Actions must be subordinated to a predefined system!
ISTj: actions must be subordinated to a predefined system!
Actions must be subordinated to a predefined system!
I will fight your notions of absolutes and vision with my belief in individual potential and the right to pursue one's own path in life!
And I will fight your notions of individuality and personal goals with my belief in the importance of external demands and what affects us as a whole rather than individually! *kicks LSI your way*Originally Posted by Coolanzon
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
And I will fight all of your notions of anything with a nihilistic viewpoint that its all really nothing, even what I am saying here is nothing!
lol good stuff
ISTj is the type of which the view of people on this forum is the most skewed. It is the type that gets the worst treatment where negative stereotypes are concerned.
One stereotype about ISTjs that I think is baseless, is the claim that they are inflexible. I find ISTjs generally to be more socially and mentally flexible than most Te types. ISTj isn't really a harsh or difficult to get along with type. They're a little rough in their behavior, that is all.
Examples of what I think are typical ISTjs:
Phil Mc. Graw
Phil McGraw - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Terry Gene Bollea (Hulk Hogan)
Hulk Hogan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Paul Teutul Senior (American Chopper)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Teutul,_Sr.
Peter R. de Vries
peter r de vries - Google Afbeeldingen
Gordon Ramsey is an example of what an ISTj is NOT. He is an ExTj.
The main thing that I look for when identifying ISTjs is an attitude balanced between "we can do it!" and "let's keep it calm folks". It's really one of the few types in the socion that strikes a balance between happy and subdued traits. This makes their attitude almost unique and very easy to identify.
Most of the LSIs I know are popular and well liked. And I'd always try to be friends with them too, and it never worked. Now, I am friendly but keep a bit of distance because I can see when I am irritating them. But they are generally pretty friendly and charming, IME. They do want things done in very specific ways. When I get into trouble with LSIs is when we have to do any kind of project together. It is often not too bad until something like that comes up.
Catherine Zeta Jones (Yes!)
Richard Dreyfus
Mark Wahlberg
I'll try to think of more.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Uh-huh. You'd expect to see an angry, strict guy when you watch Dr. Phil, but instead you see someone who's got things under control, is not afraid of being categorical (without getting angry), and seems to have a bit of trouble expressing himself fully.
Binary or dichotomous systems, although regulated by a principle, are among the most artificial arrangements that have ever been invented. -- William Swainson, A Treatise on the Geography and Classification of Animals (1835)
Dr Phil is hilarious.
omg that efg picture made me lmao.
The end is nigh
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU--
stop making my day!
The end is nigh
Just for the record, according to threads on this forum:
Paul Teutul Sr = ESTj (but I can see how ISTj would work)
Gordon Ramsey = ENFj
Though to get on topic, it's true that ISTj's can be really cool people. My best friend is ISTj-Ti and I've never got troubles with him. But the Se subtypes can be stubborn and conflict seeking when it comes to how things should be done, and that makes them unpopular IME.
btw, have you got an idea which subtype dr phil is? I'm curious...
There is this one LSI who is among the circle of moms I hang out with. We all were getting together at the library once a week, and she and I were two of the only one who went from our group really regularly. And our kids played together, and would play with all the other kids at the library, and there were always lots of other kids.
So there were a few times I was unable to go. Once, she asked me if I would be there the following week, and I said, "I plan to."
She apparently interpreted that as that I would absolutely go. But I wasn't able to, and then a few days later I heard her say to a friend that she wasn't going to go to the library anymore because, "It is difficult to plan adequately when people say they will be there and don't show up." Or something to that effect.
Anyway, she's very popular in this group and everyone loves her. She can be very kind and all that, but MAN does she have some firm expectations. Don't be late, if you're bringing fruit for a snack to share it had better be organic, etc.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
lmao Dr. Phil is a douchebag. He's entertaining though, I'll give him that.
Yeah, when I'm not 100 percent on something, I make a point to tell my ISTj friend very clearly that's it's still unsure -- where as w/ others I might say something like "sure, I'll try to make it (which could really mean anything).
This happened last week where she invited me to some events, but I wasn't sure if I could finish my work in time. So I said that by 4pm I'd text her w/ whether I could go. Worked perfectly as it didn't piss her off and also gave me the room to see what ended up happening.
I guess, it comes down to giving them as much room to be planned out as I like to have to be undecided. You can actually plan out your periods of undecided time like in the above example and it really seems to work well.
But I also don't see my ISTjs friends a whole lot, and usually it's more of a quick social type event. So that seems to work well. Though I do feel judged by them sometimes, it's at least easy to anticipate exactly how we will clash, where as w/ ENFjs I'm in the dark about whatever drama between us is lurking and about to happen! (scary)
Hi! I'm an ENFP. :-)
These are nearly exact quotations of the LSI's that I know!
Dr. Phil is a fucking twat, a walking pile of steaming shit. He does not know the meaning of the word ethics.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Good stuff, but what about the idea that actions must be subordinated to a predefined system..... is that true of LSI? I mean if it is, I don't think thats a horrible thing.
I think most of the negativity concerning this is that people fear the LSI will want to make them subordinated their actions to a predefined system. Whereas I think the LSI is more concerned with just subordinating their own actions. I don't think they generally like to take up the role of telling others how to behave, they just care about being dependable and structured. I think possibly the LSE may better fit the role for telling others what they should or shouldn't be doing.
In some situations though I think the LSI would tell others what to do.... and that would be when they feel linked to another person... like a coworker they are working with or a friend or member of their family, then since the other person's actions effect them they would wish to have their action subordinated to a system for structure and predictability. In other words the LSI doesn't tell people what to do for power, they do it because they need to feel their is a system, some order, or a plan to feel unanxious about how things are going to end up.
As far as strangers go, I think LSI's don't exert themselves to tell them how to live their lifes.... I think the LSI more looks at their unorderly life style with confusion, like "how do they expect to get through life without some structure?"
Would you say that the interrogater from this is an LSI?
Its from the movie "The lives of others"
The Lives of Others - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
No, just a Nazi.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
I agree. ISTjs are quite flexible, adaptable, and rather non-stubborn in situations, despite being an overall thoughtful, meticulous, and perfectionistic creature. INTjs don't hold up to this specific level of care towards flexibility. Hospitality can tend to wear off at limits, such as when requiring daily reserve and personal space.
I don't really think ISTjs have like a "system." They have specific ways of doing things, that are defined by common sense and individualism, but I don't see an organized system with rules and codes being used to implement these natural tendencies. There is no real strongly objective management factor. They very much depend on their Se to determine what is going to work in the moment, which is a part of their adaptability and acquiescence. The reasoning could be different later. Sure they like to have guidelines and values to make them look responsible, but these are mainly fake, just for show, just to get people's attention so they treat them seriously.
Huh? Are we talking about the same LSIs?
Introverted logic - Wikisocion
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
Just some random thoughts on ISTjs. This is how I see them. If my impression of them is incorrect labcoat will hopefully correct me.
ISTjs operate based on certain certainty of how things work. Call it a system if you want. Now this doesn't have to mean that things really work that way, it's just that they perceive it to be so, they perceive it as a certainty. When you perceive something as certain that generally gives you a power to act on that "certainty" because what is certain cannot fail, you cannot be deceived, it's how things are, "i'm telling it how it is".
From this source stems the confidence which is the trademark of ISTjs. Upon encountering a random situation they revisit their "system" of how things work and then act based on their system. The action is motivated with a "payoff". This is generally true for every homo sapiens - you act to get something, payoff that is(another Dr. Phil phrase). Now what is interesting regarding ISTjs is that they generally don't want megalomaniac payoffs(as opposed to some other types). It's more like demonstration of power for the sake of it. I can do this so I might as well do it. So an ISTj moves throughout life encountering his/her life situations and acting out of his/her system, not necessarily interested in some distant, megalomaniac goal. I believe this is how the Tactic dichotomy works for ISTjs.
Their system is kinda sacred for them which is completely understandable because when something gives you a confidence it should be considered sacred. ISTjs enjoy in reflecting on the system- I've read somewhere that ISTjs are not very fond of reading but that they're very fond of reflecting - it is the system that is being reflected.
Subtype difference is that -Ti is more focused on the reflection of system while -Se is more focused on the system-based action itself. (Btw..I don't think that subtypes are set in stone).
The question is: how did I realized all of this. The answer is: based on very personal experience, october 2008, me being the ISTj, that is. Yeah, Smilexian Socionics, type change, oh God, blah blah blah... Of course, all of this is IME true for all REAL-TRUE-ISTjs.
