Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 38 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ladies and perhaps gentlemen as well how many of you dig the strong silent type. As an istj strong silent type is a good why of describing myself and the vast majority of women I’ve dated are attracted to the strong silent type that doesn’t do a lot of nonsense talking. Feel free to list your type as well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,035 Posts
I do actually prefer the strong silent type, in women. After all, I'm the one that does all the talking, nonsense and otherwise.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lonewolf2000

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
one can also think nonsense whether they speak it or not

I'd rather they speak so that I know, since I can't read minds
One can think nonsense true. When I say talking nonsense it’s someone who talks just to talk or just to hear themselves talk and never has anything important or interesting to say. I don’t fit that category even though not everybody finds what I say interesting. Do you like people who talk just to hear themselves speak.
 

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
One can think nonsense true. When I say talking nonsense it’s someone who talks just to talk or just to hear themselves talk and never has anything important or interesting to say. I don’t fit that category even though not everybody finds what I say interesting. Do you like people who talk just to hear themselves speak.
No, but at least with them I know what I'm dealing with more easily. The strong silent type seems like someone who's hard to connect with and probably hides things they think or feel, or even tries to control situations through the silence. Not my cup of tea
 

·
Registered
ENFP
Joined
·
4,195 Posts
Depends on the strong silent type of guy... If he's anything like Mike Pence, that's just a bit... weird. (sorry, didn't mean to bring politics into this- but he's a good example of strong silent, yet very very repressed- makes people feel uneasy).

There's someone for everyone. I like a strong silent type if that's his natural style, but he's present, honest, and open about his feelings if something bothers him, he'll say it. Not everyone values that kind of communication.

Some couples like acts of service to one another, and that's how they primarily express love, which is admirable- and if this describes you as a strong silent type of person, then those are great qualities that another person may value and may not require open/direct communication as much. Each couple will work differently, just like each family, expressing their own unique style.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,259 Posts
I think it depends on how charismatic or humorous he is . I don’t mind silent type so long as we have a connection and I find them peculiar.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,035 Posts
Can’t recall the last strong silent woman I met
I met one just the other day. To be fair, she does speak when cajoled and wheedled to do so.

I can pull off a fairly good strong silent type myself.

Men are in the bone that way, order. Women are in the bone the other way, chaos. But there are many many pleasant exceptions to most 'rules' out there in the world, and that of course means those 'rules' are not rules at all. Truth has no exceptions in any case. That defines truth.

But I like her a lot and so far she returns the favor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lonewolf2000

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
I met one just the other day. To be fair, she does speak when cajoled and wheedled to do so.

I can pull off a fairly good strong silent type myself.

Men are in the bone that way, order. Women are in the bone the other way, chaos. But there are many many pleasant exceptions to most 'rules' out there in the world, and that of course means those 'rules' are not rules at all. Truth has no exceptions in any case. That defines truth.

But I like her a lot and so far she returns the favor.
so, speaking is ...chaos? if those rules are not rules at all, you just contradicted yourself lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,035 Posts
so, speaking is ...chaos? if those rules are not rules at all, you just contradicted yourself lol
Well, the short answer is that you are right.

The longer answer is that indeed, I am a non-stereotyped male. I am a man and so given towards order by gender, and that still ekes in there.

But I am indeed more leaned towards chaos. I am in touch with my inner bitch.

So, although its seems a contradiction, I DO NOT meet the stereotype, so, it isn't really one.

Further, I suppose you have been around a while and read a great number of my posts, so, you probably know, I am very very focused on balance and wisdom as ... the purpose of life.

So, I am already a gabby male, like Socrates, my brother from another mother. As a gadfly, I exist to challenge and that most often takes on verbal form or ... let's say expressive form. I can get physical although I try very hard to make sure the other person's posture and attitude are inviting in that respect. But really all that is related to PRESENCE, an anger trait.

And that brings this full circle. The strong silent type is still occupying space and having mass. They offer their presence in what they DO NOT say, as an expression. It's still quite effective, if its genuine. It like the Paul Harvey thing, the dramatic pause, but even less pretentious than that.

On on ...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,568 Posts
Ladies and perhaps gentlemen as well how many of you dig the strong silent type. As an istj strong silent type is a good why of describing myself and the vast majority of women I’ve dated are attracted to the strong silent type that doesn’t do a lot of nonsense talking. Feel free to list your type as well.
I prefer the strong-and-able-to-hold-a-conversation type....

Silence creates intrigue which helps with sexual tension, which is fine for fucktoys, not for relationship material. It's easier for a regular guy to clam up when he wants to build tension than it is for the "Strong and silent type" to grace us mortals with the verbalization of his mental landscape, which is super frustrating.
 
  • Like
Reactions: series0

·
exploring space
ENFP
Joined
·
9,125 Posts
Well, the short answer is that you are right.

The longer answer is that indeed, I am a non-stereotyped male. I am a man and so given towards order by gender, and that still ekes in there.

But I am indeed more leaned towards chaos. I am in touch with my inner bitch.

So, although its seems a contradiction, I DO NOT meet the stereotype, so, it isn't really one.

Further, I suppose you have been around a while and read a great number of my posts, so, you probably know, I am very very focused on balance and wisdom as ... the purpose of life.

So, I am already a gabby male, like Socrates, my brother from another mother. As a gadfly, I exist to challenge and that most often takes on verbal form or ... let's say expressive form. I can get physical although I try very hard to make sure the other person's posture and attitude are inviting in that respect. But really all that is related to PRESENCE, an anger trait.

And that brings this full circle. The strong silent type is still occupying space and having mass. They offer their presence in what they DO NOT say, as an expression. It's still quite effective, if its genuine. It like the Paul Harvey thing, the dramatic pause, but even less pretentious than that.

On on ...
The thing is, I question this whole notion of order/chaos especially with the way you present it, and others when it comes to gender. I don't know if it's cause of what kind of women one has socialized with, or grew up with, but order seems to me a very womanly thing as well. The woman who blabbers indefinitely is very often the one who's gonna be stringing everyone else along and being in charge, in many female groups, creating structure and even policing it.

The idea that women are chaotic is a very subjectivist view from a man's perspective, either because they're too emotional for them and thus seem unpredictable or incomprehensible, or it's because of their sexual attraction that makes them lose control in themselves. In both those cases it's something in the man that creates that view, it's not objective. In my culture it's often retold that men are the chaotic ones. In either case they're both wrong because it's not about gender as much as it's about other personality characteristics but also the subjectivity of who judges someone else as chaotic or orderly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
No, but at least with them I know what I'm dealing with more easily. The strong silent type seems like someone who's hard to connect with and probably hides things they think or feel, or even tries to control situations through the silence. Not my cup of tea
I only hide things from strangers, i share with those I know well and feel I can trust. Those that are to trusting of others tend to be taken advantage of or unconsciously invite assholes into their life things I try to avoid.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
157 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I prefer the strong-and-able-to-hold-a-conversation type....

Silence creates intrigue which helps with sexual tension, which is fine for fucktoys, not for relationship material. It's easier for a regular guy to clam up when he wants to build tension than it is for the "Strong and silent type" to grace us mortals with the verbalization of his mental landscape, which is super frustrating.
I can hold a conversation especially with someone I connect with. But I refuse to hold conversations with people who talk just to hear themselves talk or try to talk to me at the wrong time. I’ve had strangers try talking to me in a public bathroom wrong place wrong time. In that instance I generally shoot them a dirty look and walk away or just don’t say anything which they consider rude. And those strangers are the ones who talk just to talk.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,035 Posts
The thing is, I question this whole notion of order/chaos especially with the way you present it, and others when it comes to gender. I don't know if it's cause of what kind of women one has socialized with, or grew up with, but order seems to me a very womanly thing as well.
OK so, you missed the point.

