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?
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?
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.
BUT INFJS ARE SAID TO HAVE HIGHLY TIDY SURROUNDINGS IS THIS STRONG S
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
lol why should I tell you the answer.Originally Posted by implied
Organisational skills are at least as much related toas 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.Organisational skills are at least as much related to
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
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.
The do. There is no problem. Everything fits together.
There are no inconsistencies in what I say about the types. It's all boringly common knowledge.
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.
This is so non-sensical as a description of ENTjs that it is not worthy of a commment.
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.
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.)
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.
How does this attitude differe from Se ego types, especially Se base types?
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?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.
They use other functions to accomplish the same thing.
Interesting.
Actually, mostly the EJ temperament I think.
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
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.
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.
Nonsense. Totally incorrect. Of course the type descriptions would be live and kicking just the same.
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.
Reply With Quote
:" hitting cap makes me envision cervix smashing"
