Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: The organizational aptitude of LIEs-ENTjs

  1. #1
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default The organizational aptitude of LIEs-ENTjs

    I read on the wiki in the male and female LIE description that the LIE is a good organiser. But if organisational skills are related to Se, why is the LIE particularly good at organisation? Or rather how are they so?

  2. #2
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    They're disorganised in their personal affairs, usually have an untidy work desk. You could say this is due to weak S.

    In my experience they don't like to take care of the details, preferring to organise on a big picture scale like corporate boss. This part probably more related to their Te blocked with Ni, rather than the S.

  3. #3
    implied's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    7,750
    Mentioned
    7 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    BUT INFJS ARE SAID TO HAVE HIGHLY TIDY SURROUNDINGS IS THIS STRONG S
    6w5 sx
    model Φ: -+0
    sloan - rcuei

  4. #4
    Creepy-Cyclops

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by implied View Post
    BUT INFJS ARE SAID TO HAVE HIGHLY TIDY SURROUNDINGS IS THIS STRONG S
    lol why should I tell you the answer.

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I read on the wiki in the male and female LIE description that the LIE is a good organiser. But if organisational skills are related to Se, why is the LIE particularly good at organisation? Or rather how are they so?
    Organisational skills are at least as much related to as it is related to . LIEs are better organizers than SLEs and SEEs or at least their equals. Your big mistake, Ezra, is to focus on the functions instead of the types. That's why you are so confused. Read some more type descriptions and forget about the functions for a while.

  6. #6
    The Troll Slayer Hitta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    In your mom's uterus
    Posts
    4,008
    Mentioned
    152 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Phaedrus View Post
    Organisational skills are at least as much related to as it is related to . LIEs are better organizers than SLEs and SEEs or at least their equals. Your big mistake, Ezra, is to focus on the functions instead of the types. That's why you are so confused. Read some more type descriptions and forget about the functions for a while.
    Lol, focus on the functions instead of the types. This is just dumbfounded propaganda that you try to dish out to explain some of the idiotic ideology that you believe in. Everything is and always will be the sum of its parts. The fact that the functional components do not add up to what you think that the types are does not mean you can manipulate core functional components and pretend to a massive degree that a certain functional composite explains you, even though in the accepted definition of the functions they work in the opposite way of what your ideologies of the types consist of.

    For some reason you keep meddling in the inconsistencies that are oh so obvious to be incorrect and retarded.

    ENTjs and INTps on the other hand are disorganized in their affairs. Its as if they lack balance, or the capacity to produce analytical thought. They do everything chaotically, but they take their time with it(Unlike the Betas). They do routine, but in a chaotic manner(if that makes sense). They are unbalanced and unstable in the their actions, but they do it routinely or uncreatively. This is unlike alphas who do things in a precise and systematic(analytical) manner but they love the creativity and the impulsive aspects of it.
    Model X Will Save Us!

    *randomwarelinkremoved

    jessica129:scrotums r hot

    :" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Lol, focus on the functions instead of the types. This is just dumbfounded propaganda that you try to dish out to explain some of the idiotic ideology that you believe in. Everything is and always will be the sum of its parts.
    What you say here is absolutely false regarding the types. The types come first. The observations of behaviours come first. We don't even need the functions. They are only useful as a way of talking about the types and their behaviours.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    The fact that the functional components do not add up to what you think that the types are
    The do. There is no problem. Everything fits together.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    For some reason you keep meddling in the inconsistencies that are oh so obvious to be incorrect and retarded.
    There are no inconsistencies in what I say about the types. It's all boringly common knowledge.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    ENTjs and INTps on the other hand are disorganized in their affairs. Its as if they lack balance, or the capacity to produce analytical thought.
    Your claims here are the words of a lunatic. ENTjs are ABSOLUTELY NOT disorganized. It's insane to even suggest that they are slightly disorganized. If we want to be precise, we should say that they are more synthetical than analytical in their thought, but that is another thing completely. You simply don't know what you are talking about. It is irritating as hell that you are so deluded.