I will explain, and run the risk of being told I'm 'mansplaining'.

Chaos is the disruption of order. It is desire itself. Actually, properly defined and understood chaos IS ONLY desire and nothing else. Desire is random and that is the reason chaos is chaos. Every direction is open to free will and choice and THAT is the foundation of chaos.

All instantiated matter in this world is loaded with all three forces, all three emotions, fear, anger, and chaos. So, it is no surprise at all that all matter, all meaning, contains all three. So, you have to look past that EASY GENERIC truth.

Further, stereotypes are damaging to individuals. I can agree with and even assert that. But the ONLY reason they are damaging is when they do not really apply. That is to say the specific case that is not the stereotype is taken for being the stereotype. This is an anger attack, a denial of being. It is based on faulty judgment, hence the word prejudice. Further, most often it is based on a fear designation, a categorization. All thought, all order, is based in fear.

Structure, hierarchy, the existing order, is all fear. Traditionally that has been male and patriarchal in form. That is because ... that's how it HAD to be. Men are more oriented towards fear and order than women are. That is the stereotype because it is TRUE. We are not talking about any specific man. I myself have chaos leanings.

Women are trended to chaos by their nature, by nature. They HAD to be to balance the male predisposition to order and fear. Also, the women had to be inclined, PROGRAMMED, and they are, it's not really their choice in some senses, thus predisposition, to breed OUTSIDE the existing order. this prevents inbreeding. Order-chaos balance and prevention of inbreeding therefore, is very healthy for ANY species. It is a tautology.

Even if women and male roles flip, if one changes, the other also MUST. That is balance in action. Again, it is missing the point to be offended in any way by fact. That is to say, if we record these things and a current state of things is discovered that state is a fact. Facts are NOT unassailable. Facts are ALL only a subset of beliefs. They are merely beliefs that a person who holds them has accepted as justified, passing judgment.

All minorities within a society are cast in the role of chaos for that society. By the nature of being a minority, this is true in that sense.

Order BUILDS. That it to say it establishes, maintains, and stabilizes. So, a rising society is always only one of order.

Chaos disintegrates. That is to say, in seeking random directions of freedom, in appealing to whim, it destabilizes, rots, and enlivens everything.

It is this last energy of enlivenment that is often missing from old and stale and orderly systems.

Anger is the balance in between these two emotions, both rejecting the need for order by the courage to stand against EVERYTHING at the same time, even solo if need be, ... AND ... by the demand that desires not overwhelm the self with self-indulgence.

The woman who blabbers indefinitely is very often the one who's gonna be stringing everyone else along and being in charge, in many female groups, creating structure and even policing it.
You are conflating individual power and group power and chaos as an essnece.

Of COURSE, enlivened chaotic people are the leaders. Duh! That is both male and female and it is usually enneatype 3 and or 6. This has NOTHING TO DO with bulk stereotypes of gender. So, de-conflate those issues.

Chaos usually DOES lead, even in groups. That is to say the enigmatic ones lead. But, the three enneatypes of the mainstream as I define it are by far the most usual. These are 3, 6, and 9. The other 6 types are seen as outliers and apart from the type 1 (usually) are deemed 'neurotic' by modern typing theory (Big 5). Big 5 is the WORST system going. It it horribly vague and dismissive in its construction. It TOTALLY suits and serves the mainstream ideals only. As such it is a highly immoral system.

Chaos leads because it is the desire, the emotion of the future. We cannot be led into the past. It doesnt work. Although we can be led in the present, anger is the emotion of balance. Not enough people are balanced, and anger is VERY denigrated as an emotion, immorally.

The idea that women are chaotic is a very subjectivist view from a man's perspective, either because they're too emotional for them and thus seem unpredictable or incomprehensible, or it's because of their sexual attraction that makes them lose control in themselves. In both those cases it's something in the man that creates that view, it's not objective.
Incorrect.

