Romancing Styles / Erotic Attitudes

[Joy]

The more I think about it, the more I see what I felt to be aggressor attitude to be more of a careful attitude. I don't like this idea.

Hmm..why not liking it?

it doesn't sound healthy... codependent or something

[Michaelus]

I don't know if this is the "official" reasoning, but all the groups have a common dominant perceiving function.

Victim

Infantile

Careful

Aggressor

Yes, has in SUPERID or "child block" so he likes aggresion

has in SUPERID so he likes care. Something like that

[Michaelus]

it doesn't sound healthy... codependent or something

There is nothing so terrible about this, really BTW if you are ISFP you should be Careful

[XoX]

I wonder if people can "switch".

I would think yes. But if they never get to do things their natural style I guess there will be problems.

[Joy]

Looking at my past relationships... the careful attitude fits too well. The aggressor one does to a small extent, but not NEARLY as well as Careful. It's too embarassing to get into the details... but I have been with a lot of guys who "needed" me.

[Michaelus]

By the way, if one is aggresive it doesn't mean that he never cares, or can't be tender. It means that his caress is expressed in rather aggresive form say kicks, pinches, pushes and things like that.

[Creepy-]

By the way, if one is aggresive it doesn't mean that he never cares, or can't be tender. It means that his caress is expressed in rather aggresive form say kicks, pinches, pushes and things like that.

That's how I show affection, too!

[Joy]

I am playful like that, but I wouldn't call it *affection*

I'm a VERY affectionate person though.

[Jimbean]

That definitely fits me too

[snowyc]

An "Infantile" INTj here , a good job my ESFj dual would seem "Careful" in the erotic department

[Jimbean]

I know that I asked this before, but is there anybody that does not correspond to Guenko's erotic attitude theory?

[Michaelus]

I know that I asked this before, but is there anybody that does not correspond to Guenko's erotic attitude theory?

Well, I haven't met anyone

[Expat]

Even if people AT FIRST do not obey these descriptions, usually when people get deeper into a relationship, they will start to fall into place, and sort of "expect" the behaviour of thier duals in this respect.

Agreed.

I have observed that Careful types tend to eventually fall into some sort of baby-talk, like "aaawwwwwwwww baaaaaaaaaaby, are you ooooooooookaaaay?" You won't hear this from an aggressor; aggressor-victim eventually get into dirty talk.

[XoX]

I have observed that Careful types tend to eventually fall into some sort of baby-talk, like "aaawwwwwwwww baaaaaaaaaaby, are you ooooooooookaaaay?" You won't hear this from an aggressor; aggressor-victim eventually get into dirty talk.

AHAHAHAH YES TOTALLY!!!

I guess I'm not a victim Dirty talk tends to sound amusing to me or sometimes "hostile" although in very rare cases it works. I'm not sure about the baby-talk though...maybe if it was really genuine. Wrong kind of baby-talk works as badly as wrong kind of dirty talk

[Jimbean]

I wonder if this would be a good indicator of a person's type. If so, then that would mean that I am . After what has been posted here, I am 100% sure that I am the "aggressive" type.

[Joy]

I know an ENTp who was very much the "aggressive" type until he was with a "careful" type.

[Jimbean]

I know an ENTp who was very much the "aggressive" type until he was with a "careful" type.

I cannot foresee myself being with any careful type, not that I have anything against them.

[Joy]

Then perhaps you're an intelligent ESTp. *shrugs*

[Expat]

I wonder if this would be a good indicator of a person's type. If so, then that would mean that I am . After what has been posted here, I am 100% sure that I am the "aggressive" type.

So far I think it's been a pretty good indicator, in as far as you can even use it -- your saying "100% sure" also suggests more than to me, in itself, but I suggest you look carefully at Gulenko's descriptions of sexual behavior -- if you have, and you identify fully with the aggressor, then I very much doubt you are ENTp.

[Creepy-]

Why do people still think that S-Type means dumb???

I think it's related to the Big Five correlations

[XoX]

Why do people still think that S-Type means dumb???

Two of the smartest people on this forum are ESTp's.

Yeah...N-types are victims and infantiles. S-types are aggressors and careful types. I guess that pretty much sums up the distribution of power I don't know how well that translates to "smart" though. INTps are the smartest anyways but an ESTp pwns an INTp mentally and physically any day. Now what that means? I don't know I guess I'm not smart, hehe. *Sigh* what a start to a new day

[Expat]

an ESTp pwns an INTp mentally and physically any day.

How so "mentally"?

[XoX]

an ESTp pwns an INTp mentally and physically any day.

How so "mentally"?

Well my baby-little-sister-in-law pwns everyone mentally Meaning in any kind of verbal sparring she just pwns (exaggerated a bit). She is quick. She has insight. She makes sense. She has won every damn job interview competition she has been in etc. But I'm better at maths! I know because I have trained her in maths. She might be really good in that too but she doesn't have the motivation to absorb into it.