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta
    They do everything chaotically, but they take their time with it(Unlike the Betas). They do routine, but in a chaotic manner(if that makes sense). They are unbalanced and unstable in the their actions, but they do it routinely or uncreatively. This is unlike alphas who do things in a precise and systematic(analytical) manner but they love the creativity and the impulsive aspects of it.
    This is so non-sensical as a description of ENTjs that it is not worthy of a commment.

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    TIM
    D-LSI-Ti 1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    11,586
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I think the very general idea is that they're supposed to be good at strategic organization in an Se-valuing "conquer the world" sense.

  9. #9
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    I read on the wiki in the male and female LIE description that the LIE is a good organiser. But if organisational skills are related to Se, why is the LIE particularly good at organisation? Or rather how are they so?
    they're not

    When Augusta's description says that Se dominants are good at organizing, she meant that they're good at getting people to do shit. Like "organizing a search party" just means rounding up people to do something. (It doesn't mean arranging the search party from tallest to shortest or whatever. )
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  10. #10
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hitta View Post
    Everything is and always will be the sum of its parts.
    And this is the fundamental mistake you make, Phaedrus: you believe descriptions are superior to functions. But where would types be without functions? No functions, no type descriptions. If you still can't see this, I'll begin to consider Expat's IEI proposition, because I won't just see little concern for Te, I'll see absolutely no evidence of Te whatsoever; that is, Te PoLR.

    I REST MY FUCKING CASE.

    Quote Originally Posted by discojoe View Post
    I think the very general idea is that they're supposed to be good at strategic organization in an Se-valuing "conquer the world" sense.
    How does this attitude differe from Se ego types, especially Se base types?

    Quote Originally Posted by Joy View Post
    they're not

    When Augusta's description says that Se dominants are good at organizing, she meant that they're good at getting people to do shit. Like "organizing a search party" just means rounding up people to do something. (It doesn't mean arranging the search party from tallest to shortest or whatever. )
    I'm not a retard, Joy. I know what organisation means in the context of Se. Basically, you said it; Se egos are "good at getting people to do shit". This is what I thought Aushra meant, this is what you think she means, and this is what she does mean. So, my question remains; how is the LIE's organisational capacity almost as good as - if not equal to - the SLE's, if they have Se as a 6th - a weak - function?

  11. #11
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    They use other functions to accomplish the same thing.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  12. #12
    ...been here longer than the fucking monarchy Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    UK
    TIM
    SLE-Ti
    Posts
    9,169
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Interesting.

  13. #13
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE-Se
    Posts
    24,501
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Actually, mostly the EJ temperament I think.
    SEE-Se, 852 sx/so

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  14. #14
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Freiburg im Breisgau
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    15,630
    Mentioned
    157 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything will always be the sum of its parts as long as all the parts are being counted and rightfully described, which is not the case of MBTI. Simple.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  15. #15

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    4,833
    Mentioned
    6 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra View Post
    And this is the fundamental mistake you make, Phaedrus: you believe descriptions are superior to functions.
    No, I don't. That's one of several fundamental mistakes you make, Ezra. Descriptions of functions are inferior to descriptions of types, that's right. But it is nonsense to say that type descriptions are superior to functions, because they are totally compatible but also incomparable. There is no problem whatsoever.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    But where would types be without functions?
    That question is easy to answer. They would be exactly like they are right now but lacking a theoretical explanation in a functional perspective. You would still understand every other aspect of the types in the same way as you do now. The clubs would be the same, the quadras would be the same, the temperaments would be the same, the intertype relations would be the same, the four dichotomies would be the same ... Keirsey's types are just like that. No reference to functions, but everything else intact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    No functions, no type descriptions.
    Nonsense. Totally incorrect. Of course the type descriptions would be live and kicking just the same.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ezra
    If you still can't see this, I'll begin to consider Expat's IEI proposition, because I won't just see little concern for Te, I'll see absolutely no evidence of Te whatsoever; that is, Te PoLR.
    What you are unable to see is beyond my control. I can't help you there, sorry. According to my intertype relations I am necessarily an ILI. It doesn't matter what you say; I can't be any other type than ILI if the intertype relationsships theory is correct.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •