Searching for good descriptions of LSEs-ESTjs

[stanprollyright]

I recently typed a friend as LSE, but I wanted some sort of confirmation from her. She doesn't know socionics and doesn't seem all that interested, but I thought if I found a good type description I might have her read it and see how much she agrees with.

So? What description(s) should I use?

EDIT: Possibly relevant - she is almost definitely Si-sub.

[Nowisthetime]

The descriptions at sociotype.com are at least easy to read:

http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/LSE-ESTj/

[Galen]

Type descriptions are lame, just try to speak to her with socionics-based subject matter but avoid the nitty-gritty terminology and try to fix the words into layman's terms.

[UDP]

LSE Profile

- LSEs are badasses at heart, as with all types
- LSEs must overcome Tool Trap, where they become subservient to the fulfillment of other people or institutions ideas - this is a Challenge for most Caregivers. Even if not subserviant, they can be 'counterphobically' oriented to an 'idea', which can lead them into being pawns or manipulated thereby.

- LSEs can be extremely critical in regard to progress and production, perhaps having an idealized view of how things can happen, and sometimes having awkward judgment about timing, which can lead to bad decisions or laziness and avoidance.

- Tend to have difficulty with intuitive jumps to a certain degree, but once they 'master' the nature of a system or concept, can become extremely skilled at using it. The initial difficulty sometimes causes them to put up mental walls, especially when other 'concepts', that are already mastered, are easily used and can also be used to get the job done.

- because they are very good at compartmentalization, may struggle to see areas where compartmentalization can be flawed or get in the way.

- Is the ultimate judge of his or her own "quality of production". Others input is entirely unnecessary unless it actually has to do with that person, at which point LSE can be even somewhat oversensitive about being 'pleasing' towards that person's likings. This can happen in romantic relationship, and may be somewhat ironic as in many other circumstances LSE will not make much concessions about how things ought to be done or what a "good result" is.

- Aptitude in understanding actual matters of production, that is, the need to be in a certain place at a certain time in order for something to happen (understanding intuitive details abotu how to do that is something else). Can be particular about time spent towards certain ends, and yet in spite of strictness, will at times indulge in spending lots of time on "not necessarily important but somewhat aesthetic things".

- Hates uncomfortable footwear


- loves brownies

[UDP]

The following is also very fitting.... but some LSEs can also become apathetic about society, and take their constant uncertainty about social relations into a distancing of themselves from human contact or any sort of emotional closeness. There is generally a 'longing' for relational closeness, but LSEs can feel like it is a 'luxury' or a 'blessing' that someone else can give or share with it, perhaps unconscious of the LSEs own ability to actually create such a thing for itself

LSEs are chronically uncertain about the nature and standing of their relationships with others. They are often highly out of touch with their internal feelings and are unsure of their abilities at reading the emotional dispositions of those around them. They may take the initiative and engage others, but if they do not observe any emotional reciprocity they may question the appropriateness of their actions and feelings. They require strength of emotional reciprocity, stability, and moral support from others.
LSEs tend applying towards their ever-proactive approach to life to the sphere of interpersonal relations; however, their direct, blunt style may appear tactless and overly formal to their interlocutors. They may verbalize their emotional uncertainty, often behaving in an overly apologetic fashion, wondering aloud why others do not respond to their attempts to engage them. Although LSEs may be social and have many acquaintances, they are cautious about building closer friendships. Their social activities are often an extension of their productive or leisure activities; they tend to build friendships by doing useful work or projects together, rather than by depth of emotional exchange. LSEs unconsciously expect the other person in working situations to initiate emotional intimacy.
LSEs seek to ensure that their interactions with others be orderly, friendly, and harmonious. Family and communitarian values often predominate in LSEs, and they may go to great lengths to make sure that the needs of these close friends or loved ones are met.

[stanprollyright]

Thanks ryu.

The sociotype.com description is in function breakdown, which I find turns people off, plus it's a little long for someone who has no interest in socionics and is only reading these descriptions as a favor to me.

[UDP]

ASIDE:

those longer profiles are actually pretty good on the whole.

But what I tried to do was get at some of the tell-tale mechanisms and 'common problems' in development that have to do with the type.

IN reality, all humans have the same problems and 'issues' in life, it's just a matter of how they are expressed - ennagram and socionics help give some hints as to the infrastructure that those 'problems' or 'issues' are dealt with.


I honestly think that what I just said has a lot more to do with intertype relations than anything else, or rather, really, relations between me and others. Maybe that's some weird form of "Te" valuing on my part, because it is "how someone functions", but I don't think so. People who handle their problems in certain ways and address issues in certain ways are more appealing to me than other people - regardless of their type.