However, there are some ISTj-issues which are undeniably existant but not so clear to me. For example: stereotypical ISTj blind adherence to hierarchical organizations such as military, police, church, etc. I'm not sure what's the source of the phenomena but here's the attempt of explanation. These hierarchies are very much ISTj-like, that meaning that they're based on a system and their interaction with the world of objects is system-dependent. This is something which should make some ISTj's-ring bell. But for an ISTj to be an adherent of a hierarchy what is required is that the hierarchy must fit into ISTj's very own personal system,that is, that the hierarchy is in accordance with ISTj's belief system and that the hierarchy's methods are acceptable for an ISTj. When that happens, the tipping point is crossed and the ISTj is converted, questioning pretty much nothing, working in hierarchy's service using his personal methods of action. That's what makes ISTjs excelent executives and routine followers. That is IMO HA-TO-BELIEVE in action. To believe in a system, whether personal or communal. This explanation is, again, based on my personal experience of being a Smilingeyes-ISTj.
I've recently tried to create a little hierarchy follower inside myself. Hierarchy being an INTj, that is, me. The follower being an ISTj, that is, me, working on INTj's goals using his ISTj-methods, questioning pretty much nothing, just doing what INTj tells him to do. More on this here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/549381-post21.html
Yeah, most of that is crap. It's really trying to describe an introverted function with those terms? In addition, I see bouts of Si, Te and small bits other functions tied into that. I mean, I can see how an LSI would do some of these things, but it's not a Ti description.
Well if we're using different definitions, we probably have completely different ideas of what "LSI" is and who are good representatives.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
This is generally the case, because people read newly formed definitions of the functions and adhere to stereotypes and whatnot, but they aren't even grasping what makes "introverted" logic vs extroverted logic. They're just saying Ti does this. Well, where's all the other stuff that a human being of this temperament does? and prove to me how that description resembles introversion. Another problem is that people can't pick up a dictionary and read the definition of logic, and then apply that to Socionics, how it is supposed to be applied as, like the creator Aushra Augusta sincerely implied. It's not going to be exactly the same, but you understand what she means by "logic" upon reading. Much of Ti how you probably think of it as is not introversion, and is not logic. Then people use excuses, like that Ti for S will be different. No see now you're trying to describe Se, not Ti. Ti's interaction with Se, etc. I can go on, but there's only so much to say about a fallacy at this time. I mean, what do you want me to say? Do you want me to just agree with your interpretation because it's better?
I disagree that it's a fallacy and I think you're trying to rewrite something that doesn't need to be rewritten. And I hate when people use the word "stereotype" to casually dismiss something they disagree with. The difference between "stereotype" and "frequently seen attribute" is whether you agree with it.
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
I'm trying to rewrite something that has originally been written, because I don't understand the new version. There is a new version, I hope you are aware. I'm not implying that it's all so clear either. That's why we have a forum. But you have to wonder why some people don't join your discussions about Socionics. I can relate to it just the same.
Anyway, I think my understanding of LSIs is pretty good. Why should yours be? You're an IEE. You also have "polr Ti" or whatever, so you shouldn't even be thinking of theoretical systems.
Why would me being an IEE make my understanding of them worse? I've known several LSIs and worked with them closely over my life. Do you not understand your conflictor?
It ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. It's what you know for sure that just ain't so.-Mark Twain
You can't wake a person who is pretending to be asleep.
What's there to understand?
K on this one I must side with slacker mom, and its nothing personal, its completely on the terms of my understanding.......
I think you all are getting too deep into the details about the theoretical aspects to see the overall concept.
So I'd like to address 2 things......
1) Someone said that the LSI aren't nessicarily systematic...... I think differently.... based on just common sense I know that there are people out there in two categories..... Systematic People and Unsystematic People..... once that has been established its only a question of how that observation coresponds to socionics.... I think its a plausable start to considerto be the source for systematic personality types from a jungian function perspective.... from a dictomy perspective I'd say Rational > Irrational is the key for systematic..... from this it would seem to imply LII and LSI are both systematic personality types, with different styles of "Systematic" behavior.
If you disagree I'd be interested in hearing how you think systematic behavior coresponds to jungian functions, dictomies, or which socionics type is most likely to exhibit this behavior... anyone can claim another person to be wrong, but it take some intelligence to disprove another.
2) I've noticed that among everyone on here there is no unified concept of what the jungian functions are, and I think that leads to mass confusion.... everyone can't be right, so alot of people out here on these boards basically have no idea what they are talking about and as much confusion is being spread as actual understanding imo.
Yeah, as a base-Ti type, I have to agree with Slacker Mom. Objective rules are very important to us; much of our personality is built upon certain unchanging rules. They're not "fake" or "just for show"; we apply them first of all to ourselves, even when no-one else is around. Your description of Ti sounds a lot like Te to me, or at least Ti as misperceived from a Te perspective.
I think tuturututu's description of LSIs was spot-on.
Quaero Veritas.
Ti is not about rules or systems and methods of management, or logic of absolutes. These would all be manifestations of extroverted logic. These aren't manifestations of introversion, as introverted-internal materializations are naturally raw and unmodeled, just how Aushra said. Introverted Logic is of the idea of logic, not it's external model. Things like this are common sense, sense of justice, individualism, self-government, with tendencies like logical-purpose contemplation, perfectionism, and meticulousness. Quite stand-alone, self-serving tendencies. Actually, think of how many MBTI INTJs are when you think of the Introverted Logic dominant type. I think Jung has a much more different idea than you do of the introverted thinking type, but it's still not Socionics. I'm also unsure why you think that Ti description you gave has to do much with introversion. Even rationality. There are some general Te concepts in there, and some plain irrational ones, tied with some P elements. I think you are creating way too much of an inflexible system with wikosocion and it's sources, tieing in terms like static/dynamic and the various other element dichotomies as actual justification for socionics terms. It doesn't work that way, because I've read about these later models, and it contradicts the original one. Read Augusta and her associates' form of the theory, the original plan is all there, not this Wikisocion and sources which inspired.
The Ti redefinition was a trade off for some INTP who wanted to be considered as an "INTJ" so he changed the theory and made a mass publication of it. In other words, creative Te gone wrong. From there, new webs of theoretical-abstract concepts became attached to this "new" theory, and specified in greater detail. What have you, "socionics." Sure if it works for you, then it's not my problem in theory. It's yours. I know for a fact it's utter bullshit though.
To go back to a previous topic, I think a lot of the perception of LSIs inflexibility comes from their apparent unwillingness to consider another point of view, which comes from their Ne-polr. Obviously, this will be less of a problem in an individual who hasn't repeatedly tried to use Ne and caused himself harm (LSIs tend to unconsciously remember what works and what doesn't), and more of a problem in an individual who has. But the thing is, LSIs aren't really inflexible; they're just more motivated by Ni kind of flexibility (i.e., multiple possible outcomes, variety of variables which can impact the likelihood of one or the other, as well as, presumably,--I'm just following the theory now, as opposed to personal experience--sort of overarching thematic/artistic things that encourage them to be more flexible) and more repulsed by Ne kind of flexibility. Ni flexibility actually maximizes certainty by having an accurate understanding of what is certain and what isn't, and to what degree. Ne flexibility, on the other hand, minimizes certainty of outcome by exploring all the latent potentials that could be brought to bear on a specific situation. I can understand why that would be disconcerting (and annoying) to an LSI who is just trying to get the job done.
Of course, one could just as easily say the same thing in reverse, or in mirror image, about Ni and LSEs, who are also just trying to get the job done (right).
About the wikisocion description... the bits for Ti creative, demonstrative, and mobilizing sound fine to me. The bits for base function do remind me an awful lot of Te. The habitual critic part is true, but carries the wrong implication, as I don't think LSIs tend criticize people who move far outside their rule system to their faces in an attack, but tend more to complain internally or to a close friend. They do tend assume the correctness of their argument (they assume that because x did y, x is a "bad person" or "stupid" or some such), but they're not so much into criticizing others because they went outside the system, and being grumpy and belligerent about it. The description says mostly correct stuff that's colored wrong, if that makes sense. It was probably written by a Ti non-valuer (much like that one epic fail IEI/SLE duality description was clearly written by someone who wasn't beta, and probably not any other Se/Ni valuing type either). Actually a lot of the function descriptions that relate to LSIs sound kinda bitter:
Sounds like somebody's daddy wouldn't pay for karate. And then he/she became a black belt just to prove him wrong. (Actually, to be honest, the second part is only following the theory, but still...)The individual may tend to forcefully restrict other people's activities in areas he thinks they have no natural talent in. At the same time, he or she is prone to make errors when judging whether or not a person is capable of doing something.
The vulnerable bit doesn't sound like my SEE brother very much at all, but that's probably a result of growing up with me and my dad. He does fall back on ethical arguments though, now that I think about it.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.
That is indeed Ti
"logic of absolutes" Ti+Se= Ne PoLR
The Wiki's description of how Te dominants use Ti is spot-on:
"The individual understands easily, but is largely indifferent to, discussions that focus on the internal logic of ideas and systems. The individual perceives such logical systems as largely worthless to his goals and finds them completely uninteresting and unproductive."
EII INFj
Forum status: retired
"Internal logic of ideas and systems?" Talk about an oxymoron.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
