This grossed me out immensely. I thought i was going to learn something so i kept reading. Nope.Originally Posted by Waddlesworth
Are you by any chance an si valuer? Just a blind walk off a cliff (i mean blind guess)
This grossed me out immensely. I thought i was going to learn something so i kept reading. Nope.
Are you by any chance an si valuer? Just a blind walk off a cliff (i mean blind guess)
"Victim
- Can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves
- The openly submissive version never questions the partners
control but expects the partner to "show the way" in all aspects"
I've found this to be extremely true. EIEs can be arrogant assholes "I'm not weak, I'm dominant" (lol) and then you have EIEs are way too ready to be controlled.
You have LIEs who think they're god's hilarious gift to women, can't be held down or domesticated (i'll admit it's not a horrible look for LIEs *grumble) and then you have LIEs that are more "broken in" (happens after a heart break, shit break up etc.) I've seen this variation referenced in literature that i would cite if i actually remembered it.
I've never seen an IEI that didn't like being treated aggressively, the less you give a shit about how they react, the more positively they respond (sorry if i sound crude, just being honest). I'll admit that just because i haven't seen "assertive/doninant" iei's doesnt mean they don't exist. and i have no idea how ILIs are, but i can imagine any variation on the aggressive vs submissive pole/dichotomy. My past interaction isn't telling in that way, since back then i was really insecure. *Shrugs.
Last edited by carrina; 06-05-2015 at 06:11 AM.
Haha lol. Yeah probably. *Context makes all the difference here.
Last edited by carrina; 06-05-2015 at 05:59 AM.
Amusing + hostile. Hmm. * ponders. Yep sounds normal to me.I guess I'm not a victimDirty 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
My thoughts exactly. *Cannot compute oversimplificationPossibly. Since the descriptions are so simplified in the first place, it's pretty easy to be in another category than what you're supposed to be in.
So yes, there are people that don't correspond.
ESTp's nvr pwn me ever cuz i know their dumb tricks. All they do is try to rapidly change their argument subtly and other b.s. b.s. radar too strong. SLEs are funny though.
I don't even know what you just tried to communicate.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.
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.
Haha lol @ your edit.
This is actually why i love and hate EIEs. The level of chasery is beyond my abilities re: "arrogant" pseudo's< Not applicable to the less "dominant" eie's.
I have encountered both aspects in the same person. Well, that one person told me about their "broken in" phase. Though generally, I could see the LIE-Ni being more Victim and "soft" because of stronger Ni. LIE-Te would be much more in denial about their Victim-ness. (Similar to that would be EIE-Fe.)
Hm, I do not mind being treated aggressively, but at some point I can flare up if it goes into a direction I dislike. I used to be in some kind of denial myself regarding being a "Victim". I would not deny the description itself, but I would have a sort of passive-aggressive attitude romantically. I still do at times. I can go into a pseudo-aggressor mode when I am feeling very confident, and energetically "stronger" than the other. But eventually, it only takes one little moment for me to realize how much of a "Victim" I am. I usually surrender much faster with an aggressor than with any other romance style (though it still takes quite a while). I experience the most resistance with Childlike types, I am likely to act very dismissive and hot-and-cold with them. I think me being the Ni subtype also moves me towards being more Pseudo-Aggressor. I can have that attitude of "Tame me if you can."
Last edited by Olimpia; 06-05-2015 at 12:45 PM.
This made me tick so much, I totally relate. The cookie comes after a lot of effort, and it's not necessarily in time but in intensity and means applied to win my interest. And the rest makes sense as well (for infantiles + attitude).
tame? that would suggest a animal like person. Why not just enjoy the person? ok so I can understand presenting a difficult to get close to attitude as you may not trust people yet. However, it's still kind of too playful I think too much like the scene in "intolerable cruelty" movie with Katherine Zeta Jones where the reporter "nails" the cheating husband. lol
-
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
Maybe I should watch the movie before replying anything as your comment seems all greek to me for the moment.
People are animals. The se-ni quadras accept that lul
LIEs aren't as hard to get as the beta psuedos but I've definitely seen this attitude. It's part of being a "trophy". The term is slightly degrading but it fits if you remove the popularly preferred term "trophy-wife" which has no resemblance to the meaning here
[QUOTE=SisOfNight;1091901]I have encountered both aspects in the same person. Well, that one person told me about their "broken in" phase. Though generally, I could see the LIE-Ni being more Victim and "soft" because of stronger Ni. LIE-Te would be much more in denial about their Victim-ness. (Similar to that would be EIE-Fe.)
LIE-C and LIE-D are more dominant,
LIE-H and N are less so.
Yeah EIE-E is very dominant as a matter of pride and EIE ni is inherently submissive in my experience.
I feel like the romance styles theory causes more confusion and stereotypes than producing any actual understanding or explanation.
I still like to use them, but they almost exist as a separate type system.
Agressor types sound very male bro type.
Victims sound like "shit testers".
Infantiles basically sound exactly as they're named.
Caregivers sound like a mommy or daddy type.
I think one person could be all of these in a relationship depending on the situation and mood.
There is some truth to this theory though I think it just needs to be modified by someone.
Ni types can seem victimish because they are in their head more than out of it but still value a Se "aggressor" to shake them out of their dreamy stupor.
Ne types can seem childish because of their precocious imaginative nature and value a Si "caregiver" to keep their feet on the ground.
The Barnum or Forer effect is the tendency for people to judge that general, universally valid statements about personality are actually specific descriptions of their own personalities. A "universally valid" statement is one that is true of everyone—or, more likely, nearly everyone. It is not known why people tend to make such misjudgments, but the effect has been experimentally reproduced.
The psychologist Paul Meehl named this fallacy "the P.T. Barnum effect" because Barnum built his circus and dime museum on the principle of having something for everyone. It is also called "the Forer effect" after its discoverer, the psychologist Bertram R. Forer, who modestly dubbed it "the fallacy of personal validation".
It's old, but I did find this blog entry interesting:
https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ays-every-role
Can be seen as similar to what you're going at, maybe.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
