## User Tag List

1. Originally Posted by Legion
No, it's not actually tautological.

For example, it provides a simple way that the notion of type compatibility can be tested in the future. If/when we can develop an accurate database of people's types, we can test the idea of compatibility by seeing if people of certain types are predictably more likely to be in relationships, particularly long-term, with people of certain other types.

It also states that choosing a partner who is of a compatible type is generally going to lead to a better, more fulfilling relationship than choosing someone of a type that isn't compatible. The additional mention of complexity implies that we need to take averages, and it's possible for a particular mismatched pairing to be more fulfilling than a well-matched pairing due to other factors.

So, no, not tautological.
The statement I quoted most definitely was, in the logic-based definition (I dislike Wikipedia but still :In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.).

Ironically in expanding your point to make it not tautological, you took it from one definition to the other. Though maybe that isn't entirely fair, since you're not being redundant in a single statement, you simply said the same thing twice i.e. the "no, not tautological" at beginning and end.

This is sly of me, though, as it is missing the broader picture of the discussion.

The point being is if type can even help with relationships, not in the a priori position you've adopted, but in a measurably useful way. I've found no evidence that it can, beyond the placebo effect of influence people are liable to afford it. That's the specious reasoning again.

Originally Posted by Legion

Regarding the question at hand, I find it strange that anyone wouldn't notice clear patterns in the sort of people they're attracted to/form relationships with. I certainly notice the patterns in my own preferences, and I find it hard to believe any given person doesn't have that phenomenon play out in their own life.
Maybe this will undermine my point and condemn my character to accusations of bias, but I've never noticed any patterns in my attractions. However this is likely because I have never been intimately involved with anyone, romantically or otherwise. Truth is I'm terrified of other people and their motivations, and I'm caught between hoping I'm wrong, but constantly being proven right. That's the never-ending fight between reason and emotion. Emotionally I want to trust others (and those motivations I mentioned are not necessarily consciously engaged with; a big problem) but reasonably I desire a reason to, and that requires evidence, which is sorely lacking. Sadly my sexual drive is not strong enough for the former to override the latter.

People can do a lot of damage both personally and professionally in the pitfalls of intimate social relations, because of this I prefer emotional superficiality, not because I'm scared of the emotional fallout (though this certainly is a cost) but the permanent logistical and reputational fallout that can destroy a life and any future you thought you might once have had.

This isn't just about risk, but a certain type. And I'm not one to take pointless or stupid risks and right now, the social milieu of intimate relationships is all about stupid risks and uneven perspectives. Until that shifts, there seems no good reason, beyond the very understandable and human failing of emotional indulgence, to sacrifice the earned comforts of a lifetime for one moment of very temporary pleasure. It is like a Sisyphean hell of evolutionary impulses.

Sadly a pushover like me (who is working very hard on the issue) would be eaten alive in that kind of social culture. Until it shifts to a new paradigm, perhaps one of wise ignorance and relaxed tensions, there is no place there for me.

As for typology, it just looks like another placeholder to soothe the fears of a neurotic species. But this could just be my projection; what do you think?

PS: I hope I don't come across as a contrarian, I like these back and fourths, because even if I'm proven wrong, all it really means is that I can learn something.

2. Originally Posted by Cellmold
The statement I quoted most definitely was, in the logic-based definition (I dislike Wikipedia but still :In logic, a tautology (from the Greek word ταυτολογία) is a formula or assertion that is true in every possible interpretation. An example of a tautology is "(x equals y) or (x does not equal y)". A less abstract example is "The ball is green or the ball is not green". It is either one or the other - it cannot be both and there are no other possibilities.).

Ironically in expanding your point to make it not tautological, you took it from one definition to the other. Though maybe that isn't entirely fair, since you're not being redundant in a single statement, you simply said the same thing twice i.e. the "no, not tautological" at beginning and end.

This is sly of me, though, as it is missing the broader picture of the discussion.

The point being is if type can even help with relationships, not in the a priori position you've adopted, but in a measurably useful way. I've found no evidence that it can, beyond the placebo effect of influence people are liable to afford it. That's the specious reasoning again.
I took what you mean to imply that I had said nothing of substance, when I believe that my post contained legitimate insight.

Also, yes it's amusing that I started and ended the post with the same thing, but it was in the sense of "this is what I'm about to show / this is what I've just shown" as an introduction/conclusion.

I think it's beyond the topic, but I am quite accustomed to mentally splitting things into "A, or not A" and then holding both as possibly true, possibly false, or as a spectrum, to see what things hold in either case, and what things would change depending on which the true condition was; a means of living with ambiguity.

Anyway, I think I made my point.

Maybe this will undermine my point and condemn my character to accusations of bias, but I've never noticed any patterns in my attractions. However this is likely because I have never been intimately involved with anyone, romantically or otherwise. Truth is I'm terrified of other people and their motivations, and I'm caught between hoping I'm wrong, but constantly being proven right. That's the never-ending fight between reason and emotion. Emotionally I want to trust others (and those motivations I mentioned are not necessarily consciously engaged with; a big problem) but reasonably I desire a reason to, and that requires evidence, which is sorely lacking. Sadly my sexual drive is not strong enough for the former to override the latter.

People can do a lot of damage both personally and professionally in the pitfalls of intimate social relations, because of this I prefer emotional superficiality, not because I'm scared of the emotional fallout (though this certainly is a cost) but the permanent logistical and reputational fallout that can destroy a life and any future you thought you might once have had.
I have a lot of fear of people too, and have had much damage done to me at various times in life through relationships intimate or otherwise, and I'm sure I've done damage to others too.

Still though, it feels like a big part of moving forward in life is sharing it with other people, and intimacy is something I crave, although I am admittedly something of a loner.

This isn't just about risk, but a certain type. And I'm not one to take pointless or stupid risks and right now, the social milieu of intimate relationships is all about stupid risks and uneven perspectives. Until that shifts, there seems no good reason, beyond the very understandable and human failing of emotional indulgence, to sacrifice the earned comforts of a lifetime for one moment of very temporary pleasure. It is like a Sisyphean hell of evolutionary impulses.

Sadly a pushover like me (who is working very hard on the issue) would be eaten alive in that kind of social culture. Until it shifts to a new paradigm, perhaps one of wise ignorance and relaxed tensions, there is no place there for me.
I'm against casual sex; for me, an intimate relationship should be a precursor for marriage. So it's a risk where one lifetime is traded for a different lifetime - single life versus married life, or marriage to one person versus marriage to another (which is one reason that I'm interested in the notion of compatibility).

One purpose of having a partner, and the reason that compatibility is important, is because they are to make up for something you lack, thus giving you insight into the other side of the story which you're living out. So it's important to select someone whose half of the story fits well with your own, and hopefully avoid stories which will clash. With casual relationships, or less intimate forms of relationships, it's less important because you can end the relationship, or maintain the proper distance, so that things work out, but for a partner you want to find the right chemistry (and as I said, chemistry is more than just matching up your cognitive functions, but I do think that that's a very significant component of it).

And unfortunately, many people don't act with good intention, so pushovers and other similar types can be taken advantage of. It happens to me. I don't play the "social game", I hold onto the ideal that people can work together, making each others' lives better, and creating something fantastic through contributing different gifts.

As for typology, it just looks like another placeholder to soothe the fears of a neurotic species. But this could just be my projection; what do you think?
I don't know what the overall purpose of typology is, but I see it as being like anything in science/psychology: a model of how things work, although this particular model holds an obsessive sway over myself and many others. The purpose is to understand people in an abstracted sense, and I'm actually scared for what that kind of knowledge could result in. I'm skeptical of psychology as a whole because by understanding people too well, but not on a deep level, it allows for people if they so choose to manipulate others based on simple and efficient rules.

It also, however, shows ways in which the current workings of society are out of touch with the way people actually work, and people who are being discriminated against for having particular temperaments, and suggests ways in which people can be brought into harmony so that we are each able to utilise the gifts of the members of the community and work towards something.

Also, I've found it to be a rather useful tool for self-understanding and self-development. I sometimes use it to shift my personality from one form to another, or to notice when something has caused my personality to shift.

Basically it's a way of understanding people, and can be used for good or for bad.

PS: I hope I don't come across as a contrarian, I like these back and fourths, because even if I'm proven wrong, all it really means is that I can learn something.
It's fine. I can be sensitive to criticism, but I like a good debate/discussion so long as it's done with good intention.

3. I'm sceptical about attraction within group. From my perspective other NFs have nothing to offer to me.

4. Isn't kind of hard dating INFP? Like you have to keep things interesting. It gets tiresome at some point.

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO