Is this accurate?

[Ezra]

What makes the SLE and the LIE look so much alike is the way they take charge of things. Both of these types want to get things accomplished and get that achievable result as quickly as possible. They have a fundamental belief that it is worth the risk to go ahead and decide and trust they can take care of anything that comes up. They tend to make quick decisions. For them, there is no such thing as a wrong decision, just one that didn’t work. Both tend to be very Directing in their communications and Initiating in the roles they take with others.

SLEs have a core need for having the freedom to choose the next thing they are going to do with a drive to action and to make an impact, whereas LIEs have a core need for mastery, self-control, knowledge and competence. The LIE need for competence also resonates with the SLE. However, for the LIE, being competent ahead of doing something is crucial and they will want to understand something completely before they go ahead and act. The SLE, on the other hand, will be more likely to quickly grasp the essence of something and then go ahead and take action, gaining competence as they go. When hearing descriptors, they may interpret competence in terms of their love of skillful performance.

Both types have a preference for taking pragmatic roles in a given group, so the freedom to choose the next action resonates to both types, as autonomy is the hallmark of pragmatic role taking. Pragmatism means doing what ever it takes to reach a goal, often ignoring rules or social norms. For the LIE, that freedom is around devising and getting others to follow a strategy. For the SLE, that freedom is more often about the necessary tactical actions to get something accomplished.

Their differences come in noticing their use of language, with the SLE more likely to use language that describes things tangibly and the LIE language describes things conceptually. Also note that SLEs easily tune in to other’s motives and LIEs are much more interested in structure than motive. The LIE often engages in quickly reading the external environment and is drawn to act on and shape that environment. This can easily look SLE-like as they respond and adapt to what is going on, especially enjoying some of the more exciting activities. The SLEs are quite tuned into future payoffs and quite optimistic about what will happen in the future. They often get a sense of what is just around the corner and then want to seize the opportunities.

[Kristiina]

I've had similar thoughts about LIEs and SLEs. I approve of any opinion that really just describes my own opinion!

[Creepy-bg]

SLEs have this way of having sex with you just by staring... it is hawt!

[Park]

I approve of any opinion that really just describes my own opinion!

That's pretty much almost totally strange.

[Expat]

What makes the SLE and the LIE look so much alike is the way they take charge of things. Both of these types want to get things accomplished and get that achievable result as quickly as possible. They have a fundamental belief that it is worth the risk to go ahead and decide and trust they can take care of anything that comes up. They tend to make quick decisions. For them, there is no such thing as a wrong decision, just one that didn’t work. Both tend to be very Directing in their communications and Initiating in the roles they take with others.

SLEs have a core need for having the freedom to choose the next thing they are going to do with a drive to action and to make an impact, whereas LIEs have a core need for mastery, self-control, knowledge and competence. The LIE need for competence also resonates with the SLE. However, for the LIE, being competent ahead of doing something is crucial and they will want to understand something completely before they go ahead and act. The SLE, on the other hand, will be more likely to quickly grasp the essence of something and then go ahead and take action, gaining competence as they go. When hearing descriptors, they may interpret competence in terms of their love of skillful performance.

Both types have a preference for taking pragmatic roles in a given group, so the freedom to choose the next action resonates to both types, as autonomy is the hallmark of pragmatic role taking. Pragmatism means doing what ever it takes to reach a goal, often ignoring rules or social norms. For the LIE, that freedom is around devising and getting others to follow a strategy. For the SLE, that freedom is more often about the necessary tactical actions to get something accomplished.

Their differences come in noticing their use of language, with the SLE more likely to use language that describes things tangibly and the LIE language describes things conceptually. Also note that SLEs easily tune in to other’s motives and LIEs are much more interested in structure than motive. The LIE often engages in quickly reading the external environment and is drawn to act on and shape that environment. This can easily look SLE-like as they respond and adapt to what is going on, especially enjoying some of the more exciting activities. The SLEs are quite tuned into future payoffs and quite optimistic about what will happen in the future. They often get a sense of what is just around the corner and then want to seize the opportunities.

I think it's generally, if not entirely, accurate, as far as it goes; I think there's at least as much you can say about their differences.

[Phaedrus]

The differences you describe, Ezra, are generally correct. And, as you are probably already aware of, you can find many of the same general differences between ESTP Artisans and ENTJ Rationals described in different chapters in David Keirsey's Please Understand Me II.

[aka-kitsune]

The difference is that I don't find myself interested in SLEs in general. However, I have frequently made myself freely available as sidekick/lackey of the LIE.

Somehow, beneficent LIEs tend to inspire my admiration and total devotion.

[marooned]

Somehow, beneficent LIEs tend to inspire my admiration and total devotion.

Ha. I don't usually feel very grounded, and for this reason (among many others) I highly admire Se, but Te can have a grounding effect as well... if I don't perceive it as being really critical and cutting, then it provides helpful confirmations (or denials).

[strrrng]

What makes the SLE and the LIE look so much alike is the way they take charge of things. Both of these types want to get things accomplished and get that achievable result as quickly as possible. They have a fundamental belief that it is worth the risk to go ahead and decide and trust they can take care of anything that comes up. They tend to make quick decisions. For them, there is no such thing as a wrong decision, just one that didn’t work. Both tend to be very Directing in their communications and Initiating in the roles they take with others.

SLEs have a core need for having the freedom to choose the next thing they are going to do with a drive to action and to make an impact, whereas LIEs have a core need for mastery, self-control, knowledge and competence. The LIE need for competence also resonates with the SLE. However, for the LIE, being competent ahead of doing something is crucial and they will want to understand something completely before they go ahead and act. The SLE, on the other hand, will be more likely to quickly grasp the essence of something and then go ahead and take action, gaining competence as they go. When hearing descriptors, they may interpret competence in terms of their love of skillful performance.

Both types have a preference for taking pragmatic roles in a given group, so the freedom to choose the next action resonates to both types, as autonomy is the hallmark of pragmatic role taking. Pragmatism means doing what ever it takes to reach a goal, often ignoring rules or social norms. For the LIE, that freedom is around devising and getting others to follow a strategy. For the SLE, that freedom is more often about the necessary tactical actions to get something accomplished.

Their differences come in noticing their use of language, with the SLE more likely to use language that describes things tangibly and the LIE language describes things conceptually. Also note that SLEs easily tune in to other’s motives and LIEs are much more interested in structure than motive. The LIE often engages in quickly reading the external environment and is drawn to act on and shape that environment. This can easily look SLE-like as they respond and adapt to what is going on, especially enjoying some of the more exciting activities. The SLEs are quite tuned into future payoffs and quite optimistic about what will happen in the future. They often get a sense of what is just around the corner and then want to seize the opportunities.

given its length, this is probably the best description of types I've read in a while.

[Ezra]

Interesting responses. Now, what if I told you that this was the source?

[Elro]

Interesting responses. Now, what if I told you that this was the source?

Fascinating!

So, are you LIE now?

[Ezra]

I'm an ENTJ. I'm probably an SLE. Have been considering LIE recently.

[Gilly]

Wow. I guess some Myersians get lucky? I thought it sounded mostly good, although a good bit of it is fairly vague. Probably some Forer coming into play here given our imminent understanding of Socionics.

[marooned]

^at last, confirmation that ABCD = ABCd!!!!!

[aestrivex]

a lot of it seems fairly good.

Also note that SLEs easily tune in to other’s motives and LIEs are much more interested in structure than motive. The LIE often engages in quickly reading the external environment and is drawn to act on and shape that environment. This can easily look SLE-like as they respond and adapt to what is going on, especially enjoying some of the more exciting activities. The SLEs are quite tuned into future payoffs and quite optimistic about what will happen in the future. They often get a sense of what is just around the corner and then want to seize the opportunities.

i would take issue with this part of it. it almost seems to have them reversed in some places.

