What is your "dual" like?

[implied]

why

not that i like to be "fucked with" because i don't. but i could see myself feeling better abt things if i knew where things stood more clearly. basically transparency.

[Mattie]

not that i like to be "fucked with" because i don't. but i could see myself feeling better abt things if i knew where things stood more clearly. basically transparency.

Isn't that a trait of leading, or ego overall? I remember conversations and articles saying that the leading types like the clear expectations and 'ethics' of a relationship. I'm not sure if it's the same for the creatives. I believe the ego types are predicted to have a certain set of assumed rules for a relationship, and know what they do and do not want to happen in them, and this gives egos confidence/comfort?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[jewels]

I It's more like the cat tells the mouse that it wants the mouse to come with it, and the mouse says, "okay."

That's so cute! I like this. I have noticed that my straightforward Fi-ish-ness can sometimes scare Fe types who don't even want to discuss that.

It would be the equivalent of me dissecting why someone touching my arm in an soothing Si way felt good...would totally take the fun out of it I suppose...and I imagine that's how Fe types react to the whole "so I feel XYZ and I'm curious where you're at" stuff Lol

[3RainbowSprinkles]

what I want instead of what i need...

I would say i want someone who is intelligent--rocket scientist smart.
a stable man--knows how to take care of anything math<3 someone who is hardworking and who will be with me for better or worse. someone who reciprocates and is loyal. someone who is full of integrity and is not swayed easily.

what personality type would that be? would that describe an istp?

[strrrng]

not that i like to be "fucked with" because i don't. but i could see myself feeling better abt things if i knew where things stood more clearly. basically transparency.

Oh, ok. Well, like Diana said, all "types" will want to have this; it's just a matter of how it's expressed. I doubt you would appreciate some Fe-ego constantly "gauging where you're at", sometimes inciting a reaction if necessary (just from what I've gathered about your reaction towards Fe antics).

It's more like this: whatever type you are, if you are really interested in someone, they'll know it, and not doubt it. If you're not sure, and have doubts, you'll be ambiguous. If they're not sure, it'll show that they're not sure. Easy peasy, chicken and cheesy. IOW, don't try to make things into something they're not. If it's there, it'll be there, and you'll know it.

Word.

Anyway, I think with the beta irrationals there's a period of drawing in, testing to find out the other's mettle.

I wonder... I do think irrationals in general tend to have a more 'back-and-forth' kind of communication style, which could lead to what you're describing. And rationals do seem a bit more direct, controlled in delivery (especially ENxj-ISxj dyads).

But doesn't everyone 'test the mettle' in their own way? Beta irrational antics are probably just the most ostensible, because of the FeSe stuff going on. Although, I still don't know how much 'drawing in' an ESTp will do (an INFp will do a lot).

But, once in, then the IEI goes ALL in. He never went all-in with me because I'm far too Fi, heh, had to make everything too significant. But, it's totally for the best, we wouldn't have made a good match.

It's true And I hate the feeling of having to accept that you aren't the right fit for someone else, when you're already infatuated. I think at that point, the people should engage in an unrestrained sexual encounter, to do things justice and truly move on (not that it would help with everyone, but whatever).

With the Te-Fi couples there's less back-and-forth, cat-and-mouse, and it can be far more direct. In fact, I've found it to be just totally direct and to-the-point. And if it's not to-the-point enough, then somebody (me) makes sure it gets there. It's not the baiting, string along, then pounce on your prey sort of thing (even though I admit that can sometimes be fun - just tiring after awhile) it's a whole lot more straightforward. It's more like the cat tells the mouse that it wants the mouse to come with it, and the mouse says, "okay."

That makes a lot of sense for Te/Fi rationals, actually.

That's so cute! I like this. I have noticed that my straightforward Fi-ish-ness can sometimes scare Fe types who don't even want to discuss that.

Sometimes I have been surprised by the compact style of delivery an Fi-ego will use when they *finally* decide to express something It has a sort of stunning effect, and I'm left trying to figure out exactly what they meant, despite what they said feeling like something irreducible. I think you guys expect others to know where you stand with them, on an Fi level, and can't grasp why someone would need that kind of causal feedback from you (another example of not using non-native functions that occurs regularly).

It would be the equivalent of me dissecting why someone touching my arm in an soothing Si way felt good...would totally take the fun out of it I suppose...and I imagine that's how Fe types react to the whole "so I feel XYZ and I'm curious where you're at" stuff Lol

This feels too familiar.

[redbaron]

I kinda like the direct thing. I guess I'm referring to AFTER I've made up my mind that the person is indeed who/what I want. But I'd like the cat to tell me (the mouse) to come with him and I'd do it. I dated an ESI and it was really great for awhile. Our values and direction in life pulled us apart.

[unefille]

My ideal partner would:

1. On Sunday mornings, he would laugh and be amused as I floated around the house, reciting Keats and Byron, talking in verse, and reaching up to wreath flowers in his hair, which he would calmly and smilingly remove and finally, after I insisted on responding only in verse to his salutations, also speak to me in verse, after which I would, triumphant, leave him again undisturbed.

2. Be unperturbed and bemused when, upon interrupting me in my study as I was working on something (academic or work-related), I turned to him abruptly and commanded him out of the room, speaking in Mandarin or French or some other language and shouting communist slogans or quoting the Aeneid as Dido addressing Aeneas after death. He would recognise the absurdity as my way of softening the request that he leave me alone to work and not a rejection of his company. He would enjoy the bizarre references.

3. He would laugh easily when I laughed, feel my pain as I cried, allow me to infiltrate him with all the passions, moods and impulses that overwhelm me. Would allow my natural dramatic tendencies and playacting to enrich his world, to let me dictate the colours of the day: whether blue and melancholic or yellow and bright or any of the thousand shades that colour my own emotional landscape. He would appreciate and welcome my attempts to affect him, to share my own transitory feelings, my enthusiasm, my fear, my despair, my delight, my passion and my nostalgia.

4. In allowing me to pervade his world with my emotional experiences, he would know when to take me seriously and when to laugh at me. He would not make light of my pain, and not mock my reactions, however inconsequential the matters to which I am reacting may seem 'objectively'. He would understand the subjectivity of my experience and not diminish the value of that experience. He would never belittle or demean my feelings or assert the futility of my desires. He may disagree, he may argue, but he would not treat them as insignificant and unworthy of even a passing thought.

5. He would argue with me when I'm wrong, reason with me when I'm being hysterical, persist when I'm being obstinate. He would not seek to fight, but he would stay to fight, rather than simply retreat away from me when I am overcome by my emotions, no matter how terrifying my anger, how thunderous my despair or how irrational my jealousy.

6. He should always be prepared to laugh, always - to see the absurdity in the world, laugh at the absurdity and yet to partake in that absurdity rather than spurning the world and the sheer chaos, stupidity, frustration and tragi-comedy of living.

[munenori2]

Damn, poetic, romantic, funny, awesome. Way deep stuff.

[FDG]

2. Be unperturbed and bemused when, upon interrupting me in my study as I was working on something (academic or work-related), I turned to him abruptly and commanded him out of the room, speaking in Mandarin or French or some other language and shouting communist slogans or quoting the Aeneid as Dido addressing Aeneas after death. He would recognise the absurdity as my way of softening the request that he leave me alone to work and not a rejection of his company. He would enjoy the bizarre references.

Lol. This is great.

[redbaron]

unefille, that's awesome! I actually know an LSI who would love that stuff. (but he's already married to an IEI)

[strrrng]

Fucking eloquent, unefille. Aristocratic

[ArchonAlarion]

What part is the psychoanalyzing? I'm just giving my experience with one particular IEI, certainly it's open to correction. I'm obviously not an IEI, so don't have first-hand knowledge. All I can do is give my own observations. If I'm perceiving something one way, and it's not really like that from the inside, sure, let me know.

My original point however was that everyone wants to know that the other person is interested in them. So, to say it again "It's more like this: whatever type you are, if you are really interested in someone, they'll know it, and not doubt it. If you're not sure, and have doubts, you'll be ambiguous. If they're not sure, it'll show that they're not sure. IOW, don't try to make things into something they're not. If it's there, it'll be there, and you'll know it."

