Type Me

[darya]

Why is this thread full of MBTI talk? Who cares what some random people, who have a high chance of being mistyped anyway, type themselves in MBTI and what in socionics? Those statistics are proof of nothing. Find your correct type in socionics and that's it, who gives a crap about MBTI. Why are people trying to connect two non-compatible systems? MBTI is vague as hell, the describtions of functions are suspect and type describtions are kiss-assy and horoscope-like. And no, LIE's are not INTJ nerds with some Se lol. LIE's, LII's and ILI's are different types - it kinda matters wheter your leading function is Te, Ti or Ni. And btw, LIE's usually know how to dress themselves, you won't find a lot of hobo embarassing LIE's. Being sharply dressed makes exactly zero difference in being either LIE or LSE.

[Spermatozoa]

Overbearing asshole vs effeminate wimp is pretty black and white thinking. I don't get why anybody would aspire to be the former either.

Well to me, the desire to be an asshole is just more evidence for LIE (Se HA).

Here is how to tell the difference between SLE and LIE.

An SLE is an asshole who doesn't want to be one, but is too lazy/retarded to do much except drink beer and watch TV unless he has an IEI girlfriend.
An LIE is not an asshole yet deeply aspires to be one so they can achieve WORLD DOMINATION, however, they are pretty ineffectual at being scary.

[Sol]

An SLE is an asshole who doesn't want to be one

You are wrong. To be "asshole" is to be bad in Fi region. The most consciously rejected regions are weak nonvalued ones, - people prefer to don't care about them, except when they are unsure, not among friends. You'll meet rather more hooligans among Fi polr types, than Fi suggestive ones.

> An LIE is not an asshole yet deeply aspires to be one so they can achieve WORLD DOMINATION

to achieve "WORLD DOMINATION" you should be more perfect than others, but not retarded in some regions

[ashlesha]

Why is this thread full of MBTI talk? Who cares what some random people, who have a high chance of being mistyped anyway, type themselves in MBTI and what in socionics? Those statistics are proof of nothing. Find your correct type in socionics and that's it, who gives a crap about MBTI. Why are people trying to connect two non-compatible systems? MBTI is vague as hell, the describtions of functions are suspect and type describtions are kiss-assy and horoscope-like. And no, LIE's are not INTJ nerds with some Se lol. LIE's, LII's and ILI's are different types - it kinda matters wheter your leading function is Te, Ti or Ni. And btw, LIE's usually know how to dress themselves, you won't find a lot of hobo embarassing LIE's. Being sharply dressed makes exactly zero difference in being either LIE or LSE.

Lol thank you. I like your Se. This thread is annoying me. But partly because I retyped eii -> esi because I'm independent and not compatible with someone breathing down my neck and telling me what to do. Now all Te bases are characterized as macho manly men who take charge of everything. I'm seeing more Se than Ni in his overall writing style. But I'm still trying to keep an open mind.

[Spermatozoa]

To be "asshole" is to be bad in Fi region.

There is more than one Fi-lead on this forum who would meet my definition of an asshole. No need to stereotype.

The most consciously rejected regions are weak nonvalued ones, - people prefer to don't care about them, except when they are unsure, not among friends. You'll meet rather more hooligans among Fi polr types, than Fi suggestive ones.

Maybe you don't realize...but you actually just reinforced what I said, not contradicted it, when you said that Fi PoLR leads to holliganism.

> An LIE is not an asshole yet deeply aspires to be one so they can achieve WORLD DOMINATION

to achieve "WORLD DOMINATION" you should be more perfect than others, but not retarded in some regions

We can't create heaven on earth. Focus on yourself instead of trying to change others.

[Spermatozoa]

Lol thank you. I like your Se. This thread is annoying me. But partly because I retyped eii -> esi because I'm independent and not compatible with someone breathing down my neck and telling me what to do. Now all Te bases are characterized as macho manly men who take charge of everything. I'm seeing more Se than Ni in his overall writing style. But I'm still trying to keep an open mind.

