113 replies to this topic

[Tom]

But you really are a "victim" socially, Ashton. You're that guy who sits around with a pack of admiring girls cackling about the mall or something giving your occasional winning smile/saying something clever only to be dragged off to said mall later to be goaded into doing something inane like letting one of said cackling girls do your hair or something while you mildly protest.

There are certain words that describe each specific mirror-pair's roles, and that's what I'm working on now.

Infantiles:
Alpha: Avoidant (stolen from WL just a bit above; this one fits very well, I find)
Delta: Shy?

Caregivers:
Alpha: Maternal? (I was going to go with "Stupid, easily tricked whores", but this fits with the delta one more)
Delta: Paternalistic (sort of hate that this fits, but yea..)

Aggressors:
Beta: Assertive?
Gamma: Diplomatic?

Victims:
Beta: Turbulent? (I'm trying to think of something like getting carried away with the crowd)
Gamma: Accommodating

The only ones I've really thought out are avoidant, paternalistic, and accommodating, but the rest are close, I think. Maternal's kind of bullshit.

[Ashton]

Tom, on 20 August 2009 - 02:26 PM, said:

But you really are a "victim" socially, Ashton. You're that guy who sits around with a pack of admiring girls cackling about the mall or something giving your occasional winning smile/saying something clever only to be dragged off to said mall later to be goaded into doing something inane like letting one of said cackling girls do your hair or something while you mildly protest.

Haha, I wasn't aware I had a winning smile. Thanks. But yeah, I can't really see myself being as you describe there—I like dealing with girls I'm interested in 1 on 1, not in packs. And I wouldn't let myself become an inane boy toy for them to play doll with. Unless one of them was really good at doing hair, then maybe. But in general, letting myself be at the whims of a pack of cute girls, wouldn't attract the kinds of girls I'd be interested in I don't think.

Quote

Infantiles:
Alpha: Avoidant (stolen from WL just a bit above; this one fits very well, I find)
Delta: Shy?

What's WL? I think these two terms fit pretty well.

Quote

Caregivers:
Alpha: Maternal? (I was going to go with "Stupid, easily tricked whores", but this fits with the delta one more)
Delta: Paternalistic (sort of hate that this fits, but yea..)

This actually fits too (not the "stupid easily tricked whores" part).

Aggressors:
Beta: Assertive?
Gamma: Diplomatic?

Quote

Victims:
Beta: Turbulent? (I'm trying to think of something like getting carried away with the crowd)
Gamma: Accommodating

Not so sure about either of these names. Though I can be quite patient, understanding, and forgiving of most things in a relationship (like not taking it personally if my SO is in a bad mood and says something mean). Which might be seen as 'accommodating', I don't know. I expect myself to be the cooler, leveler-headed one.

[Tom]

Ashes picks up on none of my jokes... lol Well that's just my usual dealings with gamma NTs. Actually, I know a Ni ENTj 8w7 who's exactly that way. I think you might fit that description to an extent, though I'm sure you wouldn't think of it that way. In general, that description has a tilt to make gamma NTs sound like tools, which may or may not be true.

WL is Warrior-Librarian/Fubar.

Also, I felt the beta ones were the most difficult to describe and probably the farthest off. Maternal sort of feels like a cop-out as well.

[Ashton]

Quote

Aggressors:
Beta: Assertive?
Gamma: Diplomatic?

Forgot to comment on this one. Don't think Diplomatic fits at all for Gamma Aggressor. I don't think Assertive fits much either for Beta Aggressor—Beta relational dynamics just don't have that much of a hard edge about them that the word 'Assertive' connotes.

So much of this depends on gender too. Eh.

[Tom]

Yea.. Aggressors gave me a bit of a problem in general.

[Tom]

By the way, Ashton, you could always suggest terms. lol

[Ashton]

Tom, on 20 August 2009 - 03:43 PM, said:

Ashes picks up on none of my jokes... lol

Oh lol, what was the joke?

Quote

Well that's just my usual dealings with gamma NTs. Actually, I know a Ni ENTj 8w7 who's exactly that way. I think you might fit that description to an extent, though I'm sure you wouldn't think of it that way. In general, that description has a tilt to make gamma NTs sound like tools, which may or may not be true.

It would seem like a poor flirting strategy for attracting ISFjs. I can't really picture them being a part of a cackling group of girls and playing Ken doll with some poor hapless guy lol.

Quote

Also, I felt the beta ones were the most difficult to describe and probably the farthest off. Maternal sort of feels like a cop-out as well.

I do feel like there's some vague truth to Alpha being more 'maternal'—I don't know why, but something about that fits, just as 'paternal' fits with Delta somehow. Though I don't know that either is best term for describing the fundamental nature of these quadras' romantic attitudes.

[Ashton]

Tom, on 20 August 2009 - 04:01 PM, said:

By the way, Ashton, you could always suggest terms. lol

Yeah, yeah. I'm thinking.

[Ashton]

Something like Assured/Reassured might work better for Gamma. At least speaking personally, what's vital to me is knowing that the person is solidly committed to me in both principle and emotion, that their convictions and affections for me will never waver. But a lot of that could be dual-seeking talking (and probably something a lot of people desire in general anyway).

[Tom]

Yea, that may be a bit narrow. I like accommodating; I was thinking maybe adventurous? It seems too energetic for what I'm trying to get across, though... Assuring might work for SFs.. eh. I'm not satisfied lol

[Ashton]

pesto, on 20 August 2009 - 09:15 PM, said:

I think these are too passive. They say more about how we react than how we act. I would suggest...

Infantiles:
Alpha: Playful
Delta: Innocent

I like these a lot.

Quote

I think paternalistic for delta caregivers is spot on, the only problem being that it wrongfully implies chauvinism. Guardian perhaps?

I think Guardian is pretty representative of Delta Caregiver.

[Tom]

pesto

[Tom]

Possibly. I was actually debating supportive and encouraging for alpha caregivers, though I'm not sure that either of those fits exactly.

Also, I like Guardian a lot, but tried to avoid using it because I felt it a bad word due to its use in clubs, which could get a bit confusing. However, I do think it fits better, so I may just go with that.

[Tom]

Guardian sent me off on a good track

I was thinking maybe custodian or gallant, or, if we go further down that road, warden or paladin?

I like warden a lot actually.

[Tom]

lol Wait, what? Warden? ahahah

[Ajax]

Maternal for Alpha and Paternal for Delta seems about right. I cannot really think of anything similar for beta or gamma.

What Aesop said a few pages back is extremely true for beta victim/aggressor relationship behavior. I really do like people who stand up to me in some way but it is totally not aggression I am after, it is more a calm, confident self assertion in a way that I do not find crude/vulgar and so can take seriously. Aggression is actually rather ineffective with me, I usually just have this massive need to rebel against it, laugh at it or simply ignore it and so things can get worst. However, the person needs to know by instincts when to give in and when absolutely not to. Either giving in a lot or not enough can cause a serious lack of respect to develop within me.

Consistent victim behavior is not attractive to me at all, I am around a particular ESTP who is whiny as hell and seems to always be looking out to make sure some gross injustice is not being done to him and I hate the way he always lets me lead him on ideas without contributing or actively disagreeing with anything I say but I think he is a bit depressed now and that is maybe why he is so unbalanced towards victimhood. I think we lean too heavily to one side or another under stress and I think the same is true for infantiles/caregivers under stress.

'Innocent' captures the feel of delta very well too. I am always a little surprise about how INFjs in particular can expect so much good intention from others...but then it ends there because I cannot really respect someone who lets themselves get used by others as seem to happen with some INFjs.

[Ajax]

Ashton, on 20 August 2009 - 05:42 PM, said:

Something like Assured/Reassured might work better for Gamma. At least speaking personally, what's vital to me is knowing that the person is solidly committed to me in both principle and emotion, that their convictions and affections for me will never waver. But a lot of that could be dual-seeking talking (and probably something a lot of people desire in general anyway).

About the part in bold Ashton, do you expect that someone's affections might not waver if you change and become something they do not like anymore? I am never really sure what Fi quadra types mean by that kind of statement. I guess I figure that wavering might happen depending on other factors changing.

[Ashton]

Ajax, on 21 August 2009 - 11:46 PM, said:

About the part in bold Ashton, do you expect that someone's affections might not waver if you change and become something they do not like anymore? I am never really sure what Fi quadra types mean by that kind of statement. I guess I figure that wavering might happen depending on other factors changing.

I don't really believe in the idea that people change—sure, people can go from good to bad or bad to good over time. But they're not actually changing, they're just becoming who they've always been or being something they were always at risk of being anyway. So when I get involved with someone, I recognize these potentialities and I'm not surprised when they happen.

[Tom]

pesto, on 21 August 2009 - 04:44 PM, said:

I was thinking of the paladin, but I suppose that works too.

Oops lol I guess so.

Ajax, on 21 August 2009 - 11:46 PM, said:

About the part in bold Ashton, do you expect that someone's affections might not waver if you change and become something they do not like anymore? I am never really sure what Fi quadra types mean by that kind of statement. I guess I figure that wavering might happen depending on other factors changing.

I think what Ashton's trying to get at is that moves very quickly and subtly, and even someone totally in tune to it can get left behind when his partner, etc. feels a change. So reassurance is key, sometimes; we don't want to miss it and be left out (though honestly I don't think we'd miss it anyway, but it's nice to be reassured). Also, it's very difficult to trust anyone who isn't keen to the nuances of , because we feel alienated by their seeming lack of ability to catch those ques, etc.

[Ashton]

Tom, on 22 August 2009 - 11:27 AM, said:

I think what Ashton's trying to get at is that moves very quickly and subtly, and even someone totally in tune to it can get left behind when his partner, etc. feels a change. So reassurance is key, sometimes; we don't want to miss it and be left out (though honestly I don't think we'd miss it anyway, but it's nice to be reassured). Also, it's very difficult to trust anyone who isn't keen to the nuances of , because we feel alienated by their seeming lack of ability to catch those ques, etc.

Certain things can move quickly. Or at least, speaking for myself, there are certain things another person can do that force me to render decisive judgments regarding the status of my relation with that person. Once you're in, you're in. Once you're out, you're out. Not that I'm completely unforgiving per say—if a person demonstrates a genuine understanding of the wrong they committed and a solemn willingness to not do it again, then they can be forgiven. But it's rare that a person demonstrates that kind of understanding and solemnity. Snakes will almost always remain snakes, toads will almost invariably remain toads.

[Tom]

Definitely an -seeking thing.

[Ajax]

I moved the post I just made here to another topic. Tom is there some thread somewhere where your type is discussed?

[sarinana]

From my experience it works. But please, people, stop exaggerating.
I wouldn't be attracted to a man who tries to directly dominate me. Domination requires skills and Se egos have them, at least compared to Si egos and how sometimes they try to dominate people by straight forward commanding. This doesn't work with Victims.

[Golden]

Okay, so looks like to make this forum work, we need thread necro-ing, lol. I'll play along, in my inimitable noob fashion.

If someone had asked me about these erotic styles when I was 16, I would have said that there was potentially some truth in it. At 23, I would have said maybe I didn't identify with it. For most of the duration of my ill-fated marriage, I would have tried not to think about it. But seeing as how an underlying erotic mismatch was one of the (many) things that hammered in coffin nails in that conflictor partnering ...

and seeing as how without any influence whatsoever from Socionics I began to actively, with great relief and happiness, explore the victim style to its fullest, and I will never "settle" for anything else now ...

and because I think that there's a lot of cultural framing of sexuality that makes aggressor/victim out as a bad thing ...

and because I see human beings as gradually unfolding both as individuals and in relation to one another, sexually and otherwise ...

I'd say there is a lot of truth to the erotic-styles notion. I wouldn't "type backward" from it--i.e., this woman is a submissive, so she must be a XXXx or a XXXx--but it's an element I would consider in the overall picture of who someone is. And in that regard I certainly consider how and why those things operate in a person. It's pretty easy for me to see, for example, that someone has natural aggessor tendencies according to the extent that I can oh-so-easily provoke it, etc.

I think some of these things may lie latent, dormant, especially if we don't find the partners with whom we're most comfortable to freely explore our desires. And sometimes people may not even know they aren't fully exploring them. Confuses the landscape for sure.

[Ashton]

I tend to think people naturally oscillate back and forth more than the conventional view suggests… i.e. Victims become Aggressors sometimes and vice versa. Caretakers become Infantiles sometimes and vice versa.

It would get boring always being the initiator and what not. Variability and surprise is nice.

Also there's a gender aspect to take into consideration.

[Golden]

Ashton, on 10 October 2010 - 02:27 PM, said:

I tend to think people naturally oscillate back and forth more than the conventional view suggests… i.e. Victims become Aggressors sometimes and vice versa. Caretakers become Infantiles sometimes and vice versa.

It would get boring always being the initiator and what not. Variability and surprise is nice.

Also there's a gender aspect to take into consideration.

Sure, there's got to be give-and-take. Unless a victim/aggressor-ish relationship takes on a formal and acknowledged power dynamic (I am the dom, you are the sub, always), ime yes, a lot of people trade their roles.

[Ashton]

Golden, on 10 October 2010 - 07:30 PM, said:

Unless a victim/aggressor-ish relationship takes on a formal and acknowledged power dynamic (I am the dom, you are the sub, always)

Lol. I wonder which types/quadras would be more likely to do that. I think formalizing it would take a lot of the fun out of it.

[Golden]

Ashton, on 11 October 2010 - 09:28 AM, said:

Lol. I wonder which types/quadras would be more likely to do that. I think formalizing it would take a lot of the fun out of it.

Well, formalizing it could take the fun out. But it can lay the foundation for deeper trust, which can take both people much, much farther toward and beyond their perceived limits. Ergo, more intensity, more twistedness, more fun!

Aaaand, there are lots of ways to introduce variety.

[Nick]

Golden, on 11 October 2010 - 01:46 PM, said:

Well, formalizing it could take the fun out. But it can lay the foundation for deeper trust, which can take both people much, much farther toward and beyond their perceived limits. Ergo, more intensity, more twistedness, more fun!

Aaaand, there are lots of ways to introduce variety.

I feel like genuine trust would happen... informally. Roles in a relationship are emergent, but the people tend to revolve around the same basic energy, anyway. Having formal boundaries, in my mind, would equate to living via a checklist.

[bullet]

Ashton, on 31 August 2008 - 06:00 AM, said:

Aggressors/Victims, typical exaggerated stereotype... meek, unconfident Ni-ego victim lacks initiative and passively waits for a strong, assertive Se-ego mistress/master to come dominate them into submission. Lives happily everafter on a sex life involving rape, violence, BDSM, humiliation, strapons, and snuff.
, milfs, , and pedophilia.

I find this adoring