ANATOMY OF A FAILED ROMANCE
Courageous
> efforts and were in love with an imaginary, not real, person
This is both true and false. In some sense, I've been in love with
the idea of someone **LIKE** Amy my entire adult life. Having
encountered that someone, it was inevitable that I fall in love.
I could, if pressed, come up with 50 or more things that I loved
about Amy. While I didn't know her for that long, if there was any
kind of person in the entire world under any circumstance that could
make me fall truly in love in such short order, it was she.
> 2) She may not have been ready, or serious, or had someone else involved,
> or was a person entirely diferent from what you imagined her to be. Maybe
> you were sending her these poems, and she was busy in the sack with
> someone else.
She was who I imagined her to be, but the readiness is probably smack
on. She was both unready, and unable to deal with the pressures of
such intense love. There were other issues of hers that I specifically
left out here, out of privacy's sake alone. Amy had issues -- she was
carrying great emotional hurt and vulnerability -- that specifically
affected the dynamic of our relationship and made my intense emotional
needs incompatible with hers.
> In other words, had she been the person that was in your imagination,
> things would have worked out and you did everything alright. The problem
> is that she was not. So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in
> what you perceived.
I don't believe this is correct. I believe in retrospect that the
seriousness of my move was practically predestined to hurt me, even
had she been both ready and the person I imagined. Reread the section
that I repeated twice about how writing _Magic Words_ rehearsed my
love of her and bonded me to her intensely. This was a terrible error.
No man should do anything like that without first having some reason
to believe that the woman is also emotionally invested in him.
> There is some value in being sligtly weird and creative and imaginative,
> so I am not telling you to become more like everyone, not at all. Just
> make sure that you do not become bitter about these experiences. There
> is nothing wrong with the world at large, or you, but there is some
> incompatibility.
I'm not bitter, although the pain was exquisite. My only lasting
lesson is to ease into a woman's space naturally, by being yourself.
During the unfolding of time, true romance can begin.
C/
Shawn T Pickrell
Joe, I look back between May and November 1997, and I see
what you are thinking.
People see us everywhere
They think you really care
But myself I can't deceive
I know it's only make believe
My one and only prayer
Is that someday you'll care.
My hopes, my dreams come true
My one and only you
No one will ever know
How much I love you so
My only prayer will be
Someday you'll care for me
But it's only make believe
My hope, my dreams come true
My life I'd give for you
My heard, the wedding ring
My all, my everything
My heart I can't control
You rule my very soul
My only prayer will be
Someday you'll care for me
But it's only make believe.
My one and only prayer
Is that someday you'll care
My hopes, my dreams come true
My one and only you
No one will ever know
How much I love you so
You are my every dream
But it's only make believe
==========================================================================
Shawn Pickrell: Randolph-Macon '97, George Mason '03
"Well, Don Ho was in Hawaii, too, and he doesn't know about that network."
J.Anderson, technical lead on my current project
==========================================================================
Courageous
>
> Courageous <jkra...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> * casual dating is simply not an option. If I ever had a
> * chance to pursue under similar circumstances again, I
> * would probably try one of Ray's techniques.
>
> I'd be rather interested in hearing your experience using Ray's
> techniques.
I have "accidentally" tried elements of Ray's techniques
before I ever heard him formalize them. The trick here is
to start hanging out with a girl and making her make her
make the moves. Once a girl decides she wants you, going
to the finish line is quite easy.
Actually, that bodes well with my experience in life. Even
girls that I tend to approach in neutral settings are the
ones who've laid out a red carpet for me. IOW, it's not
me picking them, but vice versa.
C/
John DiFool
Gregos wrote:
> joey brother,
>
>snip<
Great post! Had me rotflmao on several occasions! As an INFP I can
definitely relate...
>
>
> 2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion is.
> They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external sensation.
> Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT or
> even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
> are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may have
> feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
> herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
> have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very positivist,
> no metaphysics abides in their universe.
