Is the male aggressor romantic-style outdated?

[Adam Strange]

Aggressor as applied in Socionics is a dubious term. The animalistic prime directive of most normal, heterosexual males is to impregnate females in a possessive, controlling/manipulative fashion. Type may, to a limited extent, determine how this urge is likely masked and visible aggressiveness indicates less capability to mask true intentions, which isn't limited to specific types. Now attractive men usually have bigger herds from which to choose but those aggressive urges are still ever present; if they aren't then males should have their testosterone levels checked. Being socially inept is a much broader problem that could also lead to them not chasing women; one should not confuse clumsiness with aggression. Most normal, heterosexual females are sexually 'thirsty' but cognition, in a similar fashion, masks their urges too.

a.k.a. I/O

My level of sexual aggression seems to be very strongly influenced by what the women in my life want.

I’ve had a few partners and all were pretty different, and in each case, I think I manifested that part of me that they were looking for.

Now I’m wondering if I have an intrinsic style or level of aggression. The thing that makes me happiest is when a woman I like is having a good time. After that, I’m looking for desire, kindness, consideration, and collaboration. After that, I act aggressively.

This seems to me to be Aggression overlaid on a Victim base. But that’s exactly what the Erotic Attitudes article stated was the case for LIE’s. It’s just surprisingly to me that this is the way this style manifests itself. In my case, at least.

I’m tempted to say more specifically what I want, but it might be a carryover from my last GF, and while she was a great sexual partner, she might not be the BEST sexual partner for me.

Whew. This introspection business is hard.

[Rebelondeck]

....Whew. This introspection business is hard.

Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.

a.k.a. I/O

[Adam Strange]

Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.

a.k.a. I/O

@Rebelondeck, that's a feature, not a bug.

Seriously, I think a blindness to certain aspects of reality is what makes LIE's so effective at reaching goals. LIE's refuse to look at failure modes, once a single path has been decided upon. Prior to that decision, though, they will seek out as much information about the future branches as can be had in a reasonable amount of time. After the decision is made, though, it's carved in stone until they either succeed or hit some wall that is so insurmountable that the attempt fails.

What makes this strategy even marginally successful is the fact that there are many ways to success, but they all require perseverance. So you can screw up your initial conditions, as long as you are willing to do what it takes to get to your goal.

LIE's tend to be successful in direct proportion to their ability to make the right choices from that gathered information, because all the LIE's that I know become set in their purpose once it is decided. Learning this can be a painful process.

I have some very expensive machine tools that are evidence of this. I was able to get them for a good price but I didn't have an immediate need for them, but thought I would in the future. When the crane arrived to unload them from the flat bed truck, my LSE buddy, who is much more immediate than I am, said "Adam. There's still time. You can call this off and send the machines back."
I said, "No, Don. We're sticking to the plan."

He was right. I should have sent the machines back. I don't miss the money, but they are taking up space that could be used more productively.

[Adam Strange]

Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.

a.k.a. I/O

This is a pretty insightful post. I just realized I have more to say about it.

One of the things that puzzle me about the 22 other LIE's that I know is that every single one of them is actively disinterested in personality theory. It's not like they don't know about it. It's much more that they don't WANT to know anything about it.

I've been in conversations with a lot of people of all types, and LIE's are the most resistant of all types to consider that people have personalities. I even had one LIE tell me, after I explained to him what he could expect from a mutual acquaintance based on his sociotype, "You might be right. That's possible, and now I'm going to do my best to forget everything you said."
"Why?", I asked. I view Socionics as a tool.
"Because it would influence me in how I treat people in the future."
So he preferred going with his gut, associating with people he instinctively liked and avoiding people he didn't like, and telling himself that he was lord and master of his universe.
He wasn't a very successful LIE, as LIE's go, incidentally.

And as for LIE's characteristic of avoiding and omitting unpleasant details of a project in their pitch, yes, that's definitely a criticism I've heard about LIE's before. No one can say that LIE's lie, exactly. But you have to ask a lot of questions (or at least, I do) before you will get to the truth, which is that they really don't know if the project will succeed or not.
The saving grace of this is that I've never met an LIE who was trying to harm someone else, personally. They usually don't let you play unless you can deal with a failed project and not be harmed by it.

In the financial world, which was probably created by LIE's, there is this practice, I forget what it's called, wherein companies seeking investors are not allowed to accept investments from people for whom a complete loss of their investment would be a disaster. Investors have to prove that they have a certain level of investable assets.
https://www.sec.gov/info/smallbus/se...ndard-secg.htm

[Faith]

Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.

a.k.a. I/O

Most ethicals do this, not just Ni. Most ethical types are convinced of their righteousness in one way or another. Logical Intuitives just analyse themselves or their behavior when something (like the consequence of their actions) force them to do it.

