Theory of Sexual Attraction between NTs/STs and NF/SFs

[apple]

I think there is a difference in the way NTs/STs process sexual attraction that is different from NFs/SFs:

I'm wondering if any of the brilliant minds at INTPComplex have any insights regarding this?

NTs/STs: process sexual attraction that incorporates aspects such as auditory information, and also towards olfactory senses: in that the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) becomes important when assimilating sexual attraction towards a particular individual.

For instance, let's say, Christy (INTP) and Taylor (ENTJ) have to have partners who "smell" right to them and have "voices" that they are attracted to based on their genetic compatibility. In essence, Christy and Taylor choose partners, not due to the release of oxytocin when bonding during sex, but through both non-verbal and verbal cues in which they distinguish between partners who have a biological genetic compatibility with them.

Whereas, Nigel (INFJ) and Elizabeth (ENFP) base sexual compatibility primarily on visual information and a release of oxytocin from physical bonding, so that the most important factors in their attraction is based on physical attractiveness and the sexual act, in which oxytocin will be released from their brains to stimulate bonding.

When they assess "love" and the act of "loving", NTs and STs will express an innate compatibility in thinking styles and will choose to fall in love with people based on criteria other than sexual information and will have the mindset, that there are plenty of fish in the sea if one relationship goes awry. In essence, they "choose" who they fall in love with and they can "choose" not to love to someone.

Whereas, for NFs and SFs, they can't help but "fall in love" as it is out of their control, as they linger on past relationships and obsess about previous partners in which they had a sexual relationship because their choice of attraction to sexual partners are based on a chemical reaction- the release of oxytocin when bonding, so will continue to think about when they were held or in post-coital embrace with their partners as a symptom of their "love crisis". They have the mindset, to get over someone in which a relationship didn't work out, the best way is to "get under someone new" (experience new sexual interaction in which they can shift the bonding to their new partner through the release of oxytocin).

So that a stronger predictor for NT/ST relationships is based on thinking style compatibility and auditory information ("She seemed hot, but when I started to talk to her, she became less attractive" "He was hot until he opened his mouth" etc) in addition to the scent of a person which determines genetic compatibility, which overrides the oxytocin conditioning.

Whereas for NF/SF relationships, the stronger predictor for attraction is based on visual information and the amount of oxytocin released after sex. ("She just has a body I love despite the fact she doesn't speak English, and I have no idea what she is saying, I just love her so much and am crazy about her" etc)

So what do you INTP gentlemen think of this theory of sexual attraction?

[Spartan26]

I don't know what causes me to be attracted to someone and I often feel different per each individual woman I'm attracted to or have any type of relationship with. I'd be lying if I didn't say looks has nothing to do with it but it's not as simple as being led by my smaller head. I tend not to be attracted to sensors. SPs I may more likely bond with but there are plenty of times I can acknowledge an SJ is physically pretty but she just doesn't do anything for me. I may also tend to notice subtle attractiveness. So many times either in school, work, conferences, parties, workshops, etc, I'll notice someone and talk to some guy friends about her later and 9 times out of 10 they aren't even sure they know the person I'm talking about but then inevitably they'll see them later and I'll get "Holy sh#t, you were right about ________. I get it now!"

I'm not going to claim to have any sort of insight but many of the times I'm physically attracted to someone, she'll turn out to be a good person inside. There have been times I've missed it but in talking to someone found her to have a sharp wit or gracious side that causes me to see her in a romantic light but it's not like I've gone from dismissive of her to attracted but more like I never thought anything was wrong to then seeing something. Still, that's not the norm. There have definitely been times I wouldn't go for someone based on looks and then finding out more about them really turned me off.

I don't know if I have a type or a why I'm attracted but it just happens. Sometimes I get scared and sometimes I'm happy when there seems to be a quick obvious connection. I don't know what that's about. I know there are some people who can't be alone. Some who go for the same type over and over again. I don't know if there's ever a mbti personal correlation between those, for example, that I've ever noticed. In general, I'd think it'd be hard to know why people go for each other. Some people are too afraid to admit to who they really like. Because so much love or attraction is unexpressed, I think large swaths of info and examples would be missing from you data set. Not to discredit your theory, I'm just saying your observation is based on what you see and know of people in the way they come together. If one person is attracted to someone and they don't know why, as in "I should and in fact did think I disliked this person, why am I thinking about him/her" that attraction may be different from the parameters you've described. In other words, your theory may be fine but I don't know if points to counter or help you revise it may never come to light.

[Madrigal]

I apply to sex the same rule I apply to politics, which is to not take seriously any theory that doesn't lend enough weight to rationality and deliberateness, since I consider that dehumanizing. I mean I like the smell of a man's skin or his voice or feel or whatever - the whole "male mystique" - but I refuse to believe that a species whose intelligence is as advanced as ours can't make conscious choices with regards to sexual/romantic partners. I wouldn't ignore that there are personal psychological reasons that may escape our comprehension dictating our intial attraction to this or that, but actually choosing to be with someone and then staying with them is another matter altogether.

It boggles my mind that sex would be a factor that could keep someone hooked on a relationship until they're having sex with someone else (what you seem to suggest for NFs and SFs), yet this seems to exist. I think it's because some people see sex as a form of bonding above all others, although I don't know what drives them to think this way. Sex doesn't seem to be a very superior form of bonding when you have a faulty connection with someone on other levels; in other words, it does little to replace or create a bond that isn't there, IMO. I tend to see it as a condensation of the dynamics between two people, not a creation of it. I don't give much credit to the use of sex as an escalation in bonding, a resolver of conflicts or an enlightening activity of any sort. It just reproduces what is there.

[apple]

I don't know what causes me to be attracted to someone and I often feel different per each individual woman I'm attracted to or have any type of relationship with. I'd be lying if I didn't say looks has nothing to do with it but it's not as simple as being led by my smaller head. I tend not to be attracted to sensors. SPs I may more likely bond with but there are plenty of times I can acknowledge an SJ is physically pretty but she just doesn't do anything for me. I may also tend to notice subtle attractiveness. So many times either in school, work, conferences, parties, workshops, etc, I'll notice someone and talk to some guy friends about her later and 9 times out of 10 they aren't even sure they know the person I'm talking about but then inevitably they'll see them later and I'll get "Holy sh#t, you were right about ________. I get it now!"

I'm not going to claim to have any sort of insight but many of the times I'm physically attracted to someone, she'll turn out to be a good person inside. There have been times I've missed it but in talking to someone found her to have a sharp wit or gracious side that causes me to see her in a romantic light but it's not like I've gone from dismissive of her to attracted but more like I never thought anything was wrong to then seeing something. Still, that's not the norm. There have definitely been times I wouldn't go for someone based on looks and then finding out more about them really turned me off.

I don't know if I have a type or a why I'm attracted but it just happens. Sometimes I get scared and sometimes I'm happy when there seems to be a quick obvious connection. I don't know what that's about. I know there are some people who can't be alone. Some who go for the same type over and over again. I don't know if there's ever a mbti personal correlation between those, for example, that I've ever noticed. In general, I'd think it'd be hard to know why people go for each other. Some people are too afraid to admit to who they really like. Because so much love or attraction is unexpressed, I think large swaths of info and examples would be missing from you data set. Not to discredit your theory, I'm just saying your observation is based on what you see and know of people in the way they come together. If one person is attracted to someone and they don't know why, as in "I should and in fact did think I disliked this person, why am I thinking about him/her" that attraction may be different from the parameters you've described. In other words, your theory may be fine but I don't know if points to counter or help you revise it may never come to light.

That's a brilliant comment. However, you are attracted to "good people" who tend to not be SFs...whereas I'm sure there are good people of all different personality types. However, I think when we feel that "click" with someone, it is because NTs prioritise a different set of attraction qualities as opposed to being based on looks + sex bonding alone.

I think the "quick and obvious connection" has in part, a lot to do with what I described, the the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in which you assimilate people via genetic compatibility- of course, this would not be the case if you connect with people online- this is something that can only be recognised in person via live interaction + similarity in thinking styles (whether complementary or exactly alike).