And this is the core of my dilemma, since I tend to follow the Golden Rule
when trying to deal with females ("do unto others..."), and lo and behold! It
almost never works, for when I am my usual romantic, emotional, intense,
symbolic,
even transcendent self >g< around a woman she usually heads screaming for
the hills! Yet these are the precise qualities which I find attractive hence
for
the longest time I could not for the life of me figure out why they weren't
enthralled and were instead freaked out by the whole thing. Figuring out that
most other people don't value the qualities and ideals that I do went a long
way towards solving that conundrum, but I am still left with the underlying
riddle-how to find a compatible ladyfriend! :-/
John DiFool
Gregos
My own little thingy, just about 3 weeks old (that's how long ago the black
day occured), although infrastructurally quite different, was in practical
terms almost a mirror image of your misadvanture. There is such a thing as a
personality clash, and those may have well been a couple of those. Romance
is a funny thing. I solemnly believe that some people simply never get any
idea of what "love" means. For some of them, it is a term that denotes
security, comfort and enjoyment of other persons physique and friendship
(like many of Myers-Briggs SJ types). Others see relationship as an
adventure, not a match of a higher importance (many MB SPs). The SJ types
are unfortunately very common, especially among women. I say unfortunately
for your writing and the whole affair sounds very much like you are an NF
(intuitive feeler), just like myself. This category numbers less than 10% of
men, while about 50% of women are SJs, and perhaps as many as 30% are SPs.
If you are what I think you are, you have to face some facts.
Among the facts are those:
1) We feel. We feel strongly. Even about ordinary things. We are more likely
to give a quarter to a homeless guy than any SJ. They will often worry about
being tricked into giving a stupid quarter away. We will generally worry
more about this guy probably being hungy and cold there and then, and more
so without our quarter.
2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion is.
They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external sensation.
Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT or
even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may have
feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very positivist,
no metaphysics abides in their universe.
3) Very funny and peculiar is the igor's "was a person entirely diferent
from what you imagined her to be." This is very typical of sensory
individuals. They believe that their senses can let them fully define the
nature of another individual, provided that they are given sufficient time.
Another positivist approach, and, know what, I bet you even she thought
exactly the same way! "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!!" - she cried. Well, no
use now. We know well that it is them who don't know who they are
themselves, and they project their doubts and insecurities onto us. But the
trick is that we fail, while they get their prophecies of failure
shamelessly simply self-fulfilled by rejecting us. Moral#1: We are more
romantic people than they can ever be. Moral#2: We therefore get hurt more
than they ever do. Moral#3 We know that Shakespeare was just one of us, so
we commonly find him light and easy reading, while base their degrees and
sometimes lives around explaining to themselves and others the mindsets of
Shakespeare's famous NF characters, and keep failing at it (the vast
majority, just like the man himself, are simply just like us, and behave so.
Very weird. And Fascinating?! LOL ;)! SUCKERS!!!!
4) "So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in what you perceived".
The truth is that both igor and you are right on this one. You perceived an
individual who was supposed to be able to understand you. She was not one of
those. And you are right, too- if we want to come close to STP and SJs while
we feel very strongly about them, we simply HAVE to cover up the intensity
of our feelings, otherwise they run for their lives.
5) "Some incompatibility", goodonya Igor! Man there were craploads of it...
let me sum this up, mate. Here is who you probably are (NFP), and here are
the implications:
(E)xtrovert vs (I)ntrovert scale: not applicable
(F)eeling vs (T)hinking
(P)erceiving vs (J)udging
I(N)tuitive vs (S)ensory
F- Stands for Feeling instead of thinking. You are a Myers-Briggs "F".
People with strong "T"'s will not understand you. They base their lives on
logic. You apparently don't. That's cool with me, I don't either. But it
wasn't cool with her maybe. Be weary when you show too much emotion to those
people. They will try to rationalise it into their own constrained little
universe, and once they invariably fail they will have no choice but to
declare you weird and potentially dangerous.
