Socionics Personals
Female
Straight
16-25
Oceania
Libra
ENFj
Male
Straight
16-25
Middle East
Sagittarius
INTj
Male
Straight
26-35
North America
Pisces
INXj
Join now!


Questions & Answers
Question #1189151514Friday, 7-Sep-2007
Category: Typing Theory
There's a guy I used to work with whom I dated for awhile, and he had a strange personality trait that I'd never heard of before, and I was wondering if anyone had any insight on it. It's one of those things that doesn't REALLY matter anymore, but it's just so interesting that I'd like more trained opinions than mine. The way that he described it to me was that his happiness level hardly ever changes. He's a fairly happy and accomplished person in general, and his happiness will dip or raise a little bit in an insignificant, short-run way. But not much would make him feel more or less "happy" than his norm. He pursues ideals and goals that he holds important and when he accomplishes them he feels a satisfaction. But even that he hardly classifies as happiness. It's possible, he admitted, that this 'satisfaction' and 'disappointment' are happiness and sadness and they just don't match his concept of what emotions should be. And I thought this for awhile, but the more I really thought about it, his first guess seemed more accurate- no matter how much something bothered him, for example, he'd still be more or less cheerful. And almost all of his actions seemed driven by a urge to further something he hold important to him or believed in... not necessarily something that would make him happy. It might be significant to note that we were never in love. I was his second girlfriend and first thing he said he "considered a real relationship." I actually told him I was uninterested at first, but he kept respectfully spending time with me without pressuring me and it led to our relationship. He'd call me, call me "incredible" and such, make efforts to see me (even at the expense of other things he wanted to do, sometimes)... and while he rarely took the initiative to call me unless it was to make plans, he had always sincerely insisted he really enjoyed talking to me when I called him. We broke up when it became long-distance. He said he felt horribly guilty that he began to lose enthusiasm when we were apart for a few weeks at a time, and there was a particularly disturbing conversation a few days before we'd broken up where the unnerving idea occurred to him that it was possible he liked me so much because I fit his CONCEPT of the ideal girlfriend, and not because I made him "happy" per se- although he much enjoyed spending time around me. I never followed up on the truth of this. It's painfully obvious this guy is a T over an F, and I know him to be a strong P as well. I would guess him to be E over I- he needs a little more alone time to unwind than most Es I know, but he's fairly outgoing and fits the E descrpition better. I'm having a hard time pegging him for N or S, though. This would make him a ExTp. Any insight on whether you think this strange way of operating comes from a particular piece or combination of his typology? I'm fascinated by the concept, honestly. Further insight on him is also welcome for discussion, of course, especially trying to type him out any more accurately. But my question is primarily where you think this operating quirk of his comes from. Ideas? -- Anonymous
Bookmark and Share

Your Answers: 1+
A1 Sounds like the sort of thing an INTp would do. -- Anonymous
A2 i also wanted to say INTP...but i thought i might humour u with a ENTP...but definitely the _N__ over _S__. both ENTP and INTP unwind... and need time alone, by that breaking the _S__ association for me. can't really say the E___ is a characteristic apart from training, some I___'s with training seem extraverted. note the guess A1 made, they probably a intp, that also forms part of the INTP philo.. guess and go, whereas ENTPs are enigmatic in the way that they would want to govern the relationship (there dual a ISFP). now i can end that line of reasoning. i won't try and peg a guess on what u are...(note, some other posters may argue, that u a ESFP...but i won't do that, my guess is on what u said) ..u said...that u where aware that u needed 'alone time', and a few other cues that let me know that u fit in with an INTPs pre-requisite of non-invasiveness from ur side. cause that initial period was the actual trial period, if ur 'invasiveness' crossed a certain Perceptual barrier (as ___J types, and a few other EST types are apt[or unaware of doing] to do, u would have come to the stage where u say.. 'lets begin this relationship'...but he would have backed out (not a intp characteristic, i don't argue along that line, but we do know how to Perceptually Fence)) also he had an idea of u, 'perfect' he said, but u not perfect, so it is all to do with the E-S-F-P balance u maintained. INTPs seem to come to judgement about what constitutes a perfect [girlfreind/or mate type,...i have not seen INTP females do that yet] type.. because they are busy with 'systems build' as u said of his activity style. since u wanted a bit of a discussion... ever heard some Depeche Mode songs... lines like 'silence' u don't need to 're-imply' etc. listen to some of there songs if u want a insight on some of that thought process (especially the Introseptre instrumental and relationship songs). why did u guys not fall in love... well who cares, there are plenty of dual types around,.. though u probably in rememberance of his direction and maturity. i think the fault comes to another niche of psychology... attraction psychology... i for one can certainly see why it went apart, and as a student am definitely envious of one intp who had the material propensity to sustain such a relationship, although thanx miss esfp [i assume non-threateningly or without enquiry] for the heads up on a potential intp mistake or short-fall -- @sirac
A3 in all compassion for u..(or as much as an irrational has to give, which is instaneous now and forgotten tommorrow)..it has occurred to me that the reason behind this may be to make sence of it. i would have written something, but my language is erratic and my own. there is this Socionics article, which explains Romance Programs. Obviosly the main underlying interest a Socionist can see, is how distinguish 'duals from others (like conflict, super-ego, supervision)'. OR lets be honest, who cares...just relationships which are natural. The article is illuminative...go to Socionics.us...to the blog (http://socionist.blogspot.com/) and find the article 'The Draw of Unfavourable Intertype Relationships'. (our anti-spam reviewers need not fret..the authors of both sites know each other through conventions...and besides that site can't draw this market, as that is primarily a 'intellectual indepth introduction' and not such a open Secular Source interface as this). My own angle, and to which i introduce u now is this. Attraction creation is the failure point we Summated from my last post and Yours. the socionics goes like this...when u immature, u seek out lots of things. our psychology is to seek out strength, and so do u. so in the beginning etc.etc. (u know the strength points..it is in feeling and number of partners). But after a certain maturity peak, the opinion is 'not to seek'...u where certainly in this phase. (the other article reduces it to energy states...by other relations than dual, u need the psychological encouragement, but with duals it is almost a non-emotive or non-energy state). my addition is that the mistake of mature E___'s is often to seek out other E___'s as that is what they preceive as strength (that biological imparitive). but whatever. if u clear enough, and have enough will, u will seek-out and perfect this message i have shown u only in part. (don't be stupid in the sense that u seek out 'made-responses'...what do u care if people disagree or agree with u) -- @sirac
A4 I'll assume you're an ESFp like A1-3 have said and go from there. It looks right. If you say he's an E, I'll assume you're right. He's ENTp, then. From your description, the N is really obvious to me. A1 is probably wanting to remind you of this guy's connection your dual type, so you won't discredit similar behavior So: He probably wishes he were more like you are, in early stages of romantic interest. You fit his "concept" of ideality without making him "happy" per se. He didn't do it for you, either, it sounds like. But you probably wish you were resilient like he is, and more able to just know "the truth of this" like he does, without "following up." The "mutual correction" nutshell, basically. The "quirk" sounds to me like Super-Ego Relations. Under socionics' intertype relations theory, that's ESFp + ENTp. Look it over!!! -- Anonymous
A5 I'm an infj and most of the time, I'm pretty much content and satisfied. At times, I can act dramatic but its more of an "act". Most of the time, I feel like I dont really get a lot of highs and lows. I do have an "idealized" version of what I want in a person and when someone seemingly fits the bill, I get very excited. And when eventually, I found out that they dont really fit the bill. I get disappointed. There are many times in life Ive wished that I could feel more. Yet, at the same time, I do enjoy being able to control my emotions because I know the alternative would be a very emotional me, where I can attach to a person like crazy -- Anonymous
A6 A5: This is unrelated to the original question (but so is life right?). I wanted to ask you something - I'm a straight male INFj as well, and - don't ask me how or why - but I can *instantly* identify INFj females, even though there are so damn few of them. And I'm instantly attracted to them. I wanted to see if any other INFjs had the same weird experience. Do you? -- Anonymous
A7 A6, I tend to find INFJ females more interesting than INFJ males. The females seem to have a certain flair to them, whereas, most INFJ males I know tend to be more reserved. I know a bunch of INFJ females. I find the more confident one is the more interesting they are. However, with males, I believe that a lot of times, societal rules disallows them from displaying the emotions that they have so much of, and so their "interestingness" doesnt show. So unfortunately, although I find them to be very insightful and I love their metaphors, I dont find them "attractive". -- Anonymous
*Please note that the opinions expressed are not necessarily those of socionics.com*
Page 1
Would you like to add anything?
(When posting, we ask you to make the effort to qualify your opinions.)



Name: (leave blank for "Anonymous")

Related
 
10 Most recent
By category
All questions
Submit a question