Well if he's LIE-Te, the IE are valued like this:

Te 4.5 D
Ni 2.5
Fe 1.5
Si 1.5
Fi 0.5
Se 2.5
Ti 3.5
Ne 3.5

Se-HA is amplified and Ni/Ne are reduced - also note the very low Fi-suggestive, which could explain the vibes that he gives off. I am pretty confident of Ni-ego (either ILI or LIE) because of what he seems to value; besides, he always seems to type as an LIE so it makes sense to start from there. Where do you see Merry over Serious (Beta ST vs Gamma NT)?

[darya]

Sol teaching to be asshole is to be bad in Fi region, Bertrand insisting Fe is all about not being rude. God help us.

[ashlesha]

Well if he's LIE-Te, the IE are valued like this:

Te 4.5 D
Ni 2.5
Fe 1.5
Si 1.5
Fi 0.5
Se 2.5
Ti 3.5
Ne 3.5

Se-HA is amplified and Ni/Ne are reduced - also note the very low Fi-suggestive, which could explain the vibes that he gives off. I am pretty confident of Ni-ego (either ILI or LIE) because of what he seems to value; besides, he always seems to type as an LIE so it makes sense to start from there. Where do you see Merry over Serious (Beta ST vs Gamma NT)?

I don't. That's why I'm keeping an open mind. If I thought he was beta st, I'd type him beta st, crazy right?

[Olimpia]

The problem with typing threads like this one, or just typings in general, is the fact that many people are attached to a certain persona of theirs, which is often only partially who they really are; and they'll wear that mask quite stubbornly often times, which can fool both themselves and others into believing they are that mask.

OP is obviously quite attached to a persona that includes Se-related masculinity. (Being tough, strong, resistant, forthcoming etc.) That goes together with his 8ness, Se HA, and somewhat traditional idea(l)s on masculinity and femininity.

As I said, his responses in this thread reek of Se HA. It's quite obvious he values Se.

Also, his questionnaire shows signs of Te lead/valuing.

Se + Te valuing = Gamma.

I guess you could argue for SEE, just like many people do with @totalize.

The problem is, that the Se descriptions are heavily Type 8 biased, so every Type 8 is gonna relate to Se lead, no matter their actual type.

I stand by my typing of OP as LIE. His Se is his persona to an extent.
Like with most LIEs, the "Victimness" only becomes more obvious in specific, emotionally intimate situations.

[Desert Financial]

[ashlesha]

This is why I want to see him in a relaxed social context. Typing threads are weird because you're typing how people describe themselves instead of what you observe about them.

[Spermatozoa]

I don't. That's why I'm keeping an open mind. If I thought he was beta st, I'd type him beta st, crazy right?

I was just sharing my ideas with you, no judgement, so don't be sarcastic. You should know that I like you and am not out to get you.

Shit, I am tired of all the drama on here. Going to bed.

[Bertrand]

Why is this thread full of MBTI talk? Who cares what some random people, who have a high chance of being mistyped anyway, type themselves in MBTI and what in socionics? Those statistics are proof of nothing.

looks like we've summoned the Ti seekers

people who tend to think of themselves as x also tend to think of themselves as y, that says something regardless of whether x or y is correct

Bertrand insisting Fe is all about not being rude.

is this what you take away from my posts? it has to do with a measurable big 5 correlation with agreeableness (ethics) breaking down into compassion (Fi) and politeness (Fe). Fe has a lot going on, not to mention if you're a Fe ego you have high Fi as well. so its not like one without the other

anyway, I was the first one to point out the Se correlation between Cuv and Retsu, so credit where credit is due

its like in the same breath you discredit me and try to hijack my insight, is this ethics?

[The Reality Denialist]

Se/Ni creative leaves 4 types.

