OLD & warm up before meeting

[No_Go]

Oh I know what you mean with excessive texting - I'd also get nuts if someone keeps texting me all the time if we're in a relationship (I mean the nonsense text like what they had for lunch, 'Thinking of you' etc).

 

I was referring to 1 text/e-mail/whatever other media per day. Jut not the 'Hey beautiful' type of text but something coherent - like few paragraphs that I can use to establish are we a good match or not (and vice versa)

 

I guess I don't have any hard and fast rules, but a week of texting seems reasonable enough. What I DON'T want is the expectation that daily, long communication is required long-term. I have found that quite naturally there is more communication via text in the beginning and leading up to the date than would occur post-date, more in the terms that when you meet and if you hit it off, you spend a bit more time together and require less time texting. It's a natural fade from one area to another.

 

I don't like prolonged texting. What I don't like is when a plan is made for later in the week, and there's no texting at all. Typically I have found that the date doesn't happen, so I would be okay with communication in between, just not a ton of it. I don't like the prolonged texting where there is no meeting in person in the foreseeable future either, so the idea of someone stating they like to text first for a prolonged period is going to make me a little less interested. I've already walked that walk. If we have to wait a week, that's fine. If this moves to week 2 or 3, I'm already scheduling dates with other people or planning other things.

 

As you can see, I'm bouncing around all over. But, I think it would be reasonable to say to someone, sure, let's plan a date for later in the week. Say you like to get to know someone a little by text first, so the time delay is perfect for you. You can always cancel if you don't "feel it." I think planning a date instead of being wishy-washy about prolonged texting and establishing a date sometime in the range of who-knows when will be a good start.

 

Keep in mind, if you prolong too long, they could find someone who is more willing to meet them sooner, and you can find yourself either dropped, ignored, or they write to you and tell you that they met someone else and they want to see where it goes, which means you lost an opportunity.

[No_Go]

What is your preferred M.B. type? I'm curious:)

 

This is really surprising to me, NG. I'm also INTJ (and female) and the FP would make me crazy!

 

Anyway, I totally get what you are after in OLD but, as I am too chicken to even try that route, I have no advice for you. I do like Lana's wording suggestion.

 

Good luck!

[No_Go]

Hey Dis! You're right I'm so negative to start with and it shouldn't be that way:)

 

So the goal is to get my d*mn profile up by Wednesday next week. Here it is - I'm making a written promise - I should now keep it!

 

Dont be discouraged yet girl

 

I know we all have heard horror stories about OLDing here. I should know...I've posted many of them

 

But maybe it wont be as bad as you think it will be

 

You had pretty good luck with it in the past...maybe you'll get lucky again!

 

I've heard, most of the things we worry about never end up happening. Give yourself and some guys a chance. You might be pleasantly surprised with the outcome

[introverted1]

What is your preferred M.B. type? I'm curious:)

 

I do best with other (social) introverts. And I mean true introverts -- i.e., those who need time alone to recharge, as opposed to extroverts, who are energised by activity with others. I know too often introversion gets conflated with social anxiety and other issues that have nothing to do with introversion. My experience with extroverts has been that they get hurt (and pouty!) when I say I need alone time.

 

And I need a T because emotional thinkers make me crazy! I need a rational guy. And one who can carry out a plan and be on time. So there's the J. Looks like it's only on S/N that I am flexible.

 

How have you made ESFP work for you? Was your ex ESFP?

Edited July 5, 2017 by introverted1

[Popsicle]

There are guys who like to do this. I personally am not a fan (I'm an xSFx though) but I know some are out there.

Edited July 6, 2017 by Popsicle

[Dis]

Hey Dis! You're right I'm so negative to start with and it shouldn't be that way:)

 

So the goal is to get my d*mn profile up by Wednesday next week. Here it is - I'm making a written promise - I should now keep it!

 

Yayyy! Report back in a week!

[joseb]

OP, im not a fan of too much communication before meeting, but a week isn't unreasonable.

Just don't build it up to much in your head.

 

And if you expect engaging conversation you better do your bit too. No way I'm going to get creative when I'm getting boring replies and questions.

 

Might be an idea to say "sapiosexual" in your profile.

It wouldn't put me off, and I would expect a bit more of a lead time to meet.

 

I'm an ENFP for what it's worth.

[joseb]

I do best with other (social) introverts. And I mean true introverts -- i.e., those who need time alone to recharge, as opposed to extroverts, who are energised by activity with others.

 

 

It's not either/or or is it? I need alone time. Like a lot of it, or I dont feel myself. But I can totally get energised from mixing with the right people.

