How to tell apart SLE-LSI and EIE-IEI

[JuJu]

Aside from temperament, which can be misleading in Socionics, especially for Betas, (e.g. ENFjs and ISTjs can seem irrational; ESTps can look rational, and INFps can be extroverted,) how do you tell the two beta NFs and beta STs apart?

Which characteristics, have you noticed, give a particular Beta type away?

[Creepy-male]

I would use Model X.

At least in my case, ISFp-Fe (introvert with extaverted subtype) coincides with Model A ESE. I don't see how this couldn't be generally expanded.

So, in other words, "wait for me to drag Brill over, again".

[jessica129]

Have I started a trend?

What's this model x people keep speaking of?

[Creepy-male]

A socionics module (it's useless if you consider it to be completely separate, imo) that considers there are 32 types (the 16 types with two subtypes each), each with only their four valued quadra elements.

EDIT

And I can't remember what the attributes were of each of the four functions. Sorry :x

[JuJu]

Have I started a trend?

What's this model x people keep speaking of?

Model X does not exist... I was a moderator at that forum for awhile, and have heard all of the bs about it before... To the extent that Model X ever did exist, Gulazon just summarized it. Only four elements per type.

Besides, Gulazon: an EIE and IEI "value" the same elements. That is to say, their quadra elements are the same...

I'm asking: how do you discern between the two types. Either the beta STs or NFs.

And yes, Jess, you started a trend.

[JuJu]

For example, how would you tell apart the Socionics types of these two:

Justin Timberlake, (a fairly extroverted Fe-IEI... interviewed by Osbourne, a ESTp: )


And John Lennon, (a fairly sluggish Ni-EIE interviewed by an INFp, who looks like an elf: )


We could do the same with the Beta STs too.

This is all to say, there's a borderline between the creative subtypes of each of the beta Socionics types that gets pretty nebulous.

[Creepy-male]

Sorry, JuJu, I meant...

You can use Model X (or at least something very similar) to work back to Model A. It certainly worked for my typing. It breaks down if you try to use a one-to-one correspondence between the two, however. (Model X SEI-Fe is not Model A SEI. (Or even SEI-Fe, but I would be inclined to disregard subtypes for Model A.))

[JuJu]

I agree with you, Gulazon. It helps one identify their quadra.

I'm writing, you know, about that nebulous area between two types--in this case, beta NFs or STs, what some call creative subtypes--model a or x or whatever you're using. .. It exists in all of the models. (see example.)

I'm wondering if there's any new insight on this forum about it.... How to make that nebulous area more clear-cut.

[JuJu]

Speaking for myself, I found that looking into the supervision relations helps... Also, meeting and correctly typing my dual.

[JuJu]

Come on, people, I'm trying to get a discussion going about the harder parts of Socionics here...

Here are the beta STs

Lou Reed -- Se-LSI


Dave Matthews -- Ti-ESTp

[Brilliand]

I would use Model X.

At least in my case, ISFp-Fe (introvert with extaverted subtype) coincides with Model A ESE. I don't see how this couldn't be generally expanded.

So, in other words, "wait for me to drag Brill over, again".

My "three clocks" model won't help here - in fact it will probably confuse the matter further, because I swap parts of the ego functions for Betas and I haven't settled yet how this should manifest.

Given that you know club and quadra, I suggest watching the superid - whichever element they use of their own accord is their HA. Model X confuses this slightly, but not seriously.

[JuJu]

My "three clocks" model won't help here - in fact it will probably confuse the matter further, because I swap parts of the ego functions for Betas and I haven't settled yet how this should manifest.

Given that you know club and quadra, I suggest watching the superid - whichever element they use of their own accord is their HA. Model X confuses this slightly, but not seriously.

Could you try to apply this to the examples posted??

It could help everyone to learn.

[Sirena]

A socionics module (it's useless if you consider it to be completely separate, imo) that considers there are 32 types (the 16 types with two subtypes each), each with only their four valued quadra elements.

EDIT

And I can't remember what the attributes were of each of the four functions. Sorry :x

You're ESE now? I'm having a hard time keeping up with you.

@juju: This is a VERY interesting topic and one I've thought about before. I have the same questions as you so it will be interesting to see what kind of feedback you'll get. Hopefully other people will be interested in contributing!

I think you and I are good examples of this. We've gone through a similar process for finding our types and it sounds like we've been confused about similar things.

[JuJu]

I'll tell you, Sirena, I think that the biggest problem, at this moment, with the English speaking Socionics community, is this little problem...

If people can't get their type right, then the whole Socionics exercise is pretty moot, you know.

I'm not sure anyone has a really good way of solving it... Except, you know, analyzing Supervison.

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm hoping someone has some ideas.

To cite an example that comes to mind, Gilly has gone back and forth between the beta NF types... I have, you have. That's three of hundreds though--many people on this forum have gone back and forth...

It's probably the biggest problem with Socionics, when it comes down to it.

[Ezra]

This was an interesting thread until model X made an appearance.

[Creepy-male]

I'll tell you, Sirena, I think that the biggest problem, at this moment, with the English speaking Socionics community, is this little problem...

If people can't get their type right, then the whole Socionics exercise is pretty moot, you know.

I'm not sure anyone has a really good way of solving it... Except, you know, analyzing Supervison.

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm hoping someone has some ideas.

Well, the problem is, nobody actually wants to discuss typing methods, because that might destabilize their own typing. Something which they might have invested far too much into.

There's also lots of different agendas. The fact that there are 50 billion Yieldings on this forum (and that they significantly outnumber the Obstinates) means that whichever theory gets yelled the loudest and longest wins out, without critically analyzing it. I discussed this with Brill, and he drew the conclusion that Yieldings prefer "strong" logic to "detailed" logic.

[JuJu]

There are a few of us--you apparently included--who would enjoy dissecting this stuff... Who aren't here to just jerk off or live a slow death considering little paragraphs of nothing... (I like jerking off and thinking of nothing, but, you know, ad nauseum like sometimes on this forum--it gets old quickly.)

Does anyone have any experience trying to tell apart these nebulous cases? examples above

Use the examples if you'd like... Hell, it'd tickle me if you did.

[unefille]

For me, it's actually really really clear that Timberlake is IEI and Lennon EIE. Watch how Timbelake sits, how he moves: there's a smoothness, almost a sense of consideration in his movements. He's still for the greater part and when he moves, he's making a 'large' gesture, something used for emphasis or to draw attention or to make an effect. On the other hand, Lennon's movements are almost compulsive. He's *twitchy* (oh god, as am I), not in this fidgety, nervy-ness way, but on a micro-level, he doesn't stop moving -- he can't seem to find physical equilibrium. Even when he's not 'making movements or gestures', his fingers are still moving up and down, his head is constantly changing its tilt. If exaggerated, it would be jerky and awkward, but it takes places on a more micro level and at the level of his whole frame, he doesn't move too much there, which is what gives the more 'sluggish' vibe, but even his stillness (when he is still) feels tense and unnatural -- the difference between a body being at rest and a body being held tightly so as to prevent it from moving. Both aren't moving, both are still -- but the difference in their states is palpable.

[Sirena]

For me, it's actually really really clear that Timberlake is IEI and Lennon EIE. Watch how Timbelake sits, how he moves: there's a smoothness, almost a sense of consideration in his movements. He's still for the greater part and when he moves, he's making a 'large' gesture, something used for emphasis or to draw attention or to make an effect. On the other hand, Lennon's movements are almost compulsive. He's *twitchy* (oh god, as am I), not in this fidgety, nervy-ness way, but on a micro-level, he doesn't stop moving -- he can't seem to find physical equilibrium. Even when he's not 'making movements or gestures', his fingers are still moving up and down, his head is constantly changing its tilt. If exaggerated, it would be jerky and awkward, but it takes places on a more micro level and at the level of his whole frame, he doesn't move too much there, which is what gives the more 'sluggish' vibe, but even his stillness (when he is still) feels tense and unnatural -- the difference between a body being at rest and a body being held tightly so as to prevent it from moving. Both aren't moving, both are still -- but the difference in their states is palpable.

I actually see what you mean.

[ArchonAlarion]

This was an interesting thread until model X made an appearance.

... and then it became super-interesting

[idolatrie]

Come on, people, I'm trying to get a discussion going about the harder parts of Socionics here...

Here are the beta STs

Lou Reed -- Se-LSI
YouTube - Lou Reed - Interview

Dave Matthews -- Ti-ESTp
YouTube - Dave Matthews interview

I think Lou Reed and Dave Matthews hold themselves very differently in these vids. DM seems to lead with his energy, almost like he's leaping forward from his body. He holds himself quite loosely, his movements seem erratic but very organic (scratching his face). LR holds himself very tightly, even when he leans forward he's holding something back. You as the viewer are drawn to him, as opposed to DM seeming to be drawn to you. LR's movements are deliberate and firm (the fist to emphasise his point).

I think SLEs seems to come forward and challenge you, get in your face and say 'do you think you can take me on?' but LSIs seem to sit back and let you fall into the trap of bringing the challenge to them.

I think EIEs and IEIs are more easily confused than SLEs and LSIs.

