Thank you very much, I'd love to read the LIE and ESI ones also
Thank you very much, I'd love to read the LIE and ESI ones also
It sounds more like the particular intuitive women he has been into have been slender.Originally Posted by Starfall
Generally, there are slender and fuller versions of every Sociotype.
I don't see it being closely correlated with N vs S much at all.
Also, most men tend to be into slender women, and most men seem to be sensory types... It's just a number's game.
Basically, the N vs S thing does not truly determine whether a man is into a slender figure or not, IMO.
I have a really strong preference for slender women. It's even better if they are athletic in some way. My first GF was an LSI, and my affectionate nickname for her was "skinny". My ex was 5'8" tall in her bare feet (she liked to wear heels) and about 118 lbs (or less - she was skin and bones on our honeymoon) when I married her. The LSI I have been dating recently is also slender. Not skinny exactly, but not overweight at all. She does yoga and has a flat tummy.
Lest you get the impression that I'm image-conscious (although I probably am. I know what I'm attracted to), all the women I have dated have been introverted and extremely intelligent. Some of them didn't know that they were really intelligent, I think, or didn't talk about it, but I could see it. Hair color and height don't seem to matter to me that much, although my preferences seem to run to red or reddish hair with a nice smile and bright eyes.
I do know an LIE-3Te male who said he preferred women who were heavier, because (he said) they were more faithful (he might have said reliable) and less crazy. More likely to settle down.
So, individual tastes vary, even in the same sociotype.
Note to @SisOfNight concerning Imago:
When I was small (<7 years old), my mother had jet black hair and pale white skin, and was fairly thin. For a long time, that was my feminine ideal, but I seem to have lost most of those bias's somewhere. Thank goodness.
Strange, ime N men seem to be more into skinny women, and strong sensors into curvy ones. Idk, lots of SLE and SEE guys here seem to be more into sexualized Amber Rose body types than into frail supermodel look. Hipster N dudes like skinny chicks in general. Thats a generalization ofc, but there is something to it as far as I've noticed.
Uhm. From the POV of ego functions it could make sense, but simultaneously, it seems to contradict the nature of DS funcion.
Like an ILE should prefer a curvy "Si-ish" woman. Or like a skinny catwalk model is very far from projecting the powerful "Se" impression that would catch an ILI attention. N intuitives and skinny women sound like endogamy(j/k), although I can see why Se doms would also like strong "sensoric" women.
I have no data for backing up one affirmation or de opposite; all I can say is that I've observed both situations. Maybe it could be a thing of "I prefer being comfortable with what it's similar to me" or "I strongly desire what I lack". So maybe stacking could play a role here.
It would also be interesting to analyze if there's a statystical difference between N doms and N creatives, because whereas in the ILE case I cannot affirm one thing or the other, in the LII case it's true that I've observed certain preference for more slender women.
Yeah, it's way too complicated and dependaple on every individual. Another factor might also be rationality/irrationality: maybe rational types of men often more strongly prefer slim women, cause they give off a sense of restraint and self-control and they see it as an important atribute. And irrational guys are more primal and don't care about girls appearing more out of control. Lots of guys also have madonna/whore complexes - they watch porn with curvy latinas, but marry a skinny white girl because status and her seeming more pure (while still wanking to curvy latinas)Uhm. From the POV of ego functions it could make sense, but simultaneously, it seems to contradict the nature of DS funcion.
Like an ILE should prefer a curvy "Si-ish" woman. Or like a skinny catwalk model is very far from projecting the powerful "Se" impression that would catch an ILI attention. N intuitives and skinny women sound like endogamy
I have no data for backing up one affirmation or de opposite; all I can say is that I've observed both situations. Maybe it could be a thing of "I prefer being comfortable with what it's similar to me" or "I strongly desire what I lack". So maybe stacking could play a role here.
It would also be interesting to analyze if there's a statystical difference between N doms and N creatives, because whereas in the ILE case I cannot affirm one thing or the other, in the LII case it's true that I've observed certain preference for more slender women.Like all the southern cultures (latin, black) seem to prefer curvy woman bodies and more rational, northern slim ones.
^Have not noticed any pattern like that. I have a friend who is either LII or ILE who always goes for bigger women though. He is skinny. It's more apparent when someone consistently goes for bigger women because it's not the norm- ^^
I can confidently say that my SLE husband loves all types of women. I truly don't think he has a body preference.
SLE: "I used to think I loved big butts but actually I really like your small butt." (I'm quite thin, 5'8" 115 lbs)
ME: "Why did you think you preferred big butts?"
