[NF] INFJ/P: Highest in marital dissatisfaction...

[Fluffywolf]

Always good to know there will be INFJ's up for grabs then. o/

 

[tibby]

I'm always striving forward, to the most actualized state there is, that the state itself never gets actualized. It's hazy and always somewhere else except here. Therefore I can never be completely satisfied with the present - that wouldn't motivate me to move forward.

Maybe it applies to marital dissatisfaction as well.

 

[Udog]

I understand and do the same thing. But the question is why talk about it? I never discuss problems if I know I don't want to hear anyone run their mouth off with their opinions...

I'm not sure if you'll get to this answer, but Rhapsody and heart's answers are both very good. NFs are subjective, personal, emotional in general.

For what it's worth, I always welcome constructive feedback, as long as the emotions themselves aren't dismissed. Tell me what actions I can change to make myself happier, but please never tell me I'm an idiot for being unhappy.

However, while not entirely predictive, studies shown that idealization of marriage and/or the person you marry has a positive correlation to length and happiness in marriage. It's not terribly surprising - going into something with optimism seems to generate a more positive outcome. Other longitudinal studies support this indirectly, with concepts before marriage playing a fairly significant role. The argument here would be that false expectations are a downside, however it doesn't seem to be a case (least as far as it relates to personality or effect). Hard to say for sure, since it's not really looked at directly... but in all of these situations, the major effect is the lack of communication.

That's pretty cool, and is definitely good news for us 'idealists'.

I think, regardless of type, idealism becomes bad when we take it too far and it becomes delusion. I can't speak for INFJs, but I know that INFPs have certain mental processes and fundamental needs that can make us vulnerable of idealizing a person/relationship, and then deluding ourselves when they aren't fulfilling those needs.

Another interesting thing about this is that the top complaints in relationships really have very little to do with personal interaction. Most people can pair up and be happy, given that the basic framework is in place. It's issues like money, children and mate-guarding that top the list... when you regress issues, there is some connection to personality... but more interesting is if you also look at the correlations to certain types and the big three issues, you find the same correlation.

Hmm... do you have any more thoughts on this? There's a bridge between how I'm viewing this (very theoretical and what if) and how you are viewing this (bottom line, what has research shown) that I'd like to try and build.

I do think with the INF_s, personal interaction does play a role in the big three. Usually we have very strong feelings on at least one of the big three (which one or ones depends on the person), but, these issues can lead to major conflict. I can totally see an INF avoid these issues, in an attempt to avoid conflict, early in the relationship when they most need to be addressed to determine long-term compatibility.

Great. That just makes my day :sad:

I think the second you deal with this potential in an honest manner is the second you greatly reduce the chances of this happening to you. I don't think idealism is our problem, it's that we delude ourselves with the idealism.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

My impression is that people who do the best in marriage can communicate directly and take things for what they are. For example, if it's important to you to have chocolates, roses, and a fancy dinner for your birthday, you tell your spouse, "I need such and such for my birthday". He then provides this and you are happy. Or you say, "I need you to spend time with me" and he may interrupt his favorite activity to oblige. I can view and respect that process, but it would leave me mortified.

There is a way it goes fundamentally against my nature to just state needs like that and then be satisfied. I don't want to pressure or change the person. I want to know exactly who they are and connect according to the natural process. I am a direct communicator, but I don't like the idea of asserting myself onto another person. Imperfections are not the issue. Imposing on someone in a personal way is the absolute issue.

One of my worst fears is to have someone feel beholden to me because of an emotional contract when it goes against their natural inclination. I don't want someone to work too hard to love me.

 

[Halla74]

Are there benefits in existing at emotional extremes?

I love being at or near a state of unipolar mania at all times.
I don't want any medication.
I'm having a fantastic time, quite frankly.

 

[Lexicon]

According to a certain typology webpage, the INFJ is the highest of all types in marital dissatisfaction, and the INFP is the second highest of all types

Here's the link. PersonalityDesk - Learning Center - INFP in Careers, Relationships, Leadership, Parenting

Now, this makes sense because both types tend to be quite idealistic, and presumably their high standards can be difficult to reconcile with reality. I know that's true in my case. So, any thoughts/experience on the matter? It would be great to know other INFP/INFJ opinions

Considering I've resolved to be a spinster/Reclusive Cat-Lady at the ripe old age of 24, I believe this must ring true, at least, a little bit.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

My impression is that people who do the best in marriage can communicate directly and take things for what they are. For example, if it's important to you to have chocolates, roses, and a fancy dinner for your birthday, you tell your spouse, "I need such and such for my birthday". He then provides this and you are happy. Or you say, "I need you to spend time with me" and he may interrupt his favorite activity to oblige. I can view and respect that process, but it would leave me mortified.

what about if it's important to you to have sex with other people cuz you never did that much when you were younger...? "hey, baby, i need to explore my sexuality more now, so i need to have sex with others." roses and fancy dinners are easy, frankly. it's when you get into the real nitty gritty of the big 3, or figuring out where you stop and they begin that it becomes the hardest shit you ever did in your life.

There is a way it goes fundamentally against my nature to just state needs like that and then be satisfied. I don't want to pressure or change the person. I want to know exactly who they are and connect according to the natural process. I am a direct communicator, but I don't like the idea of asserting myself onto another person. Imperfections are not the issue. Imposing on someone in a personal way is the absolute issue.

really? this was an issue for me in finding a mate, but not in keeping one. i have no problem being very direct about what i need or think i need. i thought infj were pretty direct beings.?

One of my worst fears is to have someone feel beholden to me because of an emotional contract when it goes against their natural inclination. I don't want someone to work too hard to love me.

totally with you here. i might cling to you, but i WILL NOT let you cling to me if you think you'd do better somewhere else.

 

[Synarch]

Yes that's possible and it's called neuroticism and at worst it's bipolar disorder. Are there benefits in existing at emotional extremes?

Makes life more romantic. All the romantics were bipolar. Coming back from a low is like being reborn.

I love being at or near a state of unipolar mania at all times.
I don't want any medication.
I'm having a fantastic time, quite frankly.

Yes, you just have to find a way to enjoy the lows.

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

what about if it's important to you to have sex with other people cuz you never did that much when you were younger...? "hey, baby, i need to explore my sexuality more now, so i need to have sex with others." roses and fancy dinners are easy, frankly. it's when you get into the real nitty gritty of the big 3, or figuring out where you stop and they begin that it becomes the hardest shit you ever did in your life.

I haven't encountered that, but if someone approached me with that, I wouldn't stop them, but I would end the relationship because it wouldn't fit my ability to form intimacy. The key is that I would not tell them "please don't do it and love me instead". I would say, "go ahead, but I can't keep up with that emotionally. It would hurt me, but I'd rather you go through with it than spend a lifetime wishing and spending time with me out of obligation". Once that desire is introduced it would hurt whether they did it or just sat around longing to do it but they couldn't because I kept them from it.

Being alone can hurt, but it is always an option as is finding someone more compatible. These scenarios of emotional obligation are worse to me than being alone. Marriage as a conception is neither positive or negative in my mind. It's value is measured entirely by its implementation by specific people in my view.

really? this was an issue for me in finding a mate, but not in keeping one. i have no problem being very direct about what i need or think i need. i thought infj were pretty direct beings.?

I am rather split on the P and J thing. My partner in my life now considers me an INFP. He says there are no signs of a J that he can see. I more often test as INFJ and my family would say I am a J. I'm direct in that I can say, "I end up feeling hurt when you do X. This is how I view it based on my experience and perception. I am not asking you to stop doing X because that is your right and choice." I feel responsible for my own reactions and struggle with issues of shame when I impose on others emotionally. It isn't up to me to change the person, it is up to me to choose how to respond.