[unefille]

I think EIEs and IEIs are more easily confused than SLEs and LSIs.

For you. Other way around for me (as my optimistic crushing on a recent SLE reveals lol). Which I'm sure you meant to say, though -- that Beta STs are more likely to recognise between their identical and mirror and vice-versa for Beta NFs.

[idolatrie]

For you. Other way around for me (as my optimistic crushing on a recent SLE reveals lol). Which I'm sure you meant to say, though -- that Beta STs are more likely to recognise between their identical and mirror and vice-versa for Beta NFs.

yeah.

[munenori2]

... and then it became super-interesting

... and then I JIZZED IN MY PANTS!



^.^

[JuJu]

Unefille and Idolatrie: excellent points!

I hadn't noticed their rigidity/looseness; only general bearings.

Now that I watch the interviews again, in light of what you've both written, yes, you're absolutely right... It's discernible.

I'm wondering: where's the cut-off point between types..? For example, if Dave Matthews was slightly more rigid, would he be LSI..?

It's like Unefille said... There are these border cases floating around, which are really tough to discern... Yesterday I was spotting this dude at the gym--and like unefille, with the SLE she mistook as LSI--I could not tell his type... He was more rigid than Matthews, but not as sturdy as Reed.

He had that mistrustful glare I associate with these border beta ST cases... (The NF border cases often have a very optimistic look in their eyes... I don't know if that describes it well, but that's how I perceive it.)

[Gilly]

LOL I love that interview with Lou Reed! Man, that part at the end where he sings the line from the Sinatra song about cocaine, comparing it to the VU's song about heroin...so great. "Haha, very funny, ok. This was...babum." So great. I keep watching that one part over and over...

I think I will have to refine my ideas about LSIs having seen this. He makes sense as an LSI, but he doesn't fit my typical picture. I have been thinking lately that I have a good general picture of the spectrum of Ti-LSIs, but not so much Se-LSIs, and have been thinking about a few people who I have a hard time typing that might fit best as LSIs.

/me goes out to spot Se-LSIs today

[JuJu]

I think I will have to refine my ideas about LSIs having seen this. He makes sense as an LSI, but he doesn't fit my typical picture. I have been thinking lately that I have a good general picture of the spectrum of Ti-LSIs, but not so much Se-LSIs, and have been thinking about a few people who I have a hard time typing that might fit best as LSIs.

Here are a couple of Se-LSIs that are even harder to type than Reed:

Eddie Van Halen:


Kevin Garnett:


With Beta creative subtypes, there are a lot of close calls like this... Hopefully, the more we discuss it, the more obvious each subtypes' features will become.

[JuJu]

Here's a nebulous Fe-INFp... Thanks to my good friend Nick, (strrrng,) for this typing:

Tupac Shakur:

[Sirena]

I loved Garnett! Seeing/hearing him made me feel good inside. I wanted to be closer and be part of his experience.

Ok, the inspirational background music might've had something to do with it! lol

[Sirena]

I liked the Tupac interview. He reminds me of a bunny every time I see him wearing that bandana on his head. lol.

P.S. Another totally unhelpful post from me :redface:

[Ezra]

Yeah, I s'pose I better throw in my two pence since I said it would've been an interesting thread.

I know what you mean, and I don't think it's only these types that are difficult to differentiate between. I for one (I set up a thread on this a short while ago) have trouble telling the difference between an EIE and an SLE (just by observation, obviously). While I'm not so sure Beta Introverts are hard to tell between, or duals, I find SLE-EIE and the two you mentioned are the ones I'm most concerned with.

I basically use the temperaments to decide between mirrors. I sometimes think I'm LSI, but then I realise not only that I prefer IEIs as much as I fucking love EIEs, but also that there are elements about the SLE that just don't fit with the LSI. Besides the IJ thing, SLEs also have more of an irrational (in the true meaning of the word), impulsive air about them. While they may not, in comparison with some of the rest of the socion, look/seem or even be particularly impulsive or irrational, they are certainly more so than LSIs. LSIs are far more methodical, systematic and careful in both thought and deed. They are more difficult to change - while all Beta STs are stable, grounded and confident, LSIs go that little bit more. An LSI is like an oak - totally fucking solid and unmoveable, an SLE like a willow (especially like the one from Harry Potter) - still grounded, but somewhat aggressive when it comes down to it. With an SLE, you'll generally sense more of a kind "FUCKING YEAH MAN WAHEYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!" quality to many of them (especially Se subtypes). With LSIs, there is none of this. Compare someone like Joe Pesci in Casino or Goodfellas (or if you haven't seen those films, any of his films, really) - SLE, probably Se subtype - with Denzel Washington in American Gangster - LSI, probably Se subtype as well.