[Bertrand]

Se/Ni creative leaves 4 types.

do you understand what a but for cause is

further, their entire scheme is, as always, just a dunning kruger set of behavioral stereotypes they apply once they have something to latch onto. the whole thing is a silly cloud of words which is precisely what olimpia is known for. which adds to the irony of how they ride in with an air of criticality towards one system or the other and a tone of authority and they understand none of it. oh well, carry on

just throwing out my dissent for anyone who isn't a drone

[darya]

looks like we've summoned the Ti seekers

people who tend to think of themselves as x also tend to think of themselves as y, that says something regardless of whether x or y is correct



is this what you take away from my posts? it has to do with a measurable big 5 correlation with agreeableness (ethics) breaking down into compassion (Fi) and politeness (Fe). Fe has a lot going on, not to mention if you're a Fe ego you have high Fi as well. so its not like one without the other

anyway, I was the first one to point out the Se correlation between Cuv and Retsu, so credit where credit is due

its like in the same breath you discredit me and try to hijack my insight, is this ethics?

Since you ask, reading your posts makes my head hurt. Your thinking process is so convoluted and bizzare I honestly don't get much out of it, other that it makes me feel dizzy and like I'm high on crack.

[Retsu77]

Se/Ni creative leaves 4 types.

Well, ENxj or ISxj are interesting possibilities. Maybe I'm EIE? You know, for years I typed as an ENFJ in mbti.

[Retsu77]

This is why I want to see him in a relaxed social context. Typing threads are weird because you're typing how people describe themselves instead of what you observe about them.

I'm usually somewhat uptight with strangers IRL. Once I get to know you, I relax a bit more. But I can probably seem a bit stiff or formal upon maybe initially meeting someone. Again, context matters though.

[Retsu77]

Overbearing asshole vs effeminate wimp is pretty black and white thinking. I don't get why anybody would aspire to be the former either.

Well I didn't say effeminate. That is usually more Fi ego guys. Especially leads.

That aside, I'd rather be thought of as a bit of jerk than a wuss. But that's just me.

[Retsu77]

Looks like @Bertrand mentioned my name...hmm

Well I've had a flick through your posts, and I see some similarities in our general presentation - though you come across as more reactive and blunt, than flashy and lewd like me.

Socionics has a very different definition of Se to MBTI (MBTI Se is much more like Socionics Si). Se in Socionics is Force; relational sensing or volition. People high in Se have a tendency to actively mold their environment, but they're not necessarily aware of static sensations like taste and smell or possessed with a keen eye for detail. It is unwise to take descriptions of a type literally, because Socionics is still a pretty subjective personality system. I see myself as an interpreter, and filter through the meandering BS to distill what's important and relevant right now.

Your comment about weakness ("limp-wristed") is a frequent reason why male Ni-egos mistype, especially Gammas. A lot of it starts from the designation "Victim", which has connotations of submission and effeminacy. I have suggested the word "Provoker" as an alternative because I feel it describes the Ni-ego's approach to courtship (which is to tease, test, and provoke the Se-ego/Aggressor dual into capturing them basically) somewhat better.

If you despise weakness in others, then you are more likely to be Ni-ego than Se-ego. Se-egos are much more bothered by weakness in themselves than in others. I agree with @lavos, LIE-Te for you.

I hate weakness in everybody, myself included. Why would it be either one or the other? That doesn't make sense. They're not mutually exclusive.

I am quite blunt. Flashy, maybe a bit... Lewd... no. I tend to have some degree of restraint that way.

And yes, the whole "victims" are weak, pathetic pushovers is lame as fuck to me. I can't stand the stereotype. It's pathetic. I don't even like dominant or pushy women. I prefer submissive, more feminine ones to be honest.

[Retsu77]

Enneagram and Socionics look at very different aspects of your personality:

Socionics like MBTI focuses on cognition/information processing
Enneagram focuses on neuroses

For this reason it makes little sense to try and infer one from the other.



Extroverted Gammas do tend, disproportionately, to be 3s.

"Winning" = sex & reproduction if SX
"Winning" = fame, status, the spotlight if SO
"Winning" = money, money, money if SP

There are overarching patterns. Surely your Ni should pick these things up?

Anyhow, I don't relate to being a 3 entirely, though a little bit. I am image-focused to an extent, but it's not the core of who I am, I don't think. AFAIK, my tritype is 8w9 3w4 5w4 (3 and 5 could be swapped in order) SX/SO.

