because you're each other's go-to date for weddings), she'll see you and you'll kiss, and in some dramatic way, you'll confess that you're made for each other and go ahead and get engaged (maybe some sort of thing where she proposes to you, male-female role reversal, etc., etc.). Then you ride off into the sunset together after totally upstaging your mutual friend with your much more dramatic and exciting (and sexier, can't forget sexier) love story ('cause IEIs and SLEs are the most exciting and sexiest types).
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
Not necessarily. Same action, reframed via Se. If for some reason an SLE decides that one of his or her goals in life is to live up to a given moral code (or better yet, some sort of semi-mystic Ni ideal), she would presumably pursue that goal with the same ridiculous capacity for achievement with which she pursues everything. Functions generally have more to do with how someone does something than what they do.
You all make me laugh.
Are you trying to say that relationship plans based on Hollywood fantasies and Broadway musicals don't go over well in real life? Drat. I would still never end up with an LSE. They'd freak out over some unimportant practical detail, and I'd bolt for the door.I bet you'll all end up with conflictors the way you go about this.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
That's like asking if they can see themselves eating shit longterm.infps: can you see yourselves with an ESTp longterm?
I actually prefer that we don't formally commit at all, we just grow together until one day we look at eachother and realize we can't leave one another. It's like the commitment just forms on its own. No reason to try to pretend you have more love than you actually do.. formal commitment just seems like a fantasy people have about their relationships, but doesn't reflect the real status of the relationship. Anyway, you can always remain friends.
@pirate: you actually just have to rip through it in the end, but you've got to slowly learn that the only solution is to rip through it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I'm not entirely sure having a self concept that operates independently from other people is something worth the trade off of loneliness. Though I understand that you are most likely still happy, despite carrying a mindset that would most likely do the reverse for me so *shrugs* To each their own.
Easy Day
Thompsons quote is too nihilistic for me to take seriously. When you die, don't you want to be looking back on your life and remembering the good things you accomplished / times you had?
I think a good core of individualism is important but a complete lack of dependence really indicates detachment which is a whole new problem.
That's just giving up. Even if you never get another person to merge with you, or even if, like Walt Whitman, you have to touch yourself, your second self, you don't stop longing for another person to cut into your solitude. You have to give up on the solitude. You have to keep longing and striving for something beyond this horrific isolation we have within ourselves. Surely we can have one person, out of this whole terrible crowd, that we can trust with our innermost beings? It takes a special kind of intelligence to track another person through all their twists and changes and match them as they wind into life's curves, but it is possible, and it is powerful to believe in that possibility, if only because it dams up a lot of potential energy which can come flooding out at will.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
I disdain most things I can't have. But there are some desires that I like to keep near the surface.
But yeah, I also am turned off by overly needy people, and I try to keep my personal needy-ness very private and individual. I've always been a cat person too. I hate dogs. Too needy, want to much attention, yuck. Cats are nice and will leave you alone if you want them to. But then at the same time, they inhabit your space, you know?
Thanks, dumbass.Well said, gayboy.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
You seem to post a lot here for someone who's cool been ms. lonestar.
Be more vague.
The problem with cats is that they're kind of useless, and they linger around. And they try to rub themselves up against you and ingraniate themselves. But they serve no useful purpose.
If they sense that you don't want them around then they'll keep more distance then when you're not paying attention they'll try and sneak into your space. If you don't pay them attention they'll start acting up to get attention. And they're kind of gross, and move against the flow of other people.
Dogs, will move when you move. And be still when you're still. Cats will move when you're still, and pause when you move. Then they'll try and counter your moves and blah blah. So reactive. So contrary.
That said, I've never had my own cat, nor my own dog. I've lived with cats and dogs a few times. And random cats, dogs etc. I often don't notice cats the first time I visit somewhere, but dogs will tend to come up to me. And if I'm around dogs too much they seem to follow me. And if I'm around cats too much they tend to avoid me.
ALTHOUGH, one thing I've noticed is that cats tend to like slower movements where dogs are fine when you move fast. Like if you move fast a dog will just kind of be around and active and so forth. Whereas a cat will watch from a distance and be "unsure" about being nearby. A dog might bark, and sometimes dogs will playfight with each other. But cats don't really fight they go at each other. Cats are a lot more violent. Dogs it's just a kind of loud sometimes etc. But it's more controlled. Whereas cats bite and scratch and so forth. So if you want a cat to come to you, you have to be quieter and slower and kind of let them come to you. And if you want a dog to come to you you just have to be there and just do things. Thing is if you do things with a cat around it may try and get in your way, or act haphazardly where dogs seem to be more aware of space and don't try and trip you up.
-
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
Very standard IEI thing. My girl thinks exactly the same way. She once quoted to me from the novel Fight Club: "It's easy to cry when you realize everyone you love will reject you or die".
Personally I find it extremely depressing. I can't believe you lot even like thinking like that. And it doesn't exactly make me want to commit to someone I feel like is going to fuck off after a while.
The SLEs I know are very committed to their long-term relationships IF they love and are IN LOVE with that person. (and heck, even when they're not, they try hard to make it work and are extremely loyal)
this thread is old. blah blah blah
IEI-Fe 4w3
interesting. you know, that may actually be a pretty healthy view. I have a friend who was divorced and is now swearing off marriage--she's been living with her boyfriend for 2 or 3 years now and says that it's better that way because they make a more conscious choice to be together knowing that either of them could walk away at any time. Kind of irrational I guess, but I like it.
IEI-Fe 4w3
Yes, I agree they often are susprisingly non-whoreish. I know a couple of SLEs who, though they clearly enjoy the chase and like knowing (er, believing?) they *could* sleep with whomever they want, won't get with just anyone. These two are both late-twenties now and seem to have grown out of their youthful playa days. Mostly
When it comes to love, *real* love, they do take it very seriously.
INFps are really picky so never end up with anyone.. SLEs sleep with everyone but are picky at the same time, so they end up leaving them. It really isn't that different. Actually INFps will act the same way if they find themselves in a relationship they don't want to be in.. just leave without much warning. I left a girl like that, I had told her I loved her pretty freely like 2 weeks prior. Meh my emotions changed, but she was really appalled at how I could say those things to her and then change my mind so fast.
30s is the decade when they get serious, 40s is when that playa attitude returns back
certainly they're not immune to it! but they're not more likely than other types. In fact, I know a couple of 40+ ones who were actually cheated on by their wives, not vice versa. And now that they're divorced, they're pretty picky about who they date and not whorish in the least. Maybe promiscuity isn't type related.
IEI-Fe 4w3
And take xanax and jello shots
SLEs are not whorish -- that's a theme more related to a gluttony and thirst for experience typical of / valuing types. SLEs can be whorish of course (Se-egos, being Si-id, are more susceptible to falling victim to it, and they may connect sexuality to domination -- to the thrill of the chase), but the general rule is no. Female Beta STs, particularly, I've found to be fairly prudish.
Likewise, commitment-phobia, to the extent that it is type-related (I actually think it fairly is), is a mark against (rather than for) valuing. Ni-egos particularly are very clingy romantic partners, being as their romantic attachment is tied to a great awesome glorious vision of they and their partner being together 4 evar and evar and evar and live happily ever after and stuff. The paranoia of the Victim romantic style is actually about insecurity of the other person not being committed, as opposed to their own commitment (related to their instincts toward long-term perspectives, as it entails a fear that it might not work out in the long term -- implying a desire for it to).
types, on the other hand, being fundamentally inclined to be open to possibilities, detest commitments of any sort -- romantic or otherwise.
Last edited by Aleksei; 07-19-2011 at 05:00 PM.
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov