OK... Dont Fuck Socionics What is Your Romance Style?

[myresearch]

Say yes and no to parts that are yes and no to you. Explain if you want. You can check more additional info here and include them.

 

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

 

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

 

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.

 

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

[The Reality Denialist]

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
  -it can be refreshing
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
  -I see myself taking part of this sort if game a lot in all fronts of life. I calculate the escape plan.
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
  -
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
  -
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself
  
  -Is this really that shameful people make it to be? I know that people make weird excuses.

[Popcorn]

Say yes and no to parts that are yes and no to you. Explain if you want. You can check more additional info here and include them.

 

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

 

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

 

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.

 

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

So I guess Infantile > Victim = Caring > Aggressive. I think I'm Se-Polr though, so kinda makes sense lol.

[Nunki]

Here you go:

Aggressor:
Yes--no doubts about own interest in another person
No--not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
Maybe--focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
Probably not--romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
Maybe--needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
No--this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
Non-applicable--in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
Maybe--little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

Victim:
No--prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
Yes--not always confident about revealing that interest
Yes--inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
Yes--inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
Maybe--preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
Maybe--appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
No--this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
Non-applicable--in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
Probably not--inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

Caregiver:
Maybe--Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
Maybe--Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
Maybe--Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
Maybe--Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.
No--Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
Maybe--Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.

Infantile:
Maybe--Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.
No--ry attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
No--Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
Non-applicable--Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
No--Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

I relate more to the caregiver description

[AWellArmedCat]

Victim > Caring = Infantile > Aggressor

Here's everything that I felt applied to me. I feel like I'm definitely a Victim type, but I have Caring and Infantile elements too. I clearly sit opposite to the Aggressor.

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.

Additionally, I find that I'm very flexible in relationships and can fulfill other roles without too much difficulty. I think my natural tendency however is mostly to be slightly provocative and playful in a way that's meant to broadcast that I am receptive to a volitional response from the other person. Like I'll tease the other person in order to prod them into some kind of revenge attack. Sort of like how a cat might start knocking things off your shelf if you aren't giving it the attention it deserves for being a cat. As an example I'll just randomly unzip my partner's coat pocket or something, and if they don't respond I'll unzip another. I don't really think about it when I do this kind of thing cause it's just an impulse rather than particularly calculated, but I think I subconsciously just want them to grab my wrists and physically prevent me from further mischief. The coat pocket thing is just an example, but it's always something small and relatively inconsequential like that. It's not like I want them to react violently or anything, but like I just want to experience their will being exercised against me somehow because I can't really feel my own volitional potential without someone else's imposition onto it.

Also I actually do that kind of thing to friends I feel comfortable with too. It's not only a thing I do with romantic partners

[AWellArmedCat]

Ideally it would be mutual of course.

In some weird kind of way I would almost prefer that my partner ended it. It's happened before and I definitely wasn't shy about telling everyone how it was them who ended it and I spent a sizable chunk of time wallowing in how terrible and unworthy I must be. Cringe? Yes, I think so, but also that's just like... how I grieve a relationship with someone I really cared about ending. I feel it'd almost be harder for me to process the emotions if it were mutual

[EIE H]

I am a victim all the way. But I am much more psychologically sophisticated than a lot of the people who I ended up flirting so I usually mentally dominate…oops. It happened with LSI fuckbuddy. He kept calling me a “liar” so I set it up that if he doesn’t follow through with something that’s tied to him looking morally superior to me, he will end up being a liar and a hypocrite. I win either way.

[aciaradh]

Victim > Caregiver = Infantile >>> Aggressor

Aggressor: The only thing I really relate to is the possible intensity of feelings for another (though I attribute this more to sx, especially as its occurrence is rare). Generally speaking, even though I can have strong feelings, the intensity will wax and wane at first, and decrease substantially if those feelings would not be welcomed by the other person.

Victim: Related strongly to the following portions—

• Not always confident about revealing interest
• Inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• Inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• Devotion
• Inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

Other relatable aspects—

• Enjoyment (not necessarily preference) of partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• Appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, without ever actually “submitting” to them. I’d say I theoretically would strongly relate to this, but have no experience with it in practice, so I couldn’t say for sure.

Caregiver: Strongly related to—

• Attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing. I couldn’t see myself ever initiating a “hard,” directly physical approach.
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner. However, if accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality, my interest would likely only cool if I perceived this sexuality to be more vapid than rooted in a genuine, passionate place.
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.

Didn’t really relate to—

• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters. I do relate to the meeting of another’s emotional needs, but try not be presumptive and assume that they need my support. If they feel they would like my help, I love entering that space with others.

Infantile: Strongly related to—

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes. Active, direct sexuality need not be separate from the equation, however.
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own.
• Attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, humor, and emotional and mental exploration. However, I have a tendency for this kind of interaction anyways, so it’s less about “attracting their interest” than organically developing a closer bond. Likewise, some of the description’s wording seems to indicate a strong fancifulness, which I don’t really relate to. I can (and tend to) be very playful, but the implied fancifulness here seems to lack a certain gravity that can still accompany general playfulness. As a result, I feel that “quirky statements, proposals,” and even “ethical exploration” would be much less applicable for me personally.

Didn’t really relate to—

• Temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding regarding their needs.

[Grendel]

Aggressor

• no doubts about own interest in another person - [n]
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest - [n]
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate - [n]
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness” - strong [n]
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up” - strong [n]
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy - [n]
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy” [n]
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously - [n]

Victim

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person - [Y]
• not always confident about revealing that interest - [Y]
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest - [Y]
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time - [n]
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like - [n]
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them - [n]
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion [Y]
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself [Y]

Caretaker

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation. - [n]
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality. - [n]
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling. - [n]
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out. - [n]
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs. - [n]
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance. - [n]

Infantile

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. - [n]
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements. - [n]
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things. - [n]
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior. - [Y]
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding. - [Y]

[The Reality Denialist]

I mentioned that it sucks on a different thread, and I think it really is. Not exactly shameful but I would be very annoyed at it. Ideally it would be mutual of course.