[strrrng]

I'm an ENTJ. I'm probably an SLE. Have been considering LIE recently.

I would have you as ESTP in mbti. why do you think you're SLE? I know a few people thought you were some delta ST.

[Ezra]

^at last, confirmation that ABCD = ABCd!!!!!

Even if you were joking, I'd love to believe you at this point, but I'd also love to see you come up with how the INFJ, the INFP and the INTP can be explained socionically.

i would take issue with this part of it. it almost seems to have them reversed in some places.

I noticed that as well. I think it probably has something to do with the fact that in MBTT, the ESTP's inferior function is Ni, and this can - unlike in socionics - be perfected as the ESTP matures.

why do you think you're SLE?

Because I've looked at the functional ordering, and most of it fits much better than any other type does. See my explanation of how Se, Si, Te and Ti (and even Ni) manifest themselves in me.

[Expat]

Apparently some people think we're identicals, Ezra.

Look at me, see your future, and despair.

[marooned]

Even if you were joking, I'd love to believe you at this point

Why?

[Phaedrus]

Because I've looked at the functional ordering, and most of it fits much better than any other type does. See my explanation of how Se, Si, Te and Ti (and even Ni) manifest themselves in me.

Don't do that, please. That's probably one of the most common reasons people mistype themselves. You will find your correct type much more easily and more accurately if you look at dichotomies, type descriptions, and test results.

You need to find a correct foundation to be able to understand the fundctions correctly. If you cannot link the functions descriptions to observable behaviour of some type(s) that you 100 % certain of independently of your understanding of the functions you will never know whether your interpretation of those functions descriptions is correct or not.

The functions descriptions, as they are written, invite incorrect interpretations, because they are too abstract and/or vague and not directly related to empirically observable behaviours. Over and over again we have seen people interpret the functions in totally incorrect ways, resulting in endless mistypings. Don't repeat other people's mistakes, Ezra.

If you really are an SLE, you MUST find a way to identify with being an Artisan and an ESTP. If that is totally impossible for you to do, you simply cannot be an SLE. If you are certain (but you probably are not that certain) that you are a Rational ENTJ you simply cannot be any other type than LIE in Socionics. And if you, hypothetically, are certain that you are a Guardian ESTJ, you cannot be any other type than LSE in Socionics. Now, don't dismiss this -- take it seriously, and find your correct type.

[Ezra]

Apparently some people think we're identicals, Ezra.

Look at me, see your future, and despair.

Ahhh, science isn't so bad. It's just law is better.

Why?

Because it would be far easier to type people.

Don't do that, please. That's probably one of the most common reasons people mistype themselves. You will find your correct type much more easily and more accurately if you look at dichotomies, type descriptions, and test results.

You need to find a correct foundation to be able to understand the fundctions correctly. If you cannot link the functions descriptions to observable behaviour of some type(s) that you 100 % certain of independently of your understanding of the functions you will never know whether your interpretation of those functions descriptions is correct or not.

The functions descriptions, as they are written, invite incorrect interpretations, because they are too abstract and/or vague and not directly related to empirically observable behaviours. Over and over again we have seen people interpret the functions in totally incorrect ways, resulting in endless mistypings. Don't repeat other people's mistakes, Ezra.

If you really are an SLE, you MUST find a way to identify with being an Artisan and an ESTP. If that is totally impossible for you to do, you simply cannot be an SLE. If you are certain (but you probably are not that certain) that you are a Rational ENTJ you simply cannot be any other type than LIE in Socionics. And if you, hypothetically, are certain that you are a Guardian ESTJ, you cannot be any other type than LSE in Socionics. Now, don't dismiss this -- take it seriously, and find your correct type.

This is where we part, I'm afraid. I care about socionics, and thus functions, not dichotomies, tests and type descriptions, or any other shitty typing paraphernalia you might pull out of you ghastly ass.

[Phaedrus]

I care about socionics, and thus functions, not dichotomies, tests and type descriptions, or any other shitty typing paraphernalia you might pull out of you ghastly ass.

I care about Socionics, and thus functions, more than you do, because besides the functions I also care about dichotomies and type descriptions -- which both are a central part of Socionics -- and I care about test results for scientific reasons, because they are usually far more reliable as a typing method than people's subjective interpretations of functions descriptions.

So, you do in fact not care about Socionics and finding your correct type as much as you should. You refuse to look at the whole picture. You only look at not more than one half of the evidence before you make up your mind and state that you have find the truth.

You might have found your correct type, but you don't know that, because you haven't been able (yet) to explain the anomalies that are still there in your profile. I know for sure that I am right in the things I say, because every single piece of evidence fits the whole picture.

All of it -- functions, type descriptions, dichotimies, test results and everything else -- hang together, and not one of this aspects contradict another aspect when it comes to my own type. And when I type others I don't rest until I have got all those aspects right. I don't allow any anomalies or contradictions to exist in a person's profile, and neither should you.

[Gilly]

Don't bite at that, Ezra. It's not going anywhere, and it never will.

[Phaedrus]

Don't bite at that, Ezra. It's not going anywhere, and it never will.

Gilly doesn't know a shit about MBTT and Keirsey, Ezra. Don't listen to him, if you want to get it right. Check it out for yourself.

[Gilly]

Actually I only got interested in Socionics because I met Rocky at a mostly-MBTT site. My mother is certified and I've probably taken more MBTIs than Socionics inventories.

I can't say I've read the Keirsey books, but I know more than enough to see that it is systematically incompatible with Socioics, regardless of whether or not the two systems generally describe the same times.

[Ezra]

I care about Socionics, and thus functions, more than you do, because besides the functions I also care about dichotomies and type descriptions -- which both are a central part of Socionics -- and I care about test results for scientific reasons, because they are usually far more reliable as a typing method than people's subjective interpretations of functions descriptions.

I see type descriptions, the four dichotomies, temperaments and clubs in socionics as vastly inferior to functions.

Gilly's right; there's no point even pursuing this matter. We'll never reach an agreement.

[Phaedrus]

Actually I only got interested in Socionics because I met Rocky at a mostly-MBTT site. My mother is certified and I've probably taken more MBTIs than Socionics inventories.

In that case it is almost totally incomprehensible that you are so blind to the truth.

I can't say I've read the Keirsey books, but I know more than enough to see that it is systematically incompatible with Socioics, regardless of whether or not the two systems generally describe the same times.

Yes, you really are blind. As a big bat. And it's not funny. The three systems are almost completely compatible -- but we have to make some translations due to the different terminologies.

[Phaedrus]

I see type descriptions, the four dichotomies, temperaments and clubs in socionics as vastly inferior to functions.

But the problem is that you don't understand the functions correctly. You simply don't. And you cannot dismiss the type descriptions and the four dichotomies just because you want to. They are nothing but another perspective on the types. These different perspectives cannot contradict each other, and they don't contradict each other -- if you understand them correctly. Read the recent discussion between Rick and Smilingeyes. You might learn something there.

[Phaedrus]

why does Phaddy keeps emphasizing that he knows socionics better than anyone and is the only one around who has his type "in line with all the socionics theoretical prerequisites"? i personally find such behavior as very piss-offing, if such word exists.

I find it piss-offing that some people here prove -- over and over again -- that they don't understand Socionics as well as I do, despite their claims to the contrary. If two persons disagree on which one of them understands something better than the other, only the person who actually has a better understanding of the subject can be tell that that is the case. And I obviously knows it better than you. So, why don't you do some more study?

[Ezra]

why does Phaddy keeps emphasizing that he knows socionics better than anyone and is the only one around who has his type "in line with all the socionics theoretical prerequisites"? i personally find such behavior as very piss-offing, if such word exists.

He's intellectually arrogant, amongst the most arrogant I've seen. I'd love to see how he fares outside the world of ideas.

