Socionics and Homosexuality
Recently I have had more contact with homosexuals than before and have thought a lot about homosexuals I have known and about past acquaintances I now suspect are gay. I've tried to pinpoint their commonalities and psychological peculiarities compared to heterosexual men or women, particularly those of the same socionic type.
My first observation is that in every case I find it difficult to type these people. In addition to their socionic type there is something else that appears to "cloud" the type (actually, my idea of the type). For instance, a gay LSE might talk about and express his feelings in a way that makes me suspect he's actually an ethical type. Or a gay SLE might lack the male dominance and seem more passive or even insecure than is generally typical of the type. These are just some possibilities. In most cases I still can't identify the types for sure.
I've found that in some cases it helps to think of the gay man as a woman, and then understanding his personality becomes easier. Likewise for lesbians.
Another thing I don't understand is how intertype compatibility plays out between homosexuals. I'm used to seeing heterosexual couples where masculine men choose feminine women or somewhat effeminate men are with somewhat tomboyish or "manly" women. I don't understand the attraction between two men who both appear effeminate. Perhaps it is more common for one partner to be more masculine and the other more feminine.
I also don't know if there is a correlation between socionic type and the tendency to take a masculine or feminine role in homosexual relationships. It is slightly tempting to hypothesize that logical types gravitate towards a masculine role and ethical types towards a feminine role, but I suspect the correlation, like always, is not neat.
Among people of a single gender and type I find a fairly wide range of masculinity, femininity and other characteristics. It's not impossible to imagine, for instance, an effeminate ILE with a gay partner who is a masculine SEI. Presumably effemininity among males has only a partial, very far from absolute correlation with homosexuality, and sexual preference is determined by something other than dosages of testosterone and estrogen during prenatal development.
I invite people with more experience and knowledge to share their observations and ideas.
12 comments:
"I've found that in some cases it helps to think of the gay man as a woman, and then understanding his personality becomes easier. Likewise for lesbians."
I think that you need to do this sometimes for heterosexuals as well, and there is a significant minority out there who are really more accurately thought of as androgynous, regardless of their biological sex. (I also don't think that masculine/feminine is really a dichotomy, fwiw.)
Maybe you should look at bisexuals/transgenders/etc. too, just to confuse yourself even more. :)
I am a gay male EII in a relationship with a gay male LSE. Most would describe me as more "effeminate" and him as more "masculine." Indeed, he is not in the least outwardly identifiable as gay. I did, at one point, date a different LSE gay male who was much more effeminate, however. Interestingly, this man was a Sensing subtype, and seemed to be much more emotionally expressive than my current partner, who has a very strong preference for Extroverted Logic. One of my best friends is an LSI lesbian woman who most people would characterize as "masculine." In my experience, Logical types tend to come off as more stereotypically masculine, while Ethical types are regarded as more stereotypically feminine; this would explain why a Sensing subtype would be more emotional than a Logical subtype - the Logical subtype has such a strong preference for Logic, that it minimizes his proficiency with the opposite rational function. There is also, of course, a belief that has been around for ages in which women are seen as emotionally-driven and aware while men are the opposite. It has been my observation that the vast majority of women I encounter are Ethical, and the men, Logical. Even Logical women are slightly more emotionally aware than their male counterparts and Ethical men are slightly more logical than their female counterparts (from what I have seen). It is probably a combination of socio-cultural conditioning and something genetic.
I think people are missing a huge point in discussing sexuality. This extends not only to homosexuality but to all abnormal sexual preferences such as Oedipus/Electra complex, asexuality and anti-sexuality. The actual typing of the individual person is irrelevant without considering their past relationships and what may have been the CAUSE of the anomaly. Consider an IEI who grew up with an LIE, LII, LSE. Their supervisor, beneficiary and conflicting partners, like Cinderella, if Cinderella was an angsty, sloppy, artistic teen who cannot live up to the INTj anal standards of structure, the ENTj constantly looking down upon her, the ESTj unable to understand why they just won't LISTEN. IEI suffers all her life unable to shake off the logical lifestyle and meets an SLE, a female SLE who has lived in similar conditions. Because both are Betas and the world can't tell them what to do MAN! They have a very satisfying and healthy psychological relationship. Society being what it is with same-sex couples they think themselves like this and engage in intercourse. Because both families discourage this they both have even more reason to continue. What could have been a very Disney-esque friendship incorrectly turns into a physical relationship in order to maintain a psychological one. Society doesn't know socionics, the couple doesn't know socionics, socionists still think society's problems are not socionics based and everyone dismisses it as a tragic/happy/love story/hollywood scenario. After years of a homosexual relationship and support from society they make no effort to remedy what doesn't look like a problem. All it would take is a healthy dual relationship of someone of the opposite sex, for both parties. Other hollywood examples include a supervisor/supervisee father/son, but the father sexually abuses the daughter who is a dual/illus/sdual to the brother. Brother kills father, but supervisor relationship causes him to turn into his father and begin to kidnap, assault, murder girls resembling the sister. Also the father/son are both doctors. Consider how many prisoners/psychos can be rehabilitated by being placed into close quarters with their dual partners.
I think people are missing a huge point in discussing sexuality. This extends not only to homosexuality but to all abnormal sexual preferences such as Oedipus/Electra complex, asexuality and anti-sexuality. The actual typing of the individual person is irrelevant without considering their past relationships and what may have been the CAUSE of the anomaly. Consider an IEI who grew up with an LIE, LII, LSE. Their supervisor, beneficiary and conflicting partners, like Cinderella, if Cinderella was an angsty, sloppy, artistic teen who cannot live up to the INTj anal standards of structure, the ENTj constantly looking down upon her, the ESTj unable to understand why they just won't LISTEN. IEI suffers all her life unable to shake off the logical lifestyle and meets an SLE, a female SLE who has lived in similar conditions. Because both are Betas and the world can't tell them what to do MAN! They have a very satisfying and healthy psychological relationship. Society being what it is with same-sex couples they think themselves like this and engage in intercourse. Because both families discourage this they both have even more reason to continue. What could have been a very Disney-esque friendship incorrectly turns into a physical relationship in order to maintain a psychological one. Society doesn't know socionics, the couple doesn't know socionics, socionists still think society's problems are not socionics based and everyone dismisses it as a tragic/happy/love story/hollywood scenario. After years of a homosexual relationship and support from society they make no effort to remedy what doesn't look like a problem. All it would take is a healthy dual relationship of someone of the opposite sex, for both parties. Other hollywood examples include a supervisor/supervisee father/son, but the father sexually abuses the daughter who is a dual/illus/sdual to the brother. Brother kills father, but supervisor relationship causes him to turn into his father and begin to kidnap, assault, murder girls resembling the sister. Also the father/son are both doctors. Consider how many prisoners/psychos can be rehabilitated by being placed into close quarters with their dual partners.
I guess functions of socionics that could be attached to stereotypical masculine-feminine duality could be: Si(fem)-Ne(masc), Fi(fem)-Te(masc), Ni(fem)-Se(masc) and Fe(fem)-Ti(masc). The only feminine extrovert function for me seems to be Fe, which is significant, as you cannot create more than four "perfectly feminine" types out of it: ESFp, ISFp and ENFj and INFp, and the same with man: only alpha and beta logical types seem to show clearly masculine profile. Out of rest: gamma and delta, it's a bit mixed I guess. In my opinion delta is the most androgenous of all quadras, because of the concentration of sexuality on Si-Ne duality, which resembles more of parent-child (both of them of unknown gender) relation that clearly and overtly sexually polarized Se-Ni scheme that works in gamma.
Szaulinska, I'd have to disagree with many of your statements. I can think of several effeminate male ILEs and LIIs that I've known, at least one feminine female ILE, effeminate male SEEs, and masculine female EIEs and even IEIs. Typically masculine male LSEs are quite common, as well as typically feminine female EIIs.
I think masculinity and femininity traces directly to sex hormone levels, particularly during development. These, in turn, may be weakly linked to type, but within each type there is a great deal of variation in physical and psychological expression of masculinity/femininity.
I am aware that there is not a 1:1 correlation, but in terms of MBTI the INFJ male tends to be homosexual, based on personal experience and what I've heard online. As such I believe that there is a possible correlation between personality type, gender and sexuality, but like with all things it can't be predicted. I think once gender and sexuality become less stigmatized and culturally constructed we will begin to know how these correlations work.
It's a thought that I have also had concerning 'androgynous' people. Combining your instances (which I infer are based on real-life examples) which are predominantly extraverted types, with what Jung says about extraverted/introverted types, it might just be extraverted types being more open with their inner parts. A counter-argument however is that extraverts tend to adapt to their social environment. But then again, the US is quite an open culture. Jung says extraverted types express what is in them freely by their very nature while introverts "play God" and decide what gains expression from their psyche. Don't forget there is a feminine 'soul' in every man.
One illuminating observation I have made is introverts are more insistent on what is 'correct'. This is not a logical correctness but a sort of psychical correctness. Given that introverts are more attuned to the unconscious, they will be more in touch with the psyche fundamentally. I find myself in conflicts with the majority of them - experiments for me - and they are too plodding for me.
One other factor we must consider is the matter of rationality-irrationality. Introverted irrationals are by their make-up supposed to take their psychic reality as physical reality. Thus, a man is masculine and a woman is feminine. An Fi will look at it ethically and be assured that it is right that an individual be entitled to their difference while a Ti will surely make the distinction between psychic reality and physical reality e.g. Kant.
It's all tentative speculation but I just have some sense that they are valid. I too do not know
"I think masculinity and femininity traces directly to sex hormone levels, particularly during development. These, in turn, may be weakly linked to type, but within each type there is a great deal of variation in physical and psychological expression of masculinity/femininity."
I did not see that comment before I posted. I will have to disagree with myself.
Perhaps, we should go to the fundamental ideas. And it looks like these issues are more archetypal and reliant on the dynamical structure of the psyche.
One issue I came up with is "authenticity". Authenticity, for me, is not what they call self-authorship because that has too many loopholes - I can choose something but it does not mean it is concordant with my innate self. Authenticity, to me, is rather "what fits one best". This brings in a whole different dimension, in addition with the archetypes, since what sexual attraction and preference means depends on what is authentic to oneself. Here, my arguments in the other comment find good grounds.
Or perhaps, these untypical have not finished with self-realization.
It is for these reasons of gayness and effeminacy, for instance, that I do not agree with how people identify type. The main ways used to identify type, I have observed, are either by the motivations or by the way they express. I think a more dynamical interaction between either is more trenchant and more productive. And, I don't know where the whole idea of machismo in association with Se is from - it doesn't make sense to me, there appears no reason behind it.
Wow dude your thinking on gay ppl's lives needs to be adjusted.
Holy fuck read that again especially as it gets really insane towards the end since "being a murderer" and "being gay" are rather different. As any sane person would agree.
>> Wow dude your thinking on gay ppl's lives needs to be adjusted.
I won't even attempt to respond to this critique or update this blogpost. I'll just note that it was published in 2010 :-) I'll leave it at that.
Post a Comment