I am guessing here that it is included under Victim because it just makes sense that someone who is doubtful, not very confident of their feelings and of the other person's feelings, and someone who likes submitting to the other person a little bit would have some kind of high or comfort that they were the ones left out. But imagine if you're the kind of person who wants somebody, and you pursued, and you were the one trying to lead the connection forward, you'll surely be annoyed if you find out that the person is not 100% in. Either you made a mistake in gauging interest, or maybe you just didn't try hard enough (So it shouldn't be over, you just have to try harder, right?). Why did they escape in the first place? Thought you won already but why are they gone. It sucks also when you don't like losing in general. If that (or a similar thing happens), the coping mechanism is to say fuck that person/thing, I don't want him/it anyway. There's someone better. (Even if you actually really do - "no doubts about own interest in another person" - that's the reason why you were chasing in the first place).

I think it would be an incompatibility. I mean there exists both sides, always. Why not admit. Lock and key... Even if the key or the lock is broken it is still a key or a lock.

[chriscorey]

I relate to the infantile description. I am prone to doubts about my initial interest, though..

[The Reality Denialist]

There is surely an incompatibility which is why the falling out happened in the first place but it's a matter of who would end it. I see that as a completely different thing.

Ok. I would just blame myself for not seeing through (or not following my initial thought process). You see what I mean. The person can be bad but "I was shortsighted/I did not test hard enough etc".

[Clarke]

Say yes and no to parts that are yes and no to you. Explain if you want. You can check more additional info here and include them.

 

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

 

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
• not always confident about revealing that interest
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself

 

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.

 

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

I basically seem to fit victim and infantile here. I don't think I like power play, but I also don't think that I have temper outbreaks when my needs aren't met.

Generally, I usually get attracted to people based on capability rather than looks. Sometimes, if I haven't seen their looks yet, I get disturbed once I see their looks but then seem to sort of get used to the looks. I think that clear sexuality turns me off or bothers me unless it just happens to be the right type.

[pasleine]

i'm infantile - aggressor. i believe that's what sociotype says at the end of the test too.
i fit all of infantile, most of aggressor, half of victim, and little of caregiver
i can see them easily blending, like the infantile having temper outbursts when neglected (can not deny), i feel that it could easily turn into an aggressor-like personality, just not really in a sexual way
and a lot of the beta NFs i've met have role-played as caregivers, but they do it in a victim-like way, like literally depriving themselves of things to be the perfect partner, or something like that
i have a feeling this has something to do with gender roles

it's a bit complicated, i like having a partner that i can admire, but power-plays are not something i can sustain a relationship on, and if we're always competing to be seemingly the "most" something i just can't do it, because i want to be treated as a normal human above anything else. however there's a certain fire in power-play dynamics and brutal truth about reality that i can't help but depend on to some extent
but i would certainly like those things to be explored in a safe space LOL

[FaeSoleil]

Going through the list...

no doubts about own interest in another person
not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously


prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
not always confident about revealing that interest
inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion
in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself


Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.
Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.
Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.
Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.


Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.
Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

Even reading extended descriptions, the most I can really say is that I'm not much for traditional power dynamics in relationships. I feel like in relationships, I tend to play at Infantile/Childlike roles but in practice prefer being the one taking care of things. ^^;

[Manatroid92]

My on take on myself. Will qualify/amend statements (with **) that I think require it.

Aggressor

• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously

This may admittedly just be an internalized holdover from how men are 'supposed' to act about relationships (it's not that I couldn't do this, but I understand doing so would make me appear 'weak'.

Victim

prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
not always confident about revealing that interest
inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time
preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like - **somewhat
appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them **probably not, this sounds intimidating/unhealthy in large doses
this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion **I assume all relationships can be like this sometimes
in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”
inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself **see Aggressor above

Caretaker

Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation. **have not done this myself, but sounds fine and fun
Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality. **no idea on this, maybe half-and-half?
Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.

Infantile

Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. **sounds good
Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements. **think I may have done this often in the past
Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

So a mix of Infantile/Victim (makes sense), but likely with more of an acceptance/appreciation towards Caretaker, which would imply Infantile is more dominant...maybe.

[The Reality Denialist]

In terms of functions I think that Fe can be quite forthcoming in terms of excitement. I think it is no wonder that I might evaluate things on that basis. If something is not there.. why not plaster it all over the place. I imagine Fi can be too attached.

[Renna]

Hm… I have both Victim and Agressor trait (mostly Aggresor), and a little bit of Caring.

[seeking it]

Say yes and no to parts that are yes and no to you. Explain if you want. You can check more additional info here and include them.

1.

• no doubts about own interest in another person - Y
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest - Depends, I will reveal it if I get impatient enough. I will not pass up the chance either way, when I was a young teenager I did pass it up but I decided to never again be like that
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate - Y; When waiting before making any move, I'm not trying to read their mind about their feelings, just looking for signs or anything, checking out what's going on, waiting to see what's gonna happen
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness” - Y if you mean sex
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up” - Idk, explain exactly what superiority you mean here. I like admiration from my partner. I will not be with people who I'm supposed to "look up to". But I don't look up to anyone anyways.... (I can and will hold some people in high respect but no one's on a pedestal thanks) Also it's important for me to be able to respect my partner for sure.
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy - I don't know. I'll think something's really vanilla and it already scares others or they think it's a shitty put-down when it's just a joke. Whatever I think of as NOT vanilla...but actual cruelty...I will only do it if the other person deserves it & I believe that I must do it. So this is very rare. Or if I was to take shit out on others....but I simply will not do that. And so overall I don't know many people who know how to handle something that's a little aggressive but not actually mean, let alone cruel or hateful & keep it just fun yet real, not overly "light". So I view my behaviour with close partners as nothing like cruel whatsoever, just boring vanilla. That is...either straightforward demanding or just generic interactions, no intentional games. I think it also depends on the interaction partner. Some people try to provoke me for fun and I respond too aggressively for them instead of making it a game (which is ok, I don't end up attracted to those people anyways). Or some would joke with me, I would actually see it as jokes because we were already flirting, and so I would respond with actual jokes back and that then would be seen as put-downs. Again I would not get closer with such people. And I've had romantic partners thinking I was being mean whenever I'd tell them off, while I did not think I was mean, plus they were no less mean than me. So yeah, I'm not gonna try and answer this question. It gets too complex.
  EDIT: I recall some people now where I'd often consciously feel like it was power struggles that I enjoyed but I don't think if I'd just call them "games" either, it's not like "fun light-hearted jokes" so....
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy” - Ye I can be bossy and demanding, and I sooooo don't want to have to dress up my requests in fluff either.... so....I like this idea of total devotion
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously - Yes. Plus I always end my relationships myself

2.

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person - No, how is that even possible to not know what intensity your interest is
• not always confident about revealing that interest - True, see above
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest - No, I get really embarrassingly single-minded / tunnel-visioned with this
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time - Not consciously.... but if you do something like, you change what you do, I'll assume instantly that you no longer love me hahah. But I will not doubt it until these little changes actually happen and until I actually notice such a change because I won't necessarily remember to try and pay attention to a trend
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like - No I've been on the receiving end of such awe several times and I'm like um....ok? Flattering Or internally (not openly), I'll be real dismissive like I'm like hey it's no big thing for me, whatever you're in awe of, what's this grandiose fantasy about me hahaha
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them - No, I'd never accept a sense of superiority on the part of the partner, no matter how "slight" it is
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion - No
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess” - No but I'd be ok with being on the receiving end of this
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself - No

3.

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation. - What? I dislike generic, random teasing btw if I'm not already on obviously good terms with the person. I will see it as a provocation otherwise. I don't know if it's "flowing" but I like smooth talking, small talking, whatever, I'm ok with it in social situations. What do you mean by "direct physical provocation", attempt at rape?
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality. - Ye I like good looks, I like a refined intelligence, and as far as aggressiveness, depends how aggressive. I like doing rough stuff but I won't be manhandled in a disrespectful way
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling. - I can do this as a polite gesture yeah or like, to show some care but then you have to be in a really close relationship with me for that. Then it's going to be like a duty I'm to perform consistently (I emphasise "duty" because it allows me to remain detached from it...if that makes sense. That's how it's comfortable for me thanks)
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out. - Idk, if this is overdone, then no....I don't want a dependent, weak person around me. But the person being welcoming and appreciative of whatever I do for them, yes of course I like that.
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs. - Yes, again only if you're really close with me. I don't really care otherwise.
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance. - No, not neutral (it is important to me, I mean for all the equality I care for in relations in general, I do still care to not be defeated). Ethical matters ARE important too about this yes, I learned that the hard way

4.

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. - I like to have both together
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements. - No I suck at this & if I have an interesting convo it's got nothing to do with trying to attract anyone, I'm interested in the convo itself and don't link it with romance
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things. - No... maybe if it sounds crazy enough and if I'm in the mood, then I can do some crazy statement but I am not sure this is relevant here
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior. - No
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding. - Sorry what are nonphysical needs? ? ? I'm too demanding to not say anything if my partner is not attentive to me and to my expectations. But I will not show my temper in a new relationship, lol. Not my best side. But it does need to be accepted for my relationships to be good yeah. It's a big part of me even if I calmed down abit by now it will never truly go away.

[seeking it]

Additionally, I find that I'm very flexible in relationships and can fulfill other roles without too much difficulty. I think my natural tendency however is mostly to be slightly provocative and playful in a way that's meant to broadcast that I am receptive to a volitional response from the other person. Like I'll tease the other person in order to prod them into some kind of revenge attack. Sort of like how a cat might start knocking things off your shelf if you aren't giving it the attention it deserves for being a cat. As an example I'll just randomly unzip my partner's coat pocket or something, and if they don't respond I'll unzip another. I don't really think about it when I do this kind of thing cause it's just an impulse rather than particularly calculated, but I think I subconsciously just want them to grab my wrists and physically prevent me from further mischief. The coat pocket thing is just an example, but it's always something small and relatively inconsequential like that. It's not like I want them to react violently or anything, but like I just want to experience their will being exercised against me somehow because I can't really feel my own volitional potential without someone else's imposition onto it.

Also I actually do that kind of thing to friends I feel comfortable with too. It's not only a thing I do with romantic partners

That was an interesting desc. Also lol but would you call any of your games cruel or bitchy? If so, can you give me an example.

Weirdly enough, I'm 100% sure I had an IEI bf, Fe subtype. And he never tried to do any of this to me like you describe it, and he never said he'd do it to any friends either. Maybe he did, I didn't get a chance to see him much with his friends (1-month relationship). And I didn't need it because like you say this stuff is inconsequential & I don't have time for inconsequential stuff It would've been rather annoying, if I regularly had had to deal with things like my coat pocket. He did do stuff like starting to randomly sprint and I always got him and stopped him because idk (several reasons, sometimes it annoyed me & would tell him off, sometimes I was protective etc). Anyways, the IEI had zero resistance to whatever I was doing, or 0.001% resistance at best, I think he was just "too nice" and I found myself getting bored. I kinda lost a lot of interest in him after the first day tbh, not entirely his fault. Then I ended it with him a month later when he changed some behaviour making him seem less attentive, and I decided that meant he no longer "loved" me and that it was all going downhill in the relationship. In retrospect, maybe it was a temporary "change" and it wasn't all going "downhill", but I just had this gut feeling and he was not exciting enough anyway He was all sad all over the place when I ended it with him, weirdly enough but yeah I believed my gut feeling anyways.

-I do have to add I was reallllly emotionally UNavailable at the time so that's part of why it all wasn't entirely his fault, among other reasons-

Oh and I knew this other guy who'd try to always take the cap off my head and run away with it in public, then I'd have to run after him to get it back, and it was ALWAYS really pissing me off. Again, I didn't want to deal with that kind of thing on a daily basis, because it was my fav hat, and I didn't want it damaged or anything like that. But he wasn't IEI for sure, was some extravert. This guy was also overall very very into testing boundaries, all the fucking time, no exaggeration. He was fucking all over the place with everything. And I was like, I didn't want to get involved in that (because I wasn't attracted to him physically and I disliked his lifestyle as well, very messy), so I was like trying to remain 100% polite & pretend I didn't notice the boundary testing even if it got uncomfortable, I'd just stay polite....unless it was really getting outrageous, then I'd always shut him down. It's hard to explain what I mean by not wanting to get involved, but like, I wanted to just remain detached and at a distance from it all & from him and this was the way for me to ensure that. Except I did have to always run after the goddamn hat he was constantly stealing. He eventually had a big problem with everyone else in the group we'd hang out with, I think I was the last person he was still kinda getting along with but I was glad to just not have to be in contact with him anymore when the group fell apart. I haven't decided if he was IEE or EIE but those are the only two options that can work for him. Does it sound more Victim or more Infantile in your opinion?

(Whatever he was I swear I'll type as his Conflictor or Superego at least)

I mentioned that it sucks on a different thread, and I think it really is. Not exactly shameful but I would be very annoyed at it. Ideally it would be mutual of course.

I am guessing here that it is included under Victim because it just makes sense that someone who is doubtful, not very confident of their feelings and of the other person's feelings, and someone who likes submitting to the other person a little bit would have some kind of high or comfort that they were the ones left out. But imagine if you're the kind of person who wants somebody, and you pursued, and you were the one trying to lead the connection forward, you'll surely be annoyed if you find out that the person is not 100% in. Either you made a mistake in gauging interest, or maybe you just didn't try hard enough (So it shouldn't be over, you just have to try harder, right?). Why did they escape in the first place? Thought you won already but why are they gone. It sucks also when you don't like losing in general. If that (or a similar thing happens), the coping mechanism is to say fuck that person/thing, I don't want him/it anyway. There's someone better. (Even if you actually really do - "no doubts about own interest in another person" - that's the reason why you were chasing in the first place).

The type you are, I am that type.

Joke but yeah...Great description. This and your #16 post too. There is just something in it all that totally makes sense to me.

So yes TBH a lot of it fits me. Minus that I don't think I "gauge" their interest all that much. I just go in and see.... and I don't like guesses about why they "escaped", either. I'll find out more about that if I want to, but I will not do guessing games. I can also get punitive at the end if it didn't work out, depending if they did something I'd strongly disapprove of. Like if I find their behaviour has been unethical, leading me on, manipulative trying to get something out of me etc etc. But I make sure I do not overreact, either. Just the right amount of punishment , then move on. In all other cases (no punishment) I simply go like fuck it & move on and find a better prize

Sorry one more thing that doesn't fit me: I don't lead a "connection forward". Interactions, taking steps sure...but I'd hardly call it a connection

(So yeah what's your typing? Sry I'm new here and it isn't in your profile.)

[AWellArmedCat]

That was an interesting desc. Also lol but would you call any of your games cruel or bitchy? If so, can you give me an example.

Weirdly enough, I'm 100% sure I had an IEI bf, Fe subtype. And he never tried to do any of this to me like you describe it, and he never said he'd do it to any friends either. Maybe he did, I didn't get a chance to see him much with his friends (1-month relationship). And I didn't need it because like you say this stuff is inconsequential & I don't have time for inconsequential stuff It would've been rather annoying, if I regularly had had to deal with things like my coat pocket. He did do stuff like starting to randomly sprint and I always got him and stopped him because idk (several reasons, sometimes it annoyed me & would tell him off, sometimes I was protective etc). Anyways, the IEI had zero resistance to whatever I was doing, or 0.001% resistance at best, I think he was just "too nice" and I found myself getting bored. I kinda lost a lot of interest in him after the first day tbh, not entirely his fault. Then I ended it with him a month later when he changed some behaviour making him seem less attentive, and I decided that meant he no longer "loved" me and that it was all going downhill in the relationship. In retrospect, maybe it was a temporary "change" and it wasn't all going "downhill", but I just had this gut feeling and he was not exciting enough anyway He was all sad all over the place when I ended it with him, weirdly enough but yeah I believed my gut feeling anyways.