 

[jenocyde]

I'm not sure if you'll get to this answer, but Rhapsody and heart's answers are both very good. NFs are subjective, personal, emotional in general.

For what it's worth, I always welcome constructive feedback, as long as the emotions themselves aren't dismissed. Tell me what actions I can change to make myself happier, but please never tell me I'm an idiot for being unhappy.

I've read their answers and can understand their thought processes, but still am not satisfied. I supposed it's because if I hear about the same problem over and over again, I just want to throttle someone if the solution is very simple. Let's be honest here, in most situations, someone will complain about the same problem for weeks rather than take moves to fix it. Or s/he will complain about a no good partner constantly but get upset with you for suggesting s/he leave him/her. I don't know, this may not be the truth, but oftentimes it seems like people just want an audience for their drama. It's not a shameful thing, everyone wants an audience sometimes... but for different reasons, you know what I mean?

There is a way it goes fundamentally against my nature to just state needs like that and then be satisfied. I don't want to pressure or change the person.

+1

what about if it's important to you to have sex with other people cuz you never did that much when you were younger...? "hey, baby, i need to explore my sexuality more now, so i need to have sex with others."

This is the poorest argument I've seen in a very long time.

 

[lane777]

Me too, one of my number one fears is having a failed marriage.

Yep.

 

[ptgatsby]

I think, regardless of type, idealism becomes bad when we take it too far and it becomes delusion. I can't speak for INFJs, but I know that INFPs have certain mental processes and fundamental needs that can make us vulnerable of idealizing a person/relationship, and then deluding ourselves when they aren't fulfilling those needs.

Absolutely - although I think this reduces down to too much of anything isn't good. NFs may be prone to idealization, but in terms of relationships, it pales to the impact STPs that have 'too much' of something, or TJs, or IPs. I mean, hyper-agreeability can be negative, but as far relationships go, hyper-disagreeability is much much worse (as in strongly correlated to abuse worse).

That's kind of the catch. I don't disagree with the overall comments being made, but the context feels... off. It should be applied at a personal level simply because it can be true there, but I don't see it being true in aggregate.

Hmm... do you have any more thoughts on this? There's a bridge between how I'm viewing this (very theoretical and what if) and how you are viewing this (bottom line, what has research shown) that I'd like to try and build.

Tons and tons of thoughts I could go on for days. However, we (and in general, on this forum, I won't get agreement) won't agree on the way I build up my framework. I view people as very malleable and unaware. I talk about mate selection like people don't make choices, and that their choices don't matter much on the outcome. This offends sensibilities. For example, I'll say that, on average, marriages are more successful when chosen by an algorithm than by people, better chosen by those that know us than ourselves, and so forth. Who you pick isn't normally the issue... and sadly, if it is, it's not normally that we make bad choices, but that we are lousy at relationships (picking or not picking has much the same outcome).

The success of a marriage is rather like happiness. You can't do a lot to make a relationship good... just like you can't do much to make yourself happy. However, you can do a huge amount to make things bad, or make yourself unhappy. These concepts are closely linked in a relationship, too. When you, as a person, don't have money or are in threat of losing something, you are unhappy. In a relationship, when money isn't there, the relationship is 'unhappy'. When you can't sleep because a baby is crying next door, you are unhappy, etc. Stress, or negative emotions, work on a seperate axis than positive emotions. Both return to 'normal' pretty fast... but stress remains constant, and retriggers negative emotions constantly.

Western viewpoints on marriage tend to focus on love... and often not the enduring kind, but passion. This really misses the mark and leaves the relationship lopsided. There is a distinct business side to relationships. Eastern relationships (traditionally) are much more "business" orientated, although the concepts are a bit fuzzier, since business and social bonds are closely related. Regardless, they fail to acknowledge the individuality in relationships.

The story this tells is that good relationships need both... but more than that, they need the framework - the environment - for both people to have both. That's really hard. The framework itself always comes down to the modes of communication the couple has developped.

Why are the big three so big? There are other notables, like women and sex, but the universal three are money, children and mate guarding (I'm summarizing a lot of things under mate guarding).

The answer lies in how open you are about these subjects. Can you talk about your specific money problems without emotional guilt/etc? To friends? Family? Very very rare. Do you have any expectations for your kids? Can you honestly say that you don't have assumptions in how they should be raised (often like or unlike your parents, in particular)? Do you feel guilty about sometimes not feeling happy in your marriage? Can you tell your spouse that? Can you hear it without personally feeling rejected?

These things are major stressors and they come with significant barriers to discussion. They are the stress test on the load-bearing beam in your relationship's framework. Most people fail it and end up miserable.

Heh, want to guess what the response to my advice that one of the best books to read for relationship advice is to read negotiation books? Not positive. But you are going to negotiate in a relationship one way or another. It'll be aggressive, or passive aggressive. It'll be silent, or yelling. It'll be bitter, or passionate. But it shouldn't be any of those. *sigh*

I do think with the INF_s, personal interaction does play a role in the big three. Usually we have very strong feelings on at least one of the big three (which one or ones depends on the person), but, these issues can lead to major conflict. I can totally see an INF avoid these issues, in an attempt to avoid conflict, early in the relationship when they most need to be addressed to determine long-term compatibility.

There is a certain amount of truth to this... but as I said at the very top, every type has their issues. The thread is saying that being aggreeable and open is a negative thing for satisfaction, and I have to question the premise. Nothing I have seen supports this, not directly against those traits.

(The introverted part, as well as my earlier comment on self-diagnosed NFs being more neurotic still applies. Both of these would indicate negative emotions being stronger and more dominant.)

 

[Udog]

I've read their answers and can understand their thought processes, but still am not satisfied. I supposed it's because if I hear about the same problem over and over again, I just want to throttle someone if the solution is very simple. Let's be honest here, in most situations, someone will complain about the same problem for weeks rather than take moves to fix it. Or s/he will complain about a no good partner constantly but get upset with you for suggesting s/he leave him/her. I don't know, this may not be the truth, but oftentimes it seems like people just want an audience for their drama. It's not a shameful thing, everyone wants an audience sometimes... but for different reasons, you know what I mean?

Yeah, this happens alot as well, and sometimes it's a combination of the two.

One of my INFJ friends was like this. She claimed to hate drama, but was clearly addicted to it. She was at her most energetic when her life was about to fall apart, and if given a choice, consistently chose the option that would lead to more drama.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Yeah, this happens alot as well, and sometimes it's a combination of the two.

One of my INFJ friends was like this. She claimed to hate drama, but was clearly addicted to it. She was at her most energetic when her life was about to fall apart, and if given a choice, consistently chose the option that would lead to more drama.

haha. i HATE drama too. but i love to push myself and my relationship to the extreme edge of living, which inevitable results in.....drama, i guess. wow. i never thought about it like that. it's not like i choose drama like an infp chooses drama (sorry, but the infps i know always have a serious drama or sob story going on), but that drama happens when you are always pushing the envelope, so to speak.

Absolutely - although I think this reduces down to too much of anything isn't good. NFs may be prone to idealization, but in terms of relationships, it pales to the impact STPs that have 'too much' of something, or TJs, or IPs. I mean, hyper-agreeability can be negative, but as far relationships go, hyper-disagreeability is much much worse (as in strongly correlated to abuse worse).

That's kind of the catch. I don't disagree with the overall comments being made, but the context feels... off. It should be applied at a personal level simply because it can be true there, but I don't see it being true in aggregate.

Tons and tons of thoughts I could go on for days. However, we (and in general, on this forum, I won't get agreement) won't agree on the way I build up my framework. I view people as very malleable and unaware. I talk about mate selection like people don't make choices, and that their choices don't matter much on the outcome. This offends sensibilities. For example, I'll say that, on average, marriages are more successful when chosen by an algorithm than by people, better chosen by those that know us than ourselves, and so forth. Who you pick isn't normally the issue... and sadly, if it is, it's not normally that we make bad choices, but that we are lousy at relationships (picking or not picking has much the same outcome).

The success of a marriage is rather like happiness. You can't do a lot to make a relationship good... just like you can't do much to make yourself happy. However, you can do a huge amount to make things bad, or make yourself unhappy. These concepts are closely linked in a relationship, too. When you, as a person, don't have money or are in threat of losing something, you are unhappy. In a relationship, when money isn't there, the relationship is 'unhappy'. When you can't sleep because a baby is crying next door, you are unhappy, etc. Stress, or negative emotions, work on a seperate axis than positive emotions. Both return to 'normal' pretty fast... but stress remains constant, and retriggers negative emotions constantly.

Western viewpoints on marriage tend to focus on love... and often not the enduring kind, but passion. This really misses the mark and leaves the relationship lopsided. There is a distinct business side to relationships. Eastern relationships (traditionally) are much more "business" orientated, although the concepts are a bit fuzzier, since business and social bonds are closely related. Regardless, they fail to acknowledge the individuality in relationships.

The story this tells is that good relationships need both... but more than that, they need the framework - the environment - for both people to have both. That's really hard. The framework itself always comes down to the modes of communication the couple has developped.

Why are the big three so big? There are other notables, like women and sex, but the universal three are money, children and mate guarding (I'm summarizing a lot of things under mate guarding).

The answer lies in how open you are about these subjects. Can you talk about your specific money problems without emotional guilt/etc? To friends? Family? Very very rare. Do you have any expectations for your kids? Can you honestly say that you don't have assumptions in how they should be raised (often like or unlike your parents, in particular)? Do you feel guilty about sometimes not feeling happy in your marriage? Can you tell your spouse that? Can you hear it without personally feeling rejected?

These things are major stressors and they come with significant barriers to discussion. They are the stress test on the load-bearing beam in your relationship's framework. Most people fail it and end up miserable.

Heh, want to guess what the response to my advice that one of the best books to read for relationship advice is to read negotiation books? Not positive. But you are going to negotiate in a relationship one way or another. It'll be aggressive, or passive aggressive. It'll be silent, or yelling. It'll be bitter, or passionate. But it shouldn't be any of those. *sigh*

There is a certain amount of truth to this... but as I said at the very top, every type has their issues. The thread is saying that being aggreeable and open is a negative thing for satisfaction, and I have to question the premise. Nothing I have seen supports this, not directly against those traits.

(The introverted part, as well as my earlier comment on self-diagnosed NFs being more neurotic still applies. Both of these would indicate negative emotions being stronger and more dominant.)

hmm. are you saying you believe in arranged marriage? interesting. are you saying that it's easier, and therefore better, to give up on Love and all its accoutrements, positive and negative, to live a peaceful life without passion?

 

[Siúil a Rúin]

Yeah, this happens alot as well, and sometimes it's a combination of the two.

One of my INFJ friends was like this. She claimed to hate drama, but was clearly addicted to it. She was at her most energetic when her life was about to fall apart, and if given a choice, consistently chose the option that would lead to more drama.

haha. i HATE drama too. but i love to push myself and my relationship to the extreme edge of living, which inevitable results in.....drama, i guess. wow. i never thought about it like that. it's not like i choose drama like an infp chooses drama (sorry, but the infps i know always have a serious drama or sob story going on), but that drama happens when you are always pushing the envelope, so to speak.

I'm just wondering if the INFJs or Ps who are attracted to drama and/or pushing the boundaries, stirring things up etc. are not to the extreme edge of introversion. If I end up in drama for an hour, it will typically take at least ten hours to recover. Introversion by definition is a withdrawing behavior that prefers quiet and alone over stimulation. Introversion is a way of perceiving the world that tends towards feeling overwhelmed. Because of this, what appears like boredom to the extrovert can be overstimulating to the introvert.

I shut down in the face of drama. It is a real problem. I get sleepy and unaware. Even though I like people and find them interesting, I can't be around them because of the drama. The types of boundaries I push tend to be entirely conceptual and not involving actual people or the real world. It's more like entertaining types of philosophy I hadn't considered. In the real world I smile, nod, and keep people as undisturbed as possible.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I'm just wondering if the INFJs or Ps who are attracted to drama and/or pushing the boundaries, stirring things up etc. are not to the extreme edge of introversion. If I end up in drama for an hour, it will typically take at least ten hours to recover. Introversion by definition is a withdrawing behavior that prefers quiet and alone over stimulation. Introversion is a way of perceiving the world that tends towards feeling overwhelmed. Because of this, what appears like boredom to the extrovert can be overstimulating to the introvert.

I shut down in the face of drama. It is a real problem. I get sleepy and unaware. Even though I like people and find them interesting, I can't be around them because of the drama. The types of boundaries I push tend to be entirely conceptual and not involving actual people or the real world. It's more like entertaining types of philosophy I hadn't considered. In the real world I smile, nod, and keep people as undisturbed as possible.

are you meaning the extreme edge as in toward the 'e' side? yes, i can see that. i've tested close to 'e' when i'm not as stressed about stuff, closer to 'i' when i am......but i'm always 'i' and always have been, thinking about how i was in childhood and stuff.

and I don't like to be around people with drama either. the 'F' in me cares, but the 'j' in me demands they clean up their act already. yet, i sometimes have more drama in my own life than i'd like. or maybe that's just being married? if i weren't married, i'm not sure i'd have any drama.....food for thought.

 

[ptgatsby]

hmm. are you saying you believe in arranged marriage? interesting.

Not exactly. Arranged marriages, random marriages, etc. are just controls in 'the grand experiment of mate selection'. What it tends to show is that random pairings and arranged pairings are equal to selected pairings. Cultural differences apply, of course.

What I believe in is that most of the relationship potential comes from how the relationship is assembled, not the people involved (again, ignoring that the people involved define how it is assembled). This thread illustrates it. Many many people are reinforcing the image that they will be dissatisfied in their relationships, or talking about what they can or can't do, despite it being a good idea to do so.

It's the assembly of those items that I'm talking about. It's hardly like I don't have my own issues... social anxiety to bonding issues. Big ones for relationships.

are you saying that it's easier, and therefore better, to give up on Love and all its accoutrements, positive and negative, to live a peaceful life without passion?

Not exactly... The passion part is important. But you don't have to be in love and have an exciting life to be passionate about something. I can be 'passionate' about my wife in the way I am passionate about creating art, or building a model, or whatever it is that the person is passionate about. Passion is drive.

What I am saying is that you need to have a framework around it. Passion at driving really fast, and getting into a relationship equivalent to "on the road and endangering myself and others" is not the same as getting into a relationship equivalent to "racing cars with other professional down at the track". That's exciting, almost the same as being in love, chemically speaking.

But the context of expression is very different. You need enough control, or the framework. A single decision where to drive does not preclude daily driving , anymore than a single talk on money a week does not preclude daily humping... in fact, both make it easier to do what really matters, or let the passion come out. (I use this example because women rate sex very important on dissatisfaction, but are also much more in tune with the stress/health of the relationship and money is the major issue both men and women say. In other words, money issues can directly affect sex in a relationship!)

 

[Udog]

PT - I'll reply to you in a bit.

I'm just wondering if the INFJs or Ps who are attracted to drama and/or pushing the boundaries, stirring things up etc. are not to the extreme edge of introversion.

I don't know about in general, but my friend was certainly on the I vs E cusp.

yet, i sometimes have more drama in my own life than i'd like. or maybe that's just being married? if i weren't married, i'm not sure i'd have any drama.....food for thought.

Very, very possible. It really depends on if the drama is incidental to the marriage, or a requirement to you feeling alive. If it's the former, you are probably right. If it's the latter, you'd find a way to create drama elsewhere to fulfill that need.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Not exactly. Arranged marriages, random marriages, etc. are just controls in 'the grand experiment of mate selection'. What it tends to show is that random pairings and arranged pairings are equal to selected pairings. Cultural differences apply, of course.

What I believe in is that most of the relationship potential comes from how the relationship is assembled, not the people involved (again, ignoring that the people involved define how it is assembled). This thread illustrates it. Many many people are reinforcing the image that they will be dissatisfied in their relationships, or talking about what they can or can't do, despite it being a good idea to do so.

It's the assembly of those items that I'm talking about. It's hardly like I don't have my own issues... social anxiety to bonding issues. Big ones for relationships.



Not exactly... The passion part is important. But you don't have to be in love and have an exciting life to be passionate about something. I can be 'passionate' about my wife in the way I am passionate about creating art, or building a model, or whatever it is that the person is passionate about. Passion is drive.

What I am saying is that you need to have a framework around it. Passion at driving really fast, and getting into a relationship equivalent to "on the road and endangering myself and others" is not the same as getting into a relationship equivalent to "racing cars with other professional down at the track". That's exciting, almost the same as being in love, chemically speaking.

But the context of expression is very different. You need enough control, or the framework. A single decision where to drive does not preclude daily driving , anymore than a single talk on money a week does not preclude daily humping... in fact, both make it easier to do what really matters, or let the passion come out. (I use this example because women rate sex very important on dissatisfaction, but are also much more in tune with the stress/health of the relationship and money is the major issue both men and women say. In other words, money issues can directly affect sex in a relationship!)

i think i understand what you're saying....like, passion will happen if you set the stage for it to happen? that's coming at it from a logical standpoint. i don't feel about life like that. i can't make the logic happen first naturally. but i can allow for the passion to blossom easily. and for me, i would not define passion as 'drive' but as fiery forthcomings..........

it's illuminating how an istp looks at love and relationship. almost business-like. interesting. i've seen this as well in the istp i have been intimate with. perhaps it is the best way for y'all to feel settled in a ltr when, as an istp, your feelings can be elusive from day to day....?

 

[ptgatsby]

i think i understand what you're saying....like, passion will happen if you set the stage for it to happen? that's coming at it from a logical standpoint. i don't feel about life like that. i can't make the logic happen first naturally. but i can allow for the passion to blossom easily. and for me, i would not define passion as 'drive' but as fiery forthcomings..........

Sure, I'm about as 'cold' as they get in this regard, and I imagine we are on opposites of that. But what's really important here is that we are two opposites sides that would have to meet up in the middle. Not because it meets our needs, but because passion-only, with no framework, lets the relationship flounder. It'd amount to finding someone new every 6months or so. It'd reduce to passionate fighting, not just passion.

And if I had my way, the relationship would be defined inside a little economic model of comparative desires. I can just imagine a little box where I enter my preferences for sex, cuddling, dinner, movies and what not... and it computes the optimum time for maximising our respective hedonistic values. I'm positive I'd be very happy in the relationship, but it'd be soulless. Both would hold very little value in the long run (in my case - who cares with who it is with? In fact, you could run the algorithm with lots of people! Then whoever matches up would be most in tune, for that period of time. BRILLIANT!)

it's illuminating how an istp looks at love and relationship. almost business-like. interesting. i've seen this as well in the istp i have been intimate with. perhaps it is the best way for y'all to feel settled in a ltr when, as an istp, your feelings can be elusive from day to day....?

I can't comment on the feelings being elusive, but I think the TPs all share it... least, in talking about how we feel, we all tend to be more fickle and hate being tied down. We think, then we want to explore it. Too often we can't.