Based on my last two strong connections to infantile women I think so.
Do "Childlike" types take advantage of "Caring" types?
Based on my last two strong connections to infantile women I think so.
i took advantage of an infantile yesterday
(J/K)
How?
Seconded.Originally Posted by wacey
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
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.
-
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
It's sort of like when aggressors rape their victims. Only gentler (with lube).
“Whether we fall by ambition, blood, or lust, like diamonds we are cut with our own dust.”
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?
If it feels like manipulation and it doesn't feel good....make it known.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
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.
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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).
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:
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.
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).
"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is." - Yogi Berra
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.
someday the grapes will be wine
and someday you will be mine
EII-Ne 2w3 - 9w1 - 7w8 so/sx
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.
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.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I mostly agree with what you said. I just wanted to add the fact I've been attracting Childlike types too, not just Aggressors.
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.
Last edited by Olimpia; 11-20-2015 at 10:23 AM.
i think caregivers like to be taken advantage of.
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.
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.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
I think I read this on a flower pot once.
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?
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).
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 challenges
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.
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
In other words, everybody needs to grow up!
"A man with a definite belief always appears bizarre, because he does not change with the world; he has climbed into a fixed star, and the earth whizzes below him like a zoetrope."
........ G. ........... K. ............... C ........ H ........ E ...... S ........ T ...... E ........ R ........ T ........ O ........ N ........
"Having a clear faith, based on the creed of the Church, is often labeled today as fundamentalism... Whereas relativism, which is letting oneself be tossed and swept along
by every wind of teaching, looks like the only
attitude acceptable to today's standards." - Pope Benedict the XVI, "The Dictatorship of Relativism"
.
.
.
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.
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.
Dual type
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
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