-I do have to add I was reallllly emotionally UNavailable at the time so that's part of why it all wasn't entirely his fault, among other reasons-

Oh and I knew this other guy who'd try to always take the cap off my head and run away with it in public, then I'd have to run after him to get it back, and it was ALWAYS really pissing me off. Again, I didn't want to deal with that kind of thing on a daily basis, because it was my fav hat, and I didn't want it damaged or anything like that. But he wasn't IEI for sure, was some extravert. This guy was also overall very very into testing boundaries, all the fucking time, no exaggeration. He was fucking all over the place with everything. And I was like, I didn't want to get involved in that (because I wasn't attracted to him physically and I disliked his lifestyle as well, very messy), so I was like trying to remain 100% polite & pretend I didn't notice the boundary testing even if it got uncomfortable, I'd just stay polite....unless it was really getting outrageous, then I'd always shut him down. It's hard to explain what I mean by not wanting to get involved, but like, I wanted to just remain detached and at a distance from it all & from him and this was the way for me to ensure that. Except I did have to always run after the goddamn hat he was constantly stealing. He eventually had a big problem with everyone else in the group we'd hang out with, I think I was the last person he was still kinda getting along with but I was glad to just not have to be in contact with him anymore when the group fell apart. I haven't decided if he was IEE or EIE but those are the only two options that can work for him. Does it sound more Victim or more Infantile in your opinion?

(Whatever he was I swear I'll type as his Conflictor or Superego at least)

Oh I'm for sure not cruel or bitchy. I'd say I'm quite attentive to what my partner likes. If I sensed that something I was doing wasn't fun for them I'd stop it immediately. The line between playful "frustration" and actual frustration is very clear to me basically 100% of the time. I can't recall ever making a mistake regarding misinterpreting those kind of boundaries. At least not recently. I have to think back to when I was like 12 or 13. I might have misunderstood the boundaries in one or two situations then, but even at that age it wasn't really hard for me to tell. I don't want to be a nuisance to my partner. It's more just me trying to be cute lol

Oh and also I don't like to run so I don't think I'd ever take someone's hat and run off with it. That sounds like a lot of work

I'm far more likely to be overly attentive to my partner than not attentive enough. I've never had anyone complain I didn't give them enough attention, but I have been told to leave them alone or else just stop being so dramatic. I like to think I'm secure, but I think I may be slightly anxious in my attachment style. I definitely can get really worked up over vague fears of my partner leaving me even when nothing is wrong

[seeking it]

@seeking it I type myself as an ILI-Te (or in DCNH most likely H subtype, if not C). But note that some people here disagree and type me as Beta NF. Fe because of being expressive here on the forum. I don’t put my type on because I’m not mostly here for socionics, and putting it up means I’m asserting it which would make people give their opinion about my type that I don’t need really.

Fwiw, my first thought in your username is that there is no way an extravert would consider the name “seeking it”, and digging within is very Ni to me.

Do you already have a guess when it comes to some of your valued functions?

Ah I see, thanks. As for my forum name thingy, yeah it refers to digging within. Isn't that what typology is about heh.

Anyways, as for my valued functions, I'd like to keep an open mind for now and hear other people's input (I do have a fresh type me thread). If I was to go by the thread here though, I've related to a mix of the aggressor and caretaker so that's both Se and Si.

Oh I'm for sure not cruel or bitchy. I'd say I'm quite attentive to what my partner likes. If I sensed that something I was doing wasn't fun for them I'd stop it immediately. The line between playful "frustration" and actual frustration is very clear to me basically 100% of the time. I can't recall ever making a mistake regarding misinterpreting those kind of boundaries. At least not recently. I have to think back to when I was like 12 or 13. I might have misunderstood the boundaries in one or two situations then, but even at that age it wasn't really hard for me to tell. I don't want to be a nuisance to my partner. It's more just me trying to be cute lol

Oh and also I don't like to run so I don't think I'd ever take someone's hat and run off with it. That sounds like a lot of work

I'm far more likely to be overly attentive to my partner than not attentive enough. I've never had anyone complain I didn't give them enough attention, but I have been told to leave them alone or else just stop being so dramatic. I like to think I'm secure, but I think I may be slightly anxious in my attachment style. I definitely can get really worked up over vague fears of my partner leaving me even when nothing is wrong

Oh my bf was attentive alright until that one bad day. I didn't feel like he was "too dramatic", not at all. He really was just too nice & I was too unavailable and messed up lol.

But I made up for it by pushing him to get together with a new girl and that relationship worked out pretty well for him. He was so grateful to me for that

And yea I don't think I get the idea yet about aggressor/victim games being so cruel and bitchy. Your description is anything but that.

[seeking it]

I feel that societal expectations can mess things up so it won't match if you see the descriptions at face value but if you compare how you would actually deal with a person the dynamic works unless you have reservations. If the person is not a match you would feel the weird dynamic and would even feel yuck. But if you have a social mask or can make one, the roles can be very easy to recreate.

I agree typology can be like that but sometimes systems are just systems and it's not about digging within, it's just learning how one thing connects to another. Maybe for others it could just be a very detached concept that may not even be welcomed in their inner world.

Mind saying a bit more on a very detached concept like this not being welcomed in the inner world of some people, because I wonder what you meant by that.

And yah it makes sense how societal expectations can totally influence this romance style stuff. My problem isn't really that though, my hang-up is about how different people can perceive the same behaviour of mine so differently.... so just exactly whose perception is it that e.g. aggressor-victim play "cruel, sadistic games", and so on?

I'd be interested in how people identifying with either the Aggressor or the Victim style see that.

As for which dynamic makes me go "yuck", it's wherever it says that caretakers truly enjoy so much that caretaking of a dependent child. Again I don't know if this is really exaggerated or only exists in the perception of some people. I know I am detached with it if I do anything like that as part of performing everyday duties.

And I realised that I find immature Ne egos really annoying or outright disgusting. I've got no problem with mature Ne egos. Also I suspect I have different expectations and perceptions about men vs women, so immature men annoy me way more than immature women, whatever their type is....