P - Stands for perception. Igor is right. You tried to perceive the whole
thing right through. We rarely judge other people, because we know they are
all good to some extent, so why put them on trial initially. They WILL judge
you initially. In the Myers-Briggs "J"-type eyes, everyone is a potential
axe-murderer. That's your default value, buddy, and you are guilty until
proven innocent. One more reason to be extremely calm, peaceful, cautious
and reserved when you try to approach a "J" you like.
N - intuition. As I said, according to what you said it is almost certain
that the babe of yours was an "S"(Sensory). They usually don't even bother
using their intuition, except maybe professionally. We do. Sometimes we
succeed in this, and sometimes we fail. But we always look for the "bigger
picture". In your bigger picture in this case may have been you and her and
the most unbelievable romance and white wedding and loads of kids and
happiness to and beyond the grave and angels and who knows what else. In
her, this may have been another potential relationship to let her recover
from the breakdown in the previous one. For example, an acquaintance of
mine, "SJ" has been in a relationship for 2 years, and broke it off after
deciding to apply for a job overseas. She said that it was such fine a
relationship, he's been so good, they never ever had a fight or something,
and he was soooooo sad when she had to leave for Aussie and he was to
emotional. So she was a bit sad, too. Why, you would ask? Well "she hasn't
been single for more than 2 years"! Don't be fooled Joey, these people, as I
said, sometimes have no bloody idea what love is.
Anyway, for all those brave and keen male NFPs (about 4-5% of the male
populace), here are some advices on who potential matches are, speaking
completely from my personal experience and understanding of Myers-Briggs,
and of course intuition as well :)
1. Other NFs. This can be a dream relationship. But the level of emotional
intensity on both sides is so great that the resonance of the effects can
and often does cause rupture in the physical sequence of events. Tragedies
are therefore common, but at least they are mutual when they do occur. Have
a look at Romeo and Juliet. Both Shakespearean NF's, both completely and
unreservedly in love with each other. There was certainly some
over-dramatisation, but the essence is there, what "S" personalities would
say, "it was too good to be true". About 15% of females are NFs of various
subtypes. If those women like you, you can afford to like them back very
strongly. They will be able to appreciate it. They will like you all that
more, as a matter of fact. A funny thing with female NFPs is that they want
not only someone to love, but also someone they can IMPROVE as a human
being. You, already beeing an NFP yourself are nearly automatically a good
person and with no immediate need for improvement. This may actually work
against you
2. NTs. Some theories say that NFs and NTs are actually supplementary. They
provide the stability with reasoning, and you provide the adventure with
emotion. I would not show them too many feelings too early. But they know
how to appreciate affection, although they are not always sure how to show
the appreciation! The trick to this is that, although NFs and NTs are quite
different, they generally respect each other's intuitive sides. We never
think that they are simply "nerds" and they never think we are simply
"loonies". The main problem is that only about 5% of women are intuitive
thinkers.
3. SPs, but only some. If she is an SFP, this can be a very good and
fulfilling relationship. I had one, maybe two, of those SFP teenage beauty
queens after me. They usually go for your looks, but if you are cautious
enough and show some reserve towards them initially, they will come so close
to you as to get to know you better and to like you even more for your
emotional and kind side. I believe that many silly SJs assume us NFs to be
SPs, and then they doubt our seriousness on the grounds that Igor has
mentioned ("you don;t love me for who I am" and that b.s.). Well, SPs can be
great people and yes, they usually can fall in love with you too, but you
have to give them some time. They love to play initially. Maybe that chick
of yours was one of those. If you come out of the closet while they are
still in the "foreplay" stage, they could get pretty scared and shy away.
