# Romance style and MBTI types



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Curious how many people think that these analyses are accurate for them when it comes to romancing and being romanced:


Romance style - the Agressor
MBTI types - ISFP, ESFP, ESTP, ISTP
Aggressor sees attraction to another person as a static state, which he feels it is up to him to change in the direction more in agreement to his preference. This accounts for an Aggressor's inclination to take the initiative in approaching the object of his interest and being "relentless" in his pursuit, as well as, even during an established relationship, continuing to try to "shake things up" or "get things moving". If his partner is not receptive to such behavior, this discourages the Aggressor, and results in his interest cooling off.
- no doubts about own interest in another person
- not prone to hesitation about whether or not to reveal that interest
- focus is more on own interest than whether or not the other person might reciprocate
- may desire to feel some "superiority" over the partner, but ultimately wishes for a partner that is able to largely "keep up"
- little inclination to externally admit not having been the one to end a relationship, unless if adopting a "who cares" front simultaneously


Romance style - the Caregiver
MBTI types - ESTJ, ISTJ, ESFJ, ISFJ
This romance style is defined by perceptions of the present reality and physical sensations rather than inner imagery. The Caregiver sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state, which he feels is completely natural, as he also sees the physical comfort and well-being of another person as dynamic. This accounts for a Caregiver's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person's physical well-being. The individual's own dynamic and introverted perceptions lead to a sense of sleepy drifting in them, which makes him welcome impulses from another person designed to shake him out of it from time to time.
- attraction is naturally sparked by the perceived aesthetic attributes of the prospective partner, but cooled off if such attributes are accompanied by a perception of "too aggressive" sexuality
- inclination towards tenderness rather than agressive approach
- prone to adopt maternal approach to the physical comfort and needs of partner
- interest is further maintained if partner welcomes this approach
- prone to assume that partner will need help in practical, daily matters
- neutral as to who ended a relationship, "power" is not seen as important in such matters


Romance style - the Victim
MBTI types - INTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, INFJ
This romance style is defined by focus on perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality. The Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state. This accounts for a Victim's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it's already changing. The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual "down to earth from his thoughts " and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.
- prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person
- not always confident about revealing that interest
- inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest
- inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time
- preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like
- appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them
- inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself


 Romance style - the Child
MBTI types - INFP, INTP, ENFP, ENTP
This romance style is defined by focus perceptions of possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that the Child sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to "get moving" by actively thinking of variations of the present static state. This accounts for an Child's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person's being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even "weird" side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as "childlike". This focus leads to a sort of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by , so he welcomes help from others in that area.
- interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, "aggressive" sexuality
- tend to try to attract partner's interest with joking, goofy or even "strange" behavior
- try to help partner see the unexpected and fun side of things
- interest is maintained or cools off according to partner's response to this behavior
- appreciation for partner who actively cares about the individual's comfort and daily needs
- neutral with regard to externally admitting who took the initiative in ending a relationship, "power" is seen as unimportant in such matters


----------



## G0dzuki (Jun 1, 2010)

Uh... INTJ... interesting.


----------



## L'Empereur (Jun 7, 2010)

vel said:


> Curious how many people think that these analyses are accurate for them when it comes to romancing and being romanced:
> 
> 
> Romance style - the Victim
> ...


Pretty accurate, especially the bold. :dry:


----------



## Sonne (Oct 29, 2010)

As a supposed INFP(?), i do not connect with The Child, but i do connect strongly with The Victim.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

Romance style - the Victim
MBTI types - INTJ, ENTJ, ENFJ, INFJ

*This romance style is defined by focus on perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality*. - Hmm... not me.

*The Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state. This accounts for a Victim's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction*. - Err... no again.
*
Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it's already changing. The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual "down to earth from his thoughts " and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.* - No again

*- prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person* - Spare me. Everyone can ave doubts, for example: I like this person as a friend but I seem to be developing love for him/her.
*- not always confident about revealing that interest* - Why should I reveal interest in someone unless I know that person shares it?
*- inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest* - Doesn't everyone try to find this out?
*- inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time* - Doesn't everyone ask this question throughout a relationship, to a bigger or smaller degree?
*- preference for partners that provoke in the individual a certain sense of awe in terms of power, physical presence, and the like* - Bleh?
*- appreciation for the sense of power-play present when interacting with such partners, with acceptance of a slight sense of superiority on the part of the partner, without ever actually "submitting" to them* - Kidding me...
*- inclination to openly admit to a relationship having been ended by the partner rather than by the individual himself* - No... usually it was me who told them to take a hike.