So for example. Above I described this guy who could be EIE or IEE, always stealing my favourite cap, he was pretty immature too but it was less irritating than immature EIIs. I "only" disliked the overdone boundary testing and his sometimes outright borderline emotions (that strongly emotional switch between love vs hate). I'm not sure tho if he was Ne ego, so idk about that.

Anyways, in my experience, immature LIIs are instantly demanding with a lot of expectations, controlling, emotionally manipulative. They actually try to take some initiative but the way they try to do the initiative is just ridiculously weird and pushy or totally out there. Expectations of affectionate, "caring" treatment....exhausting. I'm not an affectionate or gentle person. I get it that Ti base types with strong Ti are full of expectations lol but this was just over the top for me with these immature guys. They had zero sensibilities&common sense, idk what world they live in but it's not this one.

Examples for ridiculous attempts for taking the "initiative": guy suddenly putting his hand on my bum within TEN minutes of the FIRST date!! (100% sure he was LII.) He was so awkward and it coming out of nowhere with the timing but at least he apologised when I got at him for it.

Other guy I knew for like 2 days and we were talking, getting to know each other, when he asks me a really intrusive question about my sexuality. So I politely tell him that this topic is too private for me, because we don't know each other yet, and that I won't answer his question because of that. He got real mean and crazy arrogant in response, it turned out he wanted to believe that he had "complete control and power" over me, especially "sexually", just because he's a man and I'm a woman....even though we'd only talked for 2 days. That was so disgusting I was done with him on the spot. Best part of the story: he chased me literally for years after that, in this weird, trolly, annoying way, before he gave up (I'm only like 90% sure he was LII but 100% sure he was an "Intuitive" type)

I get along better with the less rigid LIIs, if they are flexible, patient and not crazy demanding like that. I like their patience and flexible minds, but especially the patience, lol

I don't know why I ran into all those crazy LIIs (I no longer do, thank god). And I could go on and on about these crazy guys but is this ever typical Infantile behaviour when they get demanding right away in this crazy way? lol I'm not sure if these guys weren't just plain mentally ill with the "borderline" emotionality hidden behind the strict looks and low emotional expression. But I mean Robespierre was supposedly an LII too so maybe not just mental illness.

[seeking it]

@seeking it I meant it like for some people knowing typology is just like learning something in school as a requirement. Not much internalization even if they study it deeply, and they won’t apply it irl.

Oh ok alright, I don't know if I want to internalise it myself because not necessarily everything makes sense in it to me.

So for example having written up that post yesterday, I realise now that Si seeking/Infantile-ness isn't even what explains this stuff, like, at all. Because I remembered a Ni ego (ILI? idk), who was just as demanding about the relationship and stuff though she did it in a different way (and nooo this wasn't romantic. I saw her as a good friend but....It was weird because I think she secretly had a strong crush on me). By stuff I mean she wanted me to help her in a lot of things and she had no qualms asking directly for it. Other ILI girl I know she doesn't try to do that to me but I know she's done it with her husband.

So I'll just call it, if using a psychology term, Dependent Entitlement (both dependent, and entitled traits), and if I ignore all these fancy terms, then I just call these people a spoiled child, regardless of type.

But again....the ILI doing it doesn't bother me like LII doing it, it's not disgusting, so that must be the socionics part of it. Though with that girl I did have enough when she started actually acting spoiled lol taking it for granted that I'd just help her and do things for her. I stopped right there and then. But it just wasn't disgusting, it was simply irritating and annoying me, and felt disrespectful.

As for yuckiness - the dynamic is obvious but like I’ve said in my second post I think it’s true when you actually not attracted to them or if you don’t like them in anyway lol. Liking is outside of types and romance styles. So if you really like somebody and you can be the most infantile infantile but they are aggressor, it won’t matter very much. If there is mutual interest there you guys might even fit into the “needs” of the other.

Yeah, I'll have to think about this stuff more.

I'm still interested in the other issue I brought up.... who sees Aggressor-Victim dynamics so cruel and shit like that (other than, non-Se/Ni valuing types supposedly*), and how it ends up being seen that way, and what specifically ends up being seen like that?

*: How do Se/Ni valuing types see it, do they actually see their own stuff in that way?

[kuno]

I’m definitely a victim type. In fact, reading about the romance styles made me realize SEI’s “caring” dynamic didn’t fit me and it had me wondering how well the SEI sociotype actually fit me as a whole. Because I try to be caring, and I can be a good caring lover, but it’s not how I naturally am. I’m naturally a victim type, and it’s very obvious just by reading my high school diary entries.

Overall, in order from most to least fitting, I’d say I’m: Victim > Infantile > Caring > Aggressor

My boyfriend is a strange mix of both caring and aggressor. I love it lol

[Metamorph]

Dont Fuck Socionics, Thats Getting A Bit Too Into It

[anotherperson]

NO [no doubts about own interest in another person]
NO [not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest]
YES [focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate]
?? [romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”]
NO [needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”]
no ? [this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy]
YES [little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously]


yes, but bc I rarely feel interest at all [prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person]
YES [not always confident about revealing that interest]
NO [inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest]
YES [inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time]
indifferent [preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like]
NO [appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them]
YES but not for reasons stated [this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion]
I don't understand the analogy [ in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess”]
NO [nclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself]

yes but idk what playful teasing implies [Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation.]
yes? [Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality.]
RARELY [Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling]
?? [Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out.]
NO [Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.]
NO [Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance.]


YES [Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality.]
YES [Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.]
what does this mean [Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things.
Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.]
YES TO SOME EXTENT not the last sentence though [Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding]

[necrosebud]

Yes, “caring” type of partner is attractive to me


Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. although im not 100% sure what sort of distinction it is trying to draw


Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements. sure, doesn't feel unnatural to me


Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things. I didn't know this was flirting but yes


Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior. yes


Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. YES

If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding. i dunno, don't have enough experience to answer this

[jughead]

I will tell you what I don't like. Infantiles.

