Te in LIE's (translated from Stratiyevska's LIE description)

[Joy]

This is still a work in progress, but I'll update it once I've worked out some of the areas which I've noted. Feel free to post comments or suggestions for wording.

By the way, Expat is the one who provided the original translation of this article. I'm just rewording it.

*****

There is no larger misfortune for LIE's than the impossibility to find a proper use for their business qualities. Their entire life is a search for the possibilities to maximally realize their strengths, mind, and abilities in interesting and promising activities.

Their business qualities are manifested in evaluating objective possibilities, according to specific conditions and situations. They consider it senseless to hold on to old ideas and desires. They recognize that as circumstances change, they should be ready to apply themselves towards newly presented opportunities. They see no reason to stay in an unfavorable situation. They would rather change their situation than continue to put forth effort that’s not getting them anywhere.

Their only design is that they will not rely on their own physical efforts. It is inexpedient, especially because in life still there exists success, luck [need to figure out how to word this to express the idea that "luck" is not random, but the result of taking calculated risks and the realization of opportunities by those who are aware of them], and other objective conditions on which they have the sense to apply their skill and business qualities. They consider it generally senseless to constrain themselves with unfavorable circumstances. They prefer to attempt to change conditions. *Senseless* labor is not for them. [The concept here is that they want to use their business skills to gain financial independence. They do not want to do the same job day after day, year after year, and they will not remain in such a situation. They cannot stand the "get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, etc." lifestyle.]

They actively fight for the equally fair conditions and the equally great possibilities for all. They fight for the restoration of fairness, and they try to achieve that which is rightfully their due.

If there is no possibility to restore fairness, they search for new places, where their point of view will be heard and where their work will be well rewarded. They are constantly situated in the search for the best conditions and the greater possibilities of application for their business qualities. For them it’s characteristic to frequently change of professions and their place of residence. If it did not work out where they were, they try new places, new possibilities. They are "pioneers". If it was impossible to fulfill themselves in one region, boldly they pass into another, until finally they find for themselves satisfaction.

They prefer to attain high efficiency by the reasonable and rational distribution of their forces. For this very reason, they have no equal in the areas of the development and introduction of new technologies and the rational and effective organization of the working process; they magnificently generate interesting rationalization ideas, they are the authors of many advanced technologies and procedures. [Will reword this area.]

They are the ardent enemy of all irrational and ineffective methods of operation. They see it as valuable to motivate workers with rewards in order to maximize production.

They prefer work with specific practical application and do not have much interest in abstract and removed projects.

They are not capable of working in a manner or towards an end which doesn't make sense to them. They examine each activity from the point of view of its expediency ("why else would I do it?"). They love to work when they know the most effective and efficient way to carry out the work ("why else would I enjoy it?"). [Not sure about the part in parenthesis.]

They consider it expedient to be occupied by the matters that bring high profits. They try not to deal with trifles (they do not engage in criminal business, in spite of the promising incomes, since this does not allow their system of moral values, to which they are subconsiously oriented). They try to avoid con people. They hate liars and cheats.

They love to earn money, and they love to spend it without considering. They do not enjoy saving money or cutting costs by foregoing customary pleasures. They do not always know how to put off such expenditures or how to save their money. Most easily of all they spend money which was gotten "easily" (as a gain or gift). *Usually not inclined to the adventurous projects, the LIE is capable to pack "light" money into the enterprise, is not too thorough in terms of thought out and counted.* [Will reword.]

They do not forgive their failure and errors in work, but outwardly they preserve calmness and optimism: "we learn from our mistakes".

No penny pinching. They hate penny pinchers. They way they see it, if you know how to earn it, you have the right to spend it. They spend large sums of money more easily than smaller sums. They can be stingy about spending money on small things, but they love to buy expensive things (taking into account their quality), regardless of their income level.

They dislike being occupied by repairs, maintenance, or alterations. They prefer to earn well and to purchase new things. Or to hire people to do it for them.