Anyways, the post was meant as a joke mostly. I agree with Transigent. I'm tired of these "which type is better" comparisons. It is misuse of the whole typing framework. People should be compared as individuals. If you are of a certain type it doesn't automatically make you any better or worse. And I know you wouldn't accept an ESTp pwning you mentally

[Expat]

Well my baby-little-sister-in-law pwns everyone mentally Meaning in any kind of verbal sparring she just pwns (exaggerated a bit).

To "win" in a verbal sparring is not the same as pwning someone "mentally" -- I have had plenty of verbal sparrings with ESTps. They "win" by eventually resorting to increasingly self-assured (in appearance) statements that are not necessarily based on facts or reason, which throws NT types off-balance and puts them in the defensive since they tend to try to disprove those statements logically.

So I can perfectly agree that they will make the impression of "winning" in verbal sparrings, especially in scenarios like jobs interviews, but that's a questionable definition of "mentally pwning" someone.

[FDG]

an ESTp pwns an INTp mentally and physically any day.

How so "mentally"?

Well my baby-little-sister-in-law pwns everyone mentally Meaning in any kind of verbal sparring she just pwns (exaggerated a bit). She is quick. She has insight. She makes sense.

No ESTp has ever won a mental sparring with me. We go on and on and on and on and on louder and louder and louder.

They might win job interwievs is if the interviewer is impressed by bullshit.

[XoX]

Well my baby-little-sister-in-law pwns everyone mentally Meaning in any kind of verbal sparring she just pwns (exaggerated a bit).

To "win" in a verbal sparring is not the same as pwning someone "mentally" -- I have had plenty of verbal sparrings with ESTps. They "win" by eventually resorting to increasingly self-assured (in appearance) statements that are not necessarily based on facts or reason, which throws NT types off-balance and puts them in the defensive since they tend to try to disprove those statements logically.

So I can perfectly agree that they will make the impression of "winning" in verbal sparrings, especially in scenarios like jobs interviews, but that's a questionable definition of "mentally pwning" someone.

Ok ok. Inaccurate use of concepts. You pwn me What is it with ENTjs and ESTps. Somekind of natural competition where ENTjs as benefactors refuse to give "mental respect" to ESTps and ESTps refuse to submit to ENTjs? I mean FDG says ESTps are pretty much the only types who can make him physically aggressive.

Edit: Lol..it seems FDG with his cute avatar has already joined the discussion

[Expat]

Ok ok. Inaccurate use of concepts. You pwn me What is it with ENTjs and ESTps. Somekind of natural competition where ENTjs as benefactors refuse to give "mental respect" to ESTps and ESTps refuse to submit to ENTjs? I mean FDG says ESTps are pretty much the only types who can make him physically aggressive.

The answer was given by FDG who, as usual, was more direct than me:

.
They might win job interwievs is if the interviewer is impressed by bullshit.

From the point of view of ENTjs, what ESTps use is mainly , especially when faced with superior to theirs -- and it is annoying to us that so many people can't see the difference between and arguments.

[XoX]

From the point of view of ENTjs, what ESTps use is mainly , especially when faced with superior to theirs -- and it is annoying to us that so many people can't see the difference between and arguments.

They can have impressive Ti too if they have developed that. Strong and accurate Se combined with a strong logical analysis capability is powerful. Some of them might have developed some Fe too. Maybe even Ne and Ni at least enough to understand the main point of other people's Ne and Ni opinions.

In these cases strong SeTi coupled with some Fe and maybe some Ne and Ni and this combined with lack of Fi makes a well grounded, goal-oriented, insightful, intelligent, persuading, accurate, persisting and ruthless verbal opponent. At least gives a good sparring opponent for an ENTj

[FDG]

In these cases strong SeTi coupled with some Fe and maybe some Ne and Ni and this combined with lack of Fi makes a well grounded, goal-oriented, insightful, intelligent, persuading, accurate, persisting and ruthless verbal
opponent. At least gives a good sparring opponent for an ENTj

The result of your combo is some kind of new Lenin, something that can be found by, to be good-hearthed, extracting the 99.9th percentile in intelligence out of all the ESTps population.

Se+Fe= bullshit innuendo
Ne=they don't have any
Ti=they use it to resort to rethoric and grammar/syntax spitting
Ni=No use against an Ni creative.


I do admit, however, that they're generally better at sports.

[FDG]

In these cases strong SeTi coupled with some Fe and maybe some Ne and Ni and this combined with lack of Fi makes a well grounded, goal-oriented, insightful, intelligent, persuading, accurate, persisting and ruthless verbal opponent. At least gives a good sparring opponent for an ENTj

Well grounded? Bullshitter

Goal oriented? Too stubborn

Insightful?This one I concede

Intelligent?Yeah, but not a type trait

Persuading?Conman

Accurate?You're joking right?