I've had nothing but bad luck with them due to their flippant disregard for safety norms. I've known probably 6 female ENfp's from a prospective sense and half of them had genital herpes from being whores and they are the ones who always downplay it with it's not that big of a deal, hippy free love shit. Very immature and braindead. Their style makes me very confused and angry and unable to focus. It's not all ENFp's but that is a common trope; they are manipulative and impulsive children who will play with your emotions like a teasing 9 year old. 2 have tried to get me to remove protection when I was tipsy. Their EP nature excites me and repulses me at the same time. It's a bit like moth and flame. I haven't had issues with ESFps as much to be honest despite the moth/flame connection. Usually Se types are like heres my lifestyle do you like it or not. Ne types obfucsate it in my eyes and are so scattered it's hard to see their base pattern integrity. Something about canceling my Ni through if they are the louder, dominant type and prey on my victim tendencies.
INFj's are a bit better due to stronger Fi Ti but have so many value differences.

I like other victims as they are more careful and take more time to get to know you but can be very passive and lead to too much indecision.
Aggressors are similar in getting to see if you can keep up but oftentimes I lose interest because I don't give a shit about their lifestyle and don't want to keep up. Last ISTj i was interested in as friends and had some potential for moreI liked a lot but they were too into drinking and eating heavily and also liked Trump. There was too much divide on the issues for me to want to be closer friends.

Caring types are ok but are often so prissy about a small issue like social norms, tone of voice, length of ones nails etc that it's annoying and sabatoges everything. They also refuse to take responsibility for their actions with said social norms.

[theum nathair]

I will tell you what I don't like.

Oh dear... is this going to be the mating call of IEI looking for SLE interested in pegging

Infantiles.

I've had nothing but bad luck with them due to their flippant disregard for safety norms. I've known probably 6 female ENfp's from a prospective sense and half of them had genital herpes from being whores and they are the ones who always downplay it with it's not that big of a deal, hippy free love shit. Very immature and braindead. Their style makes me very confused and angry and unable to focus. It's not all ENFp's but that is a common trope; they are manipulative and impulsive children who will play with your emotions like a teasing 9 year old.

Why would you volunteer this information...

Here's a pointer, as you sound very promiscuous yourself (pot, kettle) --condoms don't protect against HPV because there's still skin contact. Try to educate yourself before you contract penile cancer, moron.

Further evidence that promiscuity is best displayed in merry types (Fe emotional impressions + disregarding the importance of lasting connections and probably contracting venereal disease along the way)

[theum nathair]

Say yes and no to parts that are yes and no to you. Explain if you want. You can check more additional info here and include them.

Aggressor

• no doubts about own interest in another person
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate --sometimes, yeah. One-sided love is, I suppose, a bit salutary for me. I cease being a cachectic cave-dweller, wash, and gain muscle mass lol. Reciprocity only matters if there is a relationship. Of course it's easiest to love from afar (less mess, reduces the odds of disillusionment)
  
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness”
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up”
  
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy”
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously --eh, I've little inclination to externally discuss such things

Victim

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person --imo this is an idiosyncrasy of the researchers club
  
• not always confident about revealing that interest I'm never confident, even when I know the person I like fancies me... always shaking in my stomach or something lol. That said, I'm always the one to make a move as well, which doesn't adhere to this type
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
  
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time --when it's come to dating and the like, I've tended to assume ephemerality unless I've a reason to descend into fantasy. One would think this stance common, particularly as it provides for self-defence in light of the probable outcome, but surprisingly, some find it hurtful.
  
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like --Perhaps there is something here, though it isn't clear whether what I appreciate falls into this category. It's not a physical thing, but I really love people with social nuance. In terms of wanting someone else to feel 'above' me (superiority in the previous list), this is only useful to the extent that I dislike dates following me about like lovestruck puppies... nothing cools my interest faster. Someone who thinks they're a bit too good for me will have their own life and interests quite apart from mine. This is the only path to a healthy relationship ime
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them
  
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion --I appreciate forthrightness. Most people haven't the stomach for it
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess” --eh lol I can picture it, although I tend to have a very chivalric relationship with women generally (to wit, my behaviour changes very little if I've no interest in dating a woman... actually in that case my courtesy is somewhat greater, unfortunately). When dating, I think I want to be useful in some way... not just to feel useful but in fact to improve her life
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself --only if I was saying 'woe is me' to my best mate or something

Caring

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation. --physical provocation sounds disrespectful. That said, I'm hardly suave and can't tolerate eye contact when discussing feelings lol
  
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality. --depends on what is meant by 'aggressive'. Do I wish to be chained in a dungeon? Not often...
  
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling.
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out. --demonstrative helplessness evokes only revulsion
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs.
  
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance. --if the relationship is really over, only a child worries who dealt the final blow. How can such a thing matter if one has lost everything else

Infantile

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. --the latter part makes it sort of false; endless dance and parry suits only beta, honestly. Only who actually dislikes positive aesthetic attributes lol
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements.
  
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things. --sometimes I'm doing this
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior.
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding.

The number of points/complexity varies so weighting marks as others have done seems inappropriate

On balance... do not fuck socionics

[necrosebud]

my instinctive 'response' to the descriptions (I don't mean these in a way that disregards an entire type of ever being interesting to me, just going off of behaviors described here specifically in the realm of romance, and what feels natural)
The first one (aggressor) actively puts me off... I do not relate to it and I cannot help but feel uncomfortable by it.
The victim description has a few lines that might perhaps describe me to a certain degree, but my initial response was... that I may have had feelings for people who perhaps behaved in this manner, and that it just was not compatible (that I would get hurt)
Infantile I already went over
Caring feels like "yes this is exactly what I want!" but then again, I am careful to have too idealistic a view of something.

