This is actually more of an Alpha vs. Delta question.
Okay, so recently I was talking to an EII about her relationship with her Alpha boyfriend, and she expressed frustration that he didn't seem to be in any hurry to find a job after losing his almost a year ago, and didn't seem to understand why buying a house was so important to her. She felt like she was being petty by caring about his having a job when everything else about him and the relationship was so great, and I assured her that she wasn't. At that point she said that the real frustration was that she had ambitions for the future. She said that she is an ambitious person and wants her partner to be ambitious as well.
She's a student and people in her field sometimes make $100,000+ a year if they work in the right position for the right company and have experience. She said that she wanted to be there in ten years, and that she wanted to start building equity and appreciation in a house in the meantime, which is one of the reasons why she wants so badly to buy a house as soon as possible (something he seemed completely indifferent to). He, on the other hand, didn't seem to want anything out of life. As long as the bare minimum of needs are being met in which he can control the his own living space (at least one room), preferable in a reasonably comfortable environment, that's all he cares about.
This conversation sort of confused me because when I was with an LII, the topic of buying a house and building financial prosperity were a huge point of friction. He couldn't see why owning a home was preferable to renting when one can maintain a higher standard of living at a lower monthly cost by renting. He also said that my enterprising nature was one of the least attractive things about me. I assumed at the time that it was largely because he had a Se PoLR/unvalued Se.
Most of the Alphas and Deltas I know care only about being having a comfortable lifestyle and being financially secure than about financial ambitions. ESE's, who I consider to be the most enterprising type in Alpha, seem to be the best in the quadra at running small businesses and creating a comfortable lifestyle. They have strong Se, but it's also unvalued. They also have a Te role, but again, it's unvalued.
The ESE I know best is my boss. He's successful in his field (home and commercial building inspection), owns the company he works for (most home inspectors around here do), sells inspection report forms and software to other inspectors, and even owns a small amount of investment real estate. When we talk about truly wealthy people though, he has this belief that the only way to "get rich" is to be unethical and screw people over. He has a desire to make his business grow, but when I offered ideas as to ways to turn his small business (him owning his job) into a large business (one which he wouldn't have to work in) he said that it will never be that way, that he wants to reduce the amount of work he has to do and increase his income, but that it's never going to be big and that he's always going to have to be the one running it. He is also very resistant to the idea of increasing the number of units of rental property that he owns because he didn't want to have to manage all of them. When I suggested hiring a management company, he said that most of the money you make in owning rental properties is in the management. So pretty much all he's done is bought himself another job.
So anyways, I had been thinking this whole time that it was a Ne/Si vs. Ni/Se issue, but my conversation with the EII has made me question this assumption. The LII I was with would have never talked the same way she did about ambition and $100,000+ salaries.
Either I've mistyped her, or this is as much about Te as it is about Se. The really confusing thing for me is that, LSE's, who are Te dominant and have strong Se, take pretty much the same approach that my ESE boss does, from what I've seen. They get jobs in companies that they think they can stay with for many decades and in doing so ensure a comfortable lifestyle and future financial security, or they run their own companies the same way my boss runs his (they pretty much just own their job).
It's also crossed my mind that with ESxj's it's more about Ni than Se. The reason they don't try to create business systems in which they will make money but not have to work is because they're more comfortable with immediate cause and effect relationships (I work, I get paid) than less immediate cause and effect relationships (I work to put a business system together and then place good people in the system and then the system works for me).
SLI's seem like LSE's except less proactive... they just want to spend their day filling a position (that someone else created) and then go home and relax. They seem to value frugality. Slacker mom's husband fixes and sells cars in his spare time, and that's the closest I've ever heard of the typical SLI being enterprising (and I'm not sure I'd even call it that, lol). Henry Ford, assuming he was SLI, would be an exception, of course (there are always exceptions).
I'd love to hear from some Deltas on this subject. Have I mystyped this supposed EII, or is my concept of Delta's stance on the subject of money wrong? Is it possible that what I was seeing out of her was just Te valuing plus strong Ni (something which an LSE would need from her)?