[Retsu77]

Well if he's LIE-Te, the IE are valued like this:

Te 4.5 D
Ni 2.5
Fe 1.5
Si 1.5
Fi 0.5
Se 2.5
Ti 3.5
Ne 3.5

Se-HA is amplified and Ni/Ne are reduced - also note the very low Fi-suggestive, which could explain the vibes that he gives off. I am pretty confident of Ni-ego (either ILI or LIE) because of what he seems to value; besides, he always seems to type as an LIE so it makes sense to start from there. Where do you see Merry over Serious (Beta ST vs Gamma NT)?

How the hell could I be ILI? LIEs are basically wimps, I don't even know how ILIs even get out of bed or have the strength to open a peanut butter jar. lol

I can be merry, but in all fairness, I probably am more serious than not. Though it depends on my mood.

[ashlesha]

Well I didn't say effeminate. That is usually more Fi ego guys. Especially leads.

That aside, I'd rather be thought of as a bit of jerk than a wuss. But that's just me.

I was noting the black and white thinking style. There are things in between jerk and wuss.

I don't have anything else to say in this thread because I find it too annoying.

[Retsu77]

Lol thank you. I like your Se. This thread is annoying me. But partly because I retyped eii -> esi because I'm independent and not compatible with someone breathing down my neck and telling me what to do. Now all Te bases are characterized as macho manly men who take charge of everything. I'm seeing more Se than Ni in his overall writing style. But I'm still trying to keep an open mind.

I'm fine with being Se ego in socionics. I wouldn't say Te is necessarily "macho" in Jung's definition. But it is about establishing order and maintaining that same "formula" as he calls it. And many, less psychologically healthy, Te leads can come across as tyrannical to be around. Fortunately, I'm not generally like that.

[Retsu77]

You could think about HA use (6th function) this way:

Imagine that you've been given a sword which is too long and heavy for you to wield. As you grow stronger and more flexible, eventually you'll be able to use it and make a few pushes, pulls and thrusts, but you won't ever have full mastery of it. Nonetheless, it will always be mesmerizing, and you'll keep coming back to it.

Just use a lighter sword then. Geez. A sword doesn't need to be heavy to pierce flesh.

[Spermatozoa]

Just use a lighter sword then. Geez. A sword doesn't need to be heavy to pierce flesh.

Well to me, that is obvious and not even worth a mention.

Your response here seems very Te, not Se.

[Spermatozoa]

I hate weakness in everybody, myself included. Why would it be either one or the other? That doesn't make sense. They're not mutually exclusive.

This sounds like a Pseudo-Aggressor answer to me.

SLEs are Fe HA, I doubt they'd say that.

I am quite blunt. Flashy, maybe a bit... Lewd... no. I tend to have some degree of restraint that way.

And yes, the whole "victims" are weak, pathetic pushovers is lame as fuck to me. I can't stand the stereotype. It's pathetic. I don't even like dominant or pushy women. I prefer submissive, more feminine ones to be honest.

Tell us a bit more about your ideal woman and romance. It will help me type you.

[Retsu77]

Well to me, that is obvious and not even worth a mention.

Your response here seems very Te, not Se.

Work smarter, not harder, my friend.

A blunt instrument is not an appropriate tool for every occasion.

[Retsu77]

This sounds like a Pseudo-Aggressor answer to me.

SLEs are Fe HA, I doubt they'd say that.



Tell us a bit more about your ideal woman and romance. It will help me type you.

Pseudo aggressor sounds gay. lol "Not" aggressor.

Anyway, my "ideal" woman...? So someone I can make up...?

Hmm, well she'd be hot. Feminine, sweet, kind, compassionate, caring, girly, not a manly chick... not someone pushy, aggressive, dominant or forceful. She would be gentle, submissive and have a big heart. Someone who looks "soft" not hard or tough. I like longer hair, a sweet smile, good fashion sense. Oh yeah big tits help too. lol

I'm very romantic. I don't admit it much because it's lame and weak, but deep down I have always desired the kind of romance you read about in myths and legends. The kind that has the hero rescue the weak princess from a dragon and claims her for himself. Or the man who risks everything for the woman he loves. That said, she is kind, soft, gentle and receptive to his valour, not passive, indifferent, cold, aloof or a bitch.

I have had relationships in the past where I literally got down on one knee and proposed under a fireworks sky. (PROTIP: She said yes!) Or planned our first kiss or date by Niagara Falls at sunset. I am pretty sappy I just rarely show that side of myself. I like the idea of having a LIFE together, not just attraction (though that's important) but a deeper overall connection, spiritually, mentally, emotionally and obviously physically. Someone to talk side by side with me, as an equal... as if such a thing exists.

I want to be protective of her, being an 8 SX I can be pretty protective of those I love. I want an emotional bond and connection with someone above all else. I like the idea of being a team against the rest of the world. As long as I am with the person I love, I'm content. That is being SX first, mind you.

Good enough picture for you?

Edit: If anything, my description sounds pretty EIE there, I realize. Maybe I'm ENFj...

[Bertrand]

[Retsu77]

Why is this thread full of MBTI talk? Who cares what some random people, who have a high chance of being mistyped anyway, type themselves in MBTI and what in socionics? Those statistics are proof of nothing. Find your correct type in socionics and that's it, who gives a crap about MBTI. Why are people trying to connect two non-compatible systems? MBTI is vague as hell, the describtions of functions are suspect and type describtions are kiss-assy and horoscope-like. And no, LIE's are not INTJ nerds with some Se lol. LIE's, LII's and ILI's are different types - it kinda matters wheter your leading function is Te, Ti or Ni. And btw, LIE's usually know how to dress themselves, you won't find a lot of hobo embarassing LIE's. Being sharply dressed makes exactly zero difference in being either LIE or LSE.

It's all based on Jung's work. Something many in socionics seem to know little about.

Yes, tests don't matter - subjective, personal judgments reign supreme when typing ourselves and others in socionics. Who needs objective measures when we can just latch on to anything in order to prove we are X type...?

The problem with this system is that it is too damn subjective. Anyone can type as anything if they look hard enough for a reason to. If you find that convincing enough, so be it. I don't.

[Spermatozoa]

A blunt instrument is not an appropriate tool for every occasion.

I guess I'm yet to figure that out

[Spermatozoa]

Pseudo aggressor sounds gay. lol "Not" aggressor.

Anyway, my "ideal" woman...? So someone I can make up...?

Hmm, well she'd be hot. Feminine, sweet, kind, compassionate, caring, girly, not a manly chick...

not someone pushy, aggressive, dominant or forceful.

This seems like an Enneagram 8 concern, because my view is, I can deal with that shit (and it might lead to good sex because she'd be less of a wallflower type). Also if a woman annoys me by nagging excessively, I'll just leave her and find somebody else who is less of a trainwreck lol.

Oh yeah big tits help too. lol

Of course.

I'm very romantic. I don't admit it much because it's lame and weak, but deep down I have always desired the kind of romance you read about in myths and legends. The kind that has the hero rescue the weak princess from a dragon and claims her for himself. Or the man who risks everything for the woman he loves. That said, she is kind, soft, gentle and receptive to his valour, not passive, indifferent, cold, aloof or a bitch.

You whisk her onto your horse, find a suitably romantic glade and then spear her, so captured are you by unholy passions? Now this sounds more Beta than Gamma. We by contrast decide that we'd like to copulate, find someone we'd like to do it with, and then open the negotiations. I can be super romantic, but that comes second

I have had relationships in the past where I literally got down on one knee and proposed under a fireworks sky. (PROTIP: She said yes!) Or planned our first kiss or date by Niagara Falls at sunset. I am pretty sappy I just rarely show that side of myself. I like the idea of having a LIFE together, not just attraction (though that's important) but a deeper overall connection, spiritually, mentally, emotionally and obviously physically. Someone to talk side by side with me, as an equal... as if such a thing exists.

