I'm already the strong and silent type. In contrast, I prefer light-hearted, witty and goofy.
This is just standard "It's not me, it's everyone else" talk. It's cool that you have your convictions but inflexibility is not a great addition to a relationship.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.
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.
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 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.
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.
I question everything, more than most people do. This is a matter of much debate and discussion for me. I come by nothing in this lightly.You're talking past me... I told you, I question the notion and you just state that it's true without questioning it yourself.
It is not out of nothing.You make the assertion that men are orderly and women chaotic out of nothing and that's the whole issue of this.
Risk taking in what sense?You just choose to define it one way while ignoring many factors that point it to the other way. For example, women are less risk taking, yet you don't seem to take that into consideration.
Even is that is true, I just did. Will you now reconsider or are you unmovable?So you haven't demonstrated why it's one way and not the other or something else entirely.
This is possible, but even then the pattern will reassert itself.I never talked about individual men btw, I'm talking about a stereotype being reversed, essentially, due to differences in culture.
I will never do that in the video. I would have told that guy to fuck off.This is just standard "It's not me, it's everyone else" talk. It's cool that you have your convictions but inflexibility is not a great addition to a relationship.
Also, don't knock public bathroom chats, magic often happens there
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 agree perceivers while are definitely fun they do have a tendency to not have it together the way judgers do. When it comes to long term partners I do have a preference for judgers. You mentioned being an esfj, which I don’t believe I have had a relationship with one I would really like too. Istps and istjs are similar except like mentioned earlier since I’m a judger I am more reliable and have my shit together.I prefer the strong silent type as an ESFJ. As long as I can feel a connection I’m good in a relationship with this type. I’m not sure if I would connect with an ISTP. I haven’t met one to know. It’s just most perceivers make good friends but for me they are just not reliable as a partner. As an ISTJ what is your preference?
Nope, nothing to do with disagreeing, only with ignoring the subjectivity I mention which shows in this post as well.I question everything, more than most people do. This is a matter of much debate and discussion for me. I come by nothing in this lightly.
And, no, I considered everything you said and answered specifically each point, which IS NOT talking past you. Disagreeing with you IS NOT talking past you. That is also a conflation of desire. Delusional desire wishes to be 'heard'. This is not the truth. The truth is desire wants what it wants. It does not care if you heard or not, only that you bend to its will. It will only feel 'heard' if you acquiesce.
It is not out of nothing.
MANY and MOST cultures make the same assertions. VERY few do otherwise. They ARE NOT statistically significant.
Risk taking in what sense?
Fear is the foundation of hedonism, joy itself at ennetype 7. Preparation lessens risk. Men are orderly and train. This ALLOWS them to face risk readily. All skill is fear and thought based. ALL SKILL. This is risk mitigation defined. You are being ridiculous and just do not realize it. This is EXPLANATION, discussion, argument. I am NOT talking past you. I am addressing each point (non points).
Sociology has been desperate to confirm the nonsensical narrative that the genders are fungible. And to their everlasting horror they have done nothing but confirm their fears instead, that gender IS NOT fungible. Men gravitate towards things rather than people because they are colder and prefer certainty as fear and order oriented people will. Women gravitate towards people rather than things because they are warmer emotionally and prefer social interaction/connection as desire and chaos oriented people will.
Trying to be objective, e.g. generally being aware of (not ignoring) how subjectivity works in wisdom, is wise. That is to say, if there is only 1 objective truth, and there is, then subjectivity only exists to help us randomly envision and choose it. It is NOT carte blanche for self-indulgence, which is mostly how it is used.Nope, nothing to do with disagreeing, only with ignoring the subjectivity I mention which shows in this post as well.
Alright. I do believe that people are a pleasant mix of both fear and desire, order and chaos. But then your assertion must be that it is random who prefers hierarchy and who prefers the certainty of things over people, and who prefers limits as opposed to openness. For you to be correct these things would have to be true. You cannot just throw your hands up and say, no it's all just pleasantly random. That denies the truth of order. That denies objectivity. You see objectivity does not deny subjectivity. That is because an imperfect moral agent can be subjective within an objective frame. But a subjective frame denies wholesale any objectivity if it is properly understood. Any limit is a tool of fear. Any refusal of limits is a tool of desire. Love is arranged the way it is because truth can be no other way.That's what my point about subjectivity was addressing, those assertions are made subjectively as the stories often relate to male sexuality and projecting the chaos onto the female.
Not relevant. You are seeing their desire expression AFTER they are privileged by an order they also established.Majority of men are lead by impulses and desires just as well.
All of this is mostly anger, building presence at all costs to mate. But the implication of presence is readiness, fear and order. One must be ready to deal with other presenters.They kill themselves by accidents more often and do stupid shit more often, or they go for status/money in more normal cases.
That is skill that is natural or intuitive, based in essence or anger. You are right but your example is not relevant to this discussion. Building skill, discipline, is fear and order. Awareness is order. Preparation is order. The natural DOES NOT prepare. That is why we call them natural. They are anger, in essence. You are only proving to me how much you do not understand. Maybe, I have a point?Skill can be a matter of fun & play, not preparation.
If you are saying fear, anger, and desire work together for success, you are preaching to the preacher.One can become skilled at something simply because they enjoy the process of seeing themselves improve and change their thinking. Which is typical to ENPs at the very least, kinda surprised you don't see that.
Indeed, but the source is desire. If you think about it, you will prove my point. The things is to ask, which is MORE true in each case.Problem is, you take the areas & skills men prefer to invest in, as by default orderly and for women as chaotic and don't realize that women create structures and order in their own areas of interest/inclinations. For example, women may traditionally be more inclined to be social and invest time in relations but that often means creating hierarchies & expectations for others to follow, including the men.
It does TRY to, as I am only TRYING to be objective. It is a BETTER way to understand things than to deny the underlying truths in an 'all things are fungible' ditsy subjectivism which cannot be the foundation of any meaningful reality.This is why I mentioned subjectivity in my earlier post, you're not being objective by asserting that things=order, people=chaos as it doesn't examine all the dynamics of the latter category in reality.