The view is objective. But, I will admit that various instances of this can be counter to the stereotype, which MEANS NOTHING. The stereotype exists because it is TRUE. Exceptions are only that. I am not denying the full range of order through chaos as possible amid each gender on the gender continuum. We could indeed trend a society and our biology towards balance and neutral gender. That does seem to be a likely scenario. But it would foolish, bordering on an insane denial of the facts of the current state to suggest that stereotypes are not accurate.

The humorous thing is that denial of the objective state of things proves my point. That is the immoral aim of desire and chaos. In envisioning or becoming, imagination, desire, is favored over what is real and measurable and controllable. THIS IS desire at work. People that favor no labels, no borders, etc; no categorizations, no prejudice (and not all prejudice is bad) and people of chaos, of vision.

In my culture it's often retold that men are the chaotic ones. In either case they're both wrong because it's not about gender as much as it's about other personality characteristics but also the subjectivity of who judges someone else as chaotic or orderly.
You are back to conflations again. The individual men spoken of are often leaders and chaotic. Women in general, again due to their desire inclinations, prefer to focus on fame, on alpha characteristics, in chaotic fashion. They want what they want. They almost CANNOT SEE the order of things. The balance is fairness, etc, would recommend monogamy in all cases. That is orderly. Order is a prison. You judge and you accept. Once you marry, you are in it for life. Devotion is order. Counters to all of these truths are chaos.

True, gender is only a single factor. But, amid that single factor, which is a fact in evidence, gender, there are COOKED IN truths. That is to say all past choices are burned in, PROGRAMMED. And denial of this is like denying your hand is useful tool. It's just stupid. These tendencies ARE INDEED subject to choice. That is the purpose of desire. But desire can be moral or immoral.

The GOOD is objective. That means opinion about what is GOOD ultimately cannot matter. Desires randomness IS ONLY useful to help us try all paths to get to the GOOD. This is the foundation of free will. It is the foundation of non-determinism. But it is not an excuse for self-indulgent rot.

Order and chaos MUST morally be balanced just like the gender balance between men and women. If you want a great symbol for this balance it is the I-Ching. Clearly, within the symbol the swoop of order is male and the swoop of chaos, female. But that system is partially wrong, or not as correct as my model. They conflate various issues back and forth with the genders due to male pride mostly. But they get most of it right.

But amid those swoops there is still the mix, the dot in the middle and spoon curve of union. These are relevant to truth.

Stereotypes are USEFUL and mostly factual. They are denigrated improperly. The only way to address the stereotype successfully is to admit its truth and realize our choices have an impact. But the denial of truth, the denial of the current state of things, will make more people suffer. As truth grapples with falsehood, truth will win.

Here is another example. All matter and all that matters, is the same. From the ground up, everything is mostly in balance. But free will exists at every level. That is why it permutates up the chain of existence. The atom is a fine model for any polarity. Gender is CLEARLY a polarity centered around two foci, the denial of which is simply nonsensical. What are those two foci? They are order and chaos. Why? Because that is the same damn thing in the atom itself. Foundation is truth.

The fearful clumping in the center is orderly. It establishes structure. This is the proton. To say that protons have no distinct character only because they are balanced is ridiculous. It is a denial of the current state of ALL REALITY. The electrons are free wheeling, high energy, chaos. They are the extensible active portions of the atom, mostly determining its future interactions. Chaos and desire are the emotions of the future. Electrons are chaos instantiated. Science is reasonably clear about the fact that electrons are in no certain position. They are chaotic. It is my assertion here using my emotional model that electrons are actually slightly in the future. This is the very nature of desire. Energy is used to balance mass.

The confident particle, the neutron, is used as the basis of the clumping for the protons. The fearful orderly types reduce their excitement by clumping with the big confident ones. Thus ... reality is born.
 
1 - 20 of 38 Posts
Top