There are those people who can't be alone because they are, in essence, addicted to the "oxytocin" rush via physical bonding. I feel like these types tend to idealise love to uncertain lengths to the degree that sex is the culmination of the ultimate types of love, and I've observed this is quite common with NF and SF types, whereas NT and ST types value other criteria over the sexual bonding.

I actually do not think you are discrediting my theory, but rather that you are reaffirming the theory according to your own perspective. However, you are quite right that there are other parameters to consider and that there has to be more levels and complementary actions that take place within sexual attraction.

I apply to sex the same rule I apply to politics, which is to not take seriously any theory that doesn't lend enough weight to rationality and deliberateness, since I consider that dehumanizing. I mean I like the smell of a man's skin or his voice or feel or whatever - the whole "male mystique" - but I refuse to believe that a species whose intelligence is as advanced as ours can't make conscious choices with regards to sexual/romantic partners. I wouldn't ignore that there are personal psychological reasons that may escape our comprehension dictating our intial attraction to this or that, but actually choosing to be with someone and then staying with them is another matter altogether.

It boggles my mind that sex would be a factor that could keep someone hooked on a relationship until they're having sex with someone else (what you seem to suggest for NFs and SFs), yet this seems to exist. I think it's because some people see sex as a form of bonding above all others, although I don't know what drives them to think this way. Sex doesn't seem to be a very superior form of bonding when you have a faulty connection with someone on other levels; in other words, it does little to replace or create a bond that isn't there, IMO. I tend to see it as a condensation of the dynamics between two people, not a creation of it. I don't give much credit to the use of sex as an escalation in bonding, a resolver of conflicts or an enlightening activity of any sort. It just reproduces what is there.

I'm thinking about all the dysfunctional relationships that people have a tendency to get into- ie, women who can't leave abusive husbands etc, and I believe a lot has to do with their primary function in attraction, which is the "oxytocin" bonding. There have been many people who think their partners are crazy then have crazy make-up sex. This would fit into how they prioritise attraction. Whereas, personally speaking, that type of coupling does not appeal to me at all, and sex, although quite important, is the last criteria I consider when assessing my attraction towards an individual as oxytocin can basically be released by the brain with anyone under any circumstances, so therefore, I choose to not regard the sexual bonding as the most important, but rather consciously seek an individual who possesses the mind, the voice, the particular scent that I am looking for, therefore being a conscious choice, however, the olfactory senses is something that I do not have conscious control over. What smells good to me is something I cannot change, because it is a fundamental part of who I am, possessing the genetics that I possess. Hence why there are certain deliberations within the human mindset that cannot be altered, such as the major histocompatibility complex (MHC). I did not intend to mean that humans are base animals who have no conscious decision making processes, but that a lot of our natural atavistic states do dictate where those conscious decisions have an archetypical basis in.

Of course it boggles your mind that sex would be a factor that could keep someone hooked on a relationship- because you are an NT! I think in a similar way, but I can understand that for SFs/NFs, it is higher on their priority list of attraction, and once you take away the sex, SFs/NFs fall immediately out of love with people, just as they can easily fall in love with people in which they are regularly having sex with. With NTs/STs however, since love is not primarily based on sex, they have a harder time finding partners because in the world, there are a less percentage of those people with the attraction markers they are looking for.

So I think there is a set of criteria in place as from the conscious ones people think they are attracted to (eg, physical appearance, age, height, personality, career, income). In fact, underneath the wardrobe of civilisation, NT/STs and NF/SFs have a radically different way of processing attraction, in that

NTs/STs: love/attraction is based on thinking style, auditory and olfactory senses regardless of oxytocin sexual bonding and pure physicality

NFs/SFs: love/attraction is based on visual information (symmetry of features etc) and oxytocin produced sexual bonding regardless of thinking style, auditory and olfactory senses

What are your thoughts?

[Spartan26]

That's a brilliant comment. However, you are attracted to "good people" who tend to not be SFs...whereas I'm sure there are good people of all different personality types. However, I think when we feel that "click" with someone, it is because NTs prioritise a different set of attraction qualities as opposed to being based on looks + sex bonding alone.

I think clicking with an NT is extraordinary but not everyone I've clicked with has been an NT. There are quite a few women I was attracted to or went out with that I couldn't venture a guess for their type but different enough to know they weren't remotely the same. I can remember one lady I used to work with whom I was very surprised to learn she was an ESFJ. Well, yes & no. Her best friend was a former USC cheerleader, had reoccurring roles on some Baywatch show, and my friend herself dated a rock star, but when they were together, they were so shallow talking about some of the guys they dated or tried to pick them up. But one-on-one, when she would choose to be honest, she was a completely different person. It wasn't that those were the most stimulating or contemplative conversations, it was just that she was real. She was quite the looker and had an artistic side, which I dug. We never dated. I'm don't know if she had any attraction towards me whatsoever. I do think she was more dismissive of me as being shy and unsure of myself at first to later realizing I just didn't really want to talk to her but for some reason we did become mild friends. She was selfish and chased after vain things. She was cute and we had our moments but I wouldn't have wanted for us to be "an item." I used to ask her friend to take me to some of the parties she went to as her date so some other women, preferably nicer with a built-in moral compass, would try to "steal" me away but alas, she never did.

I don't know what it was I found most attractive about the ESFJ. Maybe when she was real she was vulnerable, so to speak. Although, the real princessy, damsel in distress type I avoid like the L Ron Hubbert section of the airport bookstore. I like strong, feminine women. There were times she didn't care about what others thought or would at least confess to essentially trying to fit in, or just talk about random stuff, or just joke, or just listen, or whatever. That person I would be interested in but that person was full moon sprouting Ms Hyde. I'm sure her Dr Jeckel 80% of the time found me just as off putting but still, my choice would have been to keep looking.

I can think of some times I was set up or asked to meet someone and while there was nothing wrong, I just wasn't attracted to them. Intelligent conversation but mechanical. She may have an interest in advocacy but just nothing there. All different types, I would've believed, but just nothing there.

I think the "quick and obvious connection" has in part, a lot to do with what I described, the the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) in which you assimilate people via genetic compatibility- of course, this would not be the case if you connect with people online- this is something that can only be recognised in person via live interaction + similarity in thinking styles (whether complementary or exactly alike).

This went over my head.

There are those people who can't be alone because they are, in essence, addicted to the "oxytocin" rush via physical bonding. I feel like these types tend to idealise love to uncertain lengths to the degree that sex is the culmination of the ultimate types of love, and I've observed this is quite common with NF and SF types, whereas NT and ST types value other criteria over the sexual bonding.

Here's the thing, half the ones I'm speaking of don't want to be alone, period. I've known those people who love to fall in love but the ones I'm thinking of so desperately have to be with someone that they will be with someone they don't particularly like. I think they fear abandonment more than actually getting some rush. In some cases I'm not sure how much they like themselves and can't be alone with themselves for more than five minutes and possibly have to face that dilemma.

I actually do not think you are discrediting my theory, but rather that you are reaffirming the theory according to your own perspective. However, you are quite right that there are other parameters to consider and that there has to be more levels and complementary actions that take place within sexual attraction.

Where does this theory go if we took sex off the table?

[apple]

I think clicking with an NT is extraordinary but not everyone I've clicked with has been an NT. There are quite a few women I was attracted to or went out with that I couldn't venture a guess for their type but different enough to know they weren't remotely the same. I can remember one lady I used to work with whom I was very surprised to learn she was an ESFJ. Well, yes & no. Her best friend was a former USC cheerleader, had reoccurring roles on some Baywatch show, and my friend herself dated a rock star, but when they were together, they were so shallow talking about some of the guys they dated or tried to pick them up. But one-on-one, when she would choose to be honest, she was a completely different person. It wasn't that those were the most stimulating or contemplative conversations, it was just that she was real. She was quite the looker and had an artistic side, which I dug. We never dated. I'm don't know if she had any attraction towards me whatsoever. I do think she was more dismissive of me as being shy and unsure of myself at first to later realizing I just didn't really want to talk to her but for some reason we did become mild friends. She was selfish and chased after vain things. She was cute and we had our moments but I wouldn't have wanted for us to be "an item." I used to ask her friend to take me to some of the parties she went to as her date so some other women, preferably nicer with a built-in moral compass, would try to "steal" me away but alas, she never did.