But the problem is that you don't understand the functions correctly. You simply don't. And you cannot dismiss the type descriptions and the four dichotomies just because you want to. They are nothing but another perspective on the types. These different perspectives cannot contradict each other, and they don't contradict each other -- if you understand them correctly. Read the recent discussion between Rick and Smilingeyes. You might learn something there.

I'm far further in my understanding of socionics than you are. You're hopelessly bound to MBTT and Jungian descriptions of the eight functions. You never seem to take on board the fact that Augusta doesn't give a shit about what they say about the functions, just that there are eight functions, and that she'll do what she damn well pleases with said eight functions; she'll order them here, she'll order them there, and it's her goddamn system; not Jung's, not Myers', not Briggs', not anyone's.

[Expat]

You never seem to take on board the fact that Augusta doesn't give a shit about what they say about the functions, just that there are eight functions, and that she'll do what she damn well pleases with said eight functions; she'll order them here, she'll order them there, and it's her goddamn system; not Jung's, not Myers', not Briggs', not anyone's.

QFT.

Sure, that's very clear if you read what she wrote, and what others (Lytov, Weisband, etc) have said and written about it. Jung was the starting point, not the end-all. The problem is that, since Augusta diverted from Jung according to her own purposes and views and observations, there are indeed, still, many resemblances between Jung's views of functions and Augusta's. And some people - for many reasons - seem to find Jung's descriptions appealing and resonating with their own impressions, so they take the path of saying that Jung's descriptions are the "true" socionics ones. Which is incomprehensible to me, since they should then just say that they are following Jung's typology (or creating yet another one based on it) rather than they are using "socionics".

[Phaedrus]

People here always return to the functions and point to the differences in how they are described by Jung, MBTT, and Socionics. And it doesn't seem to matter that I repeat over and over again that the functions are totally irrelevant in relation to what all three of them agree upon -- the types. You can do what you want with the functions, you can play your little games with them, but who should care about it if you continue to make typing mistakes?

I am right about the types of the people I have a strong opinion about. I don't think I have made one single serious mistyping yet. People are free to check that claim against reality, and those who take it seriously will see that it is most likely correct.

Ezra doesn't understand (and perhaps not even Expat does) that Augusta's starting point was the types -- not the functions, and not the intertype relations. She started with the types, and made observations about their relations to each other.

The types MUST be established by other means than by looking at functions descriptions or interactions betwen people -- and that's exactly what Augusta did, just like Jung and MBTT and Keirsey. She started with the eight Jungian types and compared them with reality. That's how she discovered the intertype relations, the differences between seemingly similar types, as in the relations of quasi-identity, etc. Not until you people learn this simple truth, you will begin to understand the core of the subject. Until you do, you will continue to make typing mistakes.

[Phaedrus]

wrong. she have developed model A to explain intertypal relationships she observed. where did you even come up with this stuff? are you just trying to fool us into having you as our "authority" in socionics? i'm ok with that if you really do have merit, but so far i only see pretty and mostly vague and widely debatable and often wrong statements.

I hate to have to explain the basics to idiots, and have lost count on how many times I have suggested that people should start with something simple, like reading Dmitri Lytov's introduction to Socionics. Now, you will do it, won't you? Or will you refuse to learn the most basic facts of Socionics. Will you continue to live in a world of ignorance, or will you start to do some serious study?

You will find Lytov's text (in three parts) at the bottom of this page:

http://www.socioniko.net/en/1.1.types/index.html

[Expat]

wrong. she have developed model A to explain intertypal relationships she observed.

That's what Igor Weisband himself confirmed to me, in Duesseldorf, when asked directly. Starting from her own less-than-happy marriage to a LSE.

[Phaedrus]

she have developed model A to explain intertypal relationships she observed.

Yes, and have I disputed that? No, I haven't. I have said that she started with the types. She read stuff about different typologies, and she found Jung's model to be the most useful. So, she started with Jung's eight types, and moved on from that. She did not start without random people whose types she didn't have a clue about.