And that applies whatever type or quadra you are, but is a lot less likely to be subject to misinterpretation the closer in quadra values two people are.

Direct to Te/Fi is likely evasive and obscured to Fe/Ti.

That's so cute! I like this. I have noticed that my straightforward Fi-ish-ness can sometimes scare Fe types who don't even want to discuss that.

It would be the equivalent of me dissecting why someone touching my arm in an soothing Si way felt good...would totally take the fun out of it I suppose...and I imagine that's how Fe types react to the whole "so I feel XYZ and I'm curious where you're at" stuff Lol

Yeah.

[strrrng]

Direct to Te/Fi is likely evasive and obscured to Fe/Ti.

It feels more incomplete to me, than evasive. Fi/Te-valuers seem to expect me to accept their subjective, compact presentation of judgments in some sort of 'as is' fashion, which usually does not translate well.

[unefille]

Damn, poetic, romantic, funny, awesome. Way deep stuff.

Aw, shucks.

Lol. This is great.

Transcribed from my Real Life (TM) adventures.

unefille, that's awesome! I actually know an LSI who would love that stuff. (but he's already married to an IEI)

Alas! Well, that's probably for the best though - I don't think I'm really the marriageable age yet - I'm barely even the 'stable, even-keeled' relationship type at the moment.

Fucking eloquent, unefille. Aristocratic

It feels more incomplete to me, than evasive. Fi/Te-valuers seem to expect me to accept their subjective, compact presentation of judgments in some sort of 'as is' fashion, which usually does not translate well.

Exactly. I feel as though they're 'pushing' something onto me when they make their Fi-declarations concerning the state of our relations and it feels inorganic, alien and (where coupled with Se) forceful. I understand on one-level that they're being sincere, but every other part of me wants to bolt because it feels so artificial - not as in fake, but an artifice - man-created - like they're trying take whatever nascent emotional undercurrents there are between us and make it into something rather than follow the current as it swells, ebbs and naturally plots us a course (and any affect is merely to stir the waters).

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I like people who protect others, who are the 'strong silent type.' I like people who can understand where I'm coming from, can tease me playfully- but also is a bit stronger than me. I like people who are serious, more serious than I am. I like people who can direct their anger in effective ways.

[ScarlettLux]

B&D - that sounds more like an LSI vs SLE. And yeah, I have always seen you as an EIE... so it makes sense. At least in my mind =P

[idolatrie]

He would be my comfort, my support, my partner, my delight. The person I would see first every morning, and fall asleep in his arms every night. He would love me best, and I would give him the (my, our) world. He would bring me joy, and pain, and sometimes it would feel like too much, but never not enough. I would not be able to think of love without thinking of him.

He would understand that sometimes I need to take care of him - to feed him and iron his clothes, put a blanket on him or rub his shoulders. This is my way of putting my touch on him, in a subtle way that lingers. He wouldn't resist this, or call attention to it, but just accept it. He would do things in return, bring me a cup of tea in bed in the morning, a text message at lunch, bringing pastries home for dessert - to show me that I am loved in return. He wouldn't effusively and vocally express his love in so many words, nor would he expect me to. But he would know. I would know.

He wouldn't set out to test me, ever. If we are at a party, and I look over and see him talking animatedly with some girl, her hand on his arm and an encouraging smile on her face, well, these things happen. But he wouldn't have a problem when I walk over, introduce myself and slip my hand into his back pocket. Sometimes I'll drink too much, and lean too close to other boys, chin propped up my hand and eyes at half mast. I'd expect him to slide his arm around my shoulders before any other boy's hand starts creeping up my leg. We wouldn't be joined at the him when going out, but we'd always be conscious of where the other is in the room. I could look up and catch his eye, and we'd just know, have some reaffirmation in that moment, then return to our own conversations.

He would touch me with certain hands. Possessively, as if I am something special. I would feel like I am precious within the circle of his arms. He would know that nothing is forbidden between us. He wouldn't ask for permission verbally, he would read my non-verbal cues. He would give me free reign over him and not hold back.

He would read my moods, know when to cheer me up, when to leave me be. He would not let me wallow in the morass of my emotions when I feel so entangled in them I could never escape. Nor would he smother me with his, knowing when to push and when to be contained.

