#or just express it in various extreme acts of caretaking and devotion

[llycaons]

therapy changed this man so much that he’s actually seeking comfort FROM wwx because he was being upset about wwx being in danger...who are you

[kendrixtermina]

For the Love of Socionics

First I find it important to note here that I am not necessarily promoting this concept; I just thought it was interesting to discuss.

As such, I will try both to present it as the concept as it was so you can form your own opinion but aso add my own thoughts/ comments later.

So, today’s concept: Love, as in, human attachment bonds, or depending on whom you ask, the ideal, “true” state thereof.

It’s a word that has been used to mean many things in many context and ppl spend thick lyrical volumes debating its meaning so ever since the olden days ppl have been looking in ways to characterize it futher, all the way from modern terminology desgned to describe, say, a-spec people, to the most basic stuff drawn up by the ancient greeks.

Just like they gave us one of the first personality theories (the 4 temperaments), they codified the “Four Loves” at least for the western sphere of culture.

Turns out some socionists also got in on the act, and speculated about a connection to the Funktions!

But let’s start at the beginning:

The Classical List

Eros - Romantic Love (Romantic as in “couple” not as in “poetic and idealized”)

Philia - The infamous Power of Friendship!

Storge - Family Bonds

Agape - “Spiritual”/Selfless Love

At first, this was a sharp classification of the basic kinds of bonds that humans form in their many relationships: You have your folks, partner(s) and friends and they’re distinct in a couple of ways, as is the kind of idealistic drive that might drive you to risk your life to protect a fellow vhuman being or care for the downtrodden out of charity.

For example, you generally screw your girlfriend (unless you’re ace of course), but many would find the very thought of doing that with family, longtime friends or favorite deity hugely gross; You choose your friends and partners (well, hopefully), but you’re just stuck with your family (unless you’re adopted)...

You can tell by the brackets that things are a bit more complicated than just those sharp delineations - You can, for example, be best friends with your girlfriend, regard either your lifelong friend or spouse of many decades as part of the family, and many a parent would sacrifice everything for their child...

Often enough these are seen as all having their place and importance, though sometimes people would imagine a hierarchy here somewhere, depending on their culture - The ancient greeks being kinda misogynist devalued Eros as inferior to Philia as an equal bond, as do many “My spouse is such a nag!” type people im told are still around today, whereas modern believers in the “friendzone” seem to see Friendship as a consolation prize if not an insult (??because the worst thing ever is ??Cogeniality??), a lot of cultures insist you should obey your parents over everything even if they’re abusive asshats and of course religion always claims that invented and has the monopoly on any important human universals and praise abnegation as the highest good; Certainly the love of gods (particulary the monotheistic sort) for their creations is often described as such unconditional sacrifice, while those same religions decry attraction they disagree with as “low, carnal urges” to the point that medieval clerics questioned wether women have souls (because everyone is hetero & ladies don’t exist outside of being ppl’s wives amiright?)

It’s worth noting that various ancient societies had something like “blood brothership” which was for best friends was marriage is for romantic partners in that you could get some legally binding, indefinite formalization that made you part of each other’s clans. Meanwhile a romantic partner who is also a good friend is basically what people call a “soulmate” once you strip away the supernatural predestination myths around it; It’s sure how the Sims 4 implemented that XD

And obvsly we no longer see these as restricted to gender in that way. Two dudes can have eros. A guy and a chick can be friends.

And speaking of “low carnal urges” obviously shallow infatuation exists, but can’t friendship or family likewise driven by base instincts, such as they monkey drive for social rank and influence and the urge to procreate and make/raise babies which is probably older than pair-bonding. (which resulted in the potential for romance - a lot of animals just screw and are done with it.) Abusive Parents and fairweather friends everywhere attets that true love of any flavor can be hard to find.

Agape doesn’t really have a primal counterpart like that because it requires the human ability to even conceive of a “greater good” or “ideal” but in devotion there’s the danger ofyour kindness being abused, as well as that of zealotry - people who would kill or die for their ideologies, gods and dictators.

So perhaps a more differentiated view would be as these things as phenomena that can  but don’t have to co-occurr depending on the relationship, all of wichhave their good and bad sides - you can have a perfectly fine “girlfriend” or a more ambitious “soulmate” and likewise a “buddy” or a “blood-brother” etc.. and those would not be the same.

Likewise further concepts have been identified and added, often in the more specfific context of various components for a romantic relationship to have, though you could quantify any sort of human attachment through various combinations.