[jughead]

Oh dear... is this going to be the mating call of IEI looking for SLE interested in pegging



Why would you volunteer this information...

Here's a pointer, as you sound very promiscuous yourself (pot, kettle) --condoms don't protect against HPV because there's still skin contact. Try to educate yourself before you contract penile cancer, moron.

Further evidence that promiscuity is best displayed in merry types (Fe emotional impressions + disregarding the importance of lasting connections and probably contracting venereal disease along the way)

It’s the truth. I’ve found ENFps to be the most promiscuous and sexually dangerous type. I’ve had the HPV9 vaccine thanks. Condoms aren’t foolproof but they are the best we have

[BrainlessSquid]

80% infantile. Not sure about the last point, but I'd say probably.
My flirting techniques are basically joking, push and pull and fractionation. Focus is on having fun and filtering who is receptive

[theum nathair]

It’s the truth. I’ve found ENFps to be the most promiscuous and sexually dangerous type. I’ve had the HPV9 vaccine thanks. Condoms aren’t foolproof but they are the best we have

It's your opinion, which is distinct from the truth. Without a doubt, failing to use condoms is ridiculous behaviour, but the truth is, promiscuity is defined as having a lot of casual sex partners, and not in terms of condom usage. From your long, tmi rant about your sex life, you are certainly promiscuous, whether the women who've been generous enough to sleep with you were or not. As you've evinced concerns about the consequences of promiscuity, it seemed polite to point out the flaw in your reasoning.

No vaccine protects against all strains of oncovirus, and the best protection against venereal disease is to stop being, as you say, a whore.

[Muira]

It’s the truth. I’ve found ENFps to be the most promiscuous and sexually dangerous type. I’ve had the HPV9 vaccine thanks. Condoms aren’t foolproof but they are the best we have

ESFp would make more sense, especially for being a type that is much more comfortable in their sexuality, but-

What makes you think you're any better whoring yourself out with a sheet covering your shimp dick? If you don't fucking like the fucking people, why'd you fucking join their game? Acting just like the very people you ridicule, you are one of them. You made yourself that way.

The fact it took you so fucking long to even realize how socionics is still just a theory, larping and jerking off to SLE women, already displays how deeply fucking delusional you are, having no fucking consideration to see if something actually applies to reality well enough to be even taken seriously.


Just seeing your fucking posts about complaining on how SLE seem to be repulsed by you is rather because you act like a pathetic cunt. Grow a pair, no one owes you shit, and you make yourself fucking miserable by being an emo shit. Acting like a bitch isn't going to get you want.

[persimmonism]

I relate 100% to the victim description
but also to
female aggressor wanting a “knight devoted to his princess”
he he he

[Mind Goblin]

The definitions are fun to think about but vague even for socionics. LIE and EIE are supposed to be of the same "romance style" but different Quadra for example.

[Averroes]

Aggressor

• no doubts about own interest in another person - Yes
  
• not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest - Yes and no. I'm shy in person, but I'll DM/compliment anyone that I'm interested on instagram
• focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate - No
• romantic interaction is more about “toughness” than “tenderness” - Yes
• needs to feel some sense of “superiority” over the partner, but worthwhile only if the partner is seen as able to largely “keep up” - Not necessarily. I like someone who's romantically submissive but wouldn't want to be with someone I don't respect
• this takes the form of power games, which others might regard as cruel or bitchy - Yes
• in the case of female Aggressors with male partners, the above tends to assume the characteristic of a woman expecting total devotion from the partner, rather than her being “bossy” - N/A
• little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a “who cares” front simultaneously - Maybe

Victim

• prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person - No
• not always confident about revealing that interest - Yes
• inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest - Yes
• inclined to question whether or not the other person’s interest will remain constant with time - Yes
• preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like - Awe in terms of charisma and intellect, not power/physical presence
• appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually “submitting” to them - No
• this takes the form of the individual somewhat expecting the partner to be “mean” on occasion - No
• in the case of Victim males with female partners, this latter trait assumes a characteristic analogous to a “knight devoted to his princess” - No
• inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself - No

Caring

• Inclination towards smooth, easy flowing, “soft” or suave interaction with elements of playful teasing, rather than “hard” approach and direct physical provocation. - Yes
• Attraction is sparked by aesthetic and mental attributes of the prospective partner, but cools if such attributes are accompanied by an overly “aggressive” sexuality. - No
• Caring types are attentive in courtship. In conversation, they are inclined to focus their attention on the statements and needs of their partner, and may ask questions concerning how their partner is doing and how are they feeling. - No
• Interest is kept up if their partner is welcoming of their care and attention, and even evokes it, and seeks them out. - No
• Prone to assume that partner needs their support and help in everyday daily matters, and in meeting their needs. - No
• Neutral as to who ended a relationship. “Power” is not seen as important in such matters, though the ethical matters may still be of importance. - Maybe

Infantile

• Interest is sparked by a partner with positive aesthetic attributes, divorced from active, direct sexuality. - No
• Try attracting partner’s interest with fun and interesting conversation and discussion, proposals, humor, ethical and mental exploration, and quirky statements. - Maybe
• Try to help their partner see the unexpected, potential, and alternative side of things. - No
• Interest is maintained or cools off according to partner’s response to the above behavior. - No
• Appreciate partners who are attentive to their needs, which are not necessarily physical. If the partner does not meet their needs, they may not say anything and instead try to endure and last on their own. If their needs are not met by their partner, their satisfaction considerably decreases resulting in temper outbreaks and arguments as they become more demanding. - No