Types as Hosts

[Rubicon]

ime …

ESE wants you to feel at ease/ to make yourself at home/ to feel included.

SEI wants you to do/have what you want, to enjoy yourself.

ILE wants you to “try this!”

ESI wants you to have what you “should” have ("eat this - it’s good for you").

EIE wants to put a spectacular show on, impress everyone with the presentation.

LIE wants you to like whatever they give you. It’s all in the mind!

LSE wants you to enjoy things in moderation.

not sure about the others …


So, you lovely forum people, what are your experiences? Stories? (c:

[07490]

ESE 2Wing3 proberly will be the best host.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I think you basically have the right idea. I thought of people I know in real life and their types, and they all pretty much act like that exactly.

So good job.

Contradictions are really starting to bug.

[Warlord]

I want people not to notice that I haven't bothered to clean my apartment. I always fail.

[1981slater]

Look at that! An INTp host!

[Warlord]

Look at that! An INTp host!

Good idea, this one is better though

[07490]

Good idea, this one is better though

Warlord I totally dig an INTp hosting my birthday than an SI ego. we will have an NI revalation!

[Warlord]

Warlord I totally dig an INTp hosting my birthday than an SI ego. we will have an NI revalation!

heh, to be serious I have never hosted a party, I'm not sure what it would be like. Hosting a party seems like a lot of trouble and effort.

I had my graduation party last year. But my dad arranged and paid the whole thing, I was more in a role of guest/observer there. So:

ESTp host mainly aims to impress people with money and influence. Doesn't care about pleasantness, for example might argue with the guests. Likely to get drunk and make ass out of himself (not this time though ).

[Park]

Good idea, this one is better though

That one's totally ISTp!

[ArchonAlarion]

i dont like being a host. If I am I can be domineering, I guess. Im usually pretty silly and fun though.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Creepy-bg]

Hmm, I was thinking this topic was going to be about what kind of parasites live on each of the 16 host types.

actually me too lol

[Bardia]

I don't really like hosting parties. I try to not to put to much effort into it but I always seem to put a lot into it. And turn out always varies so its hard to prepare. Then I spend all my time trying to talk to everyone so I feel like I haven't really caught up with anyone.

I think I tend to want people to try things I like or something I think they might like. Like try a food or music or game.

[calenwen]

ime …

ESE wants you to feel at ease/ to make yourself at home/ to feel included.

SEI wants you to do/have what you want, to enjoy yourself.

ILE wants you to “try this!”

ESI wants you to have what you “should” have ("eat this - it’s good for you").

EIE wants to put a spectacular show on, impress everyone with the presentation.

LIE wants you to like whatever they give you. It’s all in the mind!

LSE wants you to enjoy things in moderation.

not sure about the others …


So, you lovely forum people, what are your experiences? Stories? (c:

I don't like hosting things, especially at my apartment. When I do find myself in that role I do my best to quietly move from person to person catching up with them and making sure that they have everything that they want.

Hmm, I was thinking this topic was going to be about what kind of parasites live on each of the 16 host types.

lol

[Wynch]

Hmm, I was thinking this topic was going to be about what kind of parasites live on each of the 16 host types.

So did I :/

ESE 2Wing3 probably will be the best host.

My ESE 2w3 roomie fails at hosting. He always wants to cop out first and do his own thing. He's a socionic extrovert, but social introvert.

[07490]

So did I :/



He's a socionic extrovert, but social introvert.

His instinct stacking then

[marooned]

I was thinking the best hosts would be the ones in your own quadra generally (as one might find the "hosting styles" of other quadras annoying because their quadra values would inevitably bleed into it and then everyone would die).

[jessica129]

I couldn't even imagine hosting a party. If it was absolutely necessary, I'd end up throwing the responsibility on someone else to get things done and entertain the guests for me. Throw some food out with lots of alcohol and leave everyone up to create their own fun. Parties are hell and pointless.

[Park]

I thought about this and I couldn't come up with a single thing to say about me, or SLIs, on the subject. I guess (for me) it would basically come down to:

SEI wants you to do/have what you want, to enjoy yourself.

and what jessica and sappho said.

[Park]

Also, I tend to dislike people who are inclined to be 'active hosts' and want to have everything and everyone under control, organize and tell people (guests) what to do, how to have fun, etc... or engage them in group activities of their choice, and stuff like that where you can't relax, be your own and take things as they come but instead you have to follow someone else or be under their radar all the time.

[Warlord]

My SLE friends are networkers. And they know how to work a room.

They are among the most sociable people I know. They like to mix. And can be quite pleasant and friendly.

They are also among the most practical people I know. Their conversation tends to focus on practical experience and observation. This doesn't generally lead to arguments.

Their manner and speech can be very direct. They can be extremely insensitive at times. But they are generally quick to try to compensate and restore amenity. The concept that they are not concerned with pleasantness is like the exact opposite of any SLE I know.

Maybe you are just typing them wrong.

[Satan]

hmm, as a host..

with new people i'm generally a bit harsh at first. i tend to like everyone to do the same at first. like let's all drink beer, and the same beer. but if you want to drink your own beer that's okay - and after things are underway that can be dropped -

it's like i want everyone to be on the same level .. in the same place...

i tend to talk to people in a circle gonig from left to right .. but occassionally i rotate and go right from left.. and if people "poke out" i'll sometmies engage the most active people to the least active people, giving less attention to the more active people, and more attention to the least active people in order to try and "balance" interactions.

thing is, with all this balancing, i can end up "orchestrating" a lot of the beginning interactions. and then as people start getting more settled, then i tend to take a lower key role. and will probably go quite for a while, then kind of do this flip thing. .and be less outgoing, and more personal and want to interact with people on one on .. or one on three...

especially with people who are less sure of themselves, i tend to pressure people a little, like have a drink, enjoy yourself, meet people blah blah.

but it's okay with me if people want to be independent .. as long as they don't cross certain boundaries. like although i like to share alcohol, i don't like people to get it themselves. and i don't like it if people say anything negative about me, and can take offence easily. and saying you're joking doesn't really mean anything.

but yeh .. i haven't really operated as a host much in a while. . sometimes with a group of people i kind of do a roaming host thing .. like i want to make sure people are looked after .. but that's just from my own insecurities about leaving people on their own ..

[Warlord]

But there is no reason to assume I am.

I wouldn't have said anything, if there wasn't.

[duality is cringe]

Also, I tend to dislike people who are inclined to be 'active hosts' and want to have everything and everyone under control, organize and tell people (guests) what to do, how to have fun, etc... or engage them in group activities of their choice, and stuff like that where you can't relax, be your own and take things as they come but instead you have to follow someone else or be under their radar all the time.

I agree with this.

[Warlord]

Of course you would have. You have this apparent need to spew mindless shit like this.

No, the aggregate of your defensive description of what SLE's are like as hosts, was just poor fit what typical SLE's are like. And there's a few possible reasons for it, and one of them is that you are simply typing people who aren't SLE's as SLE's, likely SEE's.

[ArchonAlarion]

man i thought this thread was gonna be about something awesome like how humans are hosts to our types or something.

Like how we're supposed to be hosts to our DNA lol

[Simon Ssmall]

I used to be a host quite often in my teen years. Mostly I would just enjoy observing people and check if everyone is ok. And no I wouldn't run around seeing if everyone is doing something. They can do whatever they like for all I care, what I cared about was mostly if someone got offended by someone else or if someone is quiet/bored so I would come and chat them up. Ultimatelly it would still be up to the person to have his own fun. Never did group activities and if they would happen they would happen naturally without really planing anything. Group games and the like I dread if they are forced on people.

Now I rarelly if ever host anything, just for my friends and Its likely to stay that way.

[Warlord]

Repeating yourself ad nauseum doesn't make your claims any more reasonable. Nothing I said was inconsistent with SLE. And there is absolutely no reason to believe SEE is more likely.