Extended List

Eros - The one strictly romantic or at least sensual aspect. Attraction to the partner’s beauty and other sensual attributes, and also expressed through physical touch, closeness, a lot of togetherness and sexuality (Though Boinking is not strictly required; Be it because of young age, orientation or circumstances preventing the couple from doing the deed.) A passionate type of bond that can form quickly and involve an element of loss-of-control. This can, however, lead to impulsive actions, Soap Opera plots and burn itself out unless there’s something deeper connecting the partners.

Philia - The defining ingredient of friendships. A bond based on mutual sympathy. The involved parties enjoy each other’s company, find each other’s character appealing and may share common interests, opinions , hobbies or joint pursuts.  Ideally this would be an equal bond that is all about giving each other freedom, echanging ideas and supporting each other through cameraderie. This one is largely unrelated to physical characteristics - Indeed most of ppl’s friends will not be romantic partners. On the other hand people who look for this sort of dynamic in a romantic partner will care more for personality and commonalities than looks.

Storge - Affectionate attachment based on familiarity. This can be the stuff of family bonds but also what you feel toward old childhood friends or pets, but also perhaps when you take a caretaking role towards a spouse, between a mentor a disciple, or in ‘found family’ type dynamics.  It is mosty formed just by living in close proximity, and represents a source of stability and repose, but also a sharing of duties and responsibilities. This is perhaps one of the more ‘mundane’ bond flavors, but also one that engenders the strongest loyalty, even if the person screws up big - After all, Ohana means nobody gets left behind. If this type of bonds are high on your priority list, you will want to get to know the person well before opening up or comitting to anything.

Agape - Selfless Love  - based on empathy and compassion for one’s fellow beings and the desire for their happiness with no expectation of reward.. Self-Sacrificing, unconditional, idealistic and far removed from the realm of material concerns and thus at times described as ‘divine’ or ‘spiritual’ - what we know as Charity, Altriusm and forgiveness. Random acts of kindness and thankless work for the greater good are classic examples; In an interpersonal context, it means to place the other person’s happiness before your own and accept them as they are. If this is a priority for you, you may be looking for an idealized, profound bond and be willing to be giving and devoted in return, but you’ll do well to keep your own needs and limits in mind.

Ludus - Playful love. Attachment and everything related to it as a source of personal pleasure, as well as pleasure as an aspect of relationships. Often involves some manner of sensuality or sexuality, but in contrast to eros, the primary emotions here are freedom, excitement and satisfaction.  This is usually present at the ‘getting to know’ phase of a relationship, but can also be pursued for its own sake through conversational flirting, ‘just for fun’ sex and all manner of kinky stuff. A lot of relationships fail because the partners failed to keep alive a spark of playfulness through the years - but on the downside, there’s a risk for irresponsible behavior - So make sure to use condoms and establish clear communications so no one gets their heart broken.

Mania - Dramatic Love. The intense, consuming, shakespearian sort of love that many poems, songs and stories were written about - though this may also be felt toward someone one simply admires. Involves dynamic feelings centered on the partner, who is held in high esteem while the relationship itself is given high importance. Interactions with the partner strongly influence the person’s mood, leading to pronounced moods that go through ups and down; At the heart of the matter is a subliminal desire to receive validation from the partner - but if said partner is not really the Mania sort, there’s a chance that they might be spooked or overwhelmed instead. In excessive extremes, this can lead to disproportionate jealousy or even obsession.

Pragma - Sometimes called ‘enduring love’ but in itself probably best described as the relationship between allies, it is a bond pursued for and sustained by practical, reasonable concerns, to be willing and able to work together toward joint or individual goals, to put in effort, patience and tolerance, and make compromises in order to make things work and mantain the relationship throughout the drudgery of everyday life. The partners are drawn together by common priorities, compatible views, dependability and having compatible life plans. This is glue that keeps a good working relationship or lasting arranged marriage going, though any bond may need its share of this in order to stand the test of time, be it a friendship or a romance. People for whom this is a high priority often show that they care by helping you in everyday practical matters - however, they can also have pretty high standards and expectations for their relationships

Philautia - Self-Love or Self-respect. Not really to do with interpersonal attachment per se, but obviously relationships can impact it for better or for worse, and likewise this helps us to choose good relationships.

As if those weren’t enough, the person who made this paper - a certain Mr. Meged - made up some of his own which he felt still merited terms:

Meged’s Additions

Victoria - Love as conquest, that is, interpersonal relationships as a means to “win” recognition, respect or the attention of everyone around, to seek stimulation in the thrill of satisfied ambition or vanity. Despite or perhaps because of that, they prefer and respect potential partners who present them with a bit of a challenge or surprise; In that case they show their interest through vying for, if not demanding the person’s attention in which they can be somewhat persistent.  This probably why people like stuff like Dominance-and_submission roleplays,  sexy vampires, or the Princess-In-The-castle trope, and why phrases like ’you belong to me’ are sometimes considered romantic or hot. Sometimes ppl with this as their main approach to bonding can be somewhat inconstant, or selfish especially if they’re extroverts (since there are always new ‘conquests’), the introverts may prefer a stable uncomplicated setup.

