Can Enneagram Type 8s be LSE/ESTj?

[Ezra]

I'm interested in finding out whether or not 8 is compatible with LSE. I want to build up a case for and against the possibility of 8 being compatible with LSE. I'd be grateful for any input. Feel free to take me up on any of my ideas.

For

While 8w7s are quite naturally opposed to LSEs because of their heavy Se, 8w9s show 8s in an altogether different light, which would make them seem compatible with LSEs. While the toughness of the 8 can be conveyed through Se, it is not strong enough to be a leading function. This is possible.

Against

The primary flaw in the idea that 8s could be LSEs is the Se issue. On the one hand, 8w9s are less tough, commanding and expansive that 8w7s, and thus their Se can easily be explained in a demonstrative rather than, say, dominant fashion. However, 8w7s are clearly by nature outwardly aggressive, dominating and imposing. And an 8w9 is, after all, an 8. 8w7s and 8w9s retain the same basic motivations. And all 8s are skilful in Se. This conflicts with the LSE, who does not place much emphasis on Se.

8s do not like rules. LSEs like clearly defined structures.

The majority of LSEs have been cited in Enneagram circles as either 1s or 3s. Al Pacino, a well-known 1, is an LSE, as was Thomas Edison (although he may have been an LIE). Jean-Claude Van Damme, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Christopher Reeve are 3s, and are also LSEs. It is perfectly plausible to argue that John Wayne, an apparent 8w9 and LSE has been mistyped in either socionics or the Enneagram.

[BLauritson]

And all 8s are skilful in Se. This conflicts with the LSE, who does not place much emphasis on Se.

They do have strong Se, though. It's not valued but they're still capable of using it, just like an SEE for example is capable of using Fe, even though it's unvalued.

I don't really have anything to contribute to the rest of what you've written I'm afraid

[Ezra]

Don't worry about it. As I said, any contribution is welcomed, no matter how small or large.

I'm more inclined to think that most if not all LSEs are 8w9s, because they are the kind of 8s who have Se but don't (feel the need to) use it that much, as opposed to 8w7s, who express their anger directly, which would imply strong and open Se.

[machintruc]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

[Phaedrus]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

No.

[Ezra]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

I agree with Phaedrus - how does that work?

[machintruc]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

No.

you're confusing 8 with cp6 or 7

[Ezra]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

No.

you're confusing 8 with cp6 or 7

No he isn't. 7s are almost entirely incompatible with both LSIs and LSEs, and cp6s are rarely if ever either LSI or LSE.

[machintruc]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

No.

you're confusing 8 with cp6 or 7

No he isn't. 7s are almost entirely incompatible with both LSIs and LSEs, and cp6s are rarely if ever either LSI or LSE.

Introtims can't produce such amount of neurotransmitters.

[Ezra]

Most frequent type for E8 is LSI, second to LSE.

No.

you're confusing 8 with cp6 or 7

No he isn't. 7s are almost entirely incompatible with both LSIs and LSEs, and cp6s are rarely if ever either LSI or LSE.

Introtims can't produce such amount of neurotransmitters.

Please talk to me in English.

[UDP]

I have wondered if 8s can be LSE myself.

[Ezra]

That's good. Care to share those wonderings?

[UDP]

You addressed it mostly yourself.

The trouble is, why is it easier for an LIE to be 8.
They are both dual seeking.

[UDP]

In one sense it seems like STs are more "confident" about things in general. ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

ESTjs seem much less like someone to fret about every single thing, and I suppose what I relate to is how I am more relaxed, so to say. When I use Se, it is an indication that something is really wrong and I am taking direct action - and I have no reservations about this. But it is not something I use in passing.*


Generally, Se seems to be what ENTjs are trying to "draw" from other people, or require from them. As opposed to something they have inherently in themselves. ESTjs have it but it is certainly not an ego block function or something they are directly known for.


^ that is all really rough, and I'm still trying to figure out how to word things. It is hard for me to see ENTjs are vastly domineering, terrible individuals, like the 8 profiles are shown to be. Maybe that is just because it is me - (I read something how LSEs sometimes don't notice the aggression of others. Let me find that).


ESTps fit 8 fairly well, IMO. Especially the 7-8 range.



PS:
* -

# "Rage is a mighty god of the strong". He tends to take other people out of the condition of complacency. He does not speak much about what is good, considers it self-evident. With his grumbling emotions he strives to extinguish emotions of others. He believes that redundant emotions tire people, and this is absolutely true if applied to his dual (The Humanist). During a conversation he pressures his interlocutor, even tries to intimidate him, but if people do not fear him, he becomes courteous and polite. Fury is his line of defense in a situation of emergency in which he feels otherwise helpless. The aim of his fury is to mobilize his partner, and when this is achieved, he calms down.