[Gaeta]

Don't give too much importance to personality test. My result changes depending on my mood.

 

The same with zodiac. After my divorce I swore to never be with a Gemini man again and here I am dating a Gemini man who's complete opposite of my ex-h.

[Lorenza]

I used to be the same - preffered to get to know someone through texts and emails before going on an actual date with them. Some guys didn't mind and went on with it, others were men of fewer words, but a week of chatting was never a problem for most of them.

 

Now I have changed myself. Chatting has become a tedious thing, especially after months of dwelling on OLD sites. Also I noticed how I create all kinds of illusions about the men I'm chatting with, which almost always ends up in disappointment. So much time gets wasted.

 

I've discovered it's more efficient to talk on phone (a man's voice can reveal quite a lot and his manner of speaking might be completely different than the tone you imagine reading his messages) and then meet as soon as possible. You might have an amazing conversation online but then meet him and find out that he talks in a whiny manner, his appearance doesn't attract you, his thoughts aren't so eloquent etc etc. Texts usually twist reality and leaves more room for our own interpretation rather than showing the truth.

 

I understand that you might want to ease yourself back into OLD by chatting longer, but trust me if you end up spending a longer time on it, you'll find real contact much more valuable and, well, organic. My advice is to have a phone call before the date anyway, no matter how sure you are about a guy you just spent a week chatting with.

[salparadise]

My advice would be to keep the profile disclosure (re: needing a week of messaging) to the barest hint. For example, "after exchanging several messages" as opposed to those awful, irrational, disappointing, demanding, deal-breaking phrases such as "get to know you awhile first," "if it seems worth it," "develop rapport online first," etc., etc. And for God's sake, never-ever allow the words friends and first to coincide in a sentence. As a matter of fact, I'd say best practice is not to use the former at all in dating profile.

 

I have a catalogue of cliché phrases that I carry with me at all times, and only thing that can possibly overcome the use of any one of those is a smokin' visual combined with a proclivity for certain kinks and terribly weak boundaries.

 

 

...misinterpret it with social anxiety, and I actually prefer to date an extrovert - I had best experiences with ESFP whereas I'm INTJ... not that i'm a firm M.B. proponent but for dating it kind of makes sense)

 

It sure does make sense. Dating and mating is ultimately about finding a right personality match. Yea, pheromones and attraction are factors as well, but those are easily known, often before even speaking. MBTI is science –– soft science of course, but there is a lot of wisdom contained therein. Anyone who would compare or equate MB with astrology probably has a collection of poppets. I am INTJ as well. I think we may be overrepresented in this forum.

 

Here's the deal with MBTI, the second axis is critical, and it should match. The other three are somewhat flexible. The ideal match for a INTJ is ENFP. So if you're comfortable with an ESFP, you should go for a ride with an N! This is our input channel. It's how we experience and process data and see the world.

 

I wouldn't worry about putting it out there in a profile. Anyone who misconstrues the "I" to mean socially awkward won't be a match for your sapiosexual proclivity. One really great thing about being a sapiosexual is that it's easy to write a profile that filters many of the wrong ones and attracts the right ones.

 

And I need a T because emotional thinkers make me crazy! I need a rational guy. And one who can carry out a plan and be on time. So there's the J. Looks like it's only on S/N that I am flexible.

 

That's the one axis (S/N) that you should be less flexible on. This is not merely my opinion; well researched. I would also caution against interpreting individual axes too literally when assessing what types may suit you. They actually combine to create other profiles, e.g. introvertedThinking, extrovertedFeeling.

 

I was married to an "S" and I can tell you it was a problem. Yea, there was more to it than that, but that was fundamental. I'd be sitting in my chair all absorbed in a book on Descartes or something, and she'd come in ranting about the toilet seat, socks on the floor, or crumbs on the counter. Drove me nuts! I've dated N's almost exclusively since the D and it's so nice! Now, on a first date I'll throw out a topic based on an idea or inductive reasoning and see if they can run with it. If they immediately revert to practicalities I make an excuse and leave (kidding).

[Gaeta]

I was married to an "S" and I can tell you it was a problem. Yea, there was more to it than that, but that was fundamental. I'd be sitting in my chair all absorbed in a book on Descartes or something, and she'd come in ranting about the toilet seat, socks on the floor, or crumbs on the counter. Drove me nuts! I've dated N's almost exclusively since the D and it's so nice! Now, on a first date I'll throw out a topic based on an idea or inductive reasoning and see if they can run with it. If they immediately revert to practicalities I make an excuse and leave (kidding).

 

Don't kid yourself salparadise. If you had married the N or the D eventually they would have nagged you about your socks on the floor and your crumbs on the counter.

