Why I Would Never Date Based on MBTI

Why I Would Never Date Based on MBTI

Hello Guest! Sign up to join the discussion below...
Page 1 of 26 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 259
Thank Tree588Thanks

This is a discussion on Why I Would Never Date Based on MBTI within the Articles forums, part of the Announcements category; In reviewing my dating history, I've found I've fallen in love with both sensors and intuitives, thinkers and feelers. There ...

  1. #1

    Why I Would Never Date Based on MBTI

    In reviewing my dating history, I've found I've fallen in love with both sensors and intuitives, thinkers and feelers. There was only one thing that was common in all of them: my mission to understand each one of them. It's very important for me to understand how to communicate with my mate. I don't want to change anyone and I don't want someone to change me. I'd rather we accept each other as is and continue to grow in the relationship and independently.

    My last boyfriend was an ESFJ. He was the only one whose MBTI type I knew before we started dating. I told him about our differences in cognitive functions but he was determined to date me because he knew we had things in common. But for the first time I had an added skepticism due to MBTI.

    On the forum, I often share openly about my relationship with my INTJ ex. I usually say it was the most compatible relationship that I've ever had. And this still holds true. But we did not meet and become attracted to each other because of MBTI. We met on [Get Your Perfect Match.com]. There is a certain filtering process that happens before a person contacts me there. That's why I liked it. So before the INTJ and I even met, we already knew what each other sorta looked like and we had each other's basic qualifiers out of the way.

    For instance, before we met I already knew our common commitment to fitness and health, we knew our common stance on religion, I knew we both weren't smokers, our education level was the same, even our financial bracket was the same. We knew we shared favorite authors, favorite night spots, how often we each enjoyed an alcoholic beverage and favorite hobbies. And it was very much "out there" on our profiles that we had the same political and also had a liberal mindset. We both knew we were looking for a long term commitment. All this was known before he approached me and before we had our first date. Those were our basic qualifiers. What a great set up, right? The chances for romance are pretty high. I knew nothing about MBTI and it wouldn't have made a difference to me if I did. All those "basic qualifications" would have been much more important.

    This filtering process on the net is important to me. I don't like being approached in public by strangers. I feel like they don't know me and I'm just some piece of meet they are sexually attracted to. Obviously that can happen on the internet as well and people can lie, but there is a way to filter and make it a bit tougher for that kind of thing to happen.

    I've also had other dates where we had these "basic qualifiers" in tastes and values. But there was no attraction on my end. I still don't think that is due to MBTI. I think a lot of it has to do with physical attraction. Sure, someone is a brain, has my hobbies, has published many journals in my field, runs ultra marathons, but I feel like I'm hanging out with my sister when I'm with them. It's not going to happen for me.

    And I wouldn't bother dating someone if they didn't have the above basic qualifications, even if they were considered the most compatible type "in theory". It would be a waste of my time. It also would be a waste of my time if I bothered to find them gorgeous, yet they were completely culturally different and I had no respect for what they did in life and they had little respect for what I do. "Let's just have sex" wouldn't do it for me.

    I think both my INTJ and I were very careful people who didn't waste time on dating people we knew weren't for us from the get go. We had a similar background we could talk about these things. He told me much later about MBTI and him being an INTJ. We tested me too. We found out I was an ENFP. But he couldn't believe it. He guessed ENTP. We didn't use MBTI in the relationship. We both used other psychologists who had published books on relationships.

    Our relationship did hit a crossroad and I decided to end things. But I won't say that INTJs are bad. I don't know all INTJs. And my partner was NOT just an INTJ. But even so, we had our problems. I found him incredibly selfish at times. I really believed that if I was ever on my death bed, he would actually make me get up to go and get my own glass of water. Does that mean I lack understanding? Does that mean I think all INTJs are bad? Hell no. But the reasons I think my INTJ and I got along were not due to MBTI at all. It was because we had shared values and many other things in common. Also, I work my ass off in relationships trying to understand where my mate is coming from. It's not easy for me to throw in the towel.

    And at what point do we say "okay he's different because of functions, but it's still not for me"?

    I came to this forum to understand "what happened" in all my relationships based on MBTI. But still to this day, I'm attracted to whom I am attracted to. It has nothing to do with MBTI. But MBTI is a very useful tool in understanding someone you are already with. It's useful in my private teaching. It's also a shorthand way to describe someone to someone else who knows MBTI.

    But when you're in a relationship, doesn't intimacy go deeper than just cognitive functions?

    I've always said finding a date is easy but compatibility is harder to find. Look at all these divorced rock stars and models if you don't believe me. They are all sick of each other.

    When seeking a potential mate, I am not going to add tension to a relationship by only looking at "compatible MBTI type" yet having different values, hobbies, work ethic, finances, educational background, etc. And I'm not going to avoid sexual attraction just because MBTI theorists say "we get along". There's already too many sexless relationships. I mean really, I "get along" with my girlfriends too. But a romantic partner does need to have something a little different to keep me committed. And I don't think any guy would appreciate it if I thought of him as one of my "girlfriends".

    I have to be careful. I can see other people's views sometimes too easily. Especially if I love them. I know I can "get along" with just about anyone. But I'm looking for an equal partnership. Not someone whose cognitive functions I deem as compatible with mine. People are people. They are not functions. I've never been attracted to a function alone. It's attached to someone. Someone beautiful, hopefully. And getting to know a person beyond their functions is just a beginning in compatibility and attraction. There are so many other factors involved.
    silverlined, SJ1974, sodden and 117 others thanked this post.



  2. #2

    I regard type extremely important in mate-selection. What you say is true, that it is the PEOPLE that are important, rather than their cognitive makeup. But I do not grow attached to anyone without a specific and static mindset that goes along the lines of extraverted, intuitive, feeling, and perceiving. I've simply found no other type attractive. Only ENFPs really want to know what I have to say, it seems most other people simply want my attention.

    There is a distinct compatability within type dynamics, and since I'm an INTJ I will not settle for anything less than the best. However, simply BEING an ENFP does not cut it. Obviously they must be a female. Secondly there are many other characteristics within that person that must compensate what might be a dull personality.

    I personally enjoy the company of people who are the most different than others. The stranger the person, the more interesting they usually are. Now what type actually STRIVES to be unique, above any other? ENFPs are extremely diverse, even within their own groups, and many times ENJOY being the odd ball of a group. Intentionally standing out from the croud is enormously attractive, it is something that I would never go out of my way for, and that no other type cares about as much as an ENFP. which = instant respect from me

    No doubt, any type can successfully mate with anything other type, but my criteria are relentless.

    Edit: which is probably why I have never had a girlfriend. XD

  3. #3

    I'll never use MBTI to select someone.
    I will however use it get a better understanding of someone.
    It also helps me recognize certain characteristics that I'm looking for in my partner.
    pinkrasputin, SJ1974, barbalootSuits and 46 others thanked this post.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    PersonalityCafe.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4

    To be honest I don't even think about typology outside this forum that much, I feel thinking about people in terms of functions and letters that much is slightly delusional and unhealthy, considering it's only a theory. It's especially unhealthy to deem every human trait with a function - the theory is not supposed to be used this way.

    I'm interested in understanding the person alright, but using such a theory can lead to misconceptions instead of understanding. My last girlfriend was an ESTP, according to this theory my Jung type is INFJ (though my MBTI, if it matters at all; is INTJ), we're opposites but I haven't been that close to someone in a long, long while. There's only been about six other people I can say I've opened up to and trusted as much as I opened up to and trusted her. We had a lot of interests in common and she even tried to take interests in what I was interested in and we were quite compatible. After all, personality does not determine chemistry.

    I only use Jung to make people think I understand them (by naming function traits I've seen them use), so they think I can relate to them (due to the forer effect or maybe the theory is that applicable) and then they're mine and I can do whatever I want with them. It always works. I won't do anything bad but from my experience that's the use typology can bring to the table when it comes to dating. Basically, you can convince someone you understand them by recognizing what function they use and telling them "I know, you love to live in the moment and you're very realistic [Se], I like that about you", you barely know them and you can tell them that? They'll be impressed that you've taken such an interest and feel special.

  6. #5

    I agree with you pink, I think the person is more important than their type. I might meet someone who is of a type 'compatible' with my type but if they don't share the same interests with me, or have interests that I find intriguing, or have the same values, religious or political beliefs as me then it really doesn't matter what type they are.

    I've been struggling with this typology stuff...On the one hand I like trying to work out other people's types so I can better understand them, but on the other hand I don't want knowing a person's type to cause me to make a judgement on them, that they behave a certain way because of their type and their functions. Or to decide straight away that I won't get on with a person because I supposedly 'clash' with their type. I also don't want knowing a person's type to make me doubt whether I can trust them or whether I'd be compatible with them.

    So I really don't believe in 'writing-off' a person because of their type.
    pinkrasputin, MilkyWay132, darksoul and 7 others thanked this post.

  7. #6

    If I can see that person romantically, then who cares what their type is? Typology should only be used to help with situations.
    pinkrasputin, SJ1974, barbalootSuits and 14 others thanked this post.

  8. #7

    I can tell what you mean. I like to see it as systems within systems. The MBTI captures the person in the loosest sense, the enneagram explains more into why a Type 9 ENFJ, for example, may seem more attractive to a type 5 INTP than a type 2 (for obvious reasons that I will not explain). I understand thinking like this just over complicates everything, but it always gives me a sense of what kind of person they are.

    I'm not going to lie, I have several sensor friends, but to go by calling them a sensor is asinine. An ESTJ, for example, as a friend with an INFJ is considered a duality relationship: "Dual will naturally protect your weak points and appreciate the strong ones without asking for anything in return. Interaction with your Dual allows you to be yourself without the need to adjust to your partner like in other relations. " (Relations of Duality between psychological ("personality") types). If you didn't read into socionics relations, you would probably dismiss the sensor, or intuit (if your naturally a sensor) immediately. I guess it pays to really read into the system, but not to put too much importance on it. There is always going to be an exception, and if you think it can be explained you are probably right. But who likes to unravel the mysticism of a relationship?

    Nice post.
    pinkrasputin, SJ1974 and yambs4 thanked this post.

  9. #8

    Quote Originally Posted by Emanresulanigiro View Post
    If you didn't read into socionics relations, you would probably dismiss the sensor, or intuit (if your naturally a sensor) immediately.
    I didn't read into socionics relations and I didn't dismiss the sensor. In fact, I had a 2 year relationship with an ISTP.

    It certainly wasn't the most compatible relationship I ever had. We did break up. And I know why it didn't work too. My personal preferences and threshold will override anything socionics or any other theory dictates. And probably if I had read socionics, I would have turned off more of my common sense and instincts about a person and would have stayed too long in something that wasn't good for either of us.
    roxtehproxy and NYEnglishRose thanked this post.

  10. #9

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkrasputin View Post
    I didn't read into socionics relations and I didn't dismiss the sensor. In fact, I had a 2 year relationship with an ISTP.

    It certainly wasn't the most compatible relationship I ever had. We did break up. And I know why it didn't work too. My personal preferences and threshold will override anything socionics or any other theory dictates. And probably if I had read socionics, I would have turned off more of my common sense and instincts about a person and would have stayed too long in something that wasn't good for either of us.
    ENFP - ISTP is considered a duality relationship too (which means good business in the socionics book) but that alone doesn't mean too much. Sorry about the relationship breaking too, duality, just over identical relations, are meant to be the bomb digity.

  11. #10

    Quote Originally Posted by pinkrasputin View Post
    This filtering process on the net is important to me. I don't like being approached in public by strangers. I feel like they don't know me and I'm just some piece of meet they are sexually attracted to. Obviously that can happen on the internet as well and people can lie, but there is a way to filter and make it a bit tougher for that kind of thing to happen.
    I wouldn't say that has to be true. I do prefer online dating sites, too, but I think approaching a stranger is okay if they are radiating some message...i.e. a shirt or other article of clothing displaying something of meaning, like a Fight Club reference or a zeitgeist advertisement or a Tool (band) logo. That happens so rarely, though...

    And I feel the need to comment on the N/S comment a few posts back. That's seriously a bunch of bullshit. If you meet a sensor with any self awareness at all they can keep right up with any intuitor. Personally, all my closest friends are iNtuitors these days...and yes it is abstract conversation, and no, we are not friends by accident.
    pinkrasputin, lightscent, minkaybell and 3 others thanked this post.


     
Page 1 of 26 1 2 3 11 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Harry Potter houses based on MBTI aspects?
    By Jabberbroccoli in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 90
    Last Post: 11-19-2015, 03:35 PM
  2. Is MBTI based on stereotypization - and if so, is it really valid?
    By Ungweliante in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 11-20-2011, 01:18 PM
  3. How to create a web based MBTI test
    By m2dgg in forum Myers Briggs Forum
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 04-02-2011, 07:13 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 04:43 PM.
Information provided on the site is meant to complement and not replace any advice or information from a health professional.
© 2014 PersonalityCafe
 

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0