Victim my ass. If I were like this, I'd be an emo. :dry:


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

I'm confused... some type of weird amalgam of the last three?


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

This makes no sense for myself.


----------



## Aerorobyn (Nov 11, 2009)

I see quite a bit of myself in "The Aggressor"

But I also see a bit of me in "The Child"


----------



## Inev1t4bl3 (Jul 20, 2010)

Other than "the caregiver", these all have very negative titles. I am surprised the caregiver is not referred to as "the enabler", or "the pushover" to keep the negative theme going. I mean, "the child", "the victim", "the aggressor"? Wow... it makes it all seem so romantic.

At any rate, this does not seem very accurate to me anyway.


----------



## StarBuck (Oct 23, 2010)

I am INTJ and I am more of the "aggressor" and my INTP husband more of the "victim"


----------



## bionic (Mar 29, 2010)

It's like someone just slapped together some definitions they found on similarminds.


----------



## timeless (Mar 20, 2010)

Let me give you the play by play... I will probably begin with the very classy first line... something like, "Hey sweet thang can I buy you a fish sandwich?" and then I will whisper sweet words in her ear...something like "Man I'd like to take a bite out of your butt." And then I will close the deal by giving her a preview of the goods.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

Isis said:


> I'm confused... some type of weird amalgam of the last three?


Yeah, I can see myself in the last three types too. However if I think about what is my strongest type would be the victim romancing style. Caregiver - yes I do care about the other person's physical comfort and well-being but it is not what the prime focus of relationship is for me, to care about practical needs and another's physical comfort. Child - yes I do sometimes display my non-serious and humorous side to attract other people, but once again it is not my primary mode of action. There descriptions rely on propensity or frequency to behave a certain way, so there are no clear cut distinctions here.

I sense that these descriptions ring true in that I remember being pursued by two INTJ guys when I was in college and recently I tried to start something up with an ENFJ and in all 3 cases I felt like we were dancing out some elaborate push-pull dance. This makes sense though in view of these classifications as INFJs, INTJs, and ENFJs would be prone to the victim romancing style. This has also led me to think that if I want to start up anything with another 'vicitim' that I should display more of aggressor style romancing at least in beginning, rather than questioning my own affection. These victim-victim dances can become a real drag.



ilphithra said:


> *- prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person* - Spare me. Everyone can ave doubts, for example: I like this person as a friend but I seem to be developing love for him/her.
> *- not always confident about revealing that interest* - Why should I reveal interest in someone unless I know that person shares it?
> *- inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest* - Doesn't everyone try to find this out?
> *- inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time* - Doesn't everyone ask this question throughout a relationship, to a bigger or smaller degree?
> ...


To answer some of your questions:
"Spare me. Everyone can ave doubts" - This is not black and white interpretation that a person with victim romancing style will always have doubts and a person with aggressor style will never have them. This interpretation is based on frequency, or propensity of people do think certain way when trying to find a partner.
"Why should I reveal interest in someone unless I know that person shares it?" - If you were the aggressor type it would be obvious to you.
"Doesn't everyone try to find this out?" - No. I've been pursued by aggressor type guys and they tried to _create_ interest in me, to win me over, rather than to find out whether it is there in the first place. 



Inev1t4bl3 said:


> Other than "the caregiver", these all have very negative titles. I am surprised the caregiver is not referred to as "the enabler", or "the pushover" to keep the negative theme going. I mean, "the child", "the victim", "the aggressor"? Wow... it makes it all seem so romantic.
> 
> At any rate, this does not seem very accurate to me anyway.


These descriptions were translated from Russian so perhaps the person didn't feel these labels would be offensive to anyone. Myself I don't have much of an ego so I didn't even think that anyone would be offended by being called the "caregiver" or "victim". To me what really matters are the knowledge and the patterns locked within, not the labels that they are given. Label is irrelevant - but the knowledge locked within and how I can use it are in essence what shines like a pretty gem.


----------



## The Exception (Oct 26, 2010)

Those romance styles come from socionics theory. Socionics types do not totally correlate with MBTI types as they are different systems. 

*In socionics:*

Aggressor: ESTp, ESFp, ISTj, ISFj. The aggressors all have Se as the base (1st) or creative (2nd) function.

Caregiver: ISFp, ISTp, ESFj, ESTj. The caregivers all have Si as the base or creative function.

Victim: INFp, INTp, ENTj, ENFj. The victims all have Ni as the base or creative function. 

Infantile (or child): ENTp, ENFp, INTj, INFj. The infantiles all have Ne as the base or creative function.


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

_Victim?_
No. I don't really relate to anything in that one. The others aren't great either though...


