Differences between SEE-ESFp and LSE-ESTj

[Beautiful sky]

Anything at all would help; thanks.

[Raver]

SEEs have a tendency to be aggressive females and LSEs tend to be attractive males.

[Beautiful sky]

SEEs have a tendency to be aggressive females and LSEs tend to be attractive males.

That's not really true, you know that; LSE are quite capable of being aggressive. That was a huge Ti PoLR fail

[Raver]

That's not really true, you know that; LSE are quite capable of being aggressive. That was a huge Ti PoLR fail

I was just kidding, lol.

[DirectorAbbie]

LSEs are proper and SEEs are rambunctious. But SEEs are also less likely to accidentally make a social error. LSEs also tend to dress more restrictively, though this also depends on upbringing.

[Absurd]

LSEs are proper and SEEs are rambunctious. But SEEs are also less likely to accidentally make a social error. LSEs also tend to dress more restrictively, though this also depends on upbringing.

Hope there are no LSEs amongst Bushmen.

[Jonathan]

This is an interesting topic because I've noticed that socionists sometimes type a famous person who I think is definitely SEE as LSE. Probably what they're seeing is Te-valuing, extraversion, and sensing, and they gravitate to the Si interpretation if the person doesn't fit their stereotype of Se, even if they lack any confirmation of actual leading Te.

Typing someone one knows in person (as opposed to famous people), I think there's much less room for confusion. LSEs are fairly methodical, they tell you about a lot of stuff they know. They're good at evaluating things, and they create the impression of having everything very much together. They actually seem much closer to LIEs than to SEEs.

[Absurd]

Anything at all would help; thanks.

The same as between EII and SEE. None

[Pookie]

- EJ's tend to speak about things in relation to other things. As far as the sentence structure goes.

- S*Es bring up observations, L*Es bring up facts.

- EP's are easier to read and express more emotion as they speak. Delta STs are usually stoic, with the occasional flare of expression.

- ESFPs are normally concerned with being right and know how to make people like them. ESTJs know when they're correct, and can come across as complainers that don't really offer solutions for what they're complaining about.

/my prejudices

[Jonathan]

Sorry to knit pick. Maybe I'm just in that mood...

- EJ's tend to speak about things in relation to other things. As far as the sentence structure goes.

Doesn't everybody, though?

- S*Es bring up observations, L*Es bring up facts.

Based on what's typically said in Socionics, yes. But when you come to think of it, what's the difference between an observation and a fact? I mean, say you see something and you mention that you observed it. So isn't that a fact?

- EP's are easier to read

Doesn't that depend on the type of who's doing the reading?

and express more emotion as they speak.

Wouldn't an EFj express more emotion than an ETp?

ESFPs are normally concerned with being right

Really? Not sure that's type-related though, although it could be a Ti thing...
My impression was that ESFps don't care who's right, but they do they want to get what they want.

ESTJs ... can come across as complainers that don't really offer solutions for what they're complaining about.

Interesting. You mean they express a lot of Fe drama and don't offer Te-based problem-solving?

[Pookie]

No problem, i'm often Nit-picky in a similar manner.

1. I knew this one would be difficult. I find that Dynamic types tend to bring up the relation in the structure of the words whereas Static types do it less.
Example:
Static:What do we need from the grocery store?
Dynamic: Im going to the grocery store, do you know anything that we need?
Probably a shit example, but i feel that there's a discernible difference in how the words are put together.

2. An observation is from a point of view, and a fact is not. Someone can point out something they see or figure, and it's an observation. But if they can rely on an outside source to verify it, it's a fact. Cows are stupid - a keen observation. Cows are mammals - a fact. And though this technically may be tangential, i relate this back to dynamic thinking.

3. You're correct. I should have wrote it as, SEEs are easier to read than LSEs and express more emotion as they speak. That's something that i dont think is so much dependant on who's reading them.

4. I find that all the merry extraverts are quite prone to emotional outburst, actually. IME i've found SLEs more expressive in this regard than EIEs, and ESEs more expressive than ILEs .But yeah, 4 & 3 were originally in the same point, so i point above to make sense of what i intended to say.

5. I think it correlates to Te hidden agenda. Almost all of the SEEs i know(most would fit into Se-sub) get practically neurotic about being told they're wrong about something. I think most have the sense to not flaunt about knowing what they don't know, but when they feel they know something, you know, it concerns them when someone tells them they're wrong. As opposed to LSE's, who have Te as the base function. The Base function is pretty good at handling criticism, whereas criticism on one's HA can strike a nerve.

6. I dont think complaining = Fe drama. I've found that all types complain. I think Ti creatives tend to be the people who propose solutions to wide-sweeping problems, even if their solution has holes in it. "Everybody should just do this..." While still complaining. I've found that LSEs are quick to spot problems, and put them on blast, but not articulate the solution to that problem. Maybe it has to do with their Rational aspect in that they'd rather just solve it for themselves than talk to people about how they could go about solving it.