I want to be protective of her, being an 8 SX I can be pretty protective of those I love. I want an emotional bond and connection with someone above all else. I like the idea of being a team against the rest of the world. As long as I am with the person I love, I'm content. That is being SX first, mind you.

Good enough picture for you?

Edit: If anything, my description sounds pretty EIE there, I realize. Maybe I'm ENFj...

Yeah, I hadn't considered it before, but this is why showing another side of yourself can help. I mistyped for a while on here.

[Retsu77]

This seems like an Enneagram 8 concern, because my view is, I can deal with that shit (and it might lead to good sex because she'd be less of a wallflower type). Also if a woman annoys me by nagging excessively, I'll just leave her and find somebody else who is less of a trainwreck lol.



Of course.



You whisk her onto your horse, find a suitably romantic glade and then spear her, so captured are you by unholy passions? Now this sounds more Beta than Gamma. We by contrast decide that we'd like to copulate, find someone we'd like to do it with, and then open the negotiations. I can be super romantic, but that comes second



Yeah, I hadn't considered it before, but this is why showing another side of yourself can help. I mistyped for a while on here.

Right. I can relate to the whole Beta romance thing more than Gamma. I mean, I want a life with someone, but it can't be devoid of passion, love, excitement, strong feelings. Generally speaking, I'm pretty calm and not one prone to expressing strong feelings, except when it comes to romance. I guess I'm a closet hopeless romantic. It's just my nature. Always has been.

So I'm not sure if this helps regarding typing someone. For years in the MBTI (oh no, I sinned!) I did tend to type and test as ENFJ. But that doesn't mean much, I realize that. But in all fairness, can you even type someone based on romance style? And even if you could, I relate more in many ways aggressor wise... except I do have this attitude that I'M the prize, which is said to be an xNFp thing in socionics. "Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner."

Source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/101-Erotic-Attitudes

But overall, the way I live my life, the last thing anyone would say about me is that I'm a victim or have that mentality. And when it comes to matters of sex, victim is even less appropriate, so I don't know. Perhaps we need to use better methods of typing people beyond romance styles?

[Spermatozoa]

Right. I can relate to the whole Beta romance thing more than Gamma. I mean, I want a life with someone, but it can't be devoid of passion, love, excitement, strong feelings. Generally speaking, I'm pretty calm and not one prone to expressing strong feelings, except when it comes to romance. I guess I'm a closet hopeless romantic. It's just my nature. Always has been.

Yeah, I really value passion, love, and marriage as well. (I am not actually an asshole.) However, because I tend to discover how I feel physically, it isn't easy to develop an emotional attachment to a woman who won't put out. I also wish more women would understand that. Not everyone can feel strongly about other people without some physical evidence.

Imagine you throw a ball to someone and smile at them. You hope they'll throw it back, and if they do, you can throw it back to them faster, and so on and on. There is only one direction: forward! However, I'm sure it could be different for an EIE. I respect how forthright you were, and wish you the best of luck in finding the woman you want.

So I'm not sure if this helps regarding typing someone. For years in the MBTI (oh no, I sinned!) I did tend to type and test as ENFJ. But that doesn't mean much, I realize that. But in all fairness, can you even type someone based on romance style? And even if you could, I relate more in many ways aggressor wise... except I do have this attitude that I'M the prize, which is said to be an xNFp thing in socionics. "Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner."

Yes, you see this is the opposite to me. I consider the other person to be a prize, an asset, something to capture, dine on and use for my pleasure. They will serve me (and often), for they belong to me and only me. While this may sound kind of callous and animal, in my defense, I don't mind if they view me the same way lol. Possessiveness does not bother me, only apathy.

Source:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/101-Erotic-Attitudes

But overall, the way I live my life, the last thing anyone would say about me is that I'm a victim or have that mentality. And when it comes to matters of sex, victim is even less appropriate, so I don't know. Perhaps we need to use better methods of typing people beyond romance styles?

As I said earlier, the word "victim" does not accurately describe Ni-ego erotic style. That is why I suggested "Provoker" instead.