----------



## SeekJess (Nov 1, 2009)

I'm def. the aggressor. I am always doing the pursuing..


----------



## uncreative_name (Sep 24, 2010)

This doesn't fit me at all. I'm pretty much the exact opposite of the description I'm listed under.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

For the record, I didn't ask any questions. I gave answers, but whatever.



vel said:


> To answer some of your questions:
> "Spare me. Everyone can ave doubts" - This is not black and white interpretation that a person with victim romancing style will always have doubts and a person with aggressor style will never have them. This interpretation is based on frequency, or propensity of people do think certain way when trying to find a partner.


I said *everyone* can have doubts. You said *the exact same thing *with a load of words. Why?


vel said:


> "If you were the aggressor type it would be obvious to you.


It's pretty obvious to me, thanks. I win over those I'm interested in if I want to. Proof is my gf who I won over even though *she didn't have any interest in me at first*. 
I've won full straight women just because I wanted to. I can be quite the "aggressor" if I want to and I used to be one. People do learn over their lives... don't you?


vel said:


> "Doesn't everyone try to find this out?" - No. I've been pursued by aggressor type guys and they tried to _create_ interest in me, to win me over, rather than to find out whether it is there in the first place.


Yeah... Like I said, I used to be aggressor. Should I tell you in detail how to win people over? Want some lessons? Please mind, you need charisma, good conversation skills, good psychology skills in order to give people what they want, patience, know when to make certain moves. Ready to learn?

No, that victim shit doesn't fit me at all. Accept it and move on.


----------



## ThisIsWhereIrunAway (Oct 25, 2010)

wuhh? furthermore... ENTJ? victim? .... INTJ victim? ....... ENFJ victim? whuh? Wouldn't enfj be a caregiver? wouldn't isfp be a victem? i dunno. confused.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

ilphithra said:


> For the record, I didn't ask any questions. I gave answers, but whatever.


Ok then, don't put question marks at the end of your "answers" then others won't think that those are questions.



ilphithra said:


> I said *everyone* can have doubts. You said *the exact same thing *with a load of words. Why?


I have stated something different. It is clear you did not understand that it is not about everybody being capable of doing it but about _frequency_, about propensity of some people to do this more frequently.



ilphithra said:


> People do learn over their lives... don't you?
> ...Should I tell you in detail how to win people over? Want some lessons? Please mind, you need charisma, good conversation skills, good psychology skills in order to give people what they want, patience, know when to make certain moves. Ready to learn?


Shoot. It is clear from your posts that you are a very charismatic person with a magnetic personality. So teach your awesome people skills that get you any woman you want to the rest of us lowly PerC dwellers. And yeah, ad hominems are really the way to have civil and intelligent discussions over forums. In any case, not going to waste my time replying to you again as this discussion is clearly fruitless.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

ThisIsWhereIrunAway said:


> wuhh? furthermore... ENTJ? victim? .... INTJ victim? ....... ENFJ victim? whuh? Wouldn't enfj be a caregiver? wouldn't isfp be a victem? i dunno. confused.


Dementia in Absentia has got this covered her post.

These groupings have been done by their dominant perceiving function. Aspective perceiving functions lead to aggessor or victim romance styles (Se and Ni, experience present and anticipate future) and difference is only in which one is dominant Ni or Se. Circumspective perceiving functions lead to caregiver or child romance styles (Ne and Si, to relive past and concieve possibilities of present) and once against it only matters which one is dominant.

People think ENFJs are alike ESFJs and ESFJs profile sounds like prototypal caregiver personality, but having NiSe vs SiNe makes them really quite different types. I also do remember browsing over ENTJ forum and some posters stating there that ENTJs can be rather unsure about their choice of mate which seemed counterintuitive to me at the time because people stereotypically picture ENTJs as possessing very strong go-getter personalities, so why would they be unsure all of a sudden. Predominant stereotypes run that thinker personality types, especially those with dominant T function, are very confident and aggressive whereas a dominant feeler such as ISFP is pictured to be not very confident and passive so this must translate to all spheres of activity, but it is not as simple as that and really a wrong stereotype.