[Jonathan]

1. I knew this one would be difficult. I find that Dynamic types tend to bring up the relation in the structure of the words whereas Static types do it less.

Maybe it's the type of structure then? Perhaps dynamic types draw more attention to the structure of their discourse itself...thus gravitating towards dialogues, step-by-step examples, and other forms of communication that make connections over time ... whereas static types refer to a given structure that exists in whatever they're talking about, which is more external to the style of discourse. Is that close to what you're saying?

2. An observation is from a point of view, and a fact is not. Someone can point out something they see or figure, and it's an observation. But if they can rely on an outside source to verify it, it's a fact. Cows are stupid - a keen observation. Cows are mammals - a fact. And though this technically may be tangential, i relate this back to dynamic thinking.

An insightful point ... Of course, everything is from a point of view, but not everything is thought of with the claim that it's corroborated or universal. But is this related any more to dynamic thinking than to static thinking? Cows are classified as mammals...could be a static point (?). There's a cliche in Socionics that Te is facts ... but it seems that Ti is no less fact-oriented. In fact, if one makes observations about the world around one (cows or whatever) and then refines these to something more universal, it seems that this could be an example of Se + Ti, rather than a shift to a dynamic point of view.

The Base function is pretty good at handling criticism, whereas criticism on one's HA can strike a nerve.

Could be... interesting discussion point. When people think of striking a nerve, they usually assume that's PoLR. How does striking a nerve by criticizing HA look different from striking a nerve by criticizing PoLR? Theoretically, though, people are supposed to accept criticism from their duals, which would mean that their HA would be more sensitive to criticism from an appropriate source (?).

I've found that LSEs are quick to spot problems, and put them on blast, but not articulate the solution to that problem.

I guess it comes down to personal experiences then.

[DirectorAbbie]

SEEs are easier to read than LSEs and express more emotion as they speak.

We can easily be trained to use facial expressions.

After all, they do tend to simplify communication.

I've found that LSEs are quick to spot problems, and put them on blast, but not articulate the solution to that problem.

That's the polite thing to do. The necessary action is usually obvious, and you don't like being told to do something you already planned to do, right?

[uniden]

It’s hard for me to imagine how I would have trouble telling these two types apart because their vibes are just so different to me. I’ll see if I can’t share this.

SEEs. Have you ever seen woofwoofl regale in his McDonald’s shenanigans? Hear him raising the roof on that place playing fast and loose with his sexuality oh yeah he won’t blink sure EIE gal he’d put the grind on that dude dude turns away saying “so gay” but he smiles at the attention and the other gals interests piqued by his bravado but grrrr why is she with that guy he’s not even cute! Le sigh, at least he’s been trading glances, flirts with EIE girl each feeling each other out and neither comfortable to dive into things yet. Now, see here, an LSE would never ever do this interpersonal juggling. It’s outside their realm.

A SEE, she’s behind the counter holding a hard fought smile. That kind of smile you can feel. There for your orders. Enduring the dehydrated onions, big ego customers, kitchen fumes, that clock.

Sometimes you can almost see in them that person off to the side in the party, on the balcony with cigarette in hand gazing out into the dark.

LSEs. They can be chipper and play at being easy going. Yet you get the sense that if they’re nudged they’d immediately stiffen up like a plank of wood. If things don’t flow as planned.

I can see them as the sorts to clam up and treat you to simmering silence if they feel they’ve been wronged. If they feel things have gone too far. Steam only slowly leaking out from the walls that have gone up.

I know, I know there’s far more on SEEs than LSEs in this post. Somehow things have turned out where I feel like I know them far better than LSEs. Still, I hope this is useful. That I managed to share how each type feels distinct from each other.

[Kalinoche buenanoche]

SEEs. Have you ever seen woofwoofl regale in his McDonald’s shenanigans? Hear him raising the roof on that place playing fast and loose with his sexuality oh yeah he won’t blink sure EIE gal he’d put the grind on that dude dude turns away saying “so gay” but he smiles at the attention and the other gals interests piqued by his bravado but grrrr why is she with that guy he’s not even cute!

so,you are saying that you've been at the macdonald's where woof works and you saw him flirting with an EIE girl who was there with her bf and then woof also flirted with her bf who thought to himself "so gay" but still enjoyed the attention and then woof continued flirting with the girl wondering what she sees in her bf? is that it?

[uniden]

so,you are saying that you've been at the macdonald's where woof works and you saw him flirting with an EIE girl who was there with her bf and then woof also flirted with her bf who thought to himself "so gay" but still enjoyed the attention and then woof continued flirting with the girl wondering what she sees in her bf? is that it?

What I meant to show with that paragraph is that when woofwoofl writes in the chatbox about his experience at work, you can tell he's figuring intensely his affect in that social situation. He’s taking up interpersonal data: reading people, the effect of his actions, the choices available to him, how he fits in. All in the moment and you get the impression of high-paced analysis on woofwoofl’s part. All this is not something you’d get from an LSE. At least not at this scale. That’s what I meant by that paragraph.