Persisting?Stubborn, rejects evidence

Ruthless?Manipulative



Here the truth exposed!


;D

[XoX]

Haha. I can see that ESTps really get deep under your skin

No ESTp has ever won a mental sparring with me. We go on and on and on and on and on louder and louder and louder.

To proove I'm not an ESTp...I'M QUITTING THIS NOW.

[FDG]

In these cases strong SeTi coupled with some Fe and maybe some Ne and Ni and this combined with lack of Fi makes a well grounded, goal-oriented, insightful, intelligent, persuading, accurate, persisting and ruthless verbal
opponent. At least gives a good sparring opponent for an ENTj

The result of your combo is some kind of new Lenin, something that can be found by, to be good-hearthed, extracting the 99.9th percentile in intelligence out of all the ESTps population.

Se+Fe= bullshit innuendo
Ne=they don't have any
Ti=they use it to resort to rethoric and grammar/syntax spitting
Ni=No use against an Ni creative.


I do admit, however, that they're generally better at sports.

Jesus, we're not all beer-guzzling, ESPN watching, loud, stupid sensory subtypes.

You are ALL THE SAME when arguing! Se full blast. Even the uber smart logical subtypes.

[Joy]

Is anyone else reluctant to admit their types?

I'm almost always careful, next aggressive, next infantile, and not at all victim.

[CuriousSoul]

I cannot foresee myself being with any careful type, not that I have anything against them.

ISFPs are perhaps the most openly nurturing type. The best choice if you are looking for a loving mother figure... If not - maybe you are not an ENTP. INFPs again - well they are a victim type. I cannot tell better since there is little intimate attraction.

Also keep in mind that the whole "emo-culture" is unlikely behavior for the infantile types. The preference for the gentle touch is more often the kind of love that dare not speak its name.

[Joy]

I'm Careful, but I don't treat anyone like a they're a kid. I am nurturing, but not bossy (well, sometimes I am, but that's an entirely different kind of thing :wink. I am very affection, prolly one of the most affectionate people I've ever known, but only with my partner. I am also very affectionate with my child, but not as much as my partner. It doesn't come across as "taking care of" the infantile partner. The infantile types just aren't very comfortable naturally and the Careful type is good at making them feel very comfortable, safe, and secure. And it has nothing to do with dominance. The whole thing is very subtle and natural.

[Expat]

The result of your combo is some kind of new Lenin, something that can be found by, to be good-hearthed, extracting the 99.9th percentile in intelligence out of all the ESTps population.
.

This is off-topic, but not off-socionics -- I think you just figured Lenin out.

Meh, true now that I think about it. It works 95% of the time when I argue with , though.

From your point of view, yes, probably true.

[XoX]

How do you think people most naturally switch roles?

There are some examples where careful and even infantiles seem to switch to aggressive.

Then it seems victims can switch to aggressive so maybe aggressives can play victims too?

Can careful types fall into infantile role? I suppose infantiles can play careful roles too at least the infantiles with strong Fi.

Can anyone switch to any role or are there some natural switches you more probably do? And is this related to type e.g. to F & T axel? E.g. ESTj in infantile role would be a rare sight I guess.

[XoX]

The result of your combo is some kind of new Lenin, something that can be found by, to be good-hearthed, extracting the 99.9th percentile in intelligence out of all the ESTps population.
.

This is off-topic, but not off-socionics -- I think you just figured Lenin out.

Lol. I wasn't trying to describe a new Lenin there. Your Ni is flying high now guys

[Expat]

How do you think people most naturally switch roles?

There are some examples where careful and even infantiles seem to switch to aggressive.

Can you be more specific about infantiles switching to aggressive?

Then it seems victims can switch to aggressive so maybe aggressives can play victims too?

They can "play" victims in some moments, but the whole behavior remains aggressive. It's not just about sex, but also about the courtship and the relationship as a whole.

Can careful types fall into infantile role? I suppose infantiles can play careful roles too at least the infantiles with strong Fi.

I think that in a careful-careful couple, or even more so in an infantile-infantile couple, you may have such switches.

[XoX]

Can you be more specific about infantiles switching to aggressive?

I have no personal examples of that I just had an idea that infantile types could be aggressive in the way children can be aggressive sort of. Not in controlling way but more in uncontrolled way. Not really be aggressors but maybe look like them from the distance. Which would be clearly contradicting to the playful side of them. Nah, maybe it doesn't work if you think the victim/aggressor switch doesn't really work either.

So basically you say only in identical careful-careful, aggressor-aggressor, etc pairs the switch can really be seen? Sorry I have no time to think I'm just leaving Maybe my ideas were not too well thought.