# Do people you are attracted to remind you of specific archetypes?



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Which ones? How does that influence your attraction to them? Why do you think you go for one archetype over another, if you do?

Here is a list of potential archetypes to get started:

Archetypes List: The Ultimate List of Over 325 Archetypes (scottjeffrey.com)


----------



## Eu_citzen (Jan 18, 2018)

Damn good question. I'd say, there's potentially two archetypes I can think of right off the bat.

_"The Damsel In Distress"_ -- Very feminine, anxious, sometimes codependent, sensitive, etc. 
I've learned to avoid them, since a while. Though I was attracted to the type since they were among the first to give me romantic attention. Especially after a really rough time in my life, that felt good.
I soon learned it never stayed good. They sought some kind of savior or hero in me, which I'm not. (I believe)

Then we have:
_"The Tomboy" -- which is essentially the opposite of the above_
I've always had a rather good relationship with any and all "tomboys".
Would be easy to hang around, both friendship-wise as romantically. 
IME, it's always been a easy and smooth relationship with problems being ironed out before massive arguments arise. 
I believe our communication styles, among many other things, just match well.

If the stereotype has some influence? I'm not sure, though I believe I do seek out those traits more now than I've done before.And the reason ought to be explained above, but to summarize:
Similar interests, similar (and straight-forward) communication, tend to be stable and level-headed.
They also tend to see me more for who I am, rather than some idealized stereotype. 
(compare to "the hero/savior" above)


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

mirrors into aspects of myself, of course, so a threesome with sages, creators, explorers and the occasional fling with a jester.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Exorcist, weakling prince, jester, sacred prostitute, swindler.

I tried to think what it is about them... I think I am just often amazed at the AUDACITY of these people. In good and bad ways.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Sage and magician archetypes.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Type 1. What’s the Archetype for a person: who comes off like they are sensitive externally, but they confuse being emotional and using their emotions to self medicate and act like babies, as they are sensitive? What type is this?

Type 2. Authority/Older (hey I’m aware I got ‘ mommy and daddy issues’ stereotypes here 🤣)


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

Sensational said:


> Type 1. What’s the Archetype for a person: who comes off like they are sensitive externally, but they confuse being emotional and using their emotions to self medicate and act like babies, as they are sensitive? What type is this?


visionaries unless you're talking about spoiled/sheltered prince/sses. maybe sub?



Sensational said:


> Type 2. Authority/Older (hey I’m aware I got ‘ mommy and daddy issues’ stereotypes here 🤣)


so, you'd date the prince/ss while aiming to get closer to the king/queen aka royal?

honestly, more details needed to narrow archetypes unless you want str8 up daddy (& the mommy archtype is slightly different), so let's just simplify and say dom.


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

No I don’t like masters and daddies or mommies literally. I’m not into that stupid shit (no offense aimed at anyone who is). Just not my dealio. To each their own. I’m not a sub. 

I just was saying I often fall for older people in authority positions 

Or as you said visionary’s 



Rift said:


> visionaries unless you're talking about spoiled/sheltered prince/sses. maybe sub?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

Sensational said:


> Or as you said visionary’s


the common writeup for the visionary is that they're idealistic forward thinkers but often emotionally sheltered or immature. 

while royals are more bound to structure, hierarchy and titles, job security but run the risk of being too controlling.

then you have mentors that would like to teach the world to sing or find an apprentice to bequeath their knowledge, insight and legacy to... while their shadow risks egotism, being too devoted to a cause and a tendency to desire to overwrite other people in their image.

the cocky; cocksure, overconfident - which can be immature with shades of rebel & smartalec but tend to be social/business climbers as well but prone to risk taking and alienating people by being too much of a jerkarse. so, the same losers that could easily be creating a startup or wasting their time, throwing their last dimes, at the track.

the hero - prone to a messiah complex but they are usually open to a sidekick as long as they don't outshine them and remember to pick up their dry cleaning

the conservator - someone to handle the grown up responsibilities, so you don't have to worry about it. sometimes requested but often the result of a court order.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

I took the quiz @Rift suggested in the other quiz thread--the issue for me is that I have a hard time narrowing down archetypes. Like I am not sure how to differentiate them, so I don't really want to list them off.

This one doesn't really have the traditional Jungian archetypes though, I don't think. According to the quiz, and my attempt to try to figure out what I'd be attracted to (though it's probably idealized)--I would be attracted to "spiritual, advocate, and intellectual."

And my own archetype was "creative, caregiver, visionary" according to the quiz.






Quiz - Archetypes







www.archetypes.com





But I'm not sure the people I'm consciously attracted to always match what I might be unconsciously attracted to--like perhaps more negative traits. Idk though--Idk what the negative sides of "spiritual, advocate, and intellectual" are. Spiritual seems odd because I usually am more attracted to atheists. I mean, I do seek my own spiritual development, but I usually see that as different than attraction, though I guess it's admirable. I really just think acting ethically is more important than being spiritual though.

Edit: Y'know, the more I think about it, the more spiritual does sort of make sense--I should look through the Jungian archetypes to see what it would correlate to. Advocate is sort of typical--both of my long term relationships have been involved in activism (though my most recent relationship--I met him at an event but he really isn't much of an activist).


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> And my own archetype was "creative, caregiver, visionary" according to the quiz.


I suggested answering with ones' partner in mind or things they'd like their partner to answer.

their descriptions are rather basic and superficial - however they list additional archetypes for the ones they have listed which can be associated with traditional archetypes.

their listed creative archetypes:

ARTIST- Your life is a canvas 
CHEF - Your kitchen is your sanctuary
CHILD - You are magical, messy, and creatively fun
POET - You are prolific, gentle, and deeply sensitive
NOVELIST - You have the gift of words and storytelling
ROMANTIC - You have a masters degree in the art of love and romance
LOVER - You are in love with love
SHAPE SHIFTER - You can morph into anything or anyone you need to b

Core value: Originality 
Pattern: I don’t like repetition
live for: Self expression
Happiest: Creating something from nothing
Habit to Break: Being a perfectionist
You Might be a Creative if: You love anything that involves working with your hands
Style: Colorful, unique, and relaxed
Beauty Profile: You’re different, often an introvert. You’re all about experimental beauty, mixing and matching different colors and scents 
Kissing Style: Long and romantic 
Favorite Getaways: Checking out galleries, flea markets, antique fairs, music festivals, or seeing foreign films
idea of a good time:Candle light, music, and a slow dance 

their listed caregiver archetypes:

TEACHER - Excellent listener, seldom shy, often charismatic, love mentoring PARENT - Reliable, compassionate, responsible
BFF - Reliable and someone people turn to at the worst and best of times
RESCUER - Courageous, selfless, with a genuine desire to help 
MENTOR - Open to those hungry to learn, giving confidence to those who need it most
NURSE/DOCTOR/HEALER - Ability to stay calm, You live to save lives, You feel called to help others. 
CIVIL SERVANT - You are a vital component to keeping your community safe and sound.
VETERAN - You are a selfless servant to your country. 

CORE VALUE: Compassion
PATTERN: Taking care of others
LIVE FOR: Family and Friends
AT HAPPIEST: Loving and being loved
HABIT TO BREAK: Saying “Yes” to everything
YOU MIGHT BE A CAREGIVER IF: You are on speed dial whenever crisis strikes one of your many friends
STYLE:Easy, versatile, comfortable.
BEAUTY PROFILE:Your appearance is often last on your list. You’re time-starved, so when it comes to beauty you like products that are multitasking, nurturing, and soft 
KISSING STYLE: Sweet and tender kisses on lips, eyelids, and cheeks
DREAM GETAWAY: Family vacations, road trips, or a weekend getaway to nearby beaches or lakes
IDEA OF A GOOD TIME: Any gathering that involves good friends and family 

their listed visionary archetypes:

DESIGNER - Dressed well and drawn to objects that titillate and inspire
FUTURIST - Incredible minds and tenacious about achieving their goals.
ENTREPRENEUR - Spirit of exploration and adventure
DETECTIVE - Well-organized, curious and articulate by nature
DIRECTOR - Keeps everything going at once while maintaining order
STRATEGIST - You see total picture and therefore solutions to problems.
INTUITIVE - You see inside a person and you see the future.
HERMIT - You have an inordinate need for solitude to explore your world creatively and intellectually. 

core value: Innovation
Pattern: I love patterns, repetition and order
live for: The future
happiest: Exchanging ideas and opinions and playing with new gadgets
Habit to break: Over thinking, paranoia
you might be a visionary if: have an uncanny ability to predict trends and see the future
style: Wearing the same outfits everyday . seamless socks, no scratchy fabrics or labels, neutral colors. Grey is good
Beauty Profile: high tech, futuristic one step products
Kissing style: The most intuitive kiss ever
Dream getaway: Must be scenic, must be secluded
idea of a good time: Being hyper focused on an idea or lost in an outer space with plenty of solitude


----------



## angeleyes (Feb 20, 2013)

Edit. Didn't know about the quiz.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> I took the quiz @Rift suggested in the other quiz thread--the issue for me is that I have a hard time narrowing down archetypes. Like I am not sure how to differentiate them, so I don't really want to list them off.
> 
> This one doesn't really have the traditional Jungian archetypes though, I don't think. According to the quiz, and my attempt to try to figure out what I'd be attracted to (though it's probably idealized)--I would be attracted to "spiritual, advocate, and intellectual."


yeah, I skipped over that in reading, my bad.

spiritual:
core value:Faith
Patternrayer and seeking, belief driven
live for:Synchronicity and a higher power
happiest:When I feel peace 
Habit to break:Magical thinking
style:Feminine, relaxed, flowy. I love transparancy, white and crystals
Beauty Profile: Water is calming and heavenly to you. You engage with beauty through scent and rituals like showers and baths
kissing style:On the lips with two hands on the cheeks
Dream getaway:An Ashram of retreatmy idea of a good time:Yoga, meditation and connecting on a deep level with others

which SPIRITUAL archetype are you?

HEALER/SHAMAN - Knowledgeable of the healing of the soul
SAINT - Humble, selfless, uplifting and always willing to help in a crisis
RELIGIOUS SERVANT - Humble, kind and disciplined; inspirational teachers and friends
MYSTIC - Inspiring and capable of invoking ecstasy 
GURU - Like seeing people become their best selves
ANGEL- Strong messengers who can protect, inspire and lead the downtrodden to a safe place
CELIBATE - You are devoted to a spiritual practice that has turned on your light and turned off your desire for sex
MISSIONARY - You are on a mission that you feel called to
MARTYR - Your life and soul has been called to sacrifice for the greater good
SAMARITAN - You are simply a good person with absolutely no agenda
DISCIPLE - You are a devotee of a spiritual leader or guru 

advocate:

CORE VALUE: Hope
PATTERN: Being a champion for a good cause
live for: Fighting for a cause
happiest: Fighting for a cause I believe in
Habit to break:Having a personal agenda
you might be an advocate if:You often find yourself “volunteering”
style: Natural, eco friendly and fair trade
Beauty Profile:You go for safety over efficacy with natural, good-for-the-environment, and politically correct beauty products
Kissing Style: The healthy, organic kiss
Dream Getaway: Ecotourism and trips to places in need of help (Haiti, Galapagos Islands, Africa)
idea of a good time: Getting pumped up and passionate at a protest 

WHICH ADVOCATE ARCHETYPE ARE YOU?
HERO - True to their mission without succumbing to naysaying or fear
CRUSADER - Brave, articulate, and moral 
LAWYER - Intelligent and disciplined, high-powered and thick-skinned
HUMAN RIGHTS ADVOCATE - Grace and selflessness with the highest of moral convictions 

intellectual:

core values:Knowledge
pattern:Information seeking
live for:Trending news stories 
happiest: With a book in my hand 
Habit to break: Being a know it all
You might be an intellectual if:You can never have too much information
My style:Tailored, conservative, preppy. You love a neutral pallette and button downs
Beauty Profile: Traditional, understated, appropriate. Facts and clinical results matter. You’re all about smart skincare and no-fuss,conservative beauty
kissing style: Dry, short, soft and on the lips
dream getaway:A lecture
idea of a good time: A trip to the museum 

which INTELLECTUAL archetype are you?
PHILOSOPHER - Methodical in both thought and action
SCHOLAR/STUDENT - Lively and curious wherever you go. Eternally loving to learn
GEEK - True to themselves, and because of this, can be inspiring as friends who don’t judge
SCIENTIST - happy listening as talking, and always up for an intelligent conversation
SAGE - a wise soul that imparts information acquired only with time and experience
CRONE - The wise woman who hands down information to younger women on the path to womanhood.
SEEKER - You are on a search for truth and wisdom wherever it can be found.
PHILOSOPHER - You are on a pursuit to better understand the meaning of life.
JUDGE - You excel at mediation, arbitration and cutting through to the heart of the matter with compassion, fairness and balance.
INVENTOR - You are a modern day alchemist that converts matter into energy or energy into matter 

uhh... yeah. way too kooky but again, can be attached to more formal archetypes. . . just a simple quiz to use as a stepping stone.

couldn't find a quiz where the answers led to bdsm cenobites, hell demons, classical angels or nightbreed.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Rift said:


> I suggested answering with ones' partner in mind or things they'd like their partner to answer.
> 
> their descriptions are rather basic and superficial - however they list additional archetypes for the ones they have listed which can be associated with traditional archetypes.
> 
> ...


Yeah--those were the archetypes it typed me as. 

I took the test a couple times because when I did it while answering for the attractive partner, I wasn't sure if I was being egotistical or something, and answering my qualities. So I took one first for the idealized other, and then for myself. And I did get different results, and creative sounds pretty fitting for me since I can identify with several of those "family members."

But for the other person:

Spiritual


Maybe: 

*THE SAINT:* It’s hard not to love Saints. They are humble, selfless, uplifting and always willing to help in a crisis.

*I would be into that. Wouldn't anyone?


THE MYSTIC:* Mystics can be inspiring and capable of invoking ecstasy with even more potency than poets or musicians. They have a way of encouraging higher spheres of interaction in all circumstances.

*IDK but Rumi poetry is pretty good. So this is probably the archetype.



RELIGIOUS SERVANT:* Humble, kind and disciplined, the deeply religious can be inspirational teachers and friends.

*Yes--I think maybe teachers and friends. I don't think sexual relationships.




THE GURU:* Gurus, by nature, want to see people become their best selves, so while they can be tough teachers, they are empathetic in a parental way. They are also ideal role models.

*That sounds attractive, sort of...though I've never found actual gurus attractive (except the guys who lead meditations by audio--sometimes I think that's attractive.)



THE ANGELS:* Angels are the strongest messengers of the spiritual who can protect, inspire and lead the downtrodden to a safe place.

*Angels sound like good things but IDK about romantically. But maybe.*



No:



> *THE CELIBATE:* You are devoted to a spiritual practice that has turned on your light and turned off your desire for sex. You can also become starved leading you to depraved acts.
> 
> *This seems like it would present problems in a sexual relationship? I mean, except for the "depraved" part--wait, I think that'd still present problems.
> 
> ...


 

The Advocates and Intellectuals also seem pretty great. 

But to just start with the "Spiritual" I think that maybe there is an archetype for Priest or something (I come from a line of priests so maybe it's not so weird) or Sage or maybe Wizard (or maybe not idk) or like Monk.

I'll just start with looking into that archetype because I've never really thought about it before. The page linked in the OP looks like a great resource.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> But to just start with the "Spiritual" I think that maybe there is an archetype for Priest or something (I come from a line of priests so maybe it's not so weird) or Sage or maybe Wizard (or maybe not idk) or like Monk.


I was thinking it was the chicken soup for the soul, wish fulfillment, positive/magnetic thinking, ego wanking, infj types.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Rift said:


> I was thinking it was the chicken soup for the soul, wish fulfillment, positive/magnetic thinking, ego wanking, infj types.


I know--I thought of that too.

But I think it might be more like the literal archetype, but idk. I was reminded of how I developed this weird crush on Nathaniel Hawthorn when I was reading The Scarlet Letter. I think it was a combination of the male voice reading the audiobook on Librivox (idk if they still have the same version of it up) and also just the puritan guilt and perfectionism and obsessiveness. And the story of Hester and that priest--like he should have been less stuck up. It was also a story of so much that was wrong with the world and I still thought something about Hawthorne taking on that fake puritan accent/dialect was sort of hot.

I think it was just when you think of a spiritual lesson you think of guilt and shame and transcending it. And that's something that the priest in The Scarlet Letter couldn't ever do, and in the end he was more sinned than Hester. And the entire faith practice was sinful--so it was like this contrast--this tension between romanticism and the ideals of nature and release and equality against this super patriarchal and ultimately destructive rigid puritanism?

And I think Hawthorne himself was sort of ashamed of his coming from a background of extreme puritanism, though Hawthorne was also just kind of a sexist asshole, I think. But I couldn't help but feel he was trying to come to terms with his family heritage or something and make sense of some archetypes?

Like one page I read saw Hester as the Martyr and the Outcast, and also talked about the Saint archetype.

So this archetype could relate to why I got a crush on Nathaniel Hawthorne.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

other searched randomness:





































































https://www.humbleisd.net/cms/lib2/TX01001414/Centricity/Domain/3492/Archetypes%20-%20Notes%20PowerPoint.pdf


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

this seems viable, too, for those having difficulty with framing associations. Index Post–Character Archetypes A to Z


----------



## letsrunlikecrazy (Sep 21, 2015)

I think a mix of Child, Magician, and Rebel archetypes. Probably because they reflect my inner identities and aspirations. I often feel that most people don't get me or reject me in some way, even if they like me. And it usually has to do with manifestations of these three archetypes. So maybe I just want someone who won't try to change me, and will in fact help me change the world. Maybe that's hypocritical, but in a way I think life is all about enforcing your will on the world, whether it interferes with other people's or not.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

My own archetypes for that quiz were creative, visionary, intellectual.
For partner: royal (i can see why... I truly was thinking of one entitled brat. Jk, I do like some aspects of this for real), athlete (probably mostly for the competitive aspect... maybe I subconsciously admire the results, idk idk), caregiver (big oof).


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

For me it’s mostly - the sage. If you like exploring the psychology of attraction, you’ll enjoy looking into the dark triad type, it can be the romanticised anti-hero and it can be a diagnosed psychopath that folks still find terribly attractive.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Trueself said:


> For me it’s mostly - the sage. If you like exploring the psychology of attraction, you’ll enjoy looking into the dark triad type, it can be the romanticised anti-hero and it can be a diagnosed psychopath that folks still find terribly attractive.


I tend to think the main reason why dark triad would ever be attractive is due to how they must invest in a deceptive persona in order to swindle people into trusting them long enough to take advantage of them. So the image they present is overly seductive and attempts to manipulate the object of their attention since if they were to just "be themselves" they would immediately be rejected.