----------



## ThisIsWhereIrunAway (Oct 25, 2010)

vel said:


> Dementia in Absentia has got this covered her post.
> 
> These groupings have been done by their dominant perceiving function. Aspective perceiving functions lead to aggessor or victim romance styles (Se and Ni, experience present and anticipate future) and difference is only in which one is dominant Ni or Se. Circumspective perceiving functions lead to caregiver or child romance styles (Ne and Si, to relive past and concieve possibilities of present) and once against it only matters which one is dominant.
> 
> People think ENFJs are alike ESFJs and ESFJs profile sounds like prototypal caregiver personality, but having NiSe vs SiNe makes them really quite different types. I also do remember browsing over ENTJ forum and some posters stating there that ENTJs can be rather unsure about their choice of mate which seemed counterintuitive to me at the time because people stereotypically picture ENTJs as possessing very strong go-getter personalities, so why would they be unsure all of a sudden. Predominant stereotypes run that thinker personality types, especially those with dominant T function, are very confident and aggressive whereas a dominant feeler such as ISFP is pictured to be not very confident and passive so this must translate to all spheres of activity, but it is not as simple as that and really a wrong stereotype.


Yea I mean I agree that enfj's and esfjs are very different.... but that's not what I was saying. Well yea ENTJs would be unsure because that isn't their area of expertise... of course they wouldn't be in control of everything.... but that wouldn't make them a victim when it comes to relationships. But I think they would be unsure about their choice of mate because they aren't in touch with their feelings as much.... not sure how they feel on the subject... so they are more likely to choose a mate based on how successful they are or how efficient they are. 

Well I mean in general ISFPs and FP's in general are passive and at least seemingly not confident. Of course this is when they are more in their first functions... of course they have the capability to use their other two functions..... I don't see how the generalization is wrong though.... I mean it's a generalization. Of course being a generalization .... its going to make things simpler than they really are.


----------



## ilphithra (Jun 22, 2010)

vel said:


> Shoot. It is clear from your posts that you are a very charismatic person with a magnetic personality.


Hmm... judging someone by how they post on a forum is truly intelligent. *shrug*


vel said:


> So teach your awesome people skills that get you any woman you want to the rest of us lowly PerC dwellers. And yeah, ad hominems are really the way to have civil and intelligent discussions over forums. In any case, not going to waste my time replying to you again as this discussion is clearly fruitless.


It seems you got clearly offended by me being *honest*... how amusing. roud:


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

lirulin said:


> _Victim?_
> No. I don't really relate to anything in that one. The others aren't great either though...


I think it means more that we base our decisions on cues from the other person and tend to be a bit more passive in terms of pursuit and/or needing encouragement. Of course, for those of us who miss all social cues, the becomes a bit weird

l...but I agree the term "victim" is pretty bad.


----------



## WildWinds (Mar 9, 2010)

ENTP "child". I guess it works. Although I think its a bit ideal, even for an ENTP.


----------



## Linnifae (Nov 13, 2009)

Well I seem to be in the minority but I actually relate to mine (The Child) a tad bit Victim too but not as much. And I totally agree with the person who commented on the negative sounding titles. What the heck?


----------



## lirulin (Apr 16, 2010)

Isis said:


> I think it means more that we base our decisions on cues from the other person and tend to be a bit more passive in terms of pursuit and/or needing encouragement. Of course, for those of us who miss all social cues, the becomes a bit weird
> 
> l...but I agree the term "victim" is pretty bad.


I get that, but nothing in the description fits me either.
And passive? No. Oblivious & lazy yes. Needing encouragement? No. Not thinking about pursuing until it is right in front of my face? Yes. It's like I can sort see how someone could interpret my behaviours in that way _if they didn't know me in the slightest or understand my motives_. It's all very off.


----------



## mrkedi (Nov 19, 2009)

> Romance style - the Child
> MBTI types - INFP, INTP, ENFP, ENTP
> This romance style is defined by focus perceptions of possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that the Child sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to "get moving" by actively thinking of variations of the present static state. This accounts for an Child's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person's being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even "weird" side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as "childlike". This focus leads to a sort of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by , so he welcomes help from others in that area.
> - interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, "aggressive" sexuality
> ...


i nail the goofy part pretty well


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

lirulin said:


> I get that, but nothing in the description fits me either.
> And passive? No. Oblivious & lazy yes. Needing encouragement? No. Not thinking about pursuing until it is right in front of my face? Yes. It's like I can sort see how someone could interpret my behaviours in that way _if they didn't know me in the slightest or understand my motives_. It's all very off.


As a person who overlooked a marriage proposal, I strongly agree with you... it's not getting at our reality...


----------



## Filo (Aug 11, 2010)

You missed the kneeling thing, the ring thing, or both?


----------



## Isis (Jul 8, 2010)

Filo said:


> You missed the kneeling thing, the ring thing, or both?


Yeah, see... I sort of thought those would be tell-tale clues of seriousness. However, apparently, I was wrong about that because I heard about this from a mutual friend and then I realized what had happened.


----------



## One Dreamboat (Oct 9, 2009)

Yes, 'The Child' - totally. Ha, this > most especially. _"- tend to try to attract partner's interest with joking, goofy or even "strange" behavior"_ Believe it or not, we like to use our wit to attract as well. Wittily strange, yet somehow logical through apparent senselessness, you may find.


----------



## OrangeAppled (Jun 26, 2009)

From my observations of others, this seems pretty good. However, I can't say I see myself fully in one, and that may be because it's harder to see yourself objectively. I'm not sure if the child description is suggesting a tendency to _fantasize_ and make things happen _mentally_ in response to something percieved as static (?). I take almost no action if attracted to someone (expecting they will act if they return it), tend to doubt attraction is returned unless made very obvious, and I definitely dislike power. I don't joke or act strange to get attention. I'm pretty demure in public, and try to remain incognito. The closest I could get to acting intentionally strange might be my clothing choices at times, but even then, looking "strange" & attention-seeking is not the goal.

I relate to these points:

Romance style - the Caregiver
*- attraction is naturally sparked by the perceived aesthetic attributes of the prospective partner, but cooled off if such attributes are accompanied by a perception of "too aggressive" sexuality - *If I am understanding this correctly....I'm not sure what "too aggressive sexuality" is supposed to mean.* 
- inclination towards tenderness rather than aggressive approach*


Romance style - the Victim
This romance style is defined by focus on perceptions of inner imagery away from the present physical reality. *The Victim sees attraction between two individuals as a dynamic state. This accounts for a Victim's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as to its longer-term perspectives and implications, as well as a certain expectation that the partner will continuously take action to confirm the attraction. Failure on the partner to do so results on the individual assuming that it's already changing.* The individual counts on the partner to forcefully bring the individual "down to earth from his thoughts " and focus on the immediate physical reality, continuously.
* - prone to initial doubts about intensity of own interest in another person* - Very much so. I don't get infatuated easily and then I even question it when I do.
* - not always confident about revealing that interest* - Try _never_ confident....
* - inclined to focus on whether or not the other person might reciprocate the interest* - Yes, I will agonize over it
* - inclined to question whether or not the other person's interest will remain constant with time* - Yes, I may have fears of them not liking me once they get to know me, etc.

 Romance style - the Child
MBTI types - INFP, INTP, ENFP, ENTP
This romance style is defined by focus perceptions of possibilities and alternatives to the static present reality, which the individual perceives as intrinsically boring and stagnant. This means that the Child sees attraction between two individuals as a static state, also from the point of view of the other person, which he tries to "get moving" by *actively thinking of variations of the present static state*. This accounts for an Child's inclination to focus on the mutual attraction, or particularly the attraction felt by the other person, as connected to that person's being exposed to the unexpected, imaginative, fun, even "weird" side of life, reality, and each other, a behavior that can be described as "childlike". This focus leads to a sort of helplessness regarding his own physical well being as perceived by , so he welcomes help from others in that area.
* - interest is sparked in partner with positive aesthetic attributes divorced from active, "aggressive" sexuality* - Is this the same as similarly worded traits of the caregiver style?
* - try to help partner see the unexpected and fun side of things* - Maybe, but I don't necessarily need to help someone see it, just share it.
* - interest is maintained or cools off according to partner's response to this behavior* - I'm not sure what this means....does it mean the person seems dull to me because they're closed to unexpected things? Maybe...
* - appreciation for partner who actively cares about the individual's comfort and daily needs* - Maybe, not a priority in my book. I can take care of myself...
*- neutral with regard to externally admitting who took the initiative in ending a relationship, "power" is seen as unimportant in such matters* - Very true. Things are rarely that cut & dry.


----------



## IonOfAeons (Dec 2, 2010)

Nope. I don't relate to any of my supposed style. Even the caregiver one is more accurate for me and most of that one doesn't fit. If anything I'd fit more into the victim one with elements of the child.
Why would Se determine ISxPs anyway? They're dominant Ji-users which I would think would influence them a lot more than their auxiliary perception function.


----------



## sayalain (May 1, 2010)

vel said:


> Curious how many people think that these analyses are accurate for them when it comes to romancing and being romanced:
> 
> 
> Romance style - the Agressor
> ...


hahah i'm definitely the aggressor. if i like you, i will make you likes me back, and i will succeed. forceful indeed. roud:


----------



## LiteratureNerd (Nov 14, 2010)

I have a feeling that most people can relate to pieces from ALL of these styles, regardless of MBTI type.


----------



## discordian (Dec 8, 2010)

So according to this what are the best pairings? At first glance I thought it was pretty obvious, but the more I thought about it the more I begin to doubt my first impression?


----------