When necessary, they are willing to do hard or unpleasant work, provided that it pays well. They do not like small routine work, studying details, or dull, passive labor. [not sure about this translation]

They do not put up with being micro-managed in the manner, speed, or the quality of their work. They see distrust as insulting. Both in business and in their personal lives, mutual confidence is considered the standard of relations. They do not love to check the work of others in the process of fulfillment. They prefer to evaluate the final result.

They prefer to promise a little less, but then to deliver a little more. They are farsighted. Their actions are evaluated from the point of view of their consequences. They can’t suffer irresponsibilities in any kind of relationship.

They can't stand having to wait for others take initiative. They prefer to own the companies they work for so they can determine their own pay, make their own plan, establish their own standard. They dislike working with a sluggish partner. [This is why SLI's are one of the worst business partners for LIE's. ]

Excellent leader and organizer. They know how to distribute work with respect to the possibilities and abilities of each person. Immediately they evaluate a person according to his business, level of qualification and abilities. Work which they themselves undertake is carried out with enthusiasm, accomplishing a lot in a short period of time.

They see bureaucratic red-tape as a great evil. It greatly irritates them, kills their business activity, and depresses them. Having to live under conditions in which their business qualities do not find application and they are incapable of earning adequate payment for their labor oppresses them. They try not to stay under such conditions for long. They are dynamic. They easily adapt to new conditions. They are able to withstand burdens and deprivations if they know it will pay off if the future.

They are able to work well in extreme situations. This is when they most brightly manifest their willpower, endurance, composure, business keenness, and the skill to accurately calculate their time, force, and possibilities. (After being weakened, they can generally lose track of time.) [?]

They never give up when things get hard. They put everything they have into overcoming difficulties.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Can you be really specific when you say they don't like sluggish partners? I think being laid-back and lazy is more confident than somebody who is all 'ooh gotta work gotta work' it seems too tense and uptight to me. The best plan of action is to ... not do anything unless you really want it. Do they even think things through? "Just doing it" will not get me what I want. When you really want to do something, then you should make sure every action you take is pure in that regard. For my own sanity, I think the reverse is true- it's much better to be passive than active.

Anyway that's an interesting, if overidealistic look. It seemed kind of 'bravado' and faux-confident to me. Oh whee look at me. LIEs are manly badasses with more strengths than weaknesses, wheee!

Also yeah hmm I can't relate to that. Everything about that, or most everything is things that I don't like in people. I'm sorry. =p

[Joy]

Can you be really specific when you say they don't like sluggish partners?

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=16305

I think being laid-back and lazy is more confident than somebody who is all 'ooh gotta work gotta work' it seems too tense and uptight to me. The best plan of action is to ... not do anything unless you really want it. Do they even think things through? "Just doing it" will not get me what I want. When you really want to do something, then you should make sure every action you take is pure in that regard. For my own sanity, I think the reverse is true- it's much better to be passive than active.

I actually feel the same way when I think about LSE's and ESE's. That's why they need the "laziest" duals... to convince them that a lot of the shit they're doing is pointless. I think having an ESE boss has actually made me more like this than I used to be. I've wondered about this from time to time. It feels like I'm often looking for reasons why stuff shouldn't be done when he tells me to do something, and I never used to be that way. If I just jumped right on that stuff right away I'd end up wasting a lot of effort (and his money in paying me to do it).

I would much rather be active more often than passive, and I feel restless if I'm not active enough, but my efforts have to be investments, not merely expenditures. In other words, I only put forth effort when it appears that it will pay off. I don't work simply for the sake of working.

Pretty much I'm saying that I try to find the path of least effort when I'm trying to accomplish something. I also wait to do something until it's the best (or last) available time to do it instead of doing it right away simply for the sake of having it done or to have something to do. "Proactive, restless" does describe me, but I still don't want to put more effort into something than is necessary in order to accomplish it efficiently and effectively. I don't mind hard work, but it has to be work that I'm confident is the best way to get the results I'm looking for.