He would be my escape from the world. The place where I can be vulnerable, small, not strong. He would know all my secrets, all my weaknesses, and I would never fear he would use them against me. I would trust him, and his judgment, unquestioningly. This would mean I take him seriously when we disagree, and expect us to work through problems rather than making snap judgments. If we had problems, I would hear them from him first, not anyone else.

He would surprise me, interest me, fascinate me. He would never be boring, staid, insignificant. He'd always be reaching for something 'more', some different perspective. We'd always be growing, transforming.

He would be my everything, and I would be his.

[Satan]

idol.. it sound; like you want a dog

[idolatrie]

idol.. it sound; like you want a dog

given your avatar, should I take that as a come on, babe?

also, not really, I mean, I don't want slavish devotion or anything. maybe I didn't make it clear, but I want equality above all else.

[redbaron]

idolatrie, that was fabulous. I love your passion, your idealism, your vision... I hope with all my heart that you find this person. something tells me you will.

[ragnar]

He would be my everything

The sentiments you outlined are a sure recipe for disaster, IMHO. I thought very much like that too in more idealistic days, though.

I still agree that "something" - as opposed to the depressingly common "nothing" - is the proper thing for the husband and wife to be wrt each other. But not "everything" in the way you described.

[redbaron]

The sentiments you outlined are a sure recipe for disaster, IMHO. I thought very much like that too in more idealistic days, though.

I still agree that "something" - as opposed to the depressingly common "nothing" - is the proper thing for the husband and wife to be wrt each other. But not "everything" in the way you described.

well you're different so of course you'll want something different in a marriage. I mean, not everyone wants the same thing. I've seen lots of successful marriages that look and feel VERY different depending on the partners involved. So all you're basically saying here is that you don't want to marry idolatrie. :tongue:

[ragnar]

all you're basically saying here is that you don't want to marry idolatrie. :tongue:

No.

I'm saying that anyone having such expectations would end up disillusioned and disappointed in a marriage with me or any real person as opposed to a fantasy figure.

With some women, such disappointments automatically translate into divorce. Others manage to make a soft landing in the real world, and a lifelong happy marriage ensues.

In either case it's still quite possible I would enjoy every moment of such a marriage thoroughly. Or at least prefer it to being single or any other available alternative.

[redbaron]

No.

I'm saying that anyone having such expectations would end up disillusioned and disappointed in a marriage with me or any real person as opposed to a fantasy figure.

I don't know. Is it better to have a high idealistic standard and hold out for that, or is it better to settle for "reality" and then be sad you did later on. I don't believe that what she's describing is sheer fantasy.

With some women, such disappointments automatically translate into divorce. Others manage to make a soft landing in the real world, and a lifelong happy marriage ensues.

In either case it's still quite possible I would enjoy every moment of such a marriage thoroughly. Or at least prefer it to being single or any other available alternative.

it's easy to think that marriage with someone you love is always going to be happy and happier than being alone. My own marriage has had its happy moments, for sure. But it's not ideal. I think I probably thought I made a soft landing, had come to grips with the fact that nothing is perfect and that I would be happy with him simply because I love him (and I do). And now, 15 years later, I'm not sure that was the wisest decision. I really don't know. But as they say, it's water under the bridge.

I guess I'm just urging her NOT to give up her ideals. She reminds me of what it's like to be young with your whole life ahead of you and... I want her to be blissfully happy (even tho I don't even really know her )!

[redbaron]

What I think is unrealistic in her writing is the mutual expectation (to be in turn the partner's center of the universe as well, because a complementary partner should look to things "mechanically", right?), but normally they can't notice if the relationship is fine and the guy is content and faithful.

Ha. maybe so. I could see that. I'd be SO okay with that. You look to things "mechanically" and I'll provide the adoration.

[Wynch]

Ha. maybe so. I could see that. I'd be SO okay with that. You look to things "mechanically" and I'll provide the adoration.

Adoration, gross *blech*

[redbaron]

Adoration, gross *blech*

I used to think that too!! but... well, now that I know someone with leading Se, I realize how adoration might come about.

[Wynch]

Hahaha!