SLE: "I don't know, I guess I hadn't found myself yet." <------ not the answer I was expecting
I know an ILI who is Latin and he loves the "ballerina" type. Tiny breasts and butts and so very slender. I know an ILE who thinks the perfect body is had by Taylor Swift. But I also know an LII who prefers bigger girls, not just curvy but bigger. Overall, I've observed the same trend as @darya - Intuitives seem to prefer skinnier girls and SLE/SEE curvier thicker girls.
I've noticed that a man's physical preferences are less correlated with his Sociotype and rather with what his own body type is like (Ectomorphs usually prefer fellow Ectomorphs aka "skinny people" – many Intuitives are Ectomorphs, but not always; while many SLEs are often Mesomorphs and hence attracted to more athletic women, but not always; etc.), their culture's ideals of beauty, as well as how they (want to) fit themselves into their respective gender role, how high their (perceived or desired) social rank is, and possibly at the very last what their "Imago" looks like.
There are certain trends, like Type 3 men almost always ending up with someone who is relatively close to the culture's ideal (aka the "trophy wife"), SO blindspot men caring less about the culture's ideal, men who see themselves to be rather masculine and/or with a higher social rank preferring stereotypically feminine women who have curves (boobs and butt and small waist) but are generally slim, very tall men preferring pretty short women (and vice versa), men to be commonly the most into women who have the same hair colour and/or eye colour as their mother's, and the list goes on.
I've known a good couple of LSI men who had about the same preferences as the LSI guy from this thread. They said they first and foremost liked long, slim, sexy legs, the "model type" – which made them regularly date women who were as tall or even slightly taller than them, but they did not care. They reported to not care for boob size either, but a nice butt would be appreciated.
It's a little known fact that most men go on a journey of self discovery to find out what kind of ass they like. Self-assualization cannot be foisted onto a fella by social norms, yo.I can confidently say that my SLE husband loves all types of women. I truly don't think he has a body preference.
SLE: "I used to think I loved big butts but actually I really like your small butt." (I'm quite thin, 5'8" 115 lbs)
ME: "Why did you think you preferred big butts?"
SLE: "I don't know, I guess I hadn't found myself yet." <------ not the answer I was expecting
The realization of self-assualization can be a long, hard journey, filled with moments of quiet beauty, heart-stopping excitement, and unimaginable terrors. Butt, as Bane says, every man must find and plow his own field.
He said LSI is low stress tolerant. I would like him to rank the sociotypes into 2 categories, high and low.
Anyway cool translate! From what place is this?
Stress Resistance Groups by Gulenko
Eh that's not so type dependent so I don't see the point. What kind of stress are we talking about anyway.
So pretty much how well a person of type is adopting to sudden changes and deal with it. I guess we can see this in how people setup their lifestyle, if it is so that the stress is dealt with well, if it is so that the person feel so that they can deal with it when it comes etc.
I was curious, ofc, the OT guy said more then 1 time that LSI is low stress type. And it make some sense if you frame it in a certain way.
"Orients quickly in extreme situations, displaying considerable willpower, endurance, and practical resourcefulness."
(http://www.wikisocion.org/en/index.p...e=LSI_subtypes)
Like I said, it is how you frame it. LSI can have great willpower and grind the stone so to speak, also when faced with new situation and deal with it. Maybe what Gulenko is saying is that LSI do not benefit and adopt to it well and need time to pounder it. I generally do not see LSI as the fast moving types in all-ever changing situations. ILE however thrive in it. According to theory.
Time to ponder it? Seems like Gulenko is talking about LSI-Ti more or he's talking about only one kind of change.
For me it depends on the type of change, if it's inside a system I already got a deep understanding of, or if it just requires immediately visible adjustments then I have no problem with change. If it's some complex new situation with ambiguity and/or lots of new data to process beyond the immediate with undiscovered variables, that's when I will need some time. It's ok though, I won't kill myself over it.
I really just don't see his theory on stress vs type working out in real life.
I think we have to view Stress as 'unidentified variables'. Many of those = high stress. If you gota do something and a lot of these is blowed up in your face how do you deal with it.
Uhm, give me a concrete situation for this.
But ok, example, I was working on something recently and I was suddenly told that the goal changed for the task and of course I was also lacking information at that point for the new goal. It was incredibly pissing me off but I decided to just keep the focus and clarify things to make the decision about whether I really had to accept the change... it was ok then because I was focusing on this, that is, a direction I set, knowing what to do next and why.
Of what unidentified variabel is? I do not know why you neglect this the way you do, maybe you think it reflect your type negative or something. Its fun and I try to figure it out.
Yeah, though I did give an example myself when I managed to recall a situation.
I neglect what?
You neglect theory before you reach an complete understanding of what it means. That is the vibe you give me.
Lets flush it out some. If stress is, not the kind when you reach high levels of Adrenaline, Cortisol and Norepinephrine, but when you mentally deal with many unidentified variables at once. Lets say it is your first day at a job where you are really fresh and have little directions. One group of people would be very tolerant to the stress and start to work the way they think be right, just start pushing forward. Other group would play low key and get little done to try to catch up with what is going on. Other group would start to try to get benefits and such with the excuse and freedom of not having directions. Last group would do nothing until they are given directions.
That is the result/process dichotomy and the rationality/irrationality. Now, next step in my way of understanding this concept is to start to be conscious about what type is what group and eventually find how valid it is or not. And probably gain some more understanding during this process.
So why do you neglect this? Bashing around saying gulenko is horseshit and Socionics is overrated and such? You bring up little to no evidence that support or disprove it. For me it looks like you are shallow and overly judgemental with this.
I don't need to read on when I already see how something is incorrect in that it does not properly map to reality logically.
The cases where I said it is not stressful for me of course don't result in a prolonged high level of cortisol/etc. Not sure why you thought it necessary to mention these hormones.Lets flush it out some. If stress is, not the kind when you reach high levels of Adrenaline, Cortisol and Norepinephrine, but when you mentally deal with many unidentified variables at once.
By the way I don't deal with all those variables at once. It just introduces ambiguity in the situation that needs to be solved but figuring out the necessary information is done over time if I can help it.
ILets say it is your first day at a job where you are really fresh and have little directions. One group of people would be very tolerant to the stress and start to work the way they think be right, just start pushing forward. Other group would play low key and get little done to try to catch up with what is going on. Other group would start to try to get benefits and such with the excuse and freedom of not having directions. Last group would do nothing until they are given directions.
How I would approach this depends. If the circumstances and the end goal are such that I will need to cover all the information before starting the work itself, I will go and get the information. If it instead allows me to start and get the information on the move and doesn't need full coverage, then I'll do that. Etc. Essentially, I focus on what concrete steps I'll be able to take and then do so.
What sort of job would this be? It's easier with a concrete hypothetical that says what the job is, how the situation is such that it's possible for some people to behave differently, etc...
That is the result/process dichotomy and the rationality/irrationality. Now, next step in my way of understanding this concept is to start to be conscious about what type is what group and eventually find how valid it is or not. And probably gain some more understanding during this process.
I believe these dynamics about these groups are far more complex than what the Socionics model can encompass. I see it as pointless to try and explain all of it by 16 types. It doesn't work, the correlations are far from 100% if they even exist at all. And I can state the correlations are weak because I either already went through testing the logic in reality or I already saw how the logic doesn't follow properly without logical jumps.
So why do you neglect this? Bashing around saying gulenko is horseshit and Socionics is overrated and such? You bring up little to no evidence that support or disprove it. For me it looks like you are shallow and overly judgemental with this.
You are the overly shallow and judgmental one here. Judging me without learning about my thoughts behind my conclusions first? Fuck this.
Last edited by Myst; 09-09-2016 at 12:45 AM.
Does anyone have the link to the original thread that this is from?
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
Only the beta quadra left, which, ironically, is where at the forum this thread is posted in.
http://socionik.com/thread/17500-0-.html
Thanks Myst!
[Today 07:57 AM] Raver: Life is a ride that lasts very long, but still a ride. It is a dream that we have yet to awaken from.
It's hard to find a love through every shade of grey.
heh no that girl is Fi-EII e6I just went to the original site...
Is this supposed to be a stereotypical female IEI?
Haha.
logo.gif
she posts on that forum under the nick of Anfisa and her photos are posted all over the place, this is what you see at sign-out:
that forum is run by Deltas (they have strange rules like your avatar has to be a picture of yourself) and she's apparently close with the LSE admin
he might be even her husband, idk, she's posted a series of articles and instruction guides on the EII-LSE duality as she is married to one
there's a good deal of resonance between her posts and @Maritsa's, particularly the superego thing
Fair enough.heh no that girl is Fi-EII e6
she posts on that forum under the nick of Anfisa and her photos are posted all over the place, this is what you see at sign-out:
that forum is run by Deltas (they have strange rules like your avatar has to be a picture of yourself) and she's apparently close with the LSE admin
he might be even her husband, idk, she's posted a series of articles and instruction guides on the EII-LSE duality as she is married to one
there's a good deal of resonance between her posts and @Maritsa's, particularly the superego thing
All I can say, is that the first picture seemed to represent a female INFx pretty much.
Now the second one you posted strikes me as Sx/Sp.
Posting Permissions