But if you wait patiently enough to get under their skin, they may not be
able to shad you off easily, if at all. STPs, on the other hand, are
somewhat harder to have a meaningful relationship with. They develop
emotions with much difficulty, and they go for bodily pleasures all too
often. I would doubt the possibility of a strong relationship between an NF
and an STP. But, bear in mind, more than 30% of women are SPs of some type.
4. SJs. The worst partners for us of the whole lot. And the most common.
Nearly 50% of all. This is a truly great tragedy for us NFs, for the
majority of people are simply not compatible with our personalities
relationshipwise. SJ are the people who simply follow the rules, they play
the game and often get scared when someone else doesn't. They can sometimes
see the point of SPs sometimes, for SPs are rebels without a cause, they
rebel for the pleasure's sake. But we NFPs are rebels with a cause, a
rational, usually moral reason for our sabotage of the system, and that
makes the SJs that more confused and defensive. Our rules are our morals.
Their morals are the rules. And the rules are always theirs, because of
their democratic majority. Generally, SJs will have a lot of reserve towards
us even if we don't show a lot of emotional bias openly. It is easy to spot
alien species. To an SJ, we are weirdos, nutcases, terrorists, whatever. To
us, they are simply and scornfully - cops. We are the riot command, they are
the riot police. Do you fancy dating a police chick? Or, would a police
chick fancy dating a revolutionary? I may use a hyperbole, but I guess that
does describe it. You writing all those letters, showing all that emotion,
that was simply not on. "Normal people" would not do it. And "normal people"
are usually SJs.
I'm sure God had a pretty good reason to plant so many of those good but
narrow minded people among us. They provide the human social system with
stability, while the intensity and volatility of our emotions is treathening
that very stability directly and explicitely.
The funny thing is that some SJs are on our side, actually. If you let an
SFJ person get to know you (and that always takes time and a lot of effort,
because of the initial reserve), they will get very surprised at how good a
person that "axe-murderer" actually is, and they will apreciate you for your
positive feelings. This appreciation will eventually drive out the fear. An
SFJ therefore can make a partner, for these people CAN get to love you, but
it takes them a lot of time. And a lot of effort. And a lot of calmness
coming from you.
STJs are a lost cause for us, as far as I can see. They stand for all that
we do not, and vice versa. They fear us, while we understand and pity them.
I don't see a good relationship between an NFP and an STJ. Ever. There is no
respect possible.
The trick is to distinguish between those, and it takes a lot of practice.
There is a lot of literature on Myers-Briggs, and a lot of stuff about it on
the Web. Look around.
By the way, I discovered that my fantasy was an STJ, in all likelyhood.
Loving Shakespeare. And not understanding a lot of it. It is always easy to
mistify someone when you are 400 years away and not in the same room
broadcasting all those nasty vibes...
Good luck fratello,
Steven
Courageous
> can fully define reality, what does is that Courageous's idea of what that
> girl was was most likely way out of line from her true being.
I understood many facts about her, but did not understand the whole
cloth of who she was, or how the detailed facts of her life constructed
her into a real person. Some of her behaviors quite startled me in
the end, in spite of being able to list of a huge list of details
from her life. Looking back, I think I now do understand her
behaviors, and wonder in retrospect whether or not I was emotionally
compatible with her. Just possibly not. I strongly suspect that
overall she wasn't "emotionally ready" at all.
On the other points in this post, I find it interesting that someone
would be willing to conclude so much about me based on one life
experience. How do you know that I wasn't utterly overwhelmed by
a once in a lifetime emotional experience and was simply in an
emotional fugue pursuing it to its end as I best knew how at the
time? Part of the craziness of my obsession with A. was this
certain feeling of stupidity that I'd screwed up utterly right
in the very beginning with a type of move that I've actually told
people not to do on countless occasions. In fact, the error was
ironic in more than one way: I remember distinctly the day I had
a conversation with A. about the fellow who sent her poetry before.