I think my LSI boyfriend may be hunting for some adoration of his own. Anytime I prove to him that he's wrong about something or play coy when he starts preening, he simply tells me that he's the center of the universe and as such he can't possibly be wrong.

[redbaron]

Hahaha!

I think my LSI boyfriend may be hunting for some adoration of his own. Anytime I prove to him that he's wrong about something or play coy when he starts preening, he simply tells me that he's the center of the universe and as such he can't possibly be wrong.

that's cute!

I only recently realized this, but the only men I have ever truly adored or am even capable of adoring are those with Se in the ego block. First it was an ESI many years ago. and now it's SLE. I really do think adoration is kind of icky! But it's like the Se demands it and I'm in awe... spellbound or something.

[idolatrie]

idolatrie, that was fabulous. I love your passion, your idealism, your vision... I hope with all my heart that you find this person. something tells me you will.

No.

I'm saying that anyone having such expectations would end up disillusioned and disappointed in a marriage with me or any real person as opposed to a fantasy figure.

With some women, such disappointments automatically translate into divorce. Others manage to make a soft landing in the real world, and a lifelong happy marriage ensues.

In either case it's still quite possible I would enjoy every moment of such a marriage thoroughly. Or at least prefer it to being single or any other available alternative.

Well, I was trying to describe an ideal there. I thought that was the point of this thread? Do I think I will necessarily ever get that? Not exactly. I think it is fine to aim high, know what would be the best case scenario. But I don't think it would prevent me from living life with all the imperfections that comprises reality. I don't think marriages are perfect things. I think they are relationships which require work and commitment, not just relying on any 'natural' attributes of the participants. But I think one can conceptualise what would be perfect, as something perhaps to strive towards.

What I want, most fundamentally, is someone who loves me. Is that too much to ask? I don't know, but I sincerely hope not. Everything else is icing. If I get it, it would make me happy. If I don't, well, that's life.

While I agree with you, the ethical type women become attached (if everything works fine) and in most of the cases their partner becomes the center of the earth (not sure if all, but the most). This is only my observation around, it's not connected to a theory or something.

What I think is unrealistic in her writing is the mutual expectation (to be in turn the partner's center of the universe as well, because a complementary partner should look to things "mechanically", right?), but normally they can't notice if the relationship is fine and the guy is content and faithful.

I find it strange that you refer to me in the third person, but ok, whatever. I've got to say I stand by wanting mutuality in my relationships. If I am willing to put him first in my life, to make sacrifices for him or whatever, then I do expect he would do the same in return. I mean, I thought that's a fairly uncontroversial kind of assumption in this day and age. I can't say that 'content and faithful' are really things I would use to measure the health of a relationship though. I think there are many faithful relationships which are fundamentally flawed, and ones where the participants are merely content, but lack any true passion or depth of feeling.

[Wynch]

But it's like the Se demands it and I'm in awe... spellbound or something.

Yeah, they kind of do that eh? I won't pretend it's not hot, lol. It turns into an interesting game, a bit of a power struggle between us.

[idolatrie]

Hahaha!

I think my LSI boyfriend may be hunting for some adoration of his own. Anytime I prove to him that he's wrong about something or play coy when he starts preening, he simply tells me that he's the center of the universe and as such he can't possibly be wrong.

lol, I say that too. I usually get mocked by the EIEs or ESEs I say it too, which is sort of the point.

[Wynch]

lol, I say that too. I usually get mocked by the EIEs or ESEs I say it too, which is sort of the point.

Pretty much, lol. I definitely mock him for it. "Be sure to write that on your resumé. I know the RCMP is always looking for people with a God complex." Maybe a little bit of mock bowing and "Oh your holiness"

[JWC3]

Really? I just want some one who both gets and laughs at all of my jokes. That'd be like heaven. (I 'bout creamed in my pants when redbaron said she laughed at every thing SLE in that other thread) At the same time they can't expect me to always be 'on' I can't come up with funny shit 24-7, even I need a break sometimes.

It'd be nice if they had a deep understanding of my emotions and how they worked or how to deal with them or something, cause I really don't.

Oh and if they could sorta remind me of things I wanna do, well not remind but like get me to do them. I don't mean force me to but a sorta 'you can do it!' 'go joe!' sorta thing.