You're the one repeating yourself, without having any content to support your claims. Me going point-to-point where your understanding fails, isn't really worth my time and effort.

Your claims don't only conflict with my experiences. For example:

ESTp host mainly aims to impress people with money and influence.

With all his appearance he demonstrates he is far from being ostentatious, does not care for the impression he makes with others.

You couldn't find any quote that's any more out of context? That's about not caring about leaving a negative impression on people, exactly the opposite what you claimed earlier. Not anything to do with what I had said, which was related to possessing power and authority.

Don't try to project to me, what's your lack of understanding of what I was talking about. Also learn recognize parody This whole thread has had a partly parodical tone.

And that wasn't written by Filatova, but by Weisband.

In another (equally crappy) machine translation of the same text, this time with the actual context included, it sets a different tinge to the same sentence:

Strong-willed, purposeful person. “If stars ignite at night, it means this to someone necessarily”. Emphasized it is not demonstrative, it does not worry about impression left in others. “He did not understand, you will repeat” - he said [S].[P].[Korolev]. This “did not understand” it could himself allow not each leader. Which does all, makes [uvlechenno], passionately it is intended to bring to the end. It has the nature of the restless champion, who must at any cost gain the top above other one or enemy or another.

Here's couple of quotes that actually are relevant to what I said, and of course at the same time opposite to what you claimed earlier:

No one it makes possible to doubt its right to lead people. He speaks, as it proclaims - in confident, command voice. It does not make possible for itself to be lenient (it considers that this to it can too dearly manage). It prefers only to require, use any possibility to manifest their strong-willed qualities - resoluteness, persistence, inflexibility, declaring about itself as about a strict, but valid leader.

For the same reason it loves to create the atmosphere of psychological stress - this seemingly entertains it. It loves to tell terrible histories, loves “to congeal paints”, to spread panicky mood, with the pleasure it extends the rumors, which frequently are exaggerated.

One obviously can't exert and display their authority, without showing that they can back it up.

[Khola aka Bee]

^^^^^^

/a bunch of words

[jessica129]

I used to be a host quite often in my teen years. Mostly I would just enjoy observing people and check if everyone is ok. And no I wouldn't run around seeing if everyone is doing something. They can do whatever they like for all I care, what I cared about was mostly if someone got offended by someone else or if someone is quiet/bored so I would come and chat them up. Ultimatelly it would still be up to the person to have his own fun. Never did group activities and if they would happen they would happen naturally without really planing anything. Group games and the like I dread if they are forced on people.

People who do this for me are life-savers. It's painful sitting alone at a party when you know no one and don't have the skills to chat random strangers up. Group games seem really corny to me and just not fun at all unless obscene amounts of alcohol are involved.

[07490]

People who do this for me are life-savers. It's painful sitting alone at a party when you know no one and don't have the skills to chat random strangers up. Group games seem really corny to me and just not fun at all unless obscene amounts of alcohol are involved.

This post between duality has inspired me how wonderful humanity is, I am in tears small-jessica.

[jessica129]

lol

[strrrng]

another one for the record books... lol

[jewels]

while I don't host parties often, I do get big groups together. when I do that, I'm not very concerned (or good at) food/drink logistics, but am very concerned that everyone has people to talk to, or that people who don't know my other friends are introduced and included. Avoiding awkwardness for anyone showing up is really my main goal. So that's probably why I prefer to go out somewhere that has food/drink and then just deal w/ making sure the solo people coming mesh into the existing groups (because otherwise everyone just gets cliquish and that is no fun).

[iAnnAu]

Argh. Not only can I not even imagine myself hosting a party, I even suck at getting friends from different groups to mingle. As in, if the folks don't already know each other and decide to come together between themselves, me getting one of them to tag along to hang out with another will probably be a dud.