I don't know what it was I found most attractive about the ESFJ. Maybe when she was real she was vulnerable, so to speak. Although, the real princessy, damsel in distress type I avoid like the L Ron Hubbert section of the airport bookstore. I like strong, feminine women. There were times she didn't care about what others thought or would at least confess to essentially trying to fit in, or just talk about random stuff, or just joke, or just listen, or whatever. That person I would be interested in but that person was full moon sprouting Ms Hyde. I'm sure her Dr Jeckel 80% of the time found me just as off putting but still, my choice would have been to keep looking.

I can think of some times I was set up or asked to meet someone and while there was nothing wrong, I just wasn't attracted to them. Intelligent conversation but mechanical. She may have an interest in advocacy but just nothing there. All different types, I would've believed, but just nothing there.


This went over my head.

Here's the thing, half the ones I'm speaking of don't want to be alone, period. I've known those people who love to fall in love but the ones I'm thinking of so desperately have to be with someone that they will be with someone they don't particularly like. I think they fear abandonment more than actually getting some rush. In some cases I'm not sure how much they like themselves and can't be alone with themselves for more than five minutes and possibly have to face that dilemma.

Where does this theory go if we took sex off the table?

I'm not sure what your long anecdote about the ESFJ or the friend of the ESFJ was about, but it seems to me that you did not like her enough to pursue her and your attraction to her was primarily based on the physical, although her personality was not that bad when one-on-one.

I would suggest that you open your horizons to meet more people you might be compatible with as it appears from your anecdote that you have not experienced the "click" of which I am referring to when there is a synchronisation of mind/body/soul which heightens a psychosexual element to interaction.

Merely thinking they're physically attractive and not minding talking to them alone is not the same thing. It is a lukewarm attraction at best that is not indicative of this NT mindset of which I am referring to.

My point is that once sex is off the table- NTs/STs will still be able to fall in love and feel a strong pull/attraction towards someone (with whom they might've never had sex with) due to prioritisation of the auditory, olfactory and thinking processes in that sex is not necessarily an element of the manner in which they fall in love, although still an important part in compatibility and bonding, but that the way they are attracted to people depends heavily on other factors.

However, NFs/SFs will only fall in love with those people with whom they have had sex with and feel a strong bond via the release of oxytocin because that is the way they relate to people. Hence, take a couple in a relationship who are supposedly "madly in love," once they stop having sex with each other, preventing the release of oxytocin, they will quickly fall out of love, and fall in love with the people who instigate that oxytocin release. So in this case, sex is a powerful tool that can psychologically manipulate NFs/SFs who are lead by their sensory release of this important horomone that can completely control their behaviours.

To give examples to illustrate these points:

A) Chris (ESFP) tends to move on from one woman to another because there is always something that he finds wrong with them after time. However, once he begins to have sex with her for a regular amount of time, he starts to feel love for her and is bonded to her, no matter who that woman may be. However, he prefers beautiful women and does not really pay attention to her personality, way of speaking or her goals in life. Rather, he chooses women with whom he can view as being able to produce children, despite the fact that he really doesn't want kids. Once he starts having regular sex with a woman, he feels an intense pull and attraction towards her.

B) Taylor (ENTJ) has a boyfriend Michael (INTP) whom she loves and cares for with whom she can be having regular sex with, however, she believes Ryan (ENTJ who died in an accident when they were 21) to have been her "soulmate" because they had an uncanny similarity and parallel way of thinking, and they were matched genetically in terms of compatibility (triggering the olfactory senses) whereas Taylor does not feel that intense pull and attraction with her current boyfriend because he has a different psychology, thinking style and genetically is too similar to her to be biologically compatible.

C) David (ISFJ) tends to fall into relationship after relationship and has never been single for any amount of time. Once he starts having sex with a woman, he falls madly head over heels in love with her. His ex wife was an ENFP, and his current girlfriend is an ISFP and the two also physically also resemble each other. He chooses women mainly due to their physical appearance, tall and stylish. His last divorce occurred because of the lack of sex, and he was able to find another woman who was physically interested in him in a sexual way which lead to the divorce.

D) Shawn (INTP) tends to fall into relationship with his complementary personality type ESFJs because they initially bring him out of his shell. However, after time, he finds an intrinsic personality incompatibility with ESFJs which leads to angry fall outs, make up sex, and volatile personality clashes. He doesn't feel in love with ESFJ women, insomuch as he is addicted to them. However, he is not the type to chase after women he is interested in, so he always ends up with women who chase him, which are mainly ESFJ types.

E) Jessica (ENTP) typically is attracted to tall, dark types, but after meeting Hunter (ENFP) who is not typically her physical type (ie, blond, European), she starts to become attracted to him because he has the right genetics which are compatible with hers (eg, "he smells sooo good"). She starts to think there is something warm and lovable about him without exactly knowing why.

These are rather simplistic illustrations, but hopefully they elucidate the subject matter accordingly.

[Architect]

NTs/STs: process sexual attraction that incorporates aspects such as auditory information, and also towards olfactory senses: in that the major histocompatibility complex (MHC) becomes important when assimilating sexual attraction towards a particular individual.

Interesting thesis; ok what is the basis for it?

I can't easily argue your point without empirically testing it (because it's a thesis, not a theory), and all I know about INTP's and sexuality is my own experiences and a few discussions with my few INTP friends. So you need to provide the basis for this difference which might give us something to look into (i.e. give us a theory we can spot check).

But for sake of argument, looking at a small sample size I have I don't see that. Up until I was 19 or so women were an abstraction. I see this with my INTP son, I was so wrapped up in my head that "Woman" didn't equate to physical "women". The few times one asked me out and things got interesting (initiated by her) I was more making out with my idea of a woman instead of the actual one I was with. As an adult there's still a strong element of that.

So here I have a theory; NT's are more enamored of their ideas or conception of a partner, and how well actual partners match up to that conception, whether via scent, visual, hair or whatever is what works. This is due to their dominant thinking of course.

I'm not saying that's the truth, but throwing it out as an example.

[lethe]

So what do you INTP gentlemen think of this theory of sexual attraction?

I'm not a gentleman... but I will say I think you pulled this out of thin air. Even limited anecdotes about the sizes of noses or phrenology would be stronger; at least that would be something you could observe. There is so much lacking with this I wouldn't even know where to begin.

edit to add: not trying to mean or anything.

[apple]

Interesting thesis; ok what is the basis for it?

I can't easily argue your point without empirically testing it (because it's a thesis, not a theory), and all I know about INTP's and sexuality is my own experiences and a few discussions with my few INTP friends. So you need to provide the basis for this difference which might give us something to look into (i.e. give us a theory we can spot check).

But for sake of argument, looking at a small sample size I have I don't see that. Up until I was 19 or so women were an abstraction. I see this with my INTP son, I was so wrapped up in my head that "Woman" didn't equate to physical "women". The few times one asked me out and things got interesting (initiated by her) I was more making out with my idea of a woman instead of the actual one I was with. As an adult there's still a strong element of that.

So here I have a theory; NT's are more enamored of their ideas or conception of a partner, and how well actual partners match up to that conception, whether via scent, visual, hair or whatever is what works. This is due to their dominant thinking of course.

I'm not saying that's the truth, but throwing it out as an example.

