[ESFJ] How to seduce an ESFJ

[jixmixfix]

Destroy my (professional) reputation, social circle, standing with people, spread rumors ...

They are almost as scary as INFPs.

mehh

 

[Istbkleta]

mehh

Said the ISTP who spends most of his time in his head or in the wilderness among his brethren the animals.

 

[Giggly]

Or.. an ESFJ could seduce you.

 

[jixmixfix]

Or.. an ESFJ could seduce you.

That would be ideal.

 

[Istbkleta]

I found Jung's explanation on how to seduce ESFJs:

Her feelings correspond with objective situations and general values. Nowhere is this more clearly revealed than in the so-called 'love-choice'; the 'suitable' man is loved, not another one; he is suitable not so much because he fully accords with the fundamental character of the woman -- as a rule she is quite uninformed about this -- but because he meticulously corresponds in standing, age, capacity, height, and family respectability with every reasonable requirement.

I love the guy - teaching us how to score with ESFJs from beyond the grave - that's how you know a great Ti mind.

 

[jixmixfix]

Jung got so much action. He used his theory to get inside the minds of woman.

 

[Giggly]

I found Jung's explanation on how to seduce ESFJs:



I love the guy - teaching us how to score with ESFJs from beyond the grave - that's how you know a great Ti mind.

I find this extremely unromantic.

And what in the world does "capacity" mean?

 

[EJCC]

I find this extremely unromantic.

He's just saying "ESFJs like guys who fit the bill". ESFJs have standards and they like guys who meet them. He phrased it un-sexily though

 

[Redbone]

ESFJS are soft they wouldn't do any of that they might vocalize it though.

The hells...

He used his theory to get inside the minds of woman.

 

[Cellmold]

He's just saying "ESFJs like guys who fit the bill". ESFJs have standards and they like guys who meet them. He phrased it un-sexily though

Well maybe...but he was also saying they dont have a sodding clue about what they really want in terms of the core nature of their character, implying that ESFJ's are actually quite bad at picking soul mates but fairly good at check-list partners.

Doesn't seem that appealing to me.

More importantly the implication is that they lack self-identification and are very ignorant about themselves. But then again he wont have really been talking about ESFJ's, I think that was an excerpt from his definitions of the Fe type, wasn't it?

 

[EJCC]

Well maybe...but he was also saying they dont have a sodding clue about what they really want in terms of the core nature of their character, implying that ESFJ's are actually quite bad at picking soul mates but fairly good at check-list partners.

Doesn't seem that appealing to me.

I wonder if he was defining love differently. Because the idea that ESFJs have very particular societal standards about who they seek out for romance, is pretty accurate. It's similar with ESTJs. But surely Jung knew that you never choose who you love. You can't choose your soul mate. That's not how soul mates work.

More importantly the implication is that they lack self-identification and are very ignorant about themselves. But then again he wont have really been talking about ESFJ's, I think that was an excerpt from his definitions of the Fe type, wasn't it?

I think the implication is that Jung meant "love" as an action, i.e. loving behavior.

 

[Giggly]

Well maybe...but he was also saying they dont have a sodding clue about what they really want in terms of the core nature of their character, implying that ESFJ's are actually quite bad at picking soul mates but fairly good at check-list partners.

Doesn't seem that appealing to me.

More importantly the implication is that they lack self-identification and are very ignorant about themselves. But then again he wont have really been talking about ESFJ's, I think that was an excerpt from his definitions of the Fe type, wasn't it?

Yes.

While what was quoted above may be true for some SJ's and Fe types, it's certainly not true for all, and I'm willing to bet it's not true for a notable portion of them, and this is the sort of thing that has always made me say that the descriptions of SJ's are off or not quite right.

 

[Haven]

Here I am, ladies. Give me your best shot. I'll tell you if you fit my set of predetermined requirements.

 

[skylights]

Yes.

While what was quoted above may be true for some SJ's and Fe types, it's certainly not true for all, and I'm willing to bet it's not true for a notable portion of them, and this is the sort of thing that has always made me say that the descriptions of SJ's are off or not quite right.

I get the feeling that quite a few of the people who have developed and improved upon and written about MBTI tend to be people who like to write about how special they are and scapegoat the people they find less appealing - given the idea of reaction formation, it's probably very much about projecting their own weaknesses as "bad" and rejecting the people who they feel like are more accepted and therefore "made" them disadvantaged. Just like Enneagram 6 (and 1, I feel like) gets scapegoated into being "rote", a "follower", part of the "sheople"... etc. I doubt it's even conscious on their parts.

 

[Giggly]

I get the feeling that quite a few of the people who have developed and improved upon and written about MBTI tend to be people who like to write about how special they are and scapegoat the people they find less appealing - given the idea of reaction formation, it's probably very much about projecting their own weaknesses as "bad" and rejecting the people who they feel like are more accepted and therefore "made" them disadvantaged. Just like Enneagram 6 (and 1, I feel like) gets scapegoated into being "rote", a "follower", part of the "sheople"... etc. I doubt it's even conscious on their parts.

Yeah, and all of those antics are such a bore.

 

[skylights]

Yeah, and all of those antics are such a bore.

It is. The thing that really kills me though, is I think the people who are apt to get the worst rap are the ones who, by virtue of type, are out in the world doing things instead of reading typology literature. They're not even here to defend themselves, so stupid stereotypes begin to accumulate, and then you introduce them to type and they don't see themselves in that type - because, shit, who would? No wonder so many 6s don't identify as 6 for a long time. No wonder so many SJs find themselves disinterested.

People ought to check themselves before they wreck the whole system.

 

[Giggly]

"How to seduce an ESFJ"

Don't talk about typology.

 

[animenagai]

Tell them how great they are when they do your dishes.