[Elro]

In one sense it seems like STs are more "confident" about things in general. ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

Could you elaborate on this part, the "victim-ness shining through?"

[UDP]

They generally seem to draw people, or imply. They use Te to do this instead of Fe.


Here, I was just looking at some Strati profiles:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?t=6245
(Se block)

ENTjs themselves do not attempt to subordinate someone to their will. (they wonderfully know how to organize work, to distribute it, but to constrain someone - no. For him it is more easily to stimulate materially, to interest, to inspire by his enthusiasm, but to force - this is not his method. To request, incidentally, it will not be, either: this does not rule out a refusal, and this is always unpleasant.)

That is basically what I was getting at.


Not directly, but, I believe that is an inherent part of being a victim type, and it is something I easily see in ENFj, ENTj, INTp, and even INFp.


I suppose I am more inclined to just say - look, here is what we need to do. This is how to do it. Lets do it.
ESTjs are much more "implementers" (tactics?) where as ENTjs are strategy and planning, organizing. ESTjs focus more on execution, ENTjs on the plan.

[Ezra]

In one sense it seems like STs are more "confident" about things in general.

Something I picked up from Wikisocion:

[Sensing types are] more naturally comfortable with the idea of physical confrontations when they become inevitable.

[Intuitive types are] less naturally comfortable with the idea of physical confrontations.

Perhaps this relates to the kind of confidence you're referring to.

ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

Do you actually know any LIEs? But I agree with your victim point. Said romantic style doesn't seem at all compatible with an 8.

ESTjs seem much less like someone to fret about every single thing, and I suppose what I relate to is how I am more relaxed, so to say.

If you are comparing them to LIEs, I diagree. LIEs aren't exactly relaxed, but they don't "fret about every single thing".

Generally, Se seems to be what ENTjs are trying to "draw" from other people, or require from them. As opposed to something they have inherently in themselves.

A genuine huge thank you, Courage. This is what I was trying to get across to Expat and Joy (two 'LIE 8s') for months. Joy half convinced me with her explanation of Se HA, but I'm still sceptical to some extent.

^ that is all really rough, and I'm still trying to figure out how to word things. It is hard for me to see ENTjs are vastly domineering, terrible individuals, like the 8 profiles are shown to be. Maybe that is just because it is me - (I read something how LSEs sometimes don't notice the aggression of others. Let me find that).

This has made me rethink. 8s are much more likely to be LSEs than LIEs.

ESTps fit 8 fairly well, IMO. Especially the 7-8 range.

I agree.

SLE > LSE > LIE.

This is why I am considering all three. These three types are the only types that could potentially fit the 8. There are glaring contradictions with all other type correlations.

PS:
* -

# "Rage is a mighty god of the strong". He tends to take other people out of the condition of complacency. He does not speak much about what is good, considers it self-evident. With his grumbling emotions he strives to extinguish emotions of others. He believes that redundant emotions tire people, and this is absolutely true if applied to his dual (The Humanist). During a conversation he pressures his interlocutor, even tries to intimidate him, but if people do not fear him, he becomes courteous and polite. Fury is his line of defense in a situation of emergency in which he feels otherwise helpless. The aim of his fury is to mobilize his partner, and when this is achieved, he calms down.

This is interesting, because it is reminiscent of the 8's strategic anger:

Eights and counterphobic Sixes can quite easily be mistyped, and it is not uncommon for counterphobic Sixes to mistype themselves as Eights. Both types can be ambitious, competitive and even dominating. In addition, both types tend to have issues with authority. But there is a much more reactive, volatile, unpredictable quality to the aggression of counterphobic Sixes than there is to the generally more strategic aggression of type Eight. Moreover, there is generally a more personal quality to the aggression of type Six than there is to the more goal oriented aggression of type Eight.

Let me also point this out, because it makes me think that perhaps 8w9s - if not 8w7s - could be LSEs:

Eights with a Seven wing tend to be more expansive extroverted and openly aggressive than those with the Nine wing. They are more likely to be sensation seekers and are generally more overtly ambitious than those with a Nine wing. Eights with a Seven wing especially tend to relish intensity of experience. Conversely, Eights with a Nine wing hold more of their energy in reserve and exhibit more of a grounded, even stubborn quality. They are generally less obviously volatile than Eights with a Seven wing but can slip just as radically into open aggression when pushed.

Notice the groundedness and the idea that 8w9s are like LSEs in that LSEs can experience a 'flash of fury' (I'm sure you've picked up on this in at least one description, Courage), while 8w9s can be pushed into anger. This seems compatible with Se demonstrative.

I know I keep referring to him, but I see Maximus from Gladiator as an 8w9. He is also an LSE. Notice how, throughout the film, he rarely shows actual anger. Either he's doing the whole 'show' thing due to Se demonstrative, or he has his 'flash of fury' that comes through. I just remembered an example of Ni PoLR to back up his being an LSE, besides Se demonstrative: "three weeks from now, I will be harvesting my crops. Imagine where you will be, and it shall be so."

He perceives time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future (especially one's longer-term plans), the individual treats it as if it were accessible today and often is not aware of all the developments that must happen first.

[UDP]

Eights with a Seven wing tend to be more expansive extroverted and openly aggressive than those with the Nine wing. They are more likely to be sensation seekers and are generally more overtly ambitious than those with a Nine wing. Eights with a Seven wing especially tend to relish intensity of experience. Conversely, Eights with a Nine wing hold more of their energy in reserve and exhibit more of a grounded, even stubborn quality. They are generally less obviously volatile than Eights with a Seven wing but can slip just as radically into open aggression when pushed.

Notice the groundedness and the idea that 8w9s are like LSEs in that LSEs can experience a 'flash of fury' (I'm sure you've picked up on this in at least one description, Courage), while 8w9s can be pushed into anger. This seems compatible with Se demonstrative.

I know I keep referring to him, but I see Maximus from Gladiator as an 8w9. He is also an LSE. Notice how, throughout the film, he rarely shows actual anger. Either he's doing the whole 'show' thing due to Se demonstrative, or he has his 'flash of fury' that comes through. I just remembered an example of Ni PoLR to back up his being an LSE, besides Se demonstrative: "three weeks from now, I will be harvesting my crops. Imagine where you will be, and it shall be so."

He perceives time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future (especially one's longer-term plans), the individual treats it as if it were accessible today and often is not aware of all the developments that must happen first.

Yes. I understand that all well. And I personally like the character of Maximus from Gladiator, I relate to him. But only, of course, in terms of an 8w9.



Of course, he also seems to be one for order and rules - which makes it hard to draw the line for me being 1w9.

[UDP]

ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

Do you actually know any LIEs? But I agree with your victim point. Said romantic style doesn't seem at all compatible with an 8.

I do not know one extremely well, but I do not know many extremely well.
They remind me of the other Ni creative, ENFj, very much.
ENTjs can use force, but, I don't know, it has a victim nature to it.

Generally, Se seems to be what ENTjs are trying to "draw" from other people, or require from them. As opposed to something they have inherently in themselves.

A genuine huge thank you, Courage. This is what I was trying to get across to Expat and Joy (two 'LIE 8s') for months. Joy half convinced me with her explanation of Se HA, but I'm still sceptical to some extent.

I am not entirely sure how to consider LIEs.
I would not say it is impossible for them to be E8s altogether, but I am not sure.


If we look at what wiki socion says....

as a mobilizing (6th) function

The individual actively pursues his external goals, but regularly experiences periods of doubt and hesitation where he needs prodding, a strong push, or forceful support from others to continue onward in the direction he has chosen.

He likes to be involved in competitive and challenging endeavors and to see his will and personal power develop as he overcomes obstacles together with other people. However, he depends on others to provide the gusto and motivation for these endeavors.

Having a dual with Se creative definitely seems to be the case.... again, something that is appreciated but not inherently possessed.

Where as LSE does inherently have it, just not its main value.

[FDG]

In one sense it seems like STs are more "confident" about things in general. ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

Bah. Never got that from the ENTjs I know. I have no clue, do you think I really use "Se" on this forum for anything but having a nice laugh? Scared? Worried? About what precisely? You're always so vague :S

IRL I only use what is commonly though about as "Se" as a retaliation against people when they try to tell me what to do (and I don't want it). Otherwise, I try to do my own thing, don't like "leading" others except when they want me to.

The whole description of Se as 6th function sounds like some laughable weak-willed person that likes to ooooh, overcome obstacles with others to feel A GREAT TEAM YEAH ALLRIGHT. Wtf, lol? I know plently of Se creatives that are a million times lazier than me in general, even if they are very "focussed" on what they do (say work, school etc)...how could I learn to overcome challenges with them?:S

Prodding? A "strong push"? Try to just push me and you get a 10x intesity attack back...now instead if you gently say "I think maybe you should do this now", that is different. In regard to anger...I hate to get angry at people, it drives them away, but sometimes I can't help it. Being that I'm generally pretty relaxed and good natured, when people see me angry get really scared and think I'm some Jeykill and Hyde.

And what's the problem in trying to inspire instead of subordinating? I simply apply the maxim "do unto others what you'd like to be done to yourself": if somebody tries to subordinate me, I do the opposite of what I'm told, so I assume that others behave like that, too.

[UDP]

You still see yourself as an E7 as per your sig, right FDG?

And, apparently, LIE

[FDG]

You still see yourself as an E7 as per your sig, right FDG?

And, apparently, LIE

Yeah, I don't think I could be an 8 at all, I know some 8s and they're different from me, much more grounded and easily able to focus long-term (wheras I'm great at focussing for singular actions, but not that great long-term).

[UDP]

Does that not seem to be a contradiction for LIE?
Aren't they supposed to be all about the long term, and not so great for the moment?

[Ezra]

In one sense it seems like STs are more "confident" about things in general. ENTjs seem like they try to use force, or raise their voice, but their victim-ness still shines through. It is the same thing I get from ENFjs. It is trying to provoke others, almost. ENTjs seem generally more scared and worried about everything, and perhaps that has to do with being worried and as such using Se to try to protect or ensure their protection, or safety.

Bah. Never got that from the ENTjs I know. I have no clue, do you think I really use "Se" on this forum for anything but having a nice laugh? Scared? Worried? About what precisely? You're always so vague :S

IRL I only use what is commonly though about as "Se" as a retaliation against people when they try to tell me what to do (and I don't want it). Otherwise, I try to do my own thing, don't like "leading" others except when they want me to.

The whole description of Se as 6th function sounds like some laughable weak-willed person that likes to ooooh, overcome obstacles with others to feel A GREAT TEAM YEAH ALLRIGHT. Wtf, lol? I know plently of Se creatives that are a million times lazier than me in general, even if they are very "focussed" on what they do (say work, school etc)...how could I learn to overcome challenges with them?:S

Prodding? A "strong push"? Try to just push me and you get a 10x intesity attack back...now instead if you gently say "I think maybe you should do this now", that is different. In regard to anger...I hate to get angry at people, it drives them away, but sometimes I can't help it. Being that I'm generally pretty relaxed and good natured, when people see me angry get really scared and think I'm some Jeykill and Hyde.

And what's the problem in trying to inspire instead of subordinating? I simply apply the maxim "do unto others what you'd like to be done to yourself": if somebody tries to subordinate me, I do the opposite of what I'm told, so I assume that others behave like that, too.

Consider this: you don't have Se HA.

[Ezra]

Right, I've gone back to thinking that 8s can't be LIEs. The victim romantic style does not fit at all. And the Se HA doesn't fit either. SE IS NOT STRONG IN LIES. Why? Because it's their 6th function. ALL 8s have strong Se, and whether or not they value it immaterial. So, Only SLEs, SEEs and LSEs can be 8s.

[UDP]

None of the ENTjs I know in real life really come off as 8s. I can sort of see one of them, though. He raised his voice a lot, but it was more because he had no emotional range. So, voice raising was energy and excitement. But it was not in a "physical" 8 sort of way. I was not intimidated by him at all, rather the opposite - he had an outstanding sense of Fi and morality, so there was nothing for me to be threatened by. But I am not sure what I would type him as. Maybe a 7w8? 3w2? I could see 8w7, I suppose.


I am still not sure I can say NO LIE CAN BE E8, however.

[Phaedrus]

It is a big mistake to think that LIEs cannot be 8s. The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact. And it is also a big mistake to put too much emphasis on functions considerations when trying to type people according to the Enneagram. The Enneagram is not a totally consistent theory, and we should not expect the functions to fit in nicely with it.

[FDG]

None of the ENTjs I know in real life really come off as 8s. I can sort of see one of them, though. He raised his voice a lot, but it was more because he had no emotional range. So, voice raising was energy and excitement.

That's exactly what I do.

The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact

???

[Phaedrus]

The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact

???

I read through some type descriptions again, and based on that brief reading I couldn't find any clear argument against the claim that the 8 maybe is about equally consistent with both LIEs and SLEs. I have thought that the 8 has a typical EJ temperament, and that their behaviour in relation to anger is best matched with leading Te, but I don't recall at the moment if I have seen any clear evidence for that somewhere or not. What I think is evident though, and not possible to doubt, is that the typical 8 is an extraverted logical type, and that ILEs are not 8s.

[FDG]

The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact

???

I read through some type descriptions again, and based on that brief reading I couldn't find any clear argument against the claim that the 8 maybe is about equally consistent with both LIEs and SLEs. I have thought that the 8 has a typical EJ temperament, and that their behaviour in relation to anger is best matched with leading Te, but I don't recall at the moment if I have seen any clear evidence for that somewhere or not. What I think is evident though, and not possible to doubt, is that the typical 8 is an extraverted logical type, and that ILEs are not 8s.