I see the female Aggressor-male Provoker dynamic as a little like a wild animal (Provoker) and a tamer (Aggressor). The Aggressor is strong and powerful enough to capture the animal and tame it, which the Provoker also likes because he is no longer alone in the world and has a partner he looks up to. However the Provoker will also periodically get bored of the Se-ego earthiness and try to rebel/leave, but the Aggressor will not allow this; he is her property now. Usually the Aggressor will force the Provoker into sexual submission
(which all male Ni-egos love but are afraid to admit).

[squark]

Perhaps we need to use better methods of typing people beyond romance styles?

Yes. Btw, you give an ST impression in your writing style. Pared down, direct, not meandering, concrete word choices. That's merely an impression though, idk your type.

[Retsu77]

Yeah, I really value passion, love, and marriage as well. (I am not actually an asshole.) However, because I tend to discover how I feel physically, it isn't easy to develop an emotional attachment to a woman who won't put out. I also wish more women would understand that. Not everyone can feel strongly about other people without some physical evidence.

I get that and I wouldn't want to be with somebody I wasn't physically attracted to or who wouldn't have sex either. Don't get me wrong - physicality is definitely important to me.

Imagine you throw a ball to someone and smile at them. You hope they'll throw it back, and if they do, you can throw it back to them faster, and so on and on. There is only one direction: forward! However, I'm sure it could be different for an EIE. I respect how forthright you were, and wish you the best of luck in finding the woman you want.

Oh thanks.

Yes, you see this is the opposite to me. I consider the other person to be a prize, an asset, something to capture, dine on and use for my pleasure. They will serve me; they belong to me and only me. This may sound kind of callous and animal, but in my defense, I don't mind if they view me the same way lol. Possessiveness does not bother me, apathy does, as it means I'm no longer attractive to my mate.

Well, I see myself as the Prize (probably because of my ego) but I also consider the other person to belong to me. Not necessarily as property, but they're still MINE. I'm an only child; I don't play nice with what is mine. I don't share either.

As I said earlier, the word "victim" does not accurately describe Ni-ego erotic style. That is why I suggested "Provoker" instead.

I see the female Aggressor-male Provoker dynamic as a little like a wild animal (Provoker) and a tamer (Aggressor). The Aggressor is strong and powerful enough to capture the animal and tame it, which the Provoker also likes because he is no longer alone in the world and has a partner he looks up to. However the Provoker will also periodically get bored of the Se-ego earthiness and try to rebel/leave, but the Aggressor will not allow this; he is her property now. Usually the Aggressor will force the Provoker into sexual submission
(which all male Ni-egos love but are afraid to admit).

I agree about the term being somewhat misleading and causing confusion.

The underlined part I don't agree with. I just don't. I'd rather be submitting emotionally than physically to woman. I don't submit physically to a woman, especially not sexually. I find dominant women, especially sexually, unattractive. It doesn't mean I don't like fit women, or someone that expresses they like me - I surely do - but not someone that's going to try and knock me around or take charge of me. I don't find that dynamic appealing. If I was a woman, I would, but I'm not. So this is one indication I'm not an Ni ego type, at least in socionics.

[ashlesha]

someone that's going to try and knock me around or take charge of me. I don't find that dynamic appealing. If I was a woman, I would, but I'm not. So this is one indication I'm not an Ni ego type, at least in socionics.

Nobody likes abuse dude

[Retsu77]

Yes. Btw, you give an ST impression in your writing style. Pared down, direct, not meandering, concrete word choices. That's merely an impression though, idk your type.

Yeah. IRL I tend to probably use a larger vocabulary overall, but I do try to be direct and to the point when speaking. I have been told I'm very honest about things and can be blunt, for sure. I don't like what I'm saying to be confused so I try to say exactly what I intend or think... though how well I actually get my point across varies. Some people, especially online, seem to take offense at what I say and have referred to me as "abrasive" or harsh. Online there's less filter so I probably speak more forthrightly than I would in person... though it depends, of course too.

[Retsu77]

Nobody likes abuse dude

Except for female victim types... or so I'm told.

I thought you left...? Or did you come back?