Online dating

[mikemex]

Some time ago I got the idea to start a dating site based on socionics but it was just one of the many ideas that I didn't want to fulfill at short term. But now I've been thinking about actually making it and I've been investigating.

From somewhat shallow observations, I've noticed a few characteristics about existing sites:

1) That extroverts outnumber introverts by a huge margin, easily an order of magnitude or more.
2) That among typical users Deltas are overrepresented. LSE and IEE are easily 50% or more of the population.
3) That most interactions involve an EJ with an EP, often with frustration for both.
4) IPs are the most common introverts, SEI and IEI being the most common.
3) Types such as LIIs are virtually non-existent.

¿Could it be that extroverts are often more aware of their need for human interaction? In the sense that introverts are usually used to be alone and don't feel the drive to go fishing...

[Absurd]

I thought this is no longer a dating site, but anyway, never have been member of a stricte dating site and usually real life interactions were enough, and more than welcome.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

In the sense that introverts are usually used to be alone and don't feel the drive to go fishing...

There was a good facebook posts about this. In social situations, all an introvert does is give- because that's all we know how to do. All an extrovert does is take. That's why it's so draining. For an extrovert it's good for you because you're just pleasantly consuming everything. For an introvert we're giving and the *only thing* we're receiving (from our point of view) is criticisms or praises to our emotions since our thoughts and feelings are so important to us.

We're really going to feel it more deeply when somebody is an asshole to something that we ourselves enjoy. (even thinking type introverts that come across as like uh 'harder' than SF/NF types) So that's why we need a more private secluded circle.

[DirectorAbbie]

So if you were to make a dating site, you would need to somehow tailor it to attract more introverts to dualize with the extroverts.

[ashlesha]

So if you were to make a dating site, you would need to somehow tailor it to attract more introverts to dualize with the extroverts.

Maybe thats why OK Cupid also has quizzes. to bring in people who want to pay attention to themselves at least as much as others.

[Galen]

1) That extroverts outnumber introverts by a huge margin, easily an order of magnitude or more.

I imagine that people who call themselves extroverts and aren't fully aware of the Jungian definition of extroversion/introversion are more prone to being active in those arenas anyway, given how casually some people think of dating as a way to "meet people" or "make friends." In this way I'd imagine so/sxs to more often than not be classified as extrovert while sp/sxs would be introverts, regardless of Jungian typology.

I set up a fake account on e-harmony's ripoff gay site whatever it's called, and I found that their means of pairing people up is primarily by Big 5. I consistently test as introverted in Big 5, so the people it paired me up with all said they were interested in "socializing" and "partying" as if that's supposed to be the ideal match.

2) That among typical users Deltas are overrepresented. LSE and IEE are easily 50% or more of the population.
3) That most interactions involve an EJ with an EP, often with frustration for both.
4) IPs are the most common introverts, SEI and IEI being the most common.

I'd question how you came to these conclusions.

3) Types such as LIIs are virtually non-existent.

IXTxs have probably figured out better uses of their time

¿Could it be that extroverts are often more aware of their need for human interaction? In the sense that introverts are usually used to be alone and don't feel the drive to go fishing...

See the first quote.

I say if you're going to set up an account on a dating site and are serious about finding someone, there should be some strong element tied to instinct stackings, or something similar. While it's a nice thought to base a site around socionics, given how much room for error any given socionics test is there would be no way to ensure that everybody is typing themselves exactly right. Things like Enneagram or instincts tend to be easier for people to grasp than patterns by which their brains synthesize information on a basic conceptual level.

So if you were to make a dating site, you would need to somehow tailor it to attract more introverts to dualize with the extroverts.

A site would probably attract more self-perceived introverts by eliminating the "whee dating is fun let's chat!!" edge that a lot of dating sites seem to have. It at least turns me off from them, although I'd imagine that something like e-harmony is more geared towards people who aren't just looking for a casual get-together.

[Radio]

that has not been my experience.

1) That extroverts outnumber introverts by a huge margin, easily an order of magnitude or more.

i've met just as many introverts online as extroverts.

2) That among typical users Deltas are overrepresented. LSE and IEE are easily 50% or more of the population.
3) That most interactions involve an EJ with an EP, often with frustration for both.
4) IPs are the most common introverts, SEI and IEI being the most common.

eh

3) Types such as LIIs are virtually non-existent.

clearly you have not met tcaud.

[Absurd]

clearly you have not met tcaud.

Hush, they're the same person.

[silke]

There are quite a few Russian websites that offer dating services on basis of socionics type matches, like this one and this one.

What I've seen of them generally is that they are swarming with people self-typing as Balzacs, Esenins, Robs, and Dostoyevskies while people typing as their duals, SEE, ESE, SLE, LSE, are few and far in between - the ratio of INxx to ESxx types is something like 4:1. The ISxx-ENxx dyads don't seem to experience such a disbalance.

I also agree with what Galen has said about instinctual stackings. Ime they have almost as much impact on interpersonal compatibility and comfort in communication as sociotypes - interacting with people from other quadra who share your stackings is at times better than interactions within the quadra between people of very different stacks.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Why underestimate acceptable partners?

By Katja Grace

The romantic view of romance in Western culture says a very small fraction of people would make a great partner for you, customarily one [ed: or socionically, one in sixteen].

Some clues suggest that in fact quite a large fraction of people would make a suitable spouse for a given person. Arranged marriages apparently go pretty well rather than terribly. Relationships are often formed between the only available people in a small group, forced together. ‘If I didn’t have you‘ by Tim Minchin is funny. It could be that relationships chosen in constrained circumstances are a lot worse than others, though I haven’t heard that. But they are at least common enough that people find them worthwhile. And the fraction of very good mates must be at least a lot greater than suggested by the romantic view, as evidenced by people ever finding them.

So it seems we overstate the rarity of good matches. Why would we do that? One motive would be to look like you have high standards, which suggests that you are good enough yourself to support such standards.

But does this really make sense? In practice, most of the ways a person could be especially unusual such that it is hard for them to find a suitable mate are not in the direction of greatness. Most of them are just in various arbitrary directions of weirdness.

If I merely sought mates with higher mate value than me, they wouldn’t be that hard to find. They are mostly hard to find because I just don’t really get on well with people unless they are on some kind of audacious quest to save the world, in the top percentile of ‘overthinking things’ and being explicit, don’t much mind an above average degree of neuroticism on my part, and so on.

The romantic view is much closer to the truth for weird people than normal people. So while endorsing the romantic view should make you look more elite, by this argument it should much more make you look weird. In most cases – especially during romance – people go to a lot of trouble to not look weird. So it seems this is probably not how it is interpreted.

Most of anyone’s difficulty in finding mates should be due to them being weird, not awesome. So why does considering a very small fraction of people suitable make you seem good rather than weird?

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/1...-partners.html

Further reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ting-love.html
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/06...have-it-right/

[Nowisthetime]

It depends alot of how sensitive a person is to their own reactions. Have you noticed that dual couples are more common among artists? They are uncompromising and need to be themselves. One in sixteen is not true. You need DCNH also to specify the compatibility.

Why underestimate acceptable partners?

By Katja Grace

The romantic view of romance in Western culture says a very small fraction of people would make a great partner for you, customarily one [ed: or socionically, one in sixteen].

Some clues suggest that in fact quite a large fraction of people would make a suitable spouse for a given person. Arranged marriages apparently go pretty well rather than terribly. Relationships are often formed between the only available people in a small group, forced together. ‘If I didn’t have you‘ by Tim Minchin is funny. It could be that relationships chosen in constrained circumstances are a lot worse than others, though I haven’t heard that. But they are at least common enough that people find them worthwhile. And the fraction of very good mates must be at least a lot greater than suggested by the romantic view, as evidenced by people ever finding them.

So it seems we overstate the rarity of good matches. Why would we do that? One motive would be to look like you have high standards, which suggests that you are good enough yourself to support such standards.

But does this really make sense? In practice, most of the ways a person could be especially unusual such that it is hard for them to find a suitable mate are not in the direction of greatness. Most of them are just in various arbitrary directions of weirdness.

If I merely sought mates with higher mate value than me, they wouldn’t be that hard to find. They are mostly hard to find because I just don’t really get on well with people unless they are on some kind of audacious quest to save the world, in the top percentile of ‘overthinking things’ and being explicit, don’t much mind an above average degree of neuroticism on my part, and so on.

The romantic view is much closer to the truth for weird people than normal people. So while endorsing the romantic view should make you look more elite, by this argument it should much more make you look weird. In most cases – especially during romance – people go to a lot of trouble to not look weird. So it seems this is probably not how it is interpreted.