Anyway that's an interesting, if overidealistic look. It seemed kind of 'bravado' and faux-confident to me. Oh whee look at me. LIEs are manly badasses with more strengths than weaknesses, wheee!

That's because this is only the Te part of the description. Have you seen the Si part I did this with? That part sounds completely the opposite in terms of strengths and weaknesses. And I haven't even gotten to the Fe, Se or Fi descriptions yet!

Also yeah hmm I can't relate to that. Everything about that, or most everything is things that I don't like in people. I'm sorry. =p

I guess it's settled then. You're not LIE.

Thanks for reading this and commenting, btw.

[Expat]

I agree with everything Joy said.

[Joy]

Another thing worth mentioning here is that while this part of the description is focused mainly on LIE strengths, there are inherent weaknesses built right into it as well, if you think about it.

Here's an example:

Their only design is that they will not rely on their own physical efforts. It is inexpedient, especially because in life still there exists success, luck [need to figure out how to word this to express the idea that "luck" is not random, but the result of taking calculated risks and the realization of opportunities by those who are aware of them], and other objective conditions on which they have the sense to apply their skill and business qualities. They consider it generally senseless to constrain themselves with unfavorable circumstances. They prefer to attempt to change conditions. *Senseless* labor is not for them. [The concept here is that they want to use their business skills to gain financial independence. They do not want to do the same job day after day, year after year, and they will not remain in such a situation. They cannot stand the "get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, etc." lifestyle.]

This, combined with their tendency to up and leave if it looks like their efforts won't pay off in the time frame or the the extent that they initially expected (something which they tend to be overly optimistic about), tends to make their ability to provide a stable, secure stream of income and standard of living less than that of many types, especially Si creatives.

An LSE may be willing (and even happy to) deal with the grind of the type of lifestyle (described at the end of that paragraph) and so end up in an comfortable (possibly upper) middle class lifestyle after a number of years (I think those who have their duals tend to do this a lot more quickly than those who don't).

There are also a lot of types that manage their personal spending and save their money with more ease than LIE's. LIE's prefer to be good at making and spending large sums of money than to be good at developing a steady stream of income and learning to live within their means. (ESI's help LIE's with this a lot though, lol.) Not every enterprise an LIE gets into works out though. They can end up living a lower middle class lifestyle at the stage in their lives that their LSE and ESE counterparts are living a mid to upper middle class lifestyle.

Fortunately, LIE's are good at rebounding and are good at taking calculated risks, so while not every enterprise will pay off, there will be ones that do. Overally they're more likely than not to end up creating financial independence than their LSE/ESE counterparts, who will work very hard every day (except some Sundays and possibly Saturdays) for the best 50 years of their lives. While LIE's know that "slow and steady wins the race" is a good approach, they can't live that way.

It's not like LIE's are hopeless in terms of creating financial stability for themselves though. For example, it sounds like Expat has been better about this sort of thing overall than what I've described here, based solely on what I know about him. The concept of not being able to force yourself do something tedious (or poorly paid) day after day, year after year remains though. We've talked about this on the forum before, about how this urge to wander to find better opportunities manifests differently in different LIE's. I, for example, haven't moved around to different parts of the world or country (even though this is a pretty typical LIE trait).

[Expat]

Fortunately, LIE's are good at rebounding and are good at taking calculated risks, so while not every enterprise will pay off, there will be ones that do. Overally they're more likely than not to end up creating financial independence than their LSE/ESE counterparts, who will work very hard every day (except some Sundays and possibly Saturdays) for the best 50 years of their lives. While LIE's know that "slow and steady wins the race" is a good approach, they can't live that way.

It sounds like Expat has been better about this sort of thing than the LIE description (and the LIE's I've known) seem to make it sound like LIE's usually are, based on what I know about him.

You mean, I've been better at having a steady job?

