# Erotic & Romantic Types...



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

So I just took the Socionics test for the first time and I agree very much with the description:



> *Your Sociotype: IEE-2Fi (ENFp)
> 
> Brief Description of the IEE*
> 
> Using extroverted intuition as his base function and introverted feeling as his creative, the IEE is adept at generating new possibilities, particularly those that relate to human interaction. Like the ILE, the IEE absorbs and comprehends new concepts with amazing speed. However it should be noted that the IEE relies on his personal observations as a foundation for his conceptual understanding; he bases all his theoretical frameworks on what he has observed in the real world. If the IEE cannot relate a hypothesis to something he has personally observed, it is more difficult for him to conceptualize or believe in it. The IEE uses his creative function to understand the intricacies of relationships and human interaction. At his best, the IEE has deep and profound insight into the nature of human behavior and their relationships; at his worst, the IEE's propensity for generating possibilities can leave him adrift in an idealized world with little motivation to actually accomplish goals or complete projects. Furthermore, although the IEE understands abstract concepts quite readily, he sometimes glosses over the logical framework of a hypothesis or theory. Learn more about the IEE here!


A more detailed description is found here:

Socionics - the16types.info - ENFp The Advisor profile by Gulenko

So I saw the part on erotic and romantic types and I think it points toward me as well. 

Socionics - the16types.info - Erotic Attitudes



> > *Pseudo-Caregivers/Students: IEE (ENFp) EII (INFj)
> > *
> > These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendance to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.
> 
> ...


What are your thoughts on this? Is there any IEE-2 Fi that identify with this? Or even any other types? 

I'm still learning and trying to know myself better.


----------



## Bluity (Nov 12, 2012)

I'm also a socionic newbie (and not an IEE type) but of all the romantic styles, infantile fits me perfectly. 



Someone on 16types said:


> I think infantlist love (in the alpha sense) is best described as playful, light-hearted and organic. Partners want to give each other affection which is externally consumed: kind gestures, softly uplifting words, gifts, PDA. They want to be able to tease and find mischievous and creative ways to draw their partner's attention to them. They don't want formal boundaries in their relationship, rather they want everything to develop on it's own. Serious discussions about where a relationship is or where it's heading breaks down the comfort levels and the spontaneity of the couple.


The only thing that doesn't fit me is helplessness regarding the physical body. I take care of myself just fine, thank you very much. However, a partner offering (but not insisting) to take care of other duties would hit a sweet spot.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

my opinion is that the erotic attitudes are of low importance


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> my opinion is that the erotic attitudes are of low importance


Then what is of utmost importance to you?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Then what is of utmost importance to you?


quadras, and cheesecake


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> quadras, and cheesecake


I can see the cheesecake, but what are quadras?


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Quadra - WSWiki


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> Quadra - WSWiki


Okay, so what is this in layman's terms? I need a simple vernacular to understand...


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Okay, so what is this in layman's terms? I need a simple vernacular to understand...


Quadras are groupings of types by their valued information elements. If you're ENFp then you're in Delta quadra among all the other types that value Ne, Fi, Te, and Si: ISTp, INFj, ESTj. Due to having common information elements, these type are said to share quadra values.

You can read more about quadra values here in plainer language: Socionics Quadra


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Okay, so what is this in layman's terms? I need a simple vernacular to understand...


In layman's terms, quadras are small groups of types that are important.

Alpha: ILE SEI ESE LII
Beta: EIE LSI SLE IEI
Gamma: SEE ILI LIE ESI
Delta: LSE EII IEE SLI

All the types in these groups share common characteristics. The characteristics shared by this grouping of types is more important than other groupings (I conjecture). The relevant characteristics as I would describe them are somewhat abstract concepts (as the passions of enneagram types, say, are abstract but powerful concepts).


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Nope, this doesn't fit for me. My sexuality is fluid and is much more significantly influenced by life experiences than 'type.'


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Quadras are groupings of types by their valued information elements. If you're ENFp then you're in Delta quadra among all the other types that value Ne, Fi, Te, and Si: ISTp, INFj, ESTj. Due to having common information elements, these type are said to share quadra values.
> 
> You can read more about quadra values here in plainer language: Socionics Quadra


Thanks but, INFj? Not INFp? (INFp has those functions, not INFj. Unless according to socianics it's different)


aestrivex said:


> In layman's terms, quadras are small groups of types that are important.
> 
> Alpha: ILE SEI ESE LII
> Beta: EIE LSI SLE IEI
> ...


Thank you for putting up with my ignorance. Your long-suffering is appreciated. You've been a great help to me. Thank you both!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Thanks but, INFj? Not INFp? (INFp has those functions, not INFj. Unless according to socianics it's different)


The j/p is flipped around for introverts. Socionics assigns p-letter to any type that leads with a perceiving, irrational element and j-letter to any type that leads with rational, judging element. Thus, the type that in MBTI is known as INFP becomes INFj is socionics because it is Fi-leading with is rational (and Si,Te type that is ISTJ in MBTI becomes ISTp in Socionics).