Most of anyone’s difficulty in finding mates should be due to them being weird, not awesome. So why does considering a very small fraction of people suitable make you seem good rather than weird?

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2012/1...-partners.html

Further reading:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ting-love.html
http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/07/06...have-it-right/

[Absurd]

Have you learned DCNH in Tibet, nowisthetime?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Have you noticed that dual couples are more common among artists?

No.

They are uncompromising

Oversimplified and wrong. Many artists and other creative people are pushovers who have difficulty asserting themselves.

and need to be themselves.

Tautological nonsense. Even when putting on false fronts people are never anyone but themselves. And many artists are highly pretentious individuals. Perhaps you have insights to share on the authenticity of those individuals' fakeness and their compulsion to elaborate upon their genuine counterfeits of self, something that extends beyond mere status-seeking and grandiose delusion.

One in sixteen is not true. You need DCNH also to specify the compatibility.

Bolster this say-so with better evidence than an anecdotal allusion.

[Nowisthetime]

No.

The important thing that I was trying to say was that the more sensitive and true a person is to their own reactions, the more important socionics compatibility will be. People who are willing to "work" on their relationships and to make compromises can settle for less than duality. And that's fine, of course. If they are ok with it.

Bolster this say-so with better evidence than an anecdotal allusion.

I have no idea how to prove DCNH. It's just obvious from my own experience and observations. But if someone hasn't noticed that C goes with H and D goes with N, then I would suggest to them to log off and get out more.

[Absurd]

Hehe.

[lemontrees]

It depends alot of how sensitive a person is to their own reactions. Have you noticed that dual couples are more common among artists? They are uncompromising and need to be themselves. One in sixteen is not true. You need DCNH also to specify the compatibility.

...I've noticed some introvert activity writer marriages...

[Korpsy Knievel]

In other words you've got no evidence to share, just assertions backed with assertions, with a touch of snot.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Hehe.

*Absurd has reached 11000 posts!* @ 04:24 PM

[mikemex]

Tautological nonsense. Even when putting on false fronts people are never anyone but themselves

I love k0rpsy...

[mikemex]

The issue with those "instinctual stackings" is that the same stuff can be explained using Socionics only. I know, for example, many IEEs but I fail to see distinction between them other than subtype. For example IEE-Ne are far more selfless than IEE-Fi, this could be interpreted as having a sx/so preference while IEE-Fi might be seen more as sp/so. But it's only perceptions because the same attitudes can be explained differently. I could say, for example, that IEE-Ne is a mixture of Delta and Alpha (and thus is purely cooperative) while IEE-Fi is a mixture of Delta and Gamma (which is conflicting between cooperative and competitive). This makes the IEE-Fi be more sociable and self centered (more SF like).

The only issue I see is typing people correctly.

[Galen]

The issue with those "instinctual stackings" is that the same stuff can be explained using Socionics only. I know, for example, many IEEs but I fail to see distinction between them other than subtype. For example IEE-Ne are far more selfless than IEE-Fi, this could be interpreted as having a sx/so preference while IEE-Fi might be seen more as sp/so.But it's only perceptions because the same attitudes can be explained differently. I could say, for example, that IEE-Ne is a mixture of Delta and Alpha (and thus is purely cooperative) while IEE-Fi is a mixture of Delta and Gamma (which is conflicting between cooperative and competitive). This makes the IEE-Fi be more sociable and self centered (more SF like).

Sure they might be "seen that way" by people who don't know how either Socionics or instinct stackings work. In my experience instincts are pretty evenly spread out among all socionics types, neither of them seem to be explainable by the other given the different elements of human personality/psyche they attempt to define. Just compare self-typed IEEs on here: me, anndelise, workaholics, handiace, raver, and yourself. All of us have our own differing styles of communication and means of relating to other people, despite there being only two socionics subtypes in such a system. This applies equally to all sociotypes: Maritsa vs Radio, Gulanzon vs JRiddy, tcaud vs mysticsonic, etc ad nauseum.

[Beautiful sky]

¿Could it be that extroverts are often more aware of their need for human interaction? In the sense that introverts are usually used to be alone and don't feel the drive to go fishing...