My two best friends, M and C, seem to me to have very similar temperaments and interests. When I hang out with either one, we'll usually end up having deep, animated conversations lasting sometimes for hours. So I had this crazy idea that they'd at least find each other interesting ... but when I brought M along a few times to hang out with C, it was rather strained. And each one later admitted to me that he found the other annoying. Boy, did that feel like FAIL to me! (Note: both have tested INTP in MBTI, but I'm not sure either of them are socionic INTps.)

There are other times that I've tried to mix my circles of friends and been entirely baffled at how all these people that I like don't seem to hit it off - I'm just perfectly clueless as to how to help it along. It only bothers me on a categorical level though (heh. As if it's ever fun to admit a weakness), because I prefer to hang out one-on-one anyway ... it just highlights how poor my skillz are at predicting how people will act/interact.

[Warlord]

The only one questioning that the people I was referring to were SLE was you.

...

The only one suggesting that the people I was referring to were likely SEE was you.

Which is 100% of the people who commented to your comment at all. If you read what other people have said about SLE's about on this thread, it isn't much different to what I have said.

On the vector to the direction of what is described, based on parts of your description, SEE was the most likely type to be confused with SLE. Nowhere I have said that it really sounded even like SEEs.

Also notice the word "maybe" there, it means that there are other options too. For example you could also have very rosy glassess when looking at SLE's, be very unobservant, know untypical SLE's or you are just an idiot.

I'm familiar with the practice of overemphasizing SLE aggression. People in general are not all that aggressive. SLE is no exception.

In what world do you live in? Wake up and smell the roses. People are beaten up and killed daily. None of those descriptions are even very aggressive. They were taken from Se-part of the SLE description, there are other aspects to them too, that manifest to variating degree.

Your emphasis on authority creates a very narrow and unrealistic view of power and leadership.

And I was attempting to make as accurate and elaborate description of authority, power and leadership as possible? Again you are projecting your lack of understanding of what I have said to me.

From a network perspective leadership emerges when a member of a group becomes a central conduit for the group's communications.

Informal communication networks (grapevines) are valuable for translating formal communications into group jargon. I can see SLE being a central figure in this ("opinion leaders").

Rumors flourish on grapevines. Rumors are generally spread by about 10% of the population with about 75% accuracy. It is a common myth that rumors start because they make titillating gossip. But this is rarely the case. Rumors generally emerge in situations that are important to us, where there is ambiguity, and under conditions which evoke anxiety.

Two pseudosciences are in conflict with eachother, so? Nothing new there. None of that is necessarily true.

Where does it say that a typical SLE is even skilled or good leader, from that perspective?

The concept that SLE takes pleasure in manipulating the situation to get the rumor mill going is just unreal. It strikes me as blatant NT propaganda.

If your "SLE's" aren't the SLE's of the fundamental type descriptions, they aren't socionics SLE's. That applies to all your statements about SLE's.

What I see is that you repeatedly understand wrong what is actually been written. Both concerning type desciptions and what I have actually said.

[UDP]

ESEs care way too much about having food for everyone, and get far to depressed about people who show up randomly, or at the last moment, should they not have enough food for that person. They can stress way too much about the "moral implications" or "feeling bad" about this.

SEI not that different from the ESE. Seem to cater even more to making people happy, sometimes, which is too much imo.

LIIs seem to prefer to buy things and feel very awkward about having to host much other than a very small group of people.

IEEs are generally fairly caring, if not always logisitcally on top of things. Once an ENFp made brownies for someone and brought them to a big group meeting, but they were not dried yet, so there was a little spill... and we had to go through a strange process of trying to freeze them with a local vendor's freezer.... it was kind of crazy.

ESIs well, the one I know is really, really good at these sorts of things. She's nice, and very orderly. Cleans up properly, right away, but not in such a way that hurts or rushes anyone. Hmm, she may actually LSE, now that I think of it, hmm.

[Warlord]

Don't be a dimwit. I actually have a life outside this forum. The people I refer to were typed based on self-assessments and peer-assessments. And most of what I post (and respond to) in this forum goes through a test audience.

And how does that make me a "dimwit". Just a pointless ad hominem attack based on nothing. Maybe you have, or maybe you are just bullshitting. Because you haven't really got anything remotely intelligent to argue with. Admitting being wrong is apparently too big deal for you.

