Wikisocion ESTj profile

[UDP]

Logical sensing extrovert - Wikisocion

Holy free holy, this is the best profile on LSEs that I've ever seen.
PS: (who revised it? It says "admin", but does that mean Rick did all of that?)

[Smilingeyes]

Logical sensing extrovert - Wikisocion

Holy free holy, this is the best profile on LSEs that I've ever seen.
PS: (who revised it? It says "admin", but does that mean Rick did all of that?)

Hmm... The substance is mostly correct, thought the connecting of attributes to functions is wrong in many places. Also while it's mostly correct it's still only the same old, same old that one could get from any other description. It's not utter rubbish certainly, but IMO it's just mediocre. Fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote it has no real understanding and is only repeating by rote. But yes, if you discount the crappy function-attribute connections it's a decent initiation to recognizing, if not understanding the ESTj. I would give quite a few plusses to the description for including many very distinctive concrete habits us ESTjs have though. Omitting them or being incorrect when describing such is quite common in other descriptions. So yeah, I guess it has its good points though it could be substantially improved. Hmm... I appear to be slightly impressed.

Meanwhile the LSE domain - view of other types thingy is completely asinine, useless and wrong.

And the LSE observations thing is...well... it's not complete crap but it's worse than the main description.

[UDP]

"Fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote it has no real understanding and is only repeating by rote."

I can't tell how much someone knows or does not know by that one bit of writing (largely because I don't know what their aim was); for a brief functional breakdown, I think it's good. I don't see it as ground breaking, just sort of organized and direct. (see my last paragraph here).

About the habits thing - I don't know about habits, because they may be common, but they have to be worded just right and then explained upon as to why they are the habit of a type.

Would you care to say what some of those habits might be?

As far as a very clear, short, and insightful profile, I like that one. It is not complete - I saw it in relation to the other profiles on that page. But it is something, imo, that addresses some core things directly.



PS: I said best I've ever seen because when I saw it it "hit me" harder than any of the other profiles. Perhaps it's because I have seen the other, more wordy and lengthy profiles - which do a good job of painting the picture. I think this is a good profile for sort of review or non-initial levels of understanding. For example, I wouldn't show this to a friend who doesn't know me and say - yeah that's me. But I do find it very useful to show someone who knows me better and they can easily see how it fits - particularly the Fi description and Fi+Ne block.

The profile, yes, is limited in in depth explanation, though. So perhaps it is not "the best", but, "a very good addition" to other profiles.

[Smilingeyes]

"Fairly obvious to me that whoever wrote it has no real understanding and is only repeating by rote."

I can't tell how much someone knows or does not know by that one bit of writing (largely because I don't know what their aim was);

Well, you could write this by reading a few other descriptions and editing out some of the nonsensical bits. This description doesn't contain anything that is a substantial addition to what is generally known. The absence of improvement on what is commonplace to write about the type is in my opinion indicative of that the person has no little or no actual personal understanding and is incapable of making personal contribution on the subject.

for a brief functional breakdown, I think it's good.

Ok. It's not. Several attributes are coded wrong.

I don't see it as ground breaking, just sort of organized and direct. (see my last paragraph here).

Yeah, I agree. I even went as far as to say that I was impressed by it.

About the habits thing - I don't know about habits, because they may be common, but they have to be worded just right and then explained upon as to why they are the habit of a type.

I agree.

As far as a very clear, short, and insightful profile, I like that one. It is not complete - I saw it in relation to the other profiles on that page. But it is something, imo, that addresses some core things directly.

Fair enough. And yes, I agree, it has its good points. And given that there are many descriptions that have no good points at all, I guess I can venture to say that it's not quite mediocre, but maybe even better than average, though the average level is so low it's not particularly hard to be better than average.

....


EDIT:

In particular, the following chapters are wrongly attributed:

"LSEs are sensitive to the productivity, quality, and effectiveness of everything around them. These are topics that they discuss frequently and have strong opinions about. They tend to freely comment on that which is pointless, poorly done, bound to fail, and all manifestations of unprofessionalism, as well as offer numerous tips and pointers for how these things can be improved."

That's Si ... AND Ni.

....


Starting Si with "The comfort and convenience of things and living space is very important to LSEs. "

Is so wrong and stupid it makes cringe. Functionality! Functionality is the word. Convenience isn't a bad word, but comfort is. It's just a misfit stereotype along the lines of Ni = time. It doesn't work in this instance.

The next sentence has wrong priorities:" Living spaces need to be conducive to rest, work, or recreation."

work, recreation, rest (if Te type). Recreation, work/rest (if Si type). Again the idiotic stereotype that Si = rest. Madness. Madness.

"With Fe blocked with Ni, LSEs are generally dismissal of lofty rhetoric and hype, or visions of the future that are not securely based on facts. Their own emotional expression and personal vision tends to be simplistic and clearly secondary to their more important, practical activities."

Just a generally stupid attribution since the whole blocking thing is tripe.

"LSEs generally avoid talking about things that might or might not happen that don't depend on them, though they may think about these things to themselves. Discussions about what might or might not happen that are not based on provable facts distress them. Speculation not steeped in reality is a waste of time.

LSEs They prefer to believe that change depends on our actions and choices rather than on external events over which we have no control.

LSEs tend to have an unchanging habit of either being chronically late or chronically early. They rarely know or think about how long things will take, and their estimates are often way off. They are often surprised by the amount of time that has passed between events, and wonder where the time has gone. LSEs tend to want everything done as well as possible and to the highest possible quality, often failing to consider the amount of time necessary to do the job in such a way.

When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears. In talking about their goals for the future, LSEs often leave out intermediate steps, leading others to consider them naive. In LSEs' opinion, the important thing is to express a clear goal; the step-by-step process of getting there is less important.

LSEs get irritated by people who take forever to do things, or who slow down the overall pace of work for no good reason. If someone appears to be doing nothing, the LSE will assume that nothing beneficial is taking place. "

All of this is related to Te rather than Ni.

"LSEs have a great reverence for good will, moral support, reliability, traditions, and stability in relationships. Yet they are unable to generate these things on their own as they focus on rational activity, comfort, and efficiency. They have a deep need for someone to help them express and make sense of their feelings towards things on a very regular basis.

LSEs approach relationships on their own terms, typically taking on the initiative to get to know the other person. What they are looking for — moral support and stability — they are dependent on other people to provide. LSEs' approach to dating typically follows traditional gender roles, as they feel uncertain when being too creative in initiating relationships."

Ni and Te influence rather than Fi.

"LSEs are typically unsure of their personal feelings about people and relationships, as well as unsure of their right to harbor personal sentiments in the first place. They need someone they can trust to recognize and substantiate their feelings from a psychological or spiritual standpoint. This helps them learn over time to recognize and trust their feelings more. "

Not Fi. It's Fe-related.

"LSEs often have a hard time discerning the true nature of people and their intentions towards the LSE. This can lead to the LSE being "unapproachable" in some aspects, or particularly wary or suspicious of others. To overcome their doubts, they need very clear demonstrations of good will and friendship. "

Te-related.

"Although LSEs may be social and have many acquaintances, particularly through work or leisure activities, they are cautious about building closer friendships. They tend to build relationships by doing activities together or doing useful services for people, unconsciously expecting the other person to initiate emotional intimacy in return.

LSEs revere their emotional intimate friendships and can go to great lengths to make sure that the needs of these close friends or partners are met, in hopes that people will reward these efforts with a stable relationship and emotional security. "

Si-related.

"LSEs generally believe they have talent and are exceptional in some way, but they need others to confirm this and point out what exactly distinguishes them from other people. This understanding can help the LSE focus his activities in the areas where he has the greatest advantage and probability of success. "

Si-related. Not Ne.

"LSEs are interested in all innovations and new opportunities that relate to their line of work and can given them advantage and benefit. They are quick to jump on new opportunities if they see immediate practical application to their own work.

LSEs themselves are typically innovative and inventive in practical matters ( + inventiveness), but much less so in their worldviews, which tend to change only slightly over time. "

Si-related. Not Ne.

"Knowing about general trends and the latest developments provides LSEs with the assurance that they are not falling behind the times, but they largely rely on other people to provide them with this information rather than actively seeking it out themselves. "

Ni-related. Not Ne. Even with the idiotic simplistic stereotype terminology the author chooses to propone "trend" is a Ni thing, not a Ne thing.

"LSE often hold deep convictions about what a perfect world should look like. More often than not, they have no clue as to what changes would have to occur to bring about that world about. "

Te-related.


"With blocked with , LSEs feel fairly confident dealing with power structures and organizational hierarchies, but much prefer to live and work in an environment where responsibility is shared, individuality is fostered, and people are pretty much free to do what seems prudent to them personally. "

More of the blocking superstition crap. Pure idiocy.