Analita... eh that word sounds too much like a fancy term for buttsex imma just gonna say “Analytic Love.”, meaning something in the direction of ‘fascination’, yet more specific than that. These folks are typically reserved and try to analyze the object of their  fascination from the distance, with a marked intellectual component - They try to understand how the other person “works”, that is to analyze their behavior and find connections betwenn their actions and reactions. The goal is to have the partner “figured out” by means of building a logical model of them, but when something doesn’t quite fit into it, they might just pique their curiosity even more and lead them to make futher observations to “observe” that model, which often has an abstracting-generalizing nature - indeed folks for whom this is a they have an idea of what a relationshgip should be like in terms of guiding logical principles on which they may not readily compromise - they’re looking to balance both their physical desires and intellectual needs and are drawn to people who are dynamic enough to be interesting to them, yet consistent enough. so even though they don’t idealize the partner or relationship the way some of the more ‘dynamic-feelsy’ flavors do,  they can be picky and liable to dissapointment.

A/N: I do think that these are Things and that there should be words for these. I was actually looking for a word for the later or perhaps something more general than that. I mean these definitions are ovsl. a bit too tailor-made for what he was gonna do with them, but I do think he’s onto something more universal there.

But why, why couldn’t he pick something that sounds less like “Anal”? I finally find a word for this and then I can’t use it, because butt.  

So what was this dudes’ point?`Well, he though that each function came with a characteristic type or range of them feels and therefore an affinity to a characteristic flavor in their attachments.

In particular, he drew these associations:

The Theory

Victoria and Se. Because socionics Se is aggrotastic anyways; There’s sure a tendency strive toward status, mastery/competition and stimulation/ excitement that is probably reflected in the courtship process as it is everywhere else.

Eros and Si - Largely drawing this connection because of the ‘sensual’ aspect, but also note that SJs tend to seek a harmony in both a physical and feelsy sense resulting in great loyalty and a willingness to overlook some of the partner’s flaws for the sake of stability and work to and create a nice environment for them, if anything they may try to adapt their partner to their needs - that said if they do not find the desired harmony, they will get dissapointed and part ways with their partner easily.

Philia and Ne - Bond will be based on a kinship of ideas, interests and motives and an underlying friendship with a sense of deep respect and understanding. A relatively selective mechanism that primarily unites like-minded people and stimulates growth of capability. To these folks equality is very important, so coercion or dictates and won’t remain loyal to anyone who dissapoints them, and, if the parther is too different in their thinking or doesn’t meet their expectations, they part ways without much regret.

Storge and Fi. A tenderness that includes deep understanding and compassion, complete with the ability to compromise and  smooth over disagreement. These folks will characteristiclyshow much solidarity to their partner, leniency towards their shortcommings and a general striving toward a harmonious, stable, pleasant and laid-back style of interaction.  It’s mostly about a connection of the sould more than anything else, but its crucial that the partner shows sensitivity.

Agape and Ni - Because they’re all abstrac-y and conceptual I guess.

Analita and Ti - Well yeah, he clearly made it up to fit this b/c he didn’t find a more fitting word in literature - that said he’s already heavily bending the definitions with some of these. (especially eros & Storge, for exam,ple; That’s not rly what was originally meant by that though I guess I see where he sees the applicability)

Pragma and Te - Choses partner by sober, pragmatic and ‘sensible’ parameters. Though the importance given to one’s personal priorities can be read as ‘egocentric’ , these folks are in fact oriented toward a ‘fair’ balance of giving and receiving, and presumes that one respect and understands the partner; There is a strivng toward the satisfaction of mutual interests.

Mania and Fe - desire for prolonged emotional intensity and exaggerated valuation of the relationship. This can be a a dramatic, demanding, evem possesive feeling with a fierce desire for complete reciprocation, but is at the same time capable of great compromise sacrifice and endurance. These are the sort of couples that argue a lot as changeable, dynamic, momentary moods play a big role.

Then, of course, it does was socionics often does and spends the greater part of the article bending into a pretzel in order to hamfist perfectly fine observations or ideas in that forced duality framework.

For the last time, Mister,  I am NOT marrying an ESFJ!