[nanashi]

Ni-types do seem to have trouble with that. They seem to have much understanding of and insight into everyone but themselves; the ones that I've known were so convinced that they were right or righteous that I doubted that they ever took the time to analyse themselves. They also seemed to want to avoid details that might detract from the positive outcomes for which they strove.

a.k.a. I/O

i dunno. Mentors and counselors keep telling me I have an 'impressive' understanding of myself.

I still find introspecting during conversation challenging, but I think that's because switching between extroverted foci and introverted ones sometimes is hard to do..?

[Sol]

Above was said mainly in related to Se types specifics.

More general point.
If women will become in average similarly or higher predisposed to an aggression, especially to physical one, compared to average for men, - then an aggression (in the sense of an initiative and an persistence) may be said as "outdated" as more specific for men. In relations of sexes, wide social activitity, hierarchy leveling, anger related and other. One of strong factors to keep the % of sexes difference at occupations is that women much of the time give to be pregnant and caring about children - every of kids reduces or makes harder to match duties on the time for >=2 years.
A part of such psyche and cultural situation would be the equal % of men and women in army, for example. What is not common for today. Also at high posts at jobs, scientific results, etc. Though, for some duties men +30% muscles strenght and more stable psyche/physical state (men have no significant month cycles) may keep the difference, - not many of such occupations should be.

Aggression in women, compared to men, could be evolutionally supressed (in women normal psyche state) as this made them worse mothers. Also to be perceived as lesser feminine and lesser attractive for men. Being constantly pregnant and having small kids they needed much of an external care, while to get this is passive behavior, what is opposite to be aggressive. Also an aggression in the part related to anger is bad for caring about other people, especially for tender and weak small kids.
As an example of biological difference, look about testosteron levels at sexes and its influence on emotions.

When in today medias propaganda you may see the pushing new "normas" of aggressive women and soft men - this is made to reduce sexual instincts which are directed to born and upbring children in good families. Such to reduce borning of people. Also to supress the psyche by pushing norms contradicting to its basics, to neurotise people and such to make them weaker and with worse social links - such to make people better controlled.

So taking inborn psyche predispositions and social situation it's far to say about outdated difference in an aggression of sexes.

=

There is what can be said as outdated. And the behavior against that in today west cultures is doubtful to be thought as decent and those people to be not good enough.
This relates to general status of women, - to perceive women _generally_ equal in intellectual and personality senses. Some cultures of the past overesteemated the difference or shaw it falsly, what could be partly useful as to explain social difference which was reasonable for that cultures (useful myths). For example, voting in democracy of Greece was allowed only for men as women set at home duties and knew lesser about wider world.
While it's objective that women have worse some physical traits and some lesser stable psyche, while having some traits as better than men too. It's possibly there are more F types among women and so lesser of them are good in technical tasks, while more % of women should deal good with informal communications. There can be other objective differences of sexes, at least for most people of that sex. This difference makes men or women as better for some duties and activities, in average, at least in the sense of lesser efforts needed for a training.

This difference of sexes sometimes could lead to wrong understanding and unjustiful misuse. As example, when generally a man was supposed as more weighty in decisions in a family, but not equal - while it's against what a friendship and love feeling is. Sometimes could lead even to moral right of beating a wife (but not from her side) and in some primitive cultures up to treat wives alike slaves. When parrents decided who to be a husband for a daughter ; though such traditions lesser but also exist for men too (when parrents may choose a wife) and even today in some places.
This misuse of sex differences relates to general personal man _domination_. While this domination indirectly and partly may relate to aggressive behavior. Mainly it was about wider and more complex social activity of men, and consequences of ways to explain and to support this situation.
Aggression and domination is not the same. They only cross partly. The problem is in the approach of general personal inequality of sexes, the idea of what was popular in past cultures. It's better to think sexes as personally equal (against what lesbians and infantile women like to do in hating and blaming men for anything bad).
But it's also needs to accept that men have more aggressive psyche as their norma, - as they were evolutionally adopted to be hunters, unlike women which were attached to home duties and kids. To be more aggressive itself does not mean to do bad or a harm - it's mainly to have wider activity and to be more stubborn in achieving aims ; and secondary to be better adopted for dangers and fightings alike wars, social competing, conflicts. The idea to supress men higher aggressive traits is bad, the good is to channel the aggressive behavior to useful ways. The idea to gain aggressive and competing traits in women is bad too, the good is to develop indirect ways of influence to overcome direct collisions and stressful situations. The do the opposite leads to problems for relations of sexes, with borning and upbringing, for psyche.