What are you looking for in your relationships?

HSS, I am not a diagnosed cluster b personality. Apologies for the intrusion.

No worries! I was thinking that your answer was unexpected for a Cluster B personality, so I asked to clarify my thoughts... that's all.

Ideally I think someone who I click with personality wise first of all. Someone who is adventurous sexually and not judgmental as a person. Someone who is on the same page as me as far as interests, goals, and general direction in life. Someone who isn’t a complainer but also isn’t afraid to tell me something is wrong instead of just being irritable about it and not communicating. I tend to be lazy and procrastinate a lot so someone who will push me to follow through but not too pushy if I really don’t want to do something.

I don’t like loud, overly clingy (sorry borderlines), or controlling people(sorry narcissists) this is a deal breaker. I don’t particularly want to live with anyone but it would be ok if they could respect my space and not hang all over me all the time. The most successful relationships I’ve had are where my SO fills in the gaps I have in my personality. I don’t want to grow and do those things I’d rather have someone who likes doing those things (F.E mingling and socializing at parties or events) and do other parts of the relationship they don’t like.

thegentlepath wrote:HSS, I am not a diagnosed cluster b personality. Apologies for the intrusion.

You are a very welcome intrusion.

DaturaInnoxia wrote:
Love can turn to hate? Actions, feelings, or..? - if I can ask.

Mainly feelings. It took years but was really the only way to get over him in the end. If memories of our good times together arise, I deliberately distort them and thus transform the relationship to one in which I was used, rather than Loved. One can make anything bad instead of good by choosing certain perceptions over others...and this is what I do, now.
My actions were a little manipulative, I have to admit. One example being I confided in someone my opinion of him ( one that was not true, and derogatory ) knowing it would get back to him. I knew if he thought my opinion of him was so low, he would stop contacting me, which he did. I forced him to let me go and can now hate him for doing so.

salles wrote:Mainly feelings. It took years but was really the only way to get over him in the end. If  memories of our good times together arise, I deliberately distort them and thus transform the relationship to one in which I was used, rather than Loved. One can make anything bad instead of good by choosing certain perceptions over others...and this is what I do, now.
My actions were a little manipulative, I have to admit. One example being I confided in someone my opinion of him ( one that was not true, and derogatory ) knowing it would get back to him.  I knew if he thought my opinion of him was so low, he would stop contacting me, which he did. I forced him to let me go and can now hate him for doing so.

This makes sense now.

It sounds like a very wise and effective way of utilizing insight of yourself and others to accomplish what was best for you - regardless of undercurrents like feeling love and longing for a better narrative

DaturaInnoxia wrote:

salles wrote:Mainly feelings. It took years but was really the only way to get over him in the end. If  memories of our good times together arise, I deliberately distort them and thus transform the relationship to one in which I was used, rather than Loved. One can make anything bad instead of good by choosing certain perceptions over others...and this is what I do, now.
My actions were a little manipulative, I have to admit. One example being I confided in someone my opinion of him ( one that was not true, and derogatory ) knowing it would get back to him.  I knew if he thought my opinion of him was so low, he would stop contacting me, which he did. I forced him to let me go and can now hate him for doing so.

This makes sense now.

It sounds like a very wise and effective way of utilizing insight of yourself and others to accomplish what was best for you - regardless of undercurrents like feeling love and longing for a better narrative

Well thumbs up for understanding it. Not many understand my line of thinking.

salles wrote:Mainly feelings. It took years but was really the only way to get over him in the end. If memories of our good times together arise, I deliberately distort them and thus transform the relationship to one in which I was used, rather than Loved. One can make anything bad instead of good by choosing certain perceptions over others...and this is what I do, now.
My actions were a little manipulative, I have to admit. One example being I confided in someone my opinion of him ( one that was not true, and derogatory ) knowing it would get back to him. I knew if he thought my opinion of him was so low, he would stop contacting me, which he did. I forced him to let me go and can now hate him for doing so.

I’ve done something similar to this although I can’t remember deliberately distorting reality I believe I read insidious intentions where there may have not been any, suspicious. So maybe on a sub-conscious level. I have intentionally driven off a SO By bad behavior either I knew it was going to end and by being the one to cause it I could prepare myself and sort of numb myself to it and I could feel/look like the good person or victim and not have to face those feelings of pain. That part I was aware of

HSS wrote:No worries! I was thinking that your answer was unexpected for a Cluster B personality, so I asked to clarify my thoughts... that's all.

Okay, thanks I usually stick to my own areas on the board, but I found your thread interesting.

-- Sun Jun 07, 2020 5:51 am --

Manners73 wrote:

thegentlepath wrote:HSS, I am not a diagnosed cluster b personality. Apologies for the intrusion.

You are a very welcome intrusion.

...but an intrusion nonetheless Thank you Manners73

@THEGENTLEPATH:

Thanks.
"an intrusion nonetheless" -> that reminds a friend of mine - same way of doing.

@JOMP:

“You're confusing meaning with purpose. That signature is designed to inspire reason”.


That's a great point. You often use words as a tool to get an effect, and not to communicate a reality. It's difficult for people to answer the “indirect communicator”. You are choosing/trying to choose how people have to react.
But what if you would need to receive something unexpected, coming from another' s choice and not from your own? It would explain the reason why you like to be surprised, and why you look for the unexpected against boredom.

Your communication's style is an obstacle for the unexpected.

Now, do not take it wrong: I would like to communicate openly, and exemplify your indirect communication by analyzing your words here, the most objectively I can. I am not sure to be right. I am very naif about these things... but I try.