I observed: "it's usually not a good idea to send those kinds of
romantic overatures early in a relationship, because it can create
pressure." Nasty foreshadowing. That I proceeding to go about my
own demise in a way that I had personally foretold is only evidence
of how emotionally wrapped up in it that I became. Looking back on
the whole affair makes me feel like such a child, really.
There is much more to the story and why it went the way that it
went that I have left out. There were certain of her behaviors
towards me in the beginning that I interpreted as a positive
emotional response towards me. Looking back, I may have even
been very well correct, with the caveat that in spite of spotty
positive emotional responses, she simply wasn't ready. Or the
moment was lost. Or whatever.
I think perhaps the nature of my obsession was built-up on those
small emotional responses: to see such potential and then be
denied it was worse than a simple chase. The dichotomy pushed
me into la-la land.
C/
Courageous
> * small emotional responses: to see such potential and then be
> * denied it was worse than a simple chase. The dichotomy pushed
> * me into la-la land.
>
> She could be one of the people who encourage this kind of behavior.
> And, YOU may be also a very confusing person. Have you ever had
> your women complain that your behavior is confusing and they cannot
> understand it?
No, actually. But then again, I've never had this intense of
an emotional response to a woman before; it made me behave
very erratically. It's a bit dismaying, really.
C/
Gregos
My conclusions are not based on hard data. God forbid. Very well observed. I
have no evidence? Surprise me with some of your own. To assume that anyone
can draw conclusions about the emotions of an individual based on any
quantifiable stuff is simply esoteric. This is personality guesswork, not
stupid and narrow-minded logical reasoning. I've done the later for too long
in my life, and besides expanding IQ it got me nowhere. To repeat again, I
am guessing your profile with a considerable chance of failure by comparing
patterns. Some of it will be done on the empirical basis, some on logical.
Trivial positivist thinking is non-applicable in the domain of feelings.
Sorry, brother. We are Fs and that is our kingdom, no logic is acceptable.
We don't issue the Ts any visas when it comes to love. And to obtain HARD
data on someone's emotions you would certainly require some of the famed KGB
interrogational methods. The only trick is that it may distort the initial
emotions considerably, and many other things besides that :)
Courageous does not have an very unique personality for a simple reason:
unique things are lone. Nothing can be very lone, by definition, as used in
english language. His personality is rare, alright. He can write letters
well, which is a trait many of us NFPs possess, as opposed to the ones that
you do. I was trying to advise him from the perspective of someone sharing
pretty much most of the PT that has had practical experiences of a similar
nature. I was also trying to warn him from making any quick conclusions, at
least in the future. Any form of logic is not applicable in those
circumstances, to repeat once again. Of course, when you are approaching
someone with something in your hand with a view on dating them, common sense
sais it better not be a holy book or something. You better act damn straight
and clean, and you don't need a lot of wit to figure that one out. Making
waves also does not help. On the other hand, ESP and prayers (christian,
islamic or others) may be useful, if you believe in those things. Or
astrology ;))
Igor wrote in message ...
>Gregos <gre...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>* joey brother,
>*
>* My own little thingy, just about 3 weeks old (that's how long ago the
black
>* day occured), although infrastructurally quite different, was in
practical
>* terms almost a mirror image of your misadvanture. There is such a thing
as a
>* personality clash, and those may have well been a couple of those.
Romance
>* is a funny thing. I solemnly believe that some people simply never get
any
>* idea of what "love" means. For some of them, it is a term that denotes
>* security, comfort and enjoyment of other persons physique and friendship
>* (like many of Myers-Briggs SJ types). Others see relationship as an
>* adventure, not a match of a higher importance (many MB SPs). The SJ types
>* are unfortunately very common, especially among women. I say
unfortunately
>* for your writing and the whole affair sounds very much like you are an NF
>* (intuitive feeler), just like myself. This category numbers less than 10%
of
>* men, while about 50% of women are SJs, and perhaps as many as 30% are
SPs.