I found my dual

[Absurd]

*Absurd has reached 11000 posts!* @ 04:24 PM

No shit, genius, the law of transformation of quantity into quality must be alien to you and you just had to comment like a toy monkey clapping its hands. Next time, shut your pie hole and start working on your psychology/psychiatric evaluations/conclusions, better yet, focus on the methods you reach them, for so far you're the forum shrink without any kind of credentials.

[Korpsy Knievel]

No shit, genius, the law of transformation of quantity into quality must be alien to you and you just had to comment like a toy monkey clapping its hands. Next time, shut your pie hole and start working on your psychology/psychiatric evaluations/conclusions, better yet, focus on the methods you reach them.

You sure are mulish before you've drunk your breakfast. I haven't bothered to study this branch of commie science yet, so be a good fellow and explain exactly how many tens of thousands of turds you've got to lay until your hands are filled with gold.

[Absurd]

You sure are mulish before you've drunk your breakfast. I haven't bothered to study this branch of commie science yet, so be a good fellow and explain exactly how many tens of thousands of turds you've got to lay until your hands are filled with gold.

Again, the avalanche of speculations coming from you is an avalanche, I didn't have drink for breakfast - I had instant noodle soup and I do not need to explain anything seeing you brand anything as commie this and commie that just to dodge any kind of persecution - evidence is abundant on this site, where you indulge in it and lick it off the plate, Jung comes to mind, Socionics comes to mind, and so on.

[Korpsy Knievel]

Again, the avalanche of speculations coming from you is an avalanche, I didn't have drink for breakfast - I had instant noodle soup

So you drank soup for breakfast. Next...

I do not need to explain anything

What you obviously need is to maintain your illusion of being in control, especially when pretentiously throwing around terms you can't properly use or define. Even if a bigtime collegeboy like you has hung around communes with beatniks who sip from the spittoon of dialectical materialism and other marxist "science". SOMEBODY GIVE DA LAWD A 'SSUMPTION, GLORY HALLELUJAH! Next...

seeing you brand anything as commie this and commie that just to dodge any kind of persecution - evidence is abundant on this site

Then link your evidence instead of banging your gums and flapping your hands, Huff'n'Puff, and see if you can also prove that I wasn't just being cheeky. Next...

where you indulge in it and lick it off the plate, Jung comes to mind, Socionics comes to mind, and so on.

I obviously enjoy a challenge, which is why I so often attempt to talk sense to the likes of you. You aren't ready now though. Prepare better lies for next time so I don't have to keep smacking you in the face with them.

[Aquagraph]

I love k0rpsy...

Good for you. He probably thinks you are an idiot. Have a tumor.

[Absurd]

So you drank soup for breakfast. Next...

No, you're wrong, I ate it. Next.

What you obviously need is to maintain your illusion of being in control, especially when pretentiously throwing around terms you can't properly use or define. Even if a bigtime collegeboy like you has hung around communes with beatniks who sip from the spittoon of dialectical materialism and other marxist "science". SOMEBODY GIVE DA LAWD A 'SSUMPTION, GLORY HALLELUJAH! Next...

It is not an illusion - I am in control, and can you expound what the law of transformation of quantity into quality has to do with Marxism? I know it was adopted and used in a way that gets you knickers in a twist, as for assumptions, you're assuming/speculating big time here, I have never frequented college. You know, korpsey, assumptions are dangerous things to make, for if you make even the tiniest mistake you can find yourself in terrible trouble - making assumptions simply means you believe, yes, believe things are a certain way with little or no evidence that shows you are correct. For instance, one morning you might wake up and make the assumption that your bed was in the same place that it always was, even though you would have no real evidence that this was so. But when you got out of your bed, you might discover that it had floated out to sea, and now you would be in terrible trouble all because of the incorrect assumption that you'd made. You can see that it is better not to make too many assumptions...

Then link your evidence instead of banging your gums and flapping your hands, Huff'n'Puff, and see if you can also prove that I wasn't just being cheeky. Next...

Next.

I obviously enjoy a challenge, which is why I so often attempt to talk sense to the likes of you. You aren't ready now though. Prepare better lies for next time so I don't have to keep smacking you in the face with them.

You obviously are flattering yourself. Anyway, when did I lie, korpsey?

[silke]

How about you two don't ruin yet another thread with your pointless squabbling merry-go-round?

[Absurd]

Fine with me, just keep that "cheeky" lap doggie chained, I said what I wanted to say and I do disagree with mikemex.

[mikemex]

How about you two don't ruin yet another thread with your pointless squabbling merry-go-round?

Yeah, that's what private messages are for. And for the record, I see k0rpsy's posts as far more substantial than Absurd's.

[Absurd]

I am very glad you do, I have always deferred from the theory you hold so dear, for it doesn't work, so stick to other folk's theories and fuck off, thank you in advance. Oh, you and siuntal better instruct korpsey how to PM, I won't answer any, anyway.

But as long it actually works, I would have few duals on here, as in few, you're not one of them.

[mikemex]

There was a good facebook posts about this. In social situations, all an introvert does is give- because that's all we know how to do. All an extrovert does is take. That's why it's so draining. For an extrovert it's good for you because you're just pleasantly consuming everything. For an introvert we're giving and the *only thing* we're receiving (from our point of view) is criticisms or praises to our emotions since our thoughts and feelings are so important to us.

We're really going to feel it more deeply when somebody is an asshole to something that we ourselves enjoy. (even thinking type introverts that come across as like uh 'harder' than SF/NF types) So that's why we need a more private secluded circle.

It's draining for everyone, not only introverts. In general, explicit dating is always headed for serious disappointment for anyone involved, mostly because what k0rpsy says: too much freedom makes people underestimate potential mates easily, mostly because of the feeling of having several options. In real life you're far more restricted and get less distractions and you can concentrate more into developing a relationship and making it work.

For that reason I decided I would not go and simply copy the existing model adding Socionics, my idea from start was to restrict somewhat the amount of options you're given. Say, classify people into types and give them the option to pick someone (preferably a dual or same quadra) and close all other options until you decide to release it. That would force people to try harder.

I imagine that people who call themselves extroverts and aren't fully aware of the Jungian definition of extroversion/introversion are more prone to being active in those arenas anyway, given how casually some people think of dating as a way to "meet people" or "make friends." In this way I'd imagine so/sxs to more often than not be classified as extrovert while sp/sxs would be introverts, regardless of Jungian typology.

I set up a fake account on e-harmony's ripoff gay site whatever it's called, and I found that their means of pairing people up is primarily by Big 5. I consistently test as introverted in Big 5, so the people it paired me up with all said they were interested in "socializing" and "partying" as if that's supposed to be the ideal match.

I'd question how you came to these conclusions.

I registered into some sites with the explicit purpose of investigating how it works first hand. My conclusions about the distribution of types come from actually talking to people (I can type pretty accurately even from looking at a profile). I've even meet a few in person. Like I said, one of the first things I noticed is that extroverts outnumber introverts by a large margin and that Deltas are the ones having the biggest difficulty finding a situable partner. At least with women, I don't feel like faking being gay to find out about men...

The largest age group by far is 40 to 50, it represents about 80% by estimation.

And yes, most people has a distorted vision about themsleves. I did met a SEI girl and she is convinced she's an extrovert, for example.

I say if you're going to set up an account on a dating site and are serious about finding someone, there should be some strong element tied to instinct stackings, or something similar. While it's a nice thought to base a site around socionics, given how much room for error any given socionics test is there would be no way to ensure that everybody is typing themselves exactly right. Things like Enneagram or instincts tend to be easier for people to grasp than patterns by which their brains synthesize information on a basic conceptual level.

A site would probably attract more self-perceived introverts by eliminating the "whee dating is fun let's chat!!" edge that a lot of dating sites seem to have. It at least turns me off from them, although I'd imagine that something like e-harmony is more geared towards people who aren't just looking for a casual get-together.

Self typing is not accurate, specially when it comes to people who isn't very interested in theory in the first place. For that reason my idea was never to give people questionnaries and such. My idea is to build a network of people and start stuff myself. I would personally type people at the begining and proper typing should, at least in theory, lead to satisfying interactions. And that in turn should lead to interest in the theory behind the system. The final goal is that the users themselves contribute to the community by learning the theory and typing new users.

I need someone like Absurd who gives a shit about abstract stuff to focus into building a concise and brief guide to Socionics so the average person can get it.

There are quite a few Russian websites that offer dating services on basis of socionics type matches, like this one and this one.

What I've seen of them generally is that they are swarming with people self-typing as Balzacs, Esenins, Robs, and Dostoyevskies while people typing as their duals, SEE, ESE, SLE, LSE, are few and far in between - the ratio of INxx to ESxx types is something like 4:1. The ISxx-ENxx dyads don't seem to experience such a disbalance.