I'm using theory not in the scientific sense, but the semantical, common usage of the word. Although I haven't tested out this "thesis" it all came about on one rainy day, when I was discussing sexual attraction with my ESTJ friend. Anyhow, he sent me a link to the World Health Organisation Handbook of Mental Disorders and listed "love" as a mental illness in section F63.9:

World Health Organization (WHO) has included love in the official Classification of Diseases. Love is classified as the mental illness, the title "disorder, unspecified habits and desire."
F63.9 - that's the number love has in the register. After alcoholics, gamers, pyromaniacs, drug addicts, kleptomaniacs...
General symptoms:
- OBSESSIVE THOUGHTS OF OBJECT OF DESIRE
- MOOD SWINGS
- INFLATED SELF-ESTEEM
- SELF-PITY
- INSOMNIA, BROKEN SLEEP
- RASH AND IMPULSIVE ACTIONS
- DIFFERENCES IN BLOOD PRESSURE
- HEADACHES- ALLERGIC REACTIONS
- SYNDROME OF OBSESSION: I KNOW SHE LOVES, BUT SHE KEEPS SILENCE.

Anyhow, I gave a counterargument, that these were not symptoms of "love, or unspecified desire" but rather symptoms of oxytocin withdrawal, which lead to my thesis for human sexual attraction with different MBTI typology.

I further specified differences between NT/STs and NF/SFs because I have observed that more people within the NF/SF groups tended to possess the above symptoms of oxytocin withdrawal, while NT/STs overall, do not suffer from this physical ailment, but rather get hung up on a previous soulmate connection from years, even decades ago while not having a psychological problem moving from one relationship to the next even if there is an oxytocin sexual bonding.

In fact, several INTJ and ENTJ women have told me that they do not trust those feelings of "lust"; as it clouds their vision and prefer to choose a mate after time and consideration without making the decision due to sexual feelings. Whereas within the NF + SF group, they believe they are in immediately in love when those feelings of lust/desire are present.

This thesis needs more refinement of course However, I tend to follow my instincts about these kinds of coincidences then look for the evidence later, as is the way I naturally think. In terms of your son, I think it's natural for all types to embody an ideal archetype at a young age. However, I'm not sure if he is sexually active or not, but those are the years when one can really test out the hypothesis, to see if how he reacts to different women he is involved in, and whether or not sex and oxytocin has a profound effect on the manner in which he perceives the love concept, or if oxytocin is ancillary to the way he perceives love.

What are your further thoughts on this phenomenon?

I'm not a gentleman... but I will say I think you pulled this out of thin air. Even limited anecdotes about the sizes of noses or phrenology would be stronger; at least that would be something you could observe. There is so much lacking with this I wouldn't even know where to begin.

edit to add: not trying to mean or anything.

Just begin from anywhere No offense taken. I'm just throwing out ideas and seeing where it leads. There is no "right and wrong". We are brainstorming.

[lethe]

Oxytocin is released by just about everything including thinking about a person, hugging someone, looking at someone, breastfeeding, even shaking hands. It is hardly the only chemical involved in pair bonding (probably not even the strongest), is short lived, and has more effects than sexual. It is too simplistic to view it has a "love molecule". Oxytocin withdrawal? It's difficult to even diagnose a serotonin deficiency for professionals! That doesn't even take into account nurture, social pressures, how people want to view themselves, dopamine, nor-epinephrine, stress, mental illness, cultural values, hormonal birth control, life stage, availability, or any number of equally significant factors.

Most people have a hard enough time realizing why they themselves are attracted to a person, and have an even more difficult time explaining their behavior to themselves an others. I mean, just because they don't talk about the smell doesn't mean it doesn't impact them.
There are too many motivations to paint a public image, especially when it comes to something as potentially vulnerable as desire. All this colors what they admit or realize about themselves. I wouldn't presume to know or even trust that I found a strong pattern in another person's desires for a mate no matter how well I knew them. Assuming you understand the mystery of attraction about another person is ridiculous.

I find it highly unlikely another person can accurately type their friends. Hell, most people can't type themselves (INTP is one of the most mistyped temperaments) It's too easy to consider someone you respect to be like you. And looking at the rarity of some types (like INTJ) what are the odds you know enough of them, assuming you even typed them correctly, to form any kind of pattern?

Coming up with an "intuitive" theory and then looking for evidence to support it leads to confirmation bias. Too easy to create a picture and squint at things just right until they support your idea.