"LSEs may become interested in abstract concepts and don't generally have difficulty understanding them, but they are almost always more interested in the practical application. If a concept or idea has none, it is worthless. LSEs are more focused on what works in real life than on what seems to fit together logically. "

Te+Si, not Ti.

"LSEs prefer to maintain a steady rhythm and energy output, avoiding projects that require a great deal of energy for a short period of time, or courses of action that are clearly ridden with obstacles. "

This is the one part of the description that is just flat out wrong, untrue.

"They try not to be too forceful, controlling, or demanding and try to avoid coming across this way. They may, however, show brief flashes of protectiveness and confrontation if they have been attacked in any way. "

Ni-related. Not Se.

"LSEs have a clear awareness of how they look to those around them. They craft their appearance and their belongings to create an impression that is welcoming and approachable rather than eye-catching or status-oriented. "

Si-related, not Se.

[UDP]

Meanwhile the LSE domain - view of other types thingy is completely asinine, useless and wrong.

And the LSE observations thing is...well... it's not complete crap but it's worse than the main description.

Yeah....

Well the LSE domain thing is apparently one LSE's view on other types. It's not meant to be 'right or wrong', just someone's opinion of things. I don't particularly agree with such opinions. I might write my own take on the other types, more so because I've done such here enough times already.



LSE observation just seems .... like an observation about one person. Nothing amazing but whatever.

[Smilingeyes]

Yeah....

Well the LSE domain thing is apparently one LSE's view on other types. It's not meant to be 'right or wrong', just someone's opinion of things. I don't particularly agree with such opinions. I might write my own take on the other types, more so because I've done such here enough times already.

Please do. It's bound to be better than this one. There's just ... psssh... I mean, this person thinks that ESTjs are less humour-loving than ISTps? For chrissakes. He has no clue how types behave and what's typical of what type so all the opinions are wrong because they're related to wrong stereotypes.

LSE observation just seems .... like an observation about one person. Nothing amazing but whatever.

I agree.

EDIT:
Regarding your P.S. I got that. Though I guess it's nice to clarify for people who don't share our viewpoint. And I agree with what you say there completely.

[krieger]

"With Fe blocked with Ni, LSEs are generally dismissal of lofty rhetoric and hype, or visions of the future that are not securely based on facts. Their own emotional expression and personal vision tends to be simplistic and clearly secondary to their more important, practical activities."

Just a generally stupid attribution since the whole blocking thing is tripe.

I don't see how this is wrong if we take the above to be a correct representation of the behavioral characteristics of Beta NFs. Do you dispute that ESTjs get along badly with INFps and ENFjs? The function blocking approach really doesn't say anything more or less than that ESTjs get along badly with these two types for very similar reasons.

If a paragraph on an ESTjs relations with the types INTp and ENTj was omitted, then that would be the main problem of overstating the "blockedness" of the ESTj's weak functions.

[duality is cringe]

I don't think we talk about LSEs enough in this subforum.

Thanks everyone.

[Smilingeyes]

I don't see how this is wrong if we take the above to be a correct representation of the behavioral characteristics of Beta NFs. Do you dispute that ESTjs get along badly with INFps and ENFjs? The function blocking approach really doesn't say anything more or less than that ESTjs get along badly with these two types for very similar reasons.

If a paragraph on an ESTjs relations with the types INTp and ENTj was omitted, then that would be the main problem of overstating the "blockedness" of the ESTj's weak functions.

I'm just disputing the model A concept of X blocked with Y. It's one of the lynchpins that holds this moronic model together and I feel unable to rest while I'm around model A idiocy.

As for the INFps in my environment, I don't usually clash with them, they're pretty easy to handle in most situations. As for the ESTjs as a group, I don't really have statistical data on that. Socionical understanding helps me to hang with them better. ( I just go ENTj and supervise the fuck out of them). (The same method works to a great extent for ENFjs though it requires more emphasis.)

Anyway, the same quality could be given without the block-tripe and an addendum could be made that said "This naturally creates difficulty in empathizing with people who like this [the aforementioned motivations]."

[munenori2]

Thanks, guys! This was really helpful!

[Minde]

Thanks, guys! This was really helpful!

Is that sarcastic?

[Park]

Is that sarcastic?

I don't think so.

[munenori2]

It really did clear things up for me.

[Park]

It really did clear things up for me.

Ok, now GTFO of Delta. Go find some ENTp's to play with.

[Minde]

It really did clear things up for me.

Ah. Well, that's good.