So the attractiveness of dark-triad characteristics is due to deception, in an effort to make themselves seem more attractive than they truly are.

They are attractive as a means of survival because without the pretty wrapping society would reject them and they would be unable to survive due to their parasitic nature.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

Thank you Rift and WickerDeer for the quiz angle! I deliberately avoided that 12 archetypes thing splattered all over the internet in infographics. I found it too limited, and wanted to see where others might take the concept rather than shoe-horning immediately... which is why I chose the longer list that used multiple sources.

Attractions from le big list, clustered:

Arbitrator
Dark Lord
Master
Tyrant

Explorer
Nomad
Vagabond
Wanderer

Author
Intellectual
Nerd

Individualist
Loner
Nonconformist

Fool
Innocent One
Secretary

Shape-shifter
Trickster

Blend all or the majority of this list together and I fall hard. You think it can't be done? Too many contradictions? Well, humans are walking contradictions. I've met a few already. 

For that quiz, I also got visionary and creative (equal percentage) and then a slightly lower percentage for intellectual. When answering the questions for "what I'm attracted to", I got royal as the highest percentage, followed by visionary and intellectual.



WickerDeer said:


> I tend to think the main reason why dark triad would ever be attractive is due to how they must invest in a deceptive persona in order to swindle people into trusting them long enough to take advantage of them. So the image they present is overly seductive and attempts to manipulate the object of their attention since if they were to just "be themselves" they would immediately be rejected.
> 
> So the attractiveness of dark-triad characteristics is due to deception, in an effort to make themselves seem more attractive than they truly are.


Even so, it can tell a lot about a person when they are susceptible to "seduction" in a particular way. I've already mentioned this on another thread, but the TV Show "The Imposters" explores that directly, and I thought that was neat.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Trueself said:


> For me it’s mostly - the sage. If you like exploring the psychology of attraction, you’ll enjoy looking into the dark triad type, it can be the romanticised anti-hero and it can be a diagnosed psychopath that folks still find terribly attractive.


How did you hop from attraction archetypes to psychos? Perhaps I'm missing the context, in that you were responding to someone in thread? If not, this appears to narrow down the whole about the psychology of attraction, into the lowest 1%.


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

Thanks for your curiosity. Each archetype is underpinned by a higher abs a shadow self which manifests in dark traits. Some of these traits have been clustered into a “dark triad”. Henceforth, if you look at archetypes, you can also change your vantage point and look at another way of clustering dark and “light” traits. The dark triad is an example not an attempt to reduce attraction to what you call the lowest 1%. Hope you find it useful.



mia-me said:


> How did you hop from attraction archetypes to psychos? Perhaps I'm missing the context, in that you were responding to someone in thread? If not, this appears to narrow down the whole about the psychology of attraction, into the lowest 1%.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Why presume that the draw is to shadow or that shadow even factors into the initial attraction phase? For that matter, I'm not convinced that there's a lot of psychology associated to the majority of what people are drawn towards, considering how most people are drawn to looks. Some bother to peel the onion at a later date. 



Trueself said:


> Thanks for your curiosity. Each archetype is underpinned by a higher abs a shadow self which manifests in dark traits. Some of these traits have been clustered into a “dark triad”. Henceforth, if you look at archetypes, you can also change your vantage point and look at another way of clustering dark and “light” traits. The dark triad is an example not an attempt to reduce attraction to what you call the lowest 1%. Hope you find it useful.


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

I don’t have to presume. As mentioned, here is some evidence that the dark triad is attractive: Psychology Uncovers Sex Appeal of Dark Personalities. Alternatively, you can check out the number of romantic gestures directed towards folks like Richard Ramirez and Ted Bundy. Again, the dark triad is a way to cluster traits, just like archetypes or other typologies. Good luck with your line of inquiry!



mia-me said:


> Why presume that the draw is to shadow or that shadow even factors into the initial attraction phase? For that matter, I'm not convinced that there's a lot of psychology associated to the majority of what people are drawn towards, considering how most people are drawn to looks. Some bother to peel the onion at a later date.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Most people don't have hybristophilia. 



Trueself said:


> I don’t have to presume. As mentioned, here is some evidence that the dark triad is attractive: Psychology Uncovers Sex Appeal of Dark Personalities. Alternatively, you can check out the number of romantic gestures directed towards folks like Richard Ramirez and Ted Bundy. Again, the dark triad is a way to cluster traits, just like archetypes or other typologies. Good luck with your line of inquiry!


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

Human nature is complex. My understanding of the article is that dark personality traits - narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism - are appealing to a statistically significant number of people who participated in the study. Accounts of Ted Bundy’s life describe him as very charming to the ladies - who at that time didn’t know of him as a serial killer, therefore hybristophilia is unlikely in those cases, possible in others.

The attraction to dark traits seems to be supported by evidence and I think it adds an interesting perspective to the conversation of without attempting to reduce attraction to the lowest 1%.



mia-me said:


> Most people don't have hybristophilia.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

What study are you talking about? Is it embedded in the article and if so, can you link it?



Trueself said:


> Human nature is complex. My understanding of the article is that dark personality traits - narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism - are appealing to a statistically significant number of people who participated in the study. Accounts of Ted Bundy’s life describe him as a very charming to the ladies - who at that time didn’t know of him as a serial killer, therefore hybristophilia is unlikely.
> 
> The attraction to dark traits seems to be supported by evidence. I think it adds to The conversation without attempting to reduce attraction to the lowest 1%.


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

The sources are cited and linked in the article which - btw also summarises these studies. Thanks for the debate  



mia-me said:


> What study are you talking about? Is it embedded in the article and if so, can you link it?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

I'm looking at the article right now and don't see any citations of studies, only statements and guide references.


Trueself said:


> The sources are cited and linked in the article which - btw also summarises these studies. Thanks for the debate


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

mia-me said:


> I'm looking at the article right now and don't see any citations of studies, only statements and guide references.


Sorry I can’t help you further. I’m glad you’re curious about this and I wish you good luck.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Next time, no more bullshit. Also, anyone clicking on links on the Internet that aren't to 'known' public sources, should always gird up with at minimum, a VPN/proxy server. If it's a sketch source, layer up even more.


Trueself said:


> Sorry I can’t help you further. I’m glad you’re curious about this and I wish you good luck.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Trueself said:


> Human nature is complex. My understanding of the article is that dark personality traits - narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism - are appealing to a statistically significant number of people who participated in the study. Accounts of Ted Bundy’s life describe him as very charming to the ladies - who at that time didn’t know of him as a serial killer, therefore hybristophilia is unlikely in those cases, possible in others.
> 
> The attraction to dark traits seems to be supported by evidence and I think it adds an interesting perspective to the conversation of without attempting to reduce attraction to the lowest 1%.


The article specifically says this:



> The dark triad score was positively correlated with their “dressed-up” attractiveness – a finding that mirrors previous findings. However, the dark triad score was not related to ratings of physical attractiveness in the dressed-down photos. In other words, people with dark personality traits are not seen as more physically attractive than others when you take away their freedom to wear their own clothes and makeup. People with dark personalities seem to be better at making themselves physically appealing.


That is to say, people with dark triad scores that are higher tend to dress themselves up with makeup and clothing to appear more attractive.

This doesn't mean "people are attracted to dark triad traits." 

In my opinion, it likely means people with dark triad traits tend to overcompensate for their loathsome personalities by dressing more attractively, and likely adopting more attractive, charming mannerisms when you first meet them. That is why they tend to be more attractive "at first sight."

I don't want to derail the discussion with this, but I think it's an important distinction because sometimes this kind of article is misrepresented as if young men should emulate dark triad qualities to attract women. Which I think is bad advice.


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

“People perceived the narcissists as more likeable and found that they had flashier appearances, more confident body language, and more attractive facial expressions. Together with Holtzman and Strube’s findings, this suggests that narcissists are more skilled at carrying and presenting themselves in a way that immediately impresses others.”

I suppose it’s a combination of over-compensation - in one study - and finding their behavior attractive /charming at first sight - as in the second cited study.

Its an important distinction and I hope that one learns to get to know another person better - despite their initial attraction. Narcissists and codependent personalities do however get into long term relationships that eventually hurt all involved parties.




WickerDeer said:


> The article specifically says this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

I don’t know how I’ve offended you nor what you mean by “bullshit”. Sorry you didn’t like my perspective, interpretation and that you don’t find the article valuable. It’s easier to be aggressive than to carry a debate. 



mia-me said:


> Next time, no more bullshit.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

You made a claim about studies embedded in the article. There were no studies involved, simply a lot of statements and links to guides. Statements and guides aren't studies. I could state that unicorns exist and create guides but that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. No doubt that assorted philias exist, including a sexual attraction to balloons. But that doesn't that men should dress in balloons, to attract women.


Trueself said:


> I don’t know how I’ve offended you nor what you mean by “bullshit”. Sorry you didn’t like my perspective, interpretation and that you don’t find the article valuable. It’s easier to be aggressive than to carry a debate.


----------



## Trueself (Dec 8, 2020)

mia-me said:


> You made a claim about studies embedded in the article. There were no studies involved, simply a lot of statements and links to guides. Statements and guides aren't studies. I could state that unicorns exist and create guides but that doesn't mean that unicorns exist. No doubt that assorted philias exist, including a sexual attraction to balloons. But that doesn't that men should dress in balloons, to attract women.


I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “statements and guides, but no studies”. To me it seems that the studies were published in psychology journals and linked appropriately. You can download those from Science Direct yourself.

I find your tone unnecessarily aggressive. I never said men or women should do anything. I simply added a perspective on what people find attractive and how attractive traits are also linked to dark triad types.


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

mia-me said:


> What study are you talking about? Is it embedded in the article and if so, can you link it?


Here ya go:

People With Dark Personalities Tend to Create a Physically Attractive Veneer - Nicholas S. Holtzman, Michael J Strube, 2013 (sagepub.com) 

Why are narcissists so charming at first sight? Decoding the narcissism-popularity link at zero acquaintance - PubMed (nih.gov)

Relations between humor styles and the Dark Triad traits of personality - ScienceDirect 

These were all in-line links. Would have been nicer to have references listed at the end so it would be easier to see.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Link these.


Trueself said:


> I’m sorry, I don’t know what you mean by “statements and guides, but no studies”. *To me it seems that the studies were published in psychology journals and linked appropriately*. You can download those from Science Direct yourself.
> 
> I find your tone unnecessarily aggressive. I never said men or women should do anything. I simply added a perspective on what people find attractive.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> Here ya go:
> 
> People With Dark Personalities Tend to Create a Physically Attractive Veneer - Nicholas S. Holtzman, Michael J Strube, 2013 (sagepub.com)
> 
> ...


Were these studies embedded in the article?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> Here ya go:
> 
> People With Dark Personalities Tend to Create a Physically Attractive Veneer - Nicholas S. Holtzman, Michael J Strube, 2013 (sagepub.com) #1
> 
> ...


Since you didn't respond about whether or not they're embedded in the article, I'll still break these down. I added numbers at the end for reference. 

#1 - Dark triad personalities are good at making themselves appear more attractive through adornment. This doesn't mean that people are drawn to dark triad traits. It's that they're more attracted to...get this...more attractive people.

#2 - It's a study with a sample size of 73 freshmen...at first sight. This likely correlates to the findings of the first study, that people with dark triad traits put more effort into their appearance.

#3 - Is a breakdown of humor styles, relative to specific dark triad traits. Not sure how this relates to people being attracted to dark triad traits.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Were these studies embedded in the article?


Yes they were. Calm down a little


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> Yes they were. Calm down a little


Where, as in what were the covering words? Maybe the links aren't showing up for me if they were included in the article.

For the record, I'm not riled up. You should see me riled up.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Squirt said:


> For that quiz, I also got visionary and creative (equal percentage) and then a slightly lower percentage for intellectual. When answering the questions for "what I'm attracted to", I got royal as the highest percentage, followed by visionary and intellectual.


How do you feel about the royal archetype? I'm presuming from your list you were somewhat aware of it beforehand... For me I think it has been a guilty pleasure sort of thing mostly. I do tend to find that type the most immediately attractive but I don't necessarily like feeling that way... you know? There is a lot about it I find annoying. But also that annoyance can be a good thing, provokes some type of feeling lol


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> Where, as in what were the covering words? Maybe the links aren't showing up for me if they were included in the article.
> 
> For the record, I'm not riled up. You should see me riled up.


Are you using dark mode

Relationship, popular, succesful


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

mia-me said:


> Since you didn't respond about whether or not they're embedded in the article


Yes I did. I said they were inline links. That means embedded in the article. Not sure what you see in your browser, but here are the sentences within the article where the links are embedded (the links copied over as well it seems!):

#1 "Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube of Washington University in St. Louis were interested in looking at the relationship between physical attractiveness and people’s tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism."

#2 "The findings reinforce previous research showing that narcissists are more popular than others, literally at first sight." 

#3 "Combining physical attractiveness with confidence and humor is even more effective, and it appears that people with exploitive personalities are more successful at this as well."

EDIT: appreciate the breakdown, btw


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> Are you using dark mode
> 
> Relationship, popular, succesful


I'm looking at the archetypes article right this second. Using the Find function, there are no incidents of 'Relationship', three incidents of 'popular' where none are links and no incidents of successful. Are you looking at a different article?


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

Squirt said:


> Yes I did. I said they were inline links. That means embedded in the article. Not sure what you see in your browser, but here are the sentences within the article where the links are embedded (the links copied over as well it seems!):
> 
> #1 "Nicholas Holtzman and Michael Strube of Washington University in St. Louis were interested in looking at the relationship between physical attractiveness and people’s tendencies towards narcissism, psychopathy, and Machiavellianism."
> 
> ...


None of that is present in my version of the Archetypes article. Are you discussing a different page or a different article? I'm discussing the linked article in the opening post. It's titled:

The Ultimate List of Archetypes (Over 325)


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

mia-me said:


> I'm looking at the archetypes article right this second. Using the Find function, there are no incidents of 'Relationship', three incidents of 'popular' where none are links and no incidents of successful. Are you looking at a different article?


The article trueself linked to you


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> How do you feel about the royal archetype? I'm presuming from your list you were somewhat aware of it beforehand... For me I think it has been a guilty pleasure sort of thing mostly. I do tend to find that type the most immediately attractive but I don't necessarily like feeling that way... you know? There is a lot about it I find annoying. But also that annoyance can be a good thing, provokes some type of feeling lol


Your list was the most out there, haha.

Same. I feel it isn't relationship material, even if attraction happens. Exploring power dynamics can provide an interesting/exciting challenge, though, as long as it can be approached with some level of playfulness.



mia-me said:


> None of that is present in my version of the Archetypes article. Are you discussing a different page or a different article? I'm discussing the linked article in the opening post. It's titled:
> 
> The Ultimate List of Archetypes (Over 325)


I misunderstood which article you wanted information about! The links I posted were in reference to the article Psychology Uncovers Sex Appeal of Dark Personalities - Scientific American that Trueself posted. Whoops.

The first article is a convenient list of possible archetypes drawn from different books/sources that the author references within the article. There are no "studies" about it whatsoever, you are correct.


----------



## mia-me (Feb 5, 2021)

DOGSOUP said:


> The article trueself linked to you





Squirt said:


> Your list was the most out there, haha.
> 
> Same. I feel it isn't relationship material, even if attraction happens. Exploring power dynamics can provide an interesting/exciting challenge, though, as long as it can be approached with some level of playfulness.
> 
> ...


Thanks, you two! I now understand how the misunderstanding occurred. Trueself linked an article which I responded to with a reference to hybristophilia. Because I had already responded to it and negated it, I automatically reverted to the opening post article whenever he mentioned 'article'. 

So, my humblest apologies to @Trueself for calling what he stated 'bullshit'. It wasn't bullshit relative to the information provided in *his* link, even though the studies themselves didn't really back up his perspective of people being attracted to dark triad traits beyond hybristophilia. If anything, two of the studies backed up my perspective that people are drawn to physical attractiveness, at least at first meet and greet.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Squirt said:


> Which ones? How does that influence your attraction to them? Why do you think you go for one archetype over another, if you do?
> 
> Here is a list of potential archetypes to get started:
> 
> Archetypes List: The Ultimate List of Over 325 Archetypes (scottjeffrey.com)


So I felt like approaching this again--and I also wanted to say thanks for the recommendation for Wandavision (I think it was you)--I just watched the most recent episode and it's a pretty interesting show. It's starting to make me wonder about archetypes in Wanda's mind, like if that's how the town operates, in some ways. It reminds me a bit of that psychological concept (especially in this last episode).

But I guess...I'll remember significant attractions and think about what archetype they might have reminded me of. I did have some sort of relationship with all of them, but was only in a relationship with the last I describe here.

First major attraction was...I guess he does remind me of Loki a tiny bit, because he became pretty tricky, especially when he started suffering from substance abuse problems. He was a musician though--I probably would have associated him more with the starving artist or the starving philosopher (maybe the "scholar"? Something about him reminds me a lot of Orpheus--like I would associate him with that archetype. I guess he'd probably be typed an intellectual (if I remember right) in the other quiz thing.

Second would have probably been more like Pan or Dionysis. At least that is who I would associate him with. He was more sensual and also even similar to the animalistic sides of Pan. But generally peaceful and more interested in enjoying the world and exploring than anything else. Maybe sort of mystic at times. He was intelligent but he didn't care to focus on studies. But he was actually pretty brilliant as much as I feel he ended up squandering it. Hopefully he came back--both of these people went through difficult times. I don't even know if this one is still alive.

Ex
My long term ex and ex long-term partner was also very into nature, and similarly sort of reminded me of the second--of Pan or maybe even Apollo because he also (when I first met him) was interested in the humanities, but also of civility and etiquette. Very much about the nature, and we spent a lot of our time together camping, which I like to do. So idk. He def. was an athlete so that would have been the type from that quiz source. But also stingy and controlling, and complaining a lot. But at least when I first met him I thought he was more of a poet, I think. But really his passion was just nature and athletics. 

I'll have to think about it more. I think I resist putting people into categories or trying to narrow down my own feelings, but it's helpful to reflect on this type of thing.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> I'll have to think about it more. I think I resist putting people into categories or trying to narrow down my own feelings, but it's helpful to reflect on this type of thing.


eternal child. 









Puer aeternus. Latin for "eternal child," used in mythology to designate a child-god who is forever young


The Archetypes and The Collective Unconscious (Collected Works of C.G. Jung Vol.9 Part 1) Puer aeternus. Latin for “eternal child,” used in mythology to designate a child-god who is f…




carljungdepthpsychologysite.blog





etc:






Understanding Personality: The 12 Jungian Archetypes - Moving People to Action


Popular Blog Posts The term "archetype" means original pattern in ancient Greek. Jung used the concept of archetype in his theory of the human psyche. He identified 12 universal, mythic characters archetypes reside within our collective unconscious. Jung defined twelve primary types that...




conorneill.com








Beyond Separation - Archetypes (CHILD:Eternal)


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Rift said:


> eternal child.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The first two that I described were when they were in college (and I was in high school), so they were still sort of in that period of childhood, but I can definitely see the Dionysis, peter-pan kind of archetype with the second one.

The first one, I guess also--he just got addicted to heroin though and so there were some personality changes as his addiction progressed. But he was definitely dependent on them, and I can see how dependency seems like a quality a child would have. He was able to move on from that. He was kind of an asshole though--sort of narcissistic (not like the mental disorder, but personality wise), which I also associate with being child like, I guess.

I'm not sure what happened to the second one though. He was like full on heading into insanity with psychoactive use. His father was a physicist and he came from the East Coast, but he had full on adopted a party lifestyle, dropped out of college which he described as "so easy he didn't even have to read the books" (and it is true that there was/is (?) a disparity between California education and East Coast education, I think, but he was also smart) and just marched off into complete insanity...like just destroying himself and completely gone from this reality. It really does remind me of the myths around the Minyades and the madness associated with Dionysis.

I guess with both these people I did end up having maternal impulses because both of them had such problems with substance abuse at some point that the only relationship I would have even had, were I to have had any, would have been just trying to look out for their best interest or really treat them like children who couldn't make the right decisions for themselves. I thought about it--about how they really needed (especially the first one--as he did get a girlfriend but she was just feeding him ketamine) needed someone (I thought, like myself) to care for their well being and stuff. But of course people have to go their own way and we were never that close of friends that I would have much of a say. So I guess I can relate that to mothering/child aspect. I did constantly judge the first one's gf because she was basically the one who introduced him to opiates (they met when she became the singer in his band and started acting like some celebrity musician couple).

But the third one--the athlete--I mean, he was kind of an emotional man-baby, but I didn't think I was attracted to him FOR that reason. He was also 14 years older than me.

I think when you are younger (like under 25) you aren't really sure what maturity is since you're not yet fully physically mature, yourself. He may have seemed more mature since he was over 35, but really he was pretty immature. This is why I wouldn't ever date anyone under 25 (now that I am older than that), because I don't think they are fully mature or they really recognize maturity well, and I wouldn't want them to make the same mistake I did.

But I guess I do often want to take some kind of vacation--like escape from reality, and I think that might be part of the peter-pan thing at least, and maybe the Puer Aeternus. To be able to get away from responsibilities for just a while, to explore, to forget about what is expected (except for the very important, of course). So I can see that impulse a little and how I might be attracted to that.

I think the focus on nature could relate to that too--because nature is sort of the pure, uncorrupted by society, expression. So the sort of wanting to escape the confines of society and return to the origin of everything seems kind of puer? But I am not sure that is all that is going on there. I think nature has to also have some type of archetype that isn't just the eternal child, though it is interesting in that the concept of an eternal child is sort of thwarting nature, as it is everything's nature to grow up. I'm just not sure about embracing all of civilization or society--and how much of that is required to be a mature adult.

I don't find it that attractive when people refuse to grow up and I don't want to take care of extra children, but I do find it attractive to be able to leave civilization behind sometimes. And I guess my third example did do that a lot--he wasn't even from this country so he already didn't fit in to what was expected, as a foreigner, and then also the focus on going out into the back country--going backpacking and on ski trips. But yeah, I can also see that he had some child-like qualities.

I wonder if there are other archetypes as well though. Because I know some people who really remind me of children tend to repulse me a bit--like people who completely reject their responsibilities--when they are too narcissistic and egocentric and they have responsibilities but don't care about the harm they do to others.

The Eternal Child fits the second one pretty well though--he even was against having relationships, because he couldn't even handle the idea of that kind of restriction (of monogamy). He really did just want to run away from any and all restrictions, and he also became increasingly insane and detached from reality. I sometimes wonder if he ever made his way back again or if his parents ever found him or what. It's really kind of sad.

But it's kind of weird too--people sometimes think of me as more child-like and naive, and I tend to play a role of joking around and being sort of naive, but in those examples--especially the first two, I took more of a mothering attitude towards the end, and I did feel like what they needed was someone like that.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

WickerDeer said:


> I wonder if there are other archetypes as well though. Because I know some people who really remind me of children tend to repulse me a bit--like people who completely reject their responsibilities--when they are too narcissistic and egocentric and they have responsibilities but don't care about the harm they do to others.


that last link offers a variety of children archetypes. . . frankly, tho, in terms of mbti, we could look at it as their third, tertiary function taking the lead - for the good and bad of it. People are often more wary of their inferior function because it's potential grip often has a negative outcome, thus many run from it, but inevitably leads to catharsis, growth - it's the last ditch reprieve for what we've been neglecting, or the loud thump of hitting rock bottom, as they say. But the third function does seem to correlate, my wants, desires, hunger, a greater need for it to be stimulated, attended to; needy child, bored teenager. 

so, maybe it's unsurprising then that my relationship patterns fall into those that can keep up with Si's demands but with other traits I can riff or build off of. 

if we look at enfp, then Te makes sense tha you're seeking troubled people to fix them or at least supplement them with your internal sense of values.. the 'good' path. always need some guinea pigs to further testing it's applicability.

if we look at infp, then we've got another Si that might be looking to be stimulated and seeking out troublemakers because it's a break in the structured routine that provides intel with new situations to react to or new experiences to be gained through these unknown variables 

-- aiming for those with immature functions are certainly a way to go about it. . . I doubt there is much of a secure feeling aiming for fully matured individuals as the question becomes what can you offer them, and in turn, what they can actually give you aside from security, safety and predictability. to which, in turn, we may feel more the children in need of fixing. 

so, maybe it's a power dynamic where we set ourselves up to be the ones in control of the relationship with some fears of intimacy or commitment, and more comfortable with 'broken' people as then we feel less broken in contrast, providing us with greater fulfillment because either we are evenly matched or capable of offering more to the relationship. our own stability, even if we question the existence or practicality of...


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

WickerDeer said:


> So I felt like approaching this again--and I also wanted to say thanks for the recommendation for Wandavision (I think it was you)--I just watched the most recent episode and it's a pretty interesting show. It's starting to make me wonder about archetypes in Wanda's mind, like if that's how the town operates, in some ways. It reminds me a bit of that psychological concept (especially in this last episode).
> 
> But I guess...I'll remember significant attractions and think about what archetype they might have reminded me of. I did have some sort of relationship with all of them, but was only in a relationship with the last I describe here.


I didn't anticipate reflecting on specific people this way. I would be severely limited by my knowledge of different representative figures to compare with my sorely lacking education in literature... but I'll give it a try, too. Maybe @Rift can help, haha.

One theme that stands out from everything you said is this lack of refinement - which would also fit with the Wolverine "wild man" crush from the other thread.

Funny, men who were attracted to me when I was younger often seemed to be looking for a mother figure (archetype?), perhaps because I was responsible, open and emotionally stable, and for some more immature people that is a good mother replacement, or something. I'd wonder what those fellas were looking for in you, too. If you had a stability like that? I'm getting this sort of yin-yang chaos and order thing, here. Maybe they were "lost boys", Wendy. 

For relationships that are notable:

My first attraction would probably be best characterized as an "outlaw" or "explorer" archetype, with shadowy characteristics. If he wasn't so troubled he'd probably make a good "statesman" of sorts, too. He was young and angry, hell-bent on disrupting the status quo. He was also secretive and impossible to pin down, always on the move with a wide circle of acquaintances, and a deep compassion for outcasts and underdogs. And of course, a bit of a trickster. I was attracted to how difficult it was to figure him figure out, the unpredictability and restless searching for something he couldn't find. There was a thirst for adventure and sensuality that was really attractive, some of that "pan" quality - hedonistic, to be sure. This was probably the most intense attraction, being teenagers. And that the relationship doomed from the beginning.

Second attraction would have fit the "royal" archetype from that quiz. Completely different from the first guy, except the thread of having command over a crowd and being hard to pin down. He was a "mad hatter", a "gourmand", a theatrical personality and extremely outgoing. At the time I met him, I was just starting to come out of isolation, and so someone that could light up a room and take me on a whirlwind ride and make me feel like I was wanted and belonged was really attractive.

Third attraction was to an "intellectual", a "renaissance man", "alchemist", "poet", and "sage" type. The relationship characterized by shared dreams, love of knowledge, and creativity, and going on 10 years.

I suppose a common thread is some attraction to mystery and adventure, whether internal or external, that these archetypes afford.


----------



## Rift (Mar 12, 2012)

Squirt said:


> I suppose a common thread is some attraction to mystery and adventure, whether internal or external, that these archetypes afford.


the wild man, wolverine like character, is largely a bachelor. . . may have had many loves but never a 'mature' love or perhaps had one love early in life and a lot of rebounds. rough around the edges and prone to some unhealthy or stubborn ways. also a contradiction to himself, impulsive or flighty but has patience and direct but exhibits divergent thinking skills. externally cynical (rather than sheer pessimism), internally optimistic. pushes boundaries. when he does get depressed, he clinging to things he values, often reflects on past loves.. and there's likely a fair bit of romanticism in that, the idea you might leave a strong enough mark it has an impact on his life, imprint on his psyche, to be mourned in such way. A daddy figure with some strong aspects of the eternal child (or a child like aspect of his archetype) shining through. . . the mature fk'up at the other side of the tunnel. or the wounded veteran (perhaps or perhaps not a warrior).

again, I'd say I'm attracted to some of the weaker aspects in me, I don't want a pure contrast nor do I want someone that's too much like me.. but familiar enough that I can anticipate their needs and they can interpret mine. I likely view some of the rebellious streaks as a form of independence especially if they're willing to deal with the consequences of it. which makes xntj sage/creators an attractive option - the aggression, competitiveness, beneficial challenges, pure raw sexuality ... but mentally/emotionally sync more with xnfj sage/jesters - often shared vulnerabilities, tendency to compartmentalize or chameleon as second nature, intuitively grasp others but struggle with themselves... and there's the contradictions in being the sociable loner of the ixsp explorer/creators with their tendency for literal/proverbial wanderlust, reinventing the wheel and getting their hands dirty, so to speak.

now, of course, the archetypes serve as rough outline or scribbled sketch of their character and likely is more akin to how we think about ennegram, in particular, tritypes with varying maturity stages and wings. it's probably more defined if we say my attraction center on 6s and 8s primarily and 5s and 7s secondly. as more details and colours are added, their appearance as does the landscape change...


----------



## impulsenine (Oct 18, 2020)

Probably yes. But some are contradictory.

I have a fairly wide range.

One of the archetypes (I have no idea if it exists): it is "Nurse". But not just any, someone who is emotionally attached but not very attached. Which is still very good, efficient, hardworking. I mean, someone who wants to help but still isn't very sensitive. But she still cares. But she's not that sensitive. Or at least she has a field in which she is not sensitive and in private she can be sensitive but not too much.

Another archetype is ... that heroine who wants to make the world a better place but not in a sense far from reality. Not dreaming of a Utopia. But who actually dreams of a better world, but possible. Loving, loyal, brave.

Another archetype is ... that rebellious woman who gets into trouble from time to time, who sees life as a game and enjoys everything she does. Which is relaxed, detached. Don't take it too seriously. And seeking of breaking rules for fun. Finding the pleasure in danger. In exploring. In adventure.

Another archetype is ... that bitch who is intelligent, has intuition, but also has emotions and wants adventure and a lot of sex. Who knows how to be intelligent when needed but relies on "instincts" to a large extent.

Another archetype is that of a domineering woman, businesswoman, rational, calculated, who smiles rarely but deeply, markedly. Which never goes wrong and you get the impression that everything is calculated. But which has certain circumstances in which ... she unleashes. In which she lets herself be "controlled" by someone else (me) because she has trust and desire. Something like a mistress. But to be authoritarian with the rest. I want her in a submissive position.

Another archetype is that of the traditional woman but who accepts new things from someone (me). Who is obsessed with her image, with what she does. Which considers the physical aspect more important than the mental one. Which is a little silly but in a way "smart" sometimes. Who is obsessed and considers my rationality useful.

No matter archetype (every one of what I mentioned) I want her to be a bitch in private.
What I wrote about archetypes should be just...the public image.

I think there are many. Which is good.
I have plenty of choices.


----------