I agree with this, I thought your claim was that 8s are only prototypical LIEs, whereas I think they can equally be LSEs and SLEs.

[Phaedrus]

I thought your claim was that 8s are only prototypical LIEs, whereas I think they can equally be LSEs and SLEs.

If I had to choose one type that is closest to the most typical 8, I would previously have picked the LIE -- that's what I mean by "prototypical". That is not the same thing as saying that only LIEs can be 8s. I think it is probably possible to say which is the best representative socionic type for each of the Ennegram types, but if that would exclude other -- less typical -- types from the same Ennegram type, some socionic types would not fit the Enneagram. I am very sure that the most typical -- that is the "prototypical" -- 6 is an ISFj. I also think that the ISFp is the best representative for type 9. Those examples are unproblematic. Other types is at least somewhat more problematic, I think.

[Ezra]

It is a big mistake to think that LIEs cannot be 8s. The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact. And it is also a big mistake to put too much emphasis on functions considerations when trying to type people according to the Enneagram. The Enneagram is not a totally consistent theory, and we should not expect the functions to fit in nicely with it.

Okay, but do you not think that what Se offers to anyone in whom this value is strong is inherent within any 8?

Maybe not 8w9, because 8w9s are actually much less self-starting than 8w7s. They, according to R&H, are proactive, but "like to do things in their own time". This would suggest a lower amount of Se than in 8w7s, who I can seriously not see as LIEs, simply because their Se is overwhelming. It is in your face. It is strong. This is why I think 8w7s can't be LIEs.

None of the ENTjs I know in real life really come off as 8s. I can sort of see one of them, though. He raised his voice a lot, but it was more because he had no emotional range. So, voice raising was energy and excitement.

That's exactly what I do.

That doesn't mean you're an LIE. ILEs, SLEs, IEEs and SEEs can raise their voices in excitement, and that is a kind of release of energy.

ILEs are not 8s.

I agree with this. Se is neither valued nor strong in the ILE. That would be a contradiction.

However, many 8s in MBTT are ENTPs, because of the way Ne and Ti are explained.

I am very sure that the most typical -- that is the "prototypical" -- 6 is an ISFj. I also think that the ISFp is the best representative for type 9. Those examples are unproblematic. Other types is at least somewhat more problematic, I think.

I am in complete agreement with you here, Phaedrus.

[Phaedrus]

ILEs are not 8s.

I agree with this. Se is neither valued nor strong in the ILE. That would be a contradiction.

However, many 8s in MBTT are ENTPs, because of the way Ne and Ti are explained.

No, no, no. Forget about that. In that case they are mistyped -- either as 8s or as ENTPs. The ILE and the ENTP are clearly the same type, can't you admit at least that?

I am very sure that the most typical -- that is the "prototypical" -- 6 is an ISFj. I also think that the ISFp is the best representative for type 9. Those examples are unproblematic. Other types is at least somewhat more problematic, I think.

I am in complete agreement with you here, Phaedrus.

Good.

[Joy]

6 makes perfect sense for SEE too... and my mother is an EIE who's a 6 (though I think 3 is a much more typical type for an EIE)

[Ezra]

No, no, no. Forget about that. In that case they are mistyped -- either as 8s or as ENTPs. The ILE and the ENTP are clearly the same type, can't you admit at least that?

Okay, let's try a different approach. Do you think 8s can be ENTPs, or ENTPs 8s?

[Ezra]

6 makes perfect sense for SEE too...

I'm not sure. Especially if SLEs can't be 6s.

[machintruc]

It is a big mistake to think that LIEs cannot be 8s. The prototypical 8 is a LIE -- that's an empirical fact. And it is also a big mistake to put too much emphasis on functions considerations when trying to type people according to the Enneagram. The Enneagram is not a totally consistent theory, and we should not expect the functions to fit in nicely with it.

LIE is more prototypical of cp6... Intuitive types are mental by their nature, they are more anxious. i.e. more 567-like than 891-like.

[Phaedrus]

Okay, let's try a different approach. Do you think 8s can be ENTPs, or ENTPs 8s?

No.

[FDG]

Rule of thumb: when every post on a given topic is in disagreement with all the other posts, then the matter being discussed does not present an high enough degree of objectivity to be able to reach an agreement on anything.

[Ezra]

Rule of thumb: when every post on a given topic is in disagreement with all the other posts, then the matter being discussed does not present an high enough degree of objectivity to be able to reach an agreement on anything.

That's why we discuss.