...Like what, if you don't mind me asking?

[xerx]

Just a generally stupid attribution since the whole blocking thing is tripe.

"LSEs are sensitive to the productivity, quality, and effectiveness of everything around them. These are topics that they discuss frequently and have strong opinions about. They tend to freely comment on that which is pointless, poorly done, bound to fail, and all manifestations of unprofessionalism, as well as offer numerous tips and pointers for how these things can be improved."

That's Si ... AND Ni.

Not to sound like a smart-ass, but isn't that closer to Ni+Te and the exact opposite of Ni+Fe?

Even Lytov mentioned that Beta NFs don't really care about methods if it means advancing their ideology. Even if this turned out to be a spurious generalization, it's hardly a bad suggestion that Beta NFs are rarely concerned with methods in the same way as an LIE or an ILI.

Though it is true that quite a few EIEs I've encountered can be extremely keen about appearing a certain way, and can have an aristocratic (or bitchy; depends on the person) attitude towards people who don't display similar or better social sensibilities. Either way, Fe social norms are as hardly set in stone as an LSE's knowledge about productivity.

[Smilingeyes]

[quote=jxrtes]Not to sound like a smart-ass, but isn't that closer to Ni+Te and the exact opposite of Ni+Fe?

Not really. Ni+Fe people just use somewhat different criteria. Also they're not interested in their OWN productiveness and quality of work as much as they are interested in those attributes in people they hang out with. It's more of a "is that person strong and capable" thing, but it's still a measure of effectiveness. The real point of the issue is that what was suggested originally was clearly a perceiving quality. Te nor Fe don't really pause to wonder about the quality of something, they just push on.

Even Lytov mentioned that Beta NFs don't really care about methods if it means advancing their ideology.

Exactly my point. The object perceived has to have some capability to advance their ideology. If the object is a loser, useless, weak thing... no interest.

Even if this turned out to be a spurious generalization, it's hardly a bad suggestion that Beta NFs are rarely concerned with methods in the same way as an LIE or an ILI.

You hit the nail on the head. NOT IN THE SAME WAY but in another way.

Though it is true that quite a few EIEs I've encountered can be extremely keen about appearing a certain way, and can have an aristocratic (or bitchy; depends on the person) attitude towards people who don't display similar or better social sensibilities. Either way, Fe social norms are as hardly set in stone as an LSE's knowledge about productivity.

Certainly, though I'm not sure what this has to do with the original concept anymore.

....


EDIT:

@Ryu:

What I do with INFps and ENTjs. I act superficially happy, joking, as if I was in command of the situation and as if I had no worries in the world. I say something lighthearted, give them a high five and walk away. It keeps them more or less happy and makes them not see me as a threat, just someone who doesn't interest them that much. It seems to work quite ok.

....

Why I don't like model A? I don't like any attempt at deluding people. Why this one? While for most silly assumptions in socionics the general trend is that people seem to have sort of congregated on the right side of things, there are some of which people are not so assuredly on the right track. Of those cases in which people are NOT on the right track some are such that they have already formed such a strong collective opinion that I don't see that there's much anything that can be done to correct the situation. I don't see any point in making noise in regard of those cases. Then there are other situations in which people seem to make bad choices but in which it doesn't really matter that much. Again there is no point in making noise in those cases. But there are a few cases in which I don't see that there's a clear cut majority on behalf of some issue. I regard such instances as an opportunity to actually do something, and while it is not a personal opportunity in the sense that I would actually gain something, I regard it as a social obligation to at least make an attempt to do something, even if that attempt may ultimately be in vain.

And so regarding model A. For most forum participants it is NOT a lynchpin of their understanding of socionics, and they are smart or lucky people in making that choice, yet there are some for whom it IS. And what is the importance of this? Model A is conceptually the main reason why some people have difficulty understanding the changes of personality that occur. It is a supremely artificial and useless way to look at things and it binds one's perceptions to a wrong way of thinking. It is substantially harmful for everyone, (unlike for example these LSE, IEE, IEI names which are harmful and useless but to a far lesser extent).

Anyway, it is not that I dislike model A so much. I am quite personally indifferent to it, as I have little stake this way or that. To me it is just one more con in a world filled with con men and fakery and in that sense no more of a blight than your average tv commercial. But it is a blight nevertheless and since no one else seems to be doing anything about it I guess it falls on me to say something about the issue. It is not that I dislike model A so much, rather I think it ought to be disliked and it is in my nature to do things that I believe ought to be done.