[joseb]

Don't kid yourself salparadise. If you had married the N or the D eventually they would have nagged you about your socks on the floor and your crumbs on the counter.

 

Lol! and that is why I won't ever get married

[CptInsano]

. MBTI is science –– soft science of course, but there is a lot of wisdom contained therein. Anyone who would compare or equate MB with astrology probably has a collection of poppets. [/Quote]

 

I wouldn't call MBTI science, even though it's not completely unscientific. (The comparison with astrology is not fair because the latter has no relationship with science.) But the test is so simplified, in particular in regard to its binary choices and 16 categories, that I wouldn't use it for anything other than entertainment or possibly some self-reflection.

[salparadise]

Don't kid yourself salparadise. If you had married the N or the D eventually they would have nagged you about your socks on the floor and your crumbs on the counter.

 

Well, only Carnac could know for certain, but I guess what you're saying that women nag and that's just something we have to accept? I'm not so sure.

 

The seat-socks-crumbs was a euphemism for the way N/S differ in how they relate to the world. N's tend to exist in their own heads, S's are sensory and detail oriented. I love a woman who will play with abstract ideas with me. My ex-would get pissed if I even tried... and of course she believed this to be flaw in me and that I needed to change. And the funny thing was that she wasn't neat, organized or precise - she just expected that of me!

[salparadise]

I wouldn't call MBTI science, even though it's not completely unscientific. (The comparison with astrology is not fair because the latter has no relationship with science.) But the test is so simplified, in particular in regard to its binary choices and 16 categories, that I wouldn't use it for anything other than entertainment or possibly some self-reflection.

 

Once again Cpt, one opinion trumps general acceptance. From now on MBTI shall be considered to exist in the gray area between science and unscience... how about psychology and other social sciences? Have you declared them to be of limited value as well?

[Gaeta]

Well, only Carnac could know for certain, but I guess what you're saying that women nag and that's just something we have to accept? I'm not so sure.

 

The seat-socks-crumbs was a euphemism for the way N/S differ in how they relate to the world. N's tend to exist in their own heads, S's are sensory and detail oriented. I love a woman who will play with abstract ideas with me. My ex-would get pissed if I even tried... and of course she believed this to be flaw in me and that I needed to change. And the funny thing was that she wasn't neat, organized or precise - she just expected that of me!

 

What I mean is if you don't pull your own weight in a relationship than it does not matter if the woman is an ING, LTD or INC. It will not work and the relationship will enter a destructive cycle.

[salparadise]

What I mean is if you don't pull your own weight in a relationship than it does not matter if the woman is an ING, LTD or INC. It will not work and the relationship will enter a destructive cycle.

 

Oh, well that wasn't the case at all. Why would you assume that?

[CptInsano]

Once again Cpt, one opinion trumps general acceptance. From now on MBTI shall be considered to exist in the gray area between science and unscience... how about psychology and other social sciences? Have you declared them to be of limited value as well?

 

The value is certainly debatable in certain areas. If you look at the difficulty of performing efficacy studies in psychology I would definitely approach the field with a degree of scepticism. This is not meant to disparage an entire discipline, but the further you get away from "hard sciences* the greater becomes the tempation of replacing evidence with concensus. The current replication crisis is a result of that.

 

MBTI is a model, and so are Newtonian Mechanics. If I was referring to the latter I would state its scope and at least the magnitude of the expected error. The predictive qualities of MBTI are relatively minor. It has enjoyed quite some popularity within corporate America with relatively little to show for it. I would therefore not expect specific outcomes based on on the results of that test.

[No_Go]

Oh Introverted - I went over my correspondence and the guy that I was mainly thinking about was ENFP not ESFP, my bad!

 

I think S/T balance each other in a couple, too much friction for T/T couples.

 

Regarding E/I ... I'll admit the reason to like dating E's for me is I usually don't bother with social stuff too much but with an E around - the pressure is off because they like to take the lead in social situations (and I like to take the lead in everything but social situations ). The ones that get pouty and probably just clingers, not just Es..

 

My most recent ex was likely ISTJ and we were not meshing too well in terms of personalities...

 

 

I do best with other (social) introverts. And I mean true introverts -- i.e., those who need time alone to recharge, as opposed to extroverts, who are energised by activity with others. I know too often introversion gets conflated with social anxiety and other issues that have nothing to do with introversion. My experience with extroverts has been that they get hurt (and pouty!) when I say I need alone time.

 

And I need a T because emotional thinkers make me crazy! I need a rational guy. And one who can carry out a plan and be on time. So there's the J. Looks like it's only on S/N that I am flexible.

 

How have you made ESFP work for you? Was your ex ESFP?

[No_Go]

And if you expect engaging conversation you better do your bit too. No way I'm going to get creative when I'm getting boring replies and questions.

 

Of course! It should go both ways. But since the guy initiates the correspondence, they usually set the tone of the exchange...

 

Which makes me think I maybe should experiment sending 1st messages - so far I have never done that because I wanted to weed out guys that just don't like me and/or are too passive.

[No_Go]

I have issues with phone calls though... First I find them more stressful than meeting in person, because distractions are missing and there is no way to slow down/erase as in writing. Second my thoughts are sometimes too erratic when talking (rather than writing) so I suspect I may be scaring people away:D

 

But I agree voice can make/break chemistry...

 

I've discovered it's more efficient to talk on phone (a man's voice can reveal quite a lot and his manner of speaking might be completely different than the tone you imagine reading his messages) and then meet as soon as possible. You might have an amazing conversation online but then meet him and find out that he talks in a whiny manner, his appearance doesn't attract you, his thoughts aren't so eloquent etc etc. Texts usually twist reality and leaves more room for our own interpretation rather than showing the truth.

 

I understand that you might want to ease yourself back into OLD by chatting longer, but trust me if you end up spending a longer time on it, you'll find real contact much more valuable and, well, organic. My advice is to have a phone call before the date anyway, no matter how sure you are about a guy you just spent a week chatting with.

[No_Go]

Oh the word 'friends' has no place in dating situations - if it goes there it is usually over before it has started... And I'm definitely not looking for friends in OLD - Meetup can do better for friends [well, I have one OLD-based friend that I'm still wondering about - is he orbiting or just genuine friend... But it has been years so the latter is possible].

 

I made a typo - I was getting along great with ENFP not ESFP. I discovered it after reading our epic correspondence

 

'If it seems worth it' - heck this is one of the things people think but not say.

 

My advice would be to keep the profile disclosure (re: needing a week of messaging) to the barest hint. For example, "after exchanging several messages" as opposed to those awful, irrational, disappointing, demanding, deal-breaking phrases such as "get to know you awhile first," "if it seems worth it," "develop rapport online first," etc., etc. And for God's sake, never-ever allow the words friends and first to coincide in a sentence. As a matter of fact, I'd say best practice is not to use the former at all in dating profile.

 

I have a catalogue of cliché phrases that I carry with me at all times, and only thing that can possibly overcome the use of any one of those is a smokin' visual combined with a proclivity for certain kinks and terribly weak boundaries.

 

 

 

 

It sure does make sense. Dating and mating is ultimately about finding a right personality match. Yea, pheromones and attraction are factors as well, but those are easily known, often before even speaking. MBTI is science –– soft science of course, but there is a lot of wisdom contained therein. Anyone who would compare or equate MB with astrology probably has a collection of poppets. I am INTJ as well. I think we may be overrepresented in this forum.

 

Here's the deal with MBTI, the second axis is critical, and it should match. The other three are somewhat flexible. The ideal match for a INTJ is ENFP. So if you're comfortable with an ESFP, you should go for a ride with an N! This is our input channel. It's how we experience and process data and see the world.

 

I wouldn't worry about putting it out there in a profile. Anyone who misconstrues the "I" to mean socially awkward won't be a match for your sapiosexual proclivity. One really great thing about being a sapiosexual is that it's easy to write a profile that filters many of the wrong ones and attracts the right ones.

 

[No_Go]

Funnily businesses use it. Even True Colors tests which are grossly oversimplified are used.

 

I'm hard science major so I tend to not criticize soft sciences too much - I just don't know enough to form an evidence-based opinion.

 

I wouldn't call MBTI science, even though it's not completely unscientific. (The comparison with astrology is not fair because the latter has no relationship with science.) But the test is so simplified, in particular in regard to its binary choices and 16 categories, that I wouldn't use it for anything other than entertainment or possibly some self-reflection.

[salparadise]

I made a typo - I was getting along great with ENFP not ESFP. I discovered it after reading our epic correspondence

 

Great! That's the theoretical best match for INTJ. I hope it works out for you!

 

'If it seems worth it' - heck this is one of the things people think but not say.

 

Yea, you'd think that. I had a local woman with no photo message me recently. I immediately asked for pics. After making a bunch of lame excuses for not being willing to reveal herself, she suggested that we message awhile first, and then if she felt it was worth it she'd send a pic. I told her no thanks, I'm not desperate, if she showed me pics and she wasn't completely disgusting I might send her another message. And then I blocked her. Pissed me off.

 

I should've known better than to even engage a person with such an entitlement mentality.