That could be just a "fancy" way of saying that you read it to your cat. I'm not impressed by marketing speech.

Great that you know people outside of this forum

It doesn't make your responses any more reasonable.

Just because you say so, doesn't make it so. Again it's just matter of you inability to understand. You can't critize me for stating "unreasonable" arguments, when you are obviously incapable of understanding what I'm even saying. You just wish that they are "unreasonable".

I am familiar with violence. But this is totally irrelevant.

Not in the least. You're just apparently incapable of seeing the relevance. Or seeing things from more than one angle.

I'm not going to argue semantics either. My point was that the SLE in the description appears maladjusted. It is not behaving in ways that are realistically and socially acceptable.

Well you seem to have a problem with telling what's realistic and what's not in general. Like I've pointed out before, you are probably looking at them through rosy-red glasses.

I doubt you even know what you are talking about, much less understand it. I sure as hell wouldn't presume that I understand what you are talking about.

I've said this before, you are projecting your lack of understanding of what I say, like it was my lack of understading. Maybe you should learn something for a change, and fix it. Change your bratty attitude. And then try understand what I'm saying. And maybe then you are capable actually commenting of to what I'm saying in an intelligent manner.

But fine keep thinking that way, it's only your loss.

The quotes you provided seemed little more than a criticism of SLE leadership style. Classical theorists were enamored with authority. It is not unusual for those with more classical educations to equate influence with authority. If there was any relevancy to your comments regarding authority, then I thought it might be here.

You're stuck on definitions of words, and miss the content and the context entirely. They are just words.

• The author's classical perspective (based on "common sense") versus a contemporary perspective (based on studies)
  
• The author underestimates the importance of situational factors

Sure. But I don't think the author understimates it, but assumes that reader can take situational factors in account.

Under what conditions might I expect to observe in SLE what was described in the second quote?

It's generalization of behaviour been compared to generalization of behaviour of other people of different types.

Given (1) resistance due to misinformation or communication problems and (2) lack of mutual trust and credibility in the relationship, people regardless of type often strive to achieve goals through manipulation rather than communication. By manipulation I mean twisting and distorting facts to make them appear more attractive, withholding undesirable information, or creating false rumors to get others to accept initiatives.

SLE's are more prone to what was described. They have Fi-PoLR, that causes more often that condition.

These conditions are not typical in my circles. We are a group of professionals who practically make a living socializing. We have to maintain a certain degree of credibility. If we can't rely on the technical expertise of the SLE, then we will simply look for a more reliable source.

Your social circles aren't all the SLE's of the world.

Nowhere. How is this relevant?

You brought it up.

The criterion for opinion leadership is that others value their opinion. How do they get people to value their opinion? I assume a well-adjusted SLE will adopt whatever tactics are appropriate to the situation. (see above)

Maybe you are just assuming things, because you just want to see them that way, opposed to it being the reality.

The types are defined by Augusta's model of "information metabolism"

That was based on empirical observations.

The descriptions are interpretations. And I will treat them as hypotheses as I do all interpretations.

Just like the type descriptions. And that's where you go wrong.

Your approach to assessment and your procedures for testing your hypotheses are fundamentally flawed.

You don't even know what they are.

My credibility as a scientist is far more important to me than membership in your clique.

Pseudoscientist! Your "science" quite frankly doesn't sound like a reductionist one. I'm part of a clique?

I've made no secret of the fact that I'm not a socionist

Neither I consider to be a "socionist". You seem to make a lot of baseless assumptions about me.

of the fact that I view the "types" as situational (learning styles) and not general (types).

That could result in that your "SLE's" don't fully correlate with socionics SLE's.

[crazedrat]

i've lived with an SEI who would interrogate me on whether i'd had my vegetables, proteins on a daily basis.

[Satan]

i've lived with an SEI who would interrogate me on whether i'd had my vegetables, proteins on a daily basis.

bitch