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> The j/p is flipped around for introverts. Socionics assigns p-letter to any type that leads with a perceiving, irrational element and j-letter to any type that leads with rational, judging element. Thus, the type that in MBTI is known as INFP becomes INFj is socionics because it is Fi-leading with is rational (and Si,Te type that is ISTJ in MBTI becomes ISTp in Socionics).


Oh! I got it! It's because the main function is either a Judging function or a Perceiving function. So anyone with Se-Si-Ne-Ni is going to be XXXp and anyone with Te-Ti-Fe-Fi will be a XXXj. Do I have it right?


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Oh! I got it! It's because the main function is either a Judging function or a Perceiving function. So anyone with Se-Si-Ne-Ni is going to be XXXp and anyone with Te-Ti-Fe-Fi will be a XXXj. Do I have it right?


Yes! you got it  Types that are labeled as IxxJ in MBTI (Ni & Si dominant ones) in Socionics terms are labeled as Ixxp, and vice versa.


----------



## RoSoDude (Apr 3, 2012)

I feel that the erotic styles are a little too narrow, which is a weakness I find often with some Socionics literature. Granted, the description is somewhat true in my case, in how I view relationships, but at the same time I feel that it prioritizes making a neat system of dichotomies over relatively standard patterns of behavior. As in, the human brain is naturally wired to seek relationships in a specific way; there are variations in the method, the degree, etc, but in essence people are looking for a lot of the same things. So, these are not wrong out of hand, but do appear to miss the mark slightly (while not lacking in precision).

However, I find the romantic styles to be pretty interesting, and generally pretty accurate. I think it's wise in this case to break these down according to primary perceiving elements, as such do seem apt to be considered the main factor in what one is naturally drawn to in relationships. Not sure if I like the constant clamoring in Socionics for dualization (in this case, aggressor types go for victims and vice versa, caregivers go for infantiles and vice versa). In addition, the terminology is rather antagonizing, but that's not the main problem to me because each type seems to have equally negative connotations associated with their name. My main problem is that for each dual pair, there is one type that is in a "higher" position (aggressor or caregiver) and one type in a lower position (victim or infantile). I can't see any theoretical justification for this; it's not correlated to extraverted functions or anything. Maybe there's some Reinin dichotomy I don't know (read: almost all of them), but I still don't really know why that's there and it seems a little obtuse. EDIT: I realize now that it's tied to sensing elements. But that still seems dumb to me.


----------



## The King Of Dreams (Aug 18, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Yes! you got it  Types that are labeled as IxxJ in MBTI (Ni & Si dominant ones) in Socionics terms are labeled as Ixxp, and vice versa.


Wow, thanks. I'm still learning so I appreciate your help. So now I have to figure out what is the names for the 3-letter groupings for each type.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

The King Of Dreams said:


> Wow, thanks. I'm still learning so I appreciate your help. So now I have to figure out what is the names for the 3-letter groupings for each type.


I've posted the 3-letter translations in the second post: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/116599-socionics-tests-links-resources.html

E = ethical and extravert L=logical I=intuitive and introvert S=sensing
first letter stands for element in leading function, second - for element in creative function, third - extravert or introvert

on example of EII: 
first E means this type has ethical function as a leading one
second I means it has intuition as creative function
third means it is introverted type
this is enough information to determine that this type has Fi,Ne in ego block


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

As someone said in some thread, Infantile seems insulting and this is only NT's POV on NF. I would describe it as lot other nice and great names.


----------



## Teen Rose (Aug 4, 2018)

RoSoDude said:


> I feel that the erotic styles are a little too narrow, which is a weakness I find often with some Socionics literature. Granted, the description is somewhat true in my case, in how I view relationships, but at the same time I feel that it prioritizes making a neat system of dichotomies over relatively standard patterns of behavior. As in, the human brain is naturally wired to seek relationships in a specific way; there are variations in the method, the degree, etc, but in essence people are looking for a lot of the same things. So, these are not wrong out of hand, but do appear to miss the mark slightly (while not lacking in precision).
> 
> However, I find the romantic styles to be pretty interesting, and generally pretty accurate. I think it's wise in this case to break these down according to primary perceiving elements, as such do seem apt to be considered the main factor in what one is naturally drawn to in relationships. Not sure if I like the constant clamoring in Socionics for dualization (in this case, aggressor types go for victims and vice versa, caregivers go for infantiles and vice versa). In addition, the terminology is rather antagonizing, but that's not the main problem to me because each type seems to have equally negative connotations associated with their name. My main problem is that for each dual pair, there is one type that is in a "higher" position (aggressor or caregiver) and one type in a lower position (victim or infantile). I can't see any theoretical justification for this; it's not correlated to extraverted functions or anything. Maybe there's some Reinin dichotomy I don't know (read: almost all of them), but I still don't really know why that's there and it seems a little obtuse. EDIT: I realize now that it's tied to sensing elements. But that still seems dumb to me.


Agree. Caregiver is the only nice name.


----------