Hope that helps. I don't feel I know enough about EIEs and IEIs to give any decent distinctions between them.

There are a few of us--you apparently included--who would enjoy dissecting this stuff... Who aren't here to just jerk off or live a slow death considering little paragraphs of nothing... (I like jerking off and thinking of nothing, but, you know, ad nauseum like sometimes on this forum--it gets old quickly.)

+1

... and then it became super-interesting

No it didn't.

[idolatrie]

I'm wondering: where's the cut-off point between types..? For example, if Dave Matthews was slightly more rigid, would he be LSI..?

No, I wouldn't think so. As in, it is not how rigidly a person holds themselves that for me differentiates between SLE and LSI. If DM held himself more rigidly, sat up instead of leaning forwards, his energy would still be pushing forwards, you know? I think SLEs have a looseness, a 'largeness' if you will about their expressions and gestures. Their energy expands to fill the space around them. They express their emotions through the wideness of their smile (amused, entertained), the sprawl of their body (comfortable, at ease), an arm slung around someone's shoulders ('you're mine').

LSIs on the other hand express their energy in a far more contained way. They occupy or 'own' the space they are in without spreading further than the limits of their body. Gestures are more deliberate, more controlled. Instead of a wide grin, they'll show their amusement with a raised eyebrow, a half-smirk and some kind of amused expression in their eyes. A hand on your forearm says 'I want to touch you'. Rather than enveloping you with their presence, they invite you to come to them.

Actually, I'll send you a pic of two friends of mine who I think are LSI and SLE which I think shows some of the differences.

And also YES THIS @ everything Ezra said above.

[Banana Pancakes]

what Ezra said is pretty good, just see if the Beta St is more Nicky Santoro or Frank Lucas (Tony Montana is a good one for LSI as well).

LSIs seem much more methodical and preplanned, whereas
SLEs can act more on the spur of the moment, in response to the environment

[Ezra]

(Tony Montana is a good one for LSI as well).

Really? I would've said he was an SLE.

LSIs seem much more methodical and preplanned, whereas
SLEs can act more on the spur of the moment, in response to the environment

Hmmm, I'm not sure.

I think SLEs such as myself are relatively methodical. Remember, we are Ti creative.

[Simon Ssmall]

I doubt you plan so freaking much in the future as LSI's do. Heck the one I dated, would plan every single detail of a trip which would be 6 months later. For me its the opposite of spontanity multiplied by ten.

[Banana Pancakes]

I think SLEs such as myself are relatively methodical. Remember, we are Ti creative.

but do you appear that way externally?

I'm sure LSIs think they're very spur of the moment too

[JuJu]

I'm sure LSIs think they're very spur of the moment too

This notion that LSIs aren't 'spur of the moment' is erroneous... They can be adventurous and up for anything, like all types.

Did you watch that Eddie Van Halen interview? A non-rigid LSI.

Idolatrie's notion of 'drawing one in' (LSIs) versus being more expansive (SLEs) is right on.

[Ezra]

No, I wouldn't think so. As in, it is not how rigidly a person holds themselves that for me differentiates between SLE and LSI. If DM held himself more rigidly, sat up instead of leaning forwards, his energy would still be pushing forwards, you know? I think SLEs have a looseness, a 'largeness' if you will about their expressions and gestures. Their energy expands to fill the space around them. They express their emotions through the wideness of their smile (amused, entertained), the sprawl of their body (comfortable, at ease), an arm slung around someone's shoulders ('you're mine').

LSIs on the other hand express their energy in a far more contained way. They occupy or 'own' the space they are in without spreading further than the limits of their body. Gestures are more deliberate, more controlled. Instead of a wide grin, they'll show their amusement with a raised eyebrow, a half-smirk and some kind of amused expression in their eyes. A hand on your forearm says 'I want to touch you'. Rather than enveloping you with their presence, they invite you to come to them.

+1000. That description of the SLE rings so true for me.

Oh yeah, another good LSI example is Robert De Niro in Casino, alongside the SLE Pesci (both in real life and in his character).

but do you appear that way externally?

To some, yes. To others, no. I change.

I'm sure LSIs think they're very spur of the moment too

What do you deem to be "spur of the moment"? And why don't we ask them now?

This notion that LSIs aren't 'spur of the moment' is erroneous... They can be adventurous and up for anything, like all types.

Do you equate these two things with "spur of the moment"? I think it's perfectly plausible for someone to be both adventurous and "up for anything" without doing things spur of the moment?

[lefty]

dude what the hell is up with all of your avatars?

[Sirena]

dude what the hell is up with all of your avatars?

lol http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...-retarded.html (click on link)