I've had my ups and downs, and taken calculated risks, as well as made some risky investments that did not pay off. Since 1992 I have changed countries (including changing jobs), 7 times; 3 of those involved changing continents -- I've also changed fields, and the kind of jobs, quite often:

If there is no possibility to restore fairness, they search for new places, where their point of view will be heard and where their work will be well rewarded. They are constantly situated in the search for the best conditions and the greater possibilities of application for their business qualities. For them it’s characteristic to frequently change of professions and their place of residence. If it did not work out where they were, they try new places, new possibilities. They are "pioneers". If it was impossible to fulfill themselves in one region, boldly they pass into another, until finally they find for themselves satisfaction.

What you don't seem to realize, coming from an US perspective, is that not everywhere it's a feasible option to keep going for high risks -- you need to earn money, your credit eventually runs out, and no investor or bank will take you as a partner if you don't have a track record and/or capital of your own.

I am working, right now, in a small, start-up company that originally belonged to an elderly LIE m - ESI couple. In order to get investment from others, they had to re-mortgage their house (in the same area where I live, near the pub) and even so they became minority shareholders; they are directors but they have been effectively side-lined by the EIE CEO, who could attract money from more investors. If they hadn't done it that way, though, they'd have to give up on their new company. So, from their point of view, it's still a high-risk situation, but one where they had to have capital to begin with.

My own risk-taking have involved plunging into new countries, and new jobs, and new activities, without always knowing exactly what awaited me, and trying to work as an independent consultant for some time (which did not offer a consistent flow of cash though).

emeye, who's either LIE or ILI, has had a similar experience here.

[Joy]

You mean, I've been better at having a steady job?

I've had my ups and downs, and taken calculated risks, as well as made some risky investments that did not pay off. Since 1992 I have changed countries (including changing jobs), 7 times; 3 of those involved changing continents -- I've also changed fields, and the kind of jobs, quite often:

Yeah, that makes sense. I thought you had been in the same general field for the most part, though I knew you had moved around a lot.

What you don't seem to realize, coming from an US perspective, is that not everywhere it's a feasible option to keep going for high risks -- you need to earn money, your credit eventually runs out, and no investor or bank will take you as a partner if you don't have a track record and/or capital of your own.

I am working, right now, in a small, start-up company that originally belonged to an elderly LIE m - ESI couple. In order to get investment from others, they had to re-mortgage their house (in the same area where I live, near the pub) and even so they became minority shareholders; they are directors but they have been effectively side-lined by the EIE CEO, who could attract money from more investors. If they hadn't done it that way, though, they'd have to give up on their new company. So, from their point of view, it's still a high-risk situation, but one where they had to have capital to begin with.

My own risk-taking have involved plunging into new countries, and new jobs, and new activities, without always knowing exactly what awaited me, and trying to work as an independent consultant for some time (which did not offer a consistent flow of cash though).

emeye, who's either LIE or ILI, has had a similar experience here.

Yeah, I reworded it so that it's less ambiguous in meaning, I hope. The overall idea of what I was getting at was that I didn't want to make it sound like LIE's are hopelessly horrible at creating stability. They just have a tendency to look for better opportunities, which manifests differently in different people.

[Expat]

Yeah, that makes sense. I thought you had been in the same general field for the most part, though I knew you had moved around a lot.

Well I have mostly remained in the same general field, chemical engineering; but in that, I have moved from production to R&D to customer support to business development to product design; and actually I moved away from chemistry into metallurgy and back. In comparison to most of the people I know, it's been far more diversified. I even tried two other totally different fields, but it did not work out.

And I'm not bragging -- as you said it, some of the less mobile persons, by staying in the same location and job etc, arguably were more successful with the "slow and steady" approach.

Yeah, I reworded it so that it's less ambiguous in meaning, I hope. The overall idea of what I was getting at was that I didn't want to make it sound like LIE's are hopelessly horrible at creating stability. They just have a tendency to look for better opportunities, which manifests differently in different people.

Yes, I agree. The key word I think is "restlessness".

[Blaze]

This is still a work in progress, but I'll update it once I've worked out some of the areas which I've noted. Feel free to post comments or suggestions for wording.

By the way, Expat is the one who provided the original translation of this article. I'm just rewording it.

*****

There is no larger misfortune for LIE's than the impossibility to find a proper use for their business qualities. Their entire life is a search for the possibilities to maximally realize their strengths, mind, and abilities in interesting and promising activities.

Their business qualities are manifested in evaluating objective possibilities, according to specific conditions and situations. They consider it senseless to hold on to old ideas and desires. They recognize that as circumstances change, they should be ready to apply themselves towards newly presented opportunities. They see no reason to stay in an unfavorable situation. They would rather change their situation than continue to put forth effort that’s not getting them anywhere.

Their only design is that they will not rely on their own physical efforts. It is inexpedient, especially because in life still there exists success, luck [need to figure out how to word this to express the idea that "luck" is not random, but the result of taking calculated risks and the realization of opportunities by those who are aware of them], and other objective conditions on which they have the sense to apply their skill and business qualities. They consider it generally senseless to constrain themselves with unfavorable circumstances. They prefer to attempt to change conditions. *Senseless* labor is not for them. [The concept here is that they want to use their business skills to gain financial independence. They do not want to do the same job day after day, year after year, and they will not remain in such a situation. They cannot stand the "get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, get up, go to work, go home, pay bills, go to bed, etc." lifestyle.]

They actively fight for the equally fair conditions and the equally great possibilities for all. They fight for the restoration of fairness, and they try to achieve that which is rightfully their due.

If there is no possibility to restore fairness, they search for new places, where their point of view will be heard and where their work will be well rewarded. They are constantly situated in the search for the best conditions and the greater possibilities of application for their business qualities. For them it’s characteristic to frequently change of professions and their place of residence. If it did not work out where they were, they try new places, new possibilities. They are "pioneers". If it was impossible to fulfill themselves in one region, boldly they pass into another, until finally they find for themselves satisfaction.

They prefer to attain high efficiency by the reasonable and rational distribution of their forces. For this very reason, they have no equal in the areas of the development and introduction of new technologies and the rational and effective organization of the working process; they magnificently generate interesting rationalization ideas, they are the authors of many advanced technologies and procedures. [Will reword this area.]

They are the ardent enemy of all irrational and ineffective methods of operation. They see it as valuable to motivate workers with rewards in order to maximize production.

They prefer work with specific practical application and do not have much interest in abstract and removed projects.

They are not capable of working in a manner or towards an end which doesn't make sense to them. They examine each activity from the point of view of its expediency ("why else would I do it?"). They love to work when they know the most effective and efficient way to carry out the work ("why else would I enjoy it?"). [Not sure about the part in parenthesis.]

They consider it expedient to be occupied by the matters that bring high profits. They try not to deal with trifles (they do not engage in criminal business, in spite of the promising incomes, since this does not allow their system of moral values, to which they are subconsiously oriented). They try to avoid con people. They hate liars and cheats.

They love to earn money, and they love to spend it without considering. They do not enjoy saving money or cutting costs by foregoing customary pleasures. They do not always know how to put off such expenditures or how to save their money. Most easily of all they spend money which was gotten "easily" (as a gain or gift). *Usually not inclined to the adventurous projects, the LIE is capable to pack "light" money into the enterprise, is not too thorough in terms of thought out and counted.* [Will reword.]

They do not forgive their failure and errors in work, but outwardly they preserve calmness and optimism: "we learn from our mistakes".

No penny pinching. They hate penny pinchers. They way they see it, if you know how to earn it, you have the right to spend it. They spend large sums of money more easily than smaller sums. They can be stingy about spending money on small things, but they love to buy expensive things (taking into account their quality), regardless of their income level.