If particular words do inspire a particular reaction, what was your first answer designed for?
You wrote that you want “someone with a brain”, “able to challenge you”.
Meaning aside, it can be true or not, the purpose is given by the tone: the expression “with a brain” shows contempt for stupid people, and it's followed by the verb “to challenge”. These words seem designed to inspire a competitive and then personal, not objective attitude. The reaction will depend on the interlocutor, but the way the post is conceived increases the risk of a competitive reaction, more than minimizing it.
Moreover: everyone who thinks “I try to convince jomp that... X”, as a consequence of reading your words, is 1) someone with a competitive attitude, or 2) someone who “reacted” to a challenge → so you can think that it's driven by a competitive attitude, even if he isn't.

Competition isn't a taboo.
But in your second answer, you regret that “people often get lost in an argument because they feel they have a personal point to prove, well beyond reason”.
Are you really complaining it? To engage a believably interlocutor, to help him to be objective, you use an objective tone, you write something like: “I want someone who is able to integrate my pov”.
Writing a "competitive" invitation, as long as the other reacts, your words are confirmed: “people feel they have a personal point to prove, well beyond reason”.

In summary, we have two options:
1) the interlocutor can choose to be silent. You are right, because you have no interlocutor.
2) you are right, because you managed to dispose him in a personal attitude, or to suspect him of that attitude.

That's why I doubt a little, when you write that you hope to be wrong, that being right “has no real value beyond ego-stroking”.

You win people.
Are you winning the inner forces regulating your behavior too?
The victory repairs you from new inputs from outside, and confirms your prejudices. We all do it, me too. It's common

Moreover: “I like to be challenged because it forces me...”.

Why do you wish to force yourself? You force yourself, when there is an inner resistance. Don't you think that there is a reason for the resistance to be there?

However, this can inspire a weird reaction too: the readers are incited to think that you wish an “help to force yourself”. It's weird.
You hate to be controlled. AND YOU ARE RIGHT.
Moreover, it's frequent that a “forcing” interlocutor has a personal point.
Someone who knows/experiences something different from your world's vision, can share it with you. But he won't be so insistent, if he has no need to satisfy.

Please do understand that my post isn't against you. It's quite the opposite. I was tempted to be silent. It would be easier and wiser, considered what I am thinking. But I am interested to understand, and my curiosity is stronger than other things.

What are my reasons to answer?

As far as I can see, at least three reasons are about “make a point” (refuse of being conditioned, satisfaction to show that I understand something - but I would like to be silent too, as I am aware that I am naif – need to demonstrate objectivity).

But there is something that isn't about “make a point”: I want the architecture to be out from the darkness. I want that it comes to the light. It's not about feeling safe. It's hard to explain something that is just a natural process. It's perhaps because when the architecture is enlightened, the labyrinth separating the communication, becomes an objective, common land that allows it. Communication = common land, community.

Further reason... I am curious. What is your motivation?
You shouldn't need ego-stroking. You are clever, strong, successful. If it's about ego-stroking, it's something irrational, coming from the past.
Is it fun? Maybe.
Is it an automatic mechanism, that you aren't able to stop?
Have you two opposite wishes, to be surprised and to control?
Is it all about control and lying?

The question is open.

You say that you hope to be wrong. It could be. But if you are wrong, it means that there is a new, unknown world, that you aren't able to deal with. If you are wrong, your defenses and personality have no reason. There is a natural resistance to that. I have my personal experience. I mistrust someone. I could tell him sincerely “I hope that you deserve my trust”. But in practice he couldn't do anything to win my distrust. I am not sure that the person is the problem. The way we are built is based on our world's vision. If the world is different, it becomes a threat to our identity.

---
Then, about objectivity, logical and emotional process.

You are absolutely right that people with a consistent emotional activity can have a not objective reaction, and that if we take a step back and ignore the urge to react, we can see more clearly.

Where I think differently: I wouldn't assume that every not subjective attitude, it's objective. Objectivity is a not altered perception of reality, without the interference of personal opinions, thoughts, feelings.
If this is true, it's also true that emotions exist as a part of an objective reality: in people's inner world, and in interpersonal, daily relationships.

So, I can see three situations (schematically):
1. PEOPLE' S SITUATION: we aren't objective, when emotions act on our mind. They change our logical process to satisfy emotional needs. Imo it's basically fear, that alters reality's perception: fear to experience something painful, to lose our happiness without this or that. Considered that you do not experience fear, you don't feel the emotional need to alter reality's perception.
2. YOU: you aren't objective, when your mind ignores/doesn't perceive some data, totally or partially. To discuss objectively about some topics, you would need to experience that data personally, and then elaborate them through your mind. We live in a colored world. Colors' perception influences our mood: red excites us, blue inspires sadness. Perceiving colors alters our mood, and our mood can influence our perception of reality = we lose objectivity. But if we do not perceive colors anymore, and we see a black and white world, we wouldn't have an objective vision: we wouldn't see colors, and colors have their reality.
Point 2. isn't personal, and isn't objective. It's like if you are disposed to be objective, but without the reality to exercise your objectivity about. Like a mind, without a body.
3. OBJECTIVITY: we can be objective when our logical faculty observes/is connected with emotions, without being overwhelmed or distorted by them. We need a balanced cooperation between the emotional and the logical faculty. Sometimes you miss perceiving some emotional factor. But you would be objective, recognizing that you can't know how some things “smell”, as you can't experience them personally. Theoretically, you are ready to allow it; but in practice, sometimes you forget it. It looks like you don't realize it deeply. The knowledge of your limitations seems theoretic. That's why I wrote that sometimes you would benefit to doubt your thoughts (about things that you don't live).