I also like the idea of some one who doesn't really expect anything from me. I don't like feeling like I'm obligated to do things for another person. I mean sure I'll do whatever is needed every time it's needed but my S.O. has to realize I'm not doing it cause it's my 'job' I'm doing it cause I care for them. And if they make it sound like it's my job or treat it as such it really takes all the satisfaction out of it.

Huge bonus points if they were cool with doing the 'weird stuff'

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[redbaron]

At the same time they can't expect me to always be 'on' I can't come up with funny shit 24-7, even I need a break sometimes.

well that's the thing. Most of what I find funny with the SLE I know, he wasn't intending to be funny. I'm afraid that there's a constant silly grin on my face every time I'm around him. It's pretty hard to make myself be serious. But it's not like he's cracking jokes all the time. he's more just being himself. there's something that's both hilarious and worship-worthy about him. It's such a strange thing!

It'd be nice if they had a deep understanding of my emotions and how they worked or how to deal with them or something, cause I really don't.

that's a snap for an IEI.

I also like the idea of some one who doesn't really expect anything from me. I don't like feeling like I'm obligated to do things for another person. I mean sure I'll do whatever is needed every time it's needed but my S.O. has to realize I'm not doing it cause it's my 'job' I'm doing it cause I care for them. And if they make it sound like it's my job or treat it as such it really takes all the satisfaction out of it.

I think that sort of obligation is kind of annoying no matter what type you are.

Huge bonus points if they were cool with doing the 'weird stuff'

[redbaron]

I can't say that 'content and faithful' are really things I would use to measure the health of a relationship though. I think there are many faithful relationships which are fundamentally flawed, and ones where the participants are merely content, but lack any true passion or depth of feeling.

I cannot even tell you how many marriages I know that are like this. so many.

[JWC3]

well that's the thing. Most of what I find funny with the SLE I know, he wasn't intending to be funny. I'm afraid that there's a constant silly grin on my face every time I'm around him. It's pretty hard to make myself be serious. But it's not like he's cracking jokes all the time. he's more just being himself. there's something that's both hilarious and worship-worthy about him. It's such a strange thing!

Right, only very rarely do I actually think of something that I think is 'funny' and when I do I don't often say it. For example I really think it would be funny if some one on this forum who was trying to find their type said "well fwiw most ESEs seem to like me" since their nice to everybody but I don't really bring up stuff like that cause I really don't no how to communicate the funny in a situation like that, best case scenario the person who i tell that is most likely to go "Heh... That is funny" or something lame like that.

The point is sometimes I just need to sit and be quiet for a bit, let the conversation carry itself without my (often humorous) direction. Sometimes I need to have a serious conversation. Sometimes shit is bothering me and I really don't know if i should even bring it up in conversation. The reason this comes up is cause I have actually had people expect me to be funny all the time and when moments like those come up where I just can't deliver I need some one who understands that. Not some one who goes "WTF?! make me laugh funny man! I don't care about your problems!"

Do you understand now?

[redbaron]

Right, only very rarely do I actually think of something that I think is 'funny' and when I do I don't often say it. For example I really think it would be funny if some one on this forum who was trying to find their type said "well fwiw most ESEs seem to like me" since their nice to everybody but I don't really bring up stuff like that cause I really don't no how to communicate the funny in a situation like that, best case scenario the person who i tell that is most likely to go "Heh... That is funny" or something lame like that.

The point is sometimes I just need to sit and be quiet for a bit, let the conversation carry itself without my (often humorous) direction. Sometimes I need to have a serious conversation. Sometimes shit is bothering me and I really don't know if i should even bring it up in conversation. The reason this comes up is cause I have actually had people expect me to be funny all the time and when moments like those come up where I just can't deliver I need some one who understands that. Not some one who goes "WTF?! make me laugh funny man! I don't care about your problems!"

Do you understand now?

yes. and I have to add that I think it's nice, with a dual, to be able to say nothing at all and expect nothing at all and kind of just bask in the comfort of being together. I enjoy silence, especially when there are no barriers between the two of you. Expecting someone to be funny all the time is ridiculous.