They dislike being occupied by repairs, maintenance, or alterations. They prefer to earn well and to purchase new things. Or to hire people to do it for them.

When necessary, they are willing to do hard or unpleasant work, provided that it pays well. They do not like small routine work, studying details, or dull, passive labor. [not sure about this translation]

They do not put up with being micro-managed in the manner, speed, or the quality of their work. They see distrust as insulting. Both in business and in their personal lives, mutual confidence is considered the standard of relations. They do not love to check the work of others in the process of fulfillment. They prefer to evaluate the final result.

They prefer to promise a little less, but then to deliver a little more. They are farsighted. Their actions are evaluated from the point of view of their consequences. They can’t suffer irresponsibilities in any kind of relationship.

They can't stand having to wait for others take initiative. They prefer to own the companies they work for so they can determine their own pay, make their own plan, establish their own standard. They dislike working with a sluggish partner. [This is why SLI's are one of the worst business partners for LIE's. ]

Excellent leader and organizer. They know how to distribute work with respect to the possibilities and abilities of each person. Immediately they evaluate a person according to his business, level of qualification and abilities. Work which they themselves undertake is carried out with enthusiasm, accomplishing a lot in a short period of time.

They see bureaucratic red-tape as a great evil. It greatly irritates them, kills their business activity, and depresses them. Having to live under conditions in which their business qualities do not find application and they are incapable of earning adequate payment for their labor oppresses them. They try not to stay under such conditions for long. They are dynamic. They easily adapt to new conditions. They are able to withstand burdens and deprivations if they know it will pay off if the future.

They are able to work well in extreme situations. This is when they most brightly manifest their willpower, endurance, composure, business keenness, and the skill to accurately calculate their time, force, and possibilities. (After being weakened, they can generally lose track of time.) [?]

They never give up when things get hard. They put everything they have into overcoming difficulties.

sounds pretty good. but i would say it sounds like TeNi not just Te by itself. it describes the LIE CEO of the last agency (which was overall very gamma) that i worked for rather well. i liked this agency also....go figure, as an alpha! but yeah i could work for them and actually i felt pretty comfortable. much more so than when i worked for a delta run agency.

[Joy]

Yeah, Stratiyevska tends to put things related to other functions in her each area of her descriptions.

I think I might feel more comfortable working for Alphas than Deltas or especially Betas, tbh, depending on the types.

ESE > LSE or SLE
IEE > ILE > EIE
LSI > SLI > SEI
EII > LII or IEI

or

ILE > LSE or SLE
ESE > IEE > EIE (depending on the type of business it is)
LSI > SLI or LII
EII > LII or IEI

Hmm, never mind. It seems only ESE's ended up in two of my top spots and ILE in one.

If they were working for me instead of me working for them, it might be a little different. The preferred types would depend entirely on the job/position they were filling.

[Expat]

Stratievskaya's descriptions, if read as a whole, give a very good idea (if from a Gamma prism) of the types; but as Joy and Blaze said, the functional attribution is often muddled. And, yes, that is definitely more like Te+Ni; the LSE one gives the Te+Si.

[UDP]

I actually feel the same way when I think about LSE's and ESE's. That's why they need the "laziest" duals... to convince them that a lot of the shit they're doing is pointless.

Why do you group LSE and ESE together when you talk about doing something pointless? Are you coming from a purely Ni perspective? It seems to be disregarding the Te-dominant nature of the LSE, to say that they need someone to tell them what they are doing is pointless.

[Expat]

Why do you group LSE and ESE together when you talk about doing something pointless? Are you coming from a purely Ni perspective? It seems to be disregarding the Te-dominant nature of the LSE, to say that they need someone to tell them what they are doing is pointless.

That is indeed a Ni perspective. It's one of the ways an ILI supervises the LSE, by the way.

[Joy]

Yeah, LSE's just do their pointless shit more efficiently than ESE's.