>* If you are what I think you are, you have to face some facts.
>
>That's why I crossposted the thread to alt.psychology.personality,
>I thought that Courageous had a very unique personality.
>
>* Among the facts are those:
>*
>* 1) We feel. We feel strongly. Even about ordinary things. We are more
likely
>* to give a quarter to a homeless guy than any SJ. They will often worry
about
>* being tricked into giving a stupid quarter away. We will generally worry
>* more about this guy probably being hungy and cold there and then, and
more
>* so without our quarter.
>*
>* 2) Other people, especially SJ's often don't know what intense emotion
is.
>* They simply never experience it. They live in a world of external
sensation.
>
>Bullshit. I have seen some Guardians be madly in love.
Igor, before you "bullshit" anyone's statements, bear in mind that the word
"often" denotes any quantity appearing within an entity of any significance,
which may not account for the majority of that entity. Using it in even
within a winning argument is pretty rude, at least in a civilised newsgroup.
And as far as winnability goes, it may not require one to utilise a lot of
logic to figure out that if many SJs cannot love, some of them may very well
be able to. Please use words less strong than "bullshit" unless you are very
sure you have read what someone has said carefully and in detail, and
analysed them afterwards.
Many Guardians can and do fall in love. Many of them loved the Fuhrer during
WW2 for instance. It was a love of obsession, protection, patriotism,
devotion and unquestioning loyalty. What a great love that was.
>* Emotion is not one of those. Igor is probably an SJ himself, maybe an NT
or
>* even SP. He cannot fully understand you. Nor could that woman. And people
>
>You are the prime example of the fallacy of overconfidently making
>conclusions from insufficient data.
>
>* are scared of unknown. Among other valid explanations of yours, she may
have
>* feared your love for she simply never experienced something like that
>* herself. And she might never experience. For all that she knew, you could
>* have been derranged and dangerous. And the SJ knowledge is very
positivist,
>* no metaphysics abides in their universe.
>*
>* 3) Very funny and peculiar is the igor's "was a person entirely diferent
>* from what you imagined her to be." This is very typical of sensory
>* individuals. They believe that their senses can let them fully define the
>* nature of another individual, provided that they are given sufficient
time.
>
>Again, there is no logic in this... It does not really matter if senses
>can fully define reality, what does is that Courageous's idea of what that
>girl was was most likely way out of line from her true being.
His idea was apparently wrong, you are right about that. I did not even
argue with that. Everyone is wrong. Even about themselves. But talking about
someone's true being, without assuming the status of a higher entity, is
very pretentious, almost blasphemous in some ways. What you call "true
being" is one's user interface. The inner self is what metaphysics is
concerned about. Are you into it? I doubt it, at least from what you are
saying.
>* Another positivist approach, and, know what, I bet you even she thought
>* exactly the same way! "BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHO I AM!!" - she cried. Well,
no
>* use now. We know well that it is them who don't know who they are
>* themselves, and they project their doubts and insecurities onto us. But
the
>* trick is that we fail, while they get their prophecies of failure
>* shamelessly simply self-fulfilled by rejecting us. Moral#1: We are more
>* romantic people than they can ever be. Moral#2: We therefore get hurt
more
>* than they ever do. Moral#3 We know that Shakespeare was just one of us,
so
>
>Which Shakespeare accidentqlly was not, by the way. According to one of
>the pygmalion project books, if I recall correctly, he was a rational.
You can base your knowledge on the pop-literature. I am glad the guy is dead
and unable to fill out any of the keirsey's forms, which might resolve this
little argument.
>* we commonly find him light and easy reading, while base their degrees and
>* sometimes lives around explaining to themselves and others the mindsets
of
>* Shakespeare's famous NF characters, and keep failing at it (the vast
>* majority, just like the man himself, are simply just like us, and behave
so.
>* Very weird. And Fascinating?! LOL ;)! SUCKERS!!!!
>*
>* 4) "So your mistakes are not in what you did, but in what you perceived".
>* The truth is that both igor and you are right on this one. You perceived
an
>* individual who was supposed to be able to understand you. She was not one
of
>* those. And you are right, too- if we want to come close to STP and SJs
while
>* we feel very strongly about them, we simply HAVE to cover up the
intensity
>* of our feelings, otherwise they run for their lives.
>
>You do not understand Guardians at all, dude. They can be absolutely
>madly in love (whoch I can define as their love defining most of what
>they do), they simply show it in a different way. They do a lot of stuff
>for you.
The guardians do a lot of stuff for me, admitedly! They break my heart
occasionally (Catherine, i still love you), I break their police bones
occasionally, they prevent me from getting my travelling documents and
travel freely occasionally, i prevent them from living quiet lives of good
law obiding citizens occasionally, they respectfully help elect presidents
who let the crooks run their private armies and burn down villages, murder
inhabitants & rape women, thereby laying ruin to my native country
occasionally, i come back and make some of them more aware of the
Ibn'Arabi's teachings occasionally. Of that stuff, there certainly is a lot.
They are the people that are the easiest to manipulate, obstruct and herd.
They base their opinions on the data, and will accept any data available, as
long as the conclusions arising from the data match their existing
misconceptions. And of prejudice they are sometimes full, while they
generally love using rules of tumb and stereotypes, i.e. they trade the
effectiveness for efficiency of judgment.
>* 5) "Some incompatibility", goodonya Igor! Man there were craploads of
it...
>* let me sum this up, mate. Here is who you probably are (NFP), and here
are
>* the implications:
>*
>* (E)xtrovert vs (I)ntrovert scale: not applicable
>* (F)eeling vs (T)hinking
>* (P)erceiving vs (J)udging
>* I(N)tuitive vs (S)ensory
>*
>* F- Stands for Feeling instead of thinking. You are a Myers-Briggs "F".
>* People with strong "T"'s will not understand you. They base their lives
on
>* logic. You apparently don't. That's cool with me, I don't either. But it
>* wasn't cool with her maybe. Be weary when you show too much emotion to
those
>
>The problem with F types is, that they do not make trivial logical
>conclusions from simple facts. Had Courageous been able to think back
>and reflect, he might have decided to actually get to know the girl a
>little better before overwhelming her with his very confusing behavior
>(being closer and then pushing her away, overwehelming her with poems
>of unknown quality, etc). Now, I am not picking on you F fellows, as you
>have feelings that I may never even experience and you do have a pretty
>good judgment of people -- unless your feelings get in the way of your
>perceptions -- but I belong to the school that it is always better to
>know of your weaknesses.
You don't seem to know much about the effects of strong feelings on one's
decision making process. We are well acquainted with logic, in general. We
just often choose not to use it, and sometimes simply follow our impulses.
And they are often as strong as those of the SPs, which is why they mix us
up sometimes.
>
>* people. They will try to rationalise it into their own constrained little
>* universe, and once they invariably fail they will have no choice but to
>* declare you weird and potentially dangerous.
>*
>* P - Stands for perception. Igor is right. You tried to perceive the whole
>* thing right through. We rarely judge other people, because we know they
are
>* all good to some extent, so why put them on trial initially. They WILL
judge
>* you initially. In the Myers-Briggs "J"-type eyes, everyone is a potential
>* axe-murderer. That's your default value, buddy, and you are guilty until
>* proven innocent. One more reason to be extremely calm, peaceful, cautious
>* and reserved when you try to approach a "J" you like.
>*
>* N - intuition. As I said, according to what you said it is almost certain
>* that the babe of yours was an "S"(Sensory). They usually don't even
bother
>
>There is no evidence of that whatsoever, dude. Where did you make your
>conclusion from?
The match with my personal experiences. Stop looking for evidence. This is
not criminal court, and there is simply not enough data to make any final
conclusion. Intuitive people can generally look behind the overtones
(regardless of their form), which this woman was apparently not capable of.
Since she did sleep with him, she was not sexually repulsed by the guy, so
the probable reason of her breaking up was the emotional intensity itself.
Ss are more weary of the manifestations of this emotional intensity, as they
record them as unusual sensations, and those can scare them off. Actually,
she was a bit adventurous so STP is my closest guess, and I could be slighly
wrong.
I
>
>* using their intuition, except maybe professionally. We do. Sometimes we
>* succeed in this, and sometimes we fail. But we always look for the
"bigger
>* picture". In your bigger picture in this case may have been you and her
and
>* the most unbelievable romance and white wedding and loads of kids and
>* happiness to and beyond the grave and angels and who knows what else. In
>* her, this may have been another potential relationship to let her recover
>* from the breakdown in the previous one. For example, an acquaintance of
>* mine, "SJ" has been in a relationship for 2 years, and broke it off after
>* deciding to apply for a job overseas. She said that it was such fine a
>* relationship, he's been so good, they never ever had a fight or
something,
>* and he was soooooo sad when she had to leave for Aussie and he was to
>* emotional. So she was a bit sad, too. Why, you would ask? Well "she
hasn't
>* been single for more than 2 years"! Don't be fooled Joey, these people,
as I
>* said, sometimes have no bloody idea what love is.
>
>Not all guardians. I know one ISTJ and one ISFJ and there is a world
>of difference between them. One has no feelings whatsoever, and another
>is full of love and devotion.
Again, the same thing Igor. Sometimes - does it really sound like "all".
Consider using a dictionary for a change. And it would be normal to expect
that the emotion is what differentiates ISTJs and ISFJs, hell - that's in
their definition!
>
>* Anyway, for all those brave and keen male NFPs (about 4-5% of the male
>* populace), here are some advices on who potential matches are, speaking
>* completely from my personal experience and understanding of Myers-Briggs,
>* and of course intuition as well :)
>*
>* 1. Other NFs. This can be a dream relationship. But the level of
emotional
>* intensity on both sides is so great that the resonance of the effects can
>* and often does cause rupture in the physical sequence of events.
Tragedies
>* are therefore common, but at least they are mutual when they do occur.
Have
>* a look at Romeo and Juliet. Both Shakespearean NF's, both completely and
>* unreservedly in love with each other. There was certainly some
>* over-dramatisation, but the essence is there, what "S" personalities
would
>* say, "it was too good to be true". About 15% of females are NFs of
various
>* subtypes. If those women like you, you can afford to like them back very
>
>Where are they hiding.
>
>* emotional and kind side. I believe that many silly SJs assume us NFs to
be
>
>They often do not understand nothing.
>
>* often. I would doubt the possibility of a strong relationship between an
NF
>* and an STP. But, bear in mind, more than 30% of women are SPs of some
type.
>
>I have written all SPs off. Never could have a meaningful relationhip
>with them.
Igor, you can't generalise like that.
SPs are playful, they can love you, but you have to keep intriguing them.
And they may be less loyal than others sometimes. But not necessarily. And
their Fs can often appear like Ts because of their extravagancy, which acts
as a cover-up for sometimes intense emotions inside.
Secondly, the NFs are usually the "busiest" girls around. They are very very
considerate, well natured, loyal, will do much to prevent you from being
hurt and are therefore much sought after. Consequently, their occupancy
rates are very high.
Igor, you are apparently very fond of SFJ babes. That's allright. You are a
dog person, and I am a cat person. I don't care what love comes with, but I
do dislike being judged, and judging others. And that is what SJs excell at.
They are the pillar of every society, and the repositories of all the shit.
Once you try to get rid of that shit, you have immediately started making
waves,at least as seen through their eyes. Sorry, bro but our conflict is
political. No avoiding it.