I also agree with what Galen has said about instinctual stackings. Ime they have almost as much impact on interpersonal compatibility and comfort in communication as sociotypes - interacting with people from other quadra who share your stackings is at times better than interactions within the quadra between people of very different stacks.

The girl in my avatar is Russian and she's ILI so I know what you're talking about. I don't know what's the difference between one country and another but there is certainly some.

What I don't agree with is the instinctual stacking stuff. It's merely delusion in my opinion or at least not as squared up as Socionics.

It depends alot of how sensitive a person is to their own reactions. Have you noticed that dual couples are more common among artists? They are uncompromising and need to be themselves. One in sixteen is not true. You need DCNH also to specify the compatibility.

No.

Oversimplified and wrong. Many artists and other creative people are pushovers who have difficulty asserting themselves.

Tautological nonsense. Even when putting on false fronts people are never anyone but themselves. And many artists are highly pretentious individuals. Perhaps you have insights to share on the authenticity of those individuals' fakeness and their compulsion to elaborate upon their genuine counterfeits of self, something that extends beyond mere status-seeking and grandiose delusion.

Both of you have a point. The more emotionally sensitive a person is, the more likely it is that (s)he'll notice his or her feelings of unhappiness. But I suspect failure in such relationships has more to do with emotional hedonism than anything else.

...I've noticed some introvert activity writer marriages...

I've also noticed that introverts usually marry other introverts, so activity rather than duality. This leaves lots of extroverts without a situable partner it seems, because activity between extrovers is more difficult to work out than with introverts.

Sure they might be "seen that way" by people who don't know how either Socionics or instinct stackings work. In my experience instincts are pretty evenly spread out among all socionics types, neither of them seem to be explainable by the other given the different elements of human personality/psyche they attempt to define. Just compare self-typed IEEs on here: me, anndelise, workaholics, handiace, raver, and yourself. All of us have our own differing styles of communication and means of relating to other people, despite there being only two socionics subtypes in such a system. This applies equally to all sociotypes: Maritsa vs Radio, Gulanzon vs JRiddy, tcaud vs mysticsonic, etc ad nauseum.

I'm sorry but I don't really have a mental picture of anyone here, except perhaps a few who are prone to make lots of noise such as FDG, Ashton, Absurd, etc. I talked at some point to anndelise and I think she's IEE-Fi.

The way I tell between subtypes is that perceiving subtypes (S/N) tend to be neutral and judging subtypes (T/F) tend to be more extreme.

[nanashi]

You sure are mulish before you've drunk your breakfast. I haven't bothered to study this branch of commie science yet, so be a good fellow and explain exactly how many tens of thousands of turds you've got to lay until your hands are filled with gold.

Oh, k0rpsy, your verbiage delights me.

[Korpsy Knievel]

All I'm saying is, Here are a few studies examining the decent level of happiness in arranged marriages, and which indicate that marriageable compatibility is broader than what is outlined by some theoretical conjectures dreamt up by socially inept bookworms, or entertained by love-hungry individuals who are sabotaging their search for a mate by being unnecessarily picky. And for the record, I am not mentioning Absurd here.

[mikemex]

All I'm saying is, Here are a few studies examining the decent level of happiness in arranged marriages, and which indicate that marriageable compatibility is broader than what is outlined by some theoretical conjectures dreamt up by socially inept bookworms, or entertained by love-hungry individuals who are sabotaging their search for a mate by being unnecessarily picky. And for the record, I am not mentioning Absurd here.

Yes and even obvious if you think about it: marriage isn't the top level in the scale of relationships. I mean, as long as there is good disposition, pretty much anyone can help you maneuver in life and have children and such, which is what marriage is all about. And unless you're a jerk, I suppose anyone would be grateful and eventually develop affection for someone who puts an effort into being on your side for everything.

But I suppose that's not enough for people who are "dating". They want to find their soulmate. And that leads to frustration unless they are really lucky.

[zomgqwantz]

a much better idea is a socionics porn site. too bad it will be flooded with esfps

[mikemex]

a much better idea is a socionics porn site. too bad it will be flooded with esfps

Porn is definitely NOT type related...

But I can imagine ESEs being into BSDM...

[zomgqwantz]

Porn is definitely NOT type related...

But I can imagine ESEs being into BSDM...

i'm an iee and i believe nothing is type related la la la