(No offense to the ESFJs. I’m pretty sure they would want to marry me even less, especially since this Meged guy recommends that you do all the household chores for me like TF? How can  “One person does all the work” remotely considered a functioning relationship?)

My 2cents

Hm...

I mean there are 2 basic ideas in here that I think should be differiented here -

A - that functions, especially the ego block functions, influence bonding behavior in specific ways and that it’s worth exploring what those specificificities are.

B - that those specifics are as postulated above, and that doesn’t have me wholly convinced.

Amusingly enough it seems to fit my priorities pretty well where my own main functions are considered - part of me is relieved to see that there’s a word for the Ti thing & how it’s actually very different to what the Te folks have going on, “logical principles” feature in more as general laws of whats fair & reasonable & you might pursue a not wholly reasonable in a Te sense connection because it’s interesting - in a way its closer to what Fi ppl do in that sense of wanting to “understand” the other person, but also very different in some parts, especially in the lack of that idealization Fi sometimes has - Your average TP is probably very aware of their loved ones’ character flaws, doesn’t place any exaggerated importance on relationships and won’t take anyone’s side just because they like them - it depends on wether they’re right or wrong, after all.

But IDK about the rest.

Many of the Fi users I know would indeed be in the “cute and stable” flavor of bonding and likewise I’ve encountered some SPs who were very much natural tops or Ni doms with a hidden romantic side (which I’d blamed on tert Fi TBH) but I’d hesitate to make that generalization - We can think of Fi users what we’d rather sort into the Mania or Agape categories, with the Fe users yeah the dramatic sort exist but the “reasonable, reliable, srz bzness” ones that would go in a Pragma or Agape direction  are probably the majority and the Si one doesn’t seem to make sense at all?

What do you guys think? After all I don’t really have first hand experience with, say, a high Si user’s POV.

Random idea/speculation:

Could this be an enneagram thing instead, again with a proportionality related to stuff like wings & trifixes?

1 - Agape

2 - Eros

3 - Pragma

4 - Mania

5 - Analita.

6 - Storge.

7 - Ludus

8 - Victoria

9 - Philia

[albctrcss]

  I D E N T I T Y.

❝ iridescent; that is the word that defines you. like water springing from a fountain, catching the light because it has no color of its’ own. you can try and paint yourself, but paint is paint and masks are masks, and when the lights go down you aren’t too sure of what you are, except for something terrible. ❞

NAME MEANING

Brooke: Lives by the stream.  Daphne: Bay tree, laurel tree. In Greek mythology, the nymph Daphne was rescued from unwanted attentions by being turned into a laurel bush.  Neal: Cloud, passionate, or champion.

ESFJ - T

At their hearts, Consul personalities are social creatures, and thrive on staying up to date with what their friends are doing.  Discussing scientific theories or debating European politics isn’t likely to capture Consuls’ interest for too long. Consuls are more concerned with fashion and their appearance, their social status and the standings of other people. Practical matters and gossip are their bread and butter, but Consuls do their best to use their powers for good.  Consuls are altruists, and they take seriously their responsibility to help and to do the right thing.

Supportive and outgoing, Consuls can always be spotted at a party – they’re the ones finding time to chat and laugh with everyone! But their devotion goes further than just breezing through because they have to. Consuls truly enjoy hearing about their friends’ relationships and activities, remembering little details and always standing ready to talk things out with warmth and sensitivity.  Being pretty conflict-averse, Consuls spend a lot of their energy establishing social order, and prefer plans and organized events to open-ended activities or spontaneous get-togethers. People with this personality type put a lot of effort into the activities they’ve arranged, and it’s easy for Consuls’ feelings to be hurt if their ideas are rejected, or if people just aren’t interested.

THE HELPER ( SP ) / THE LOYALIST ( SO ).

Twos are empathetic, sincere, and warm-hearted. They are friendly, generous, and self-sacrificing, but can also be sentimental, flattering, and people-pleasing. They are well-meaning and driven to be close to others, but can slip into doing things for others in order to be needed. They typically have problems with possessiveness and with acknowledging their own needs. At their Best: unselfish and altruistic, they have unconditional love for others.

Basic Fear: Of being unwanted, unworthy of being loved

Basic Desire: To feel loved

Key Motivations: Want to be loved, to express their feelings for others, to be needed and appreciated, to get others to respond to them, to vindicate their claims about themselves.

The committed, security-oriented type. Sixes are reliable, hard-working, responsible, and trustworthy. Excellent "troubleshooters," they foresee problems and foster cooperation, but can also become defensive, evasive, and anxious—running on stress while complaining about it. They can be cautious and indecisive, but also reactive, defiant and rebellious. They typically have problems with self-doubt and suspicion. At their Best: internally stable and self-reliant, courageously championing themselves and others.

Basic Fear: Of being without support and guidance

Basic Desire: To have security and support

Key Motivations: Want to have security, to feel supported by others, to have certitude and reassurance, to test the attitudes of others toward them, to fight against anxiety and insecurity.

NEUTRAL GOOD.

Neutral good is the philosophy that goodness should be advanced by using whatever means provide the most benefit. It is a philosophy of altruistic consequentialism. This philosophy holds that people should behave altruistically and balance the needs of the collective as a whole and the needs of the individuals making up the collective. Neutral good can also be associated with act utilitarianism and ethical altruism.

Before you run up to this alignment expecting it to hand out unconditional love and free cake, a small word of caution: they are someone who will always, always do what they believe is right, and won’t let either laws or personal freedoms get in their way. These characters value life and freedom above all else, and despise those who would deprive others of them. Neutral good characters sometimes find themselves forced to work beyond the law, yet for the law, and the greater good of the people. They are not vicious or vindictive, but are people driven to right injustice. Neutral good characters always attempt to work within the law whenever possible, however.

SANGUINE.

Sanguine people are boisterous, bubbly, chatty, openly emotional, social extroverts. Sanguines find social interactions with faces both familiar and unfamiliar invigorating. This is how they recharge, and time alone - while sometimes desirable - can bore them quickly. The more people they’re surrounded by, the better they feel. They are talkative, and speak in a friendly, energetic, playful kind of way; they’re often charismatic, and when interacting with them, you can feel like you’ve known them all your life. They are very emotional, and their emotions can be extreme but fleeting. They are quick to ‘forgive and forget’.  In our distant past, the sanguine members of the pack might have played a supportive, encouraging, social role. They would have been the glue that kept the group together.

MISC.

CANCER.

In their social world:

The tough-on-the-outside, soft-on-the-inside crabs make their mark in the zodiac as the emotional caretakers. Cancers, with their elemental basis of water, are nurturing, emotionally responsive, and sensitive. People of this sign are loyal companions who will be there when needed. In fact, owing to their keen ability to sense other people's emotions, they will likely know ahead of time when someone needs a sympathetic ear. Although they may not always be the most talkative of the zodiac types, Crabs do love to be around people. However, don't be surprised if they feel the need to withdraw to the serenity of home. After all, home is where their heart is.

In their professional world:

Cancerians are dependable workers whose empathy allows them to thrive in fields where they can nurture others. While it may take time for Crabs to come out of their shell, they can become passionate speakers, creative brainstormers, and staunch, supportive team members, once they feel comfortable enough in their surroundings. Thanks to their Cardinal quality, Cancerians take initiative by following their hearts, especially when they are particularly passionate about something.

What to keep in mind:

Ruled by the moon, Cancerians' emotions are famous for shifting constantly. The most sensitive of all signs, the Crabs' tough outer shell may hide their feelings when they are wounded, but the well of emotions they experience inside can cause them to retreat for some time. Their tough exterior can also make it difficult to get to know them, and perhaps even harder to earn their trust. The Cancerians' keen intuition allows them to sense when someone is not being honest with them, making them somewhat suspicious by nature. In addition, if Crabs do choose to let their well of emotions out, they'll do so claws and all - and their words can be sharp and harsh, especially when the hurt runs deep.

YEAR OF THE RAT ( FIRE ).

With strong intuition and quick response, they always easily adapt themselves to a new environment. With rich imaginations and sharp observation, Rats can take advantage of various opportunities well. Rats have strong curiosity, so they tend to try their hands at anything, and they can deal with it skillfully.

Ladies belonging to the Rat zodiac sign are pretty, smart, and lovely. They have quick minds and dexterous hands, and are able to learn anything.

A lack of courage, as well as good command skills, Rats are not capable as leaders. Opportunistic and picky as Rats are, they do not have broad minds, but a narrow view.

HUFFLEPUFF / THUNDERBIRD.

hufflepuff are known to be hard-working, friendly, loyal, honest and rather impartial. It may be that due to their values, hufflepuffs are not as competitive as the other houses, and are more modest about their accomplishments. hufflepuff is the most inclusive among the four houses; valuing hard work, dedication, patience, loyalty, and fair play rather than a particular aptitude in its students.

thunderbird house is sometimes considered to represent the soul of a witch or wizard. It is also said that thunderbird favours adventurers.

BLOOD TYPE: PURE BLOOD WAND: SPRUCE WOOD WITH A PHOENIX FEATHER CORE, 13 ¼" AND SLIGHTLY YIELDING FLEXIBILITY PATRONUS: CALICO CAT