I’m really down about this. I could’ve written the above in place of what I actually wrote and there wouldn’t be any question on what I was trying to say. My idea was that trying to scrutinize potential SEE/LSEs sentences for intent on reading people or people-oriented situations might not be too helpful. A tiring task, perhaps. Rather, why not try to recreate the feeling, the vibe, of listening to that activity from an SEE while saying the same thing. Create a sense to key in on.

Instead, all I’ve done is obscured my meaning. On the very paragraph which is the reason why this post took so long to make. Mulling over how to do this over a few days. For one post. How very sad.

[Beautiful sky]

They both pick up on properties of objects with their Se

[Beautiful sky]

- EJ's tend to speak about things in relation to other things. As far as the sentence structure goes.

- S*Es bring up observations, L*Es bring up facts.

- EP's are easier to read and express more emotion as they speak. Delta STs are usually stoic, with the occasional flare of expression.

- ESFPs are normally concerned with being right and know how to make people like them. ESTJs know when they're correct, and can come across as complainers that don't really offer solutions for what they're complaining about.

/my prejudices

This makes sense because while ESFp may speak about the tone of their daughter's reaction to something is like "mommy, mommy, I love you" in a dramatic way, LSE almost never speak about emotions only to say "I love you angel" ESFps are more expressive of the specific emotional tones

[aixelsyd]

LSEs and SEEs can look pretty similar for some individuals. However, there's some consistent differences I've noticed:

On giving criticism:

LSEs are more comfortable giving criticism. They can do this tactfully (or not), but they are less likely to sugar-coat things and pussy foot the way SEEs often do. I'm a pretty blunt person and can be critical, but I still do a lot of buffering in my criticisms in order to avoid bad feelings compared to LSEs who will more likely say it exactly as it is. In recent history, I made a decision which was risky and could have gotten me in trouble. LSE manager had little issue with pulling me to the side to explain what was wrong with it and so forth while SEE manager struck me as uncomfortable and didn't really want to say much except that I didn't owe her an apology and sort of justifying my decision as she was present during the situation.

Anyway, I've found LSEs don't hesitate to address problems in the way SEEs tend to, talking about specific occurrences. SEEs hesitate less when it comes to broader problems that don't require confronting individuals directly and possibly creating bad feelings between themselves and a friend or colleague.

Outward behavior and expression:

The two can look similar as both LSEs and SEEs can be outspoken and good-natured as well as business-like and focused/task-oriented. I find, in high energy situations, SEEs reveal their flexibility as they flow better with the situation, able to jump from task to task seamlessly. LSEs have a harder time changing direction and need to focus on one task to completion and then choose the next task with more deliberation. My father, who is LSE, thinks aloud and will announce each task and its completion in a clear, sequential fashion. Once that task is complete, he will stop to think and then announce the next task and so on.

I, on the other hand, may think aloud, but I do things as it occurs for me to do them. I rarely stop to think. I just see it and am done. I sometimes jump around. At work, I can literally go from cleaning/organizing to spin around to address a question, rush over to someone who needs assistance, go back to cleaning or whatever I was doing, put a basket or buggy away. I'm constantly going from one task to another with almost no forethought and it appears utterly seamless. So long as I know what I'm doing, I thrive in a high energy environment where all sorts of things are happening at once.

Both types can be friendly or irritable, but I think SEEs are less overwhelming unless something makes them super happy or super angry. Even with the more monotone SEEs (like myself), it's easy for them to create a sense of amiability, concern, and overall pleasant vibes. When an LSE is giving off cheerful vibes/good will, it feels almost like I'm being tackled by it rather than softly enveloped as I do with most SEEs (even the more outspoken ones). I'd say SEEs are more skillful in how feelings are expressed and have a better understanding as to how way of expression will be received by the recipient, are naturally gifted at assessing someone's essence and character where LSEs can be overly eager to judge someone as this way or that.

In short: if one can detect the nuances of rationality/irrationality and ethics/logic, one can observe the differences between the two types in spite of sometimes appearing very similar, especially if one analyzes by pure theory without looking at the whole person.

[ConcreteButterfly]

SEEs are stubborn, goal oriented democratic optimists, who are ready for action at any moment and have static mental thoughts and dynamic behavior

LSEs are compliant, tactical types, whose goals change according to the circumstances, are relaxed when healthy and mentally thinking about dynamic properties of things but their behavior tends towards inertia, rigidness

to put it another way, SEEs don't budge from their intended target, LSEs are more willing to change trajectories. SEEs are always naturally ready for action, LSEs become ready for action only when the situation provokes it, SEEs are democrats who tend to equalize authority, LSEs as aristocrats tend to fit into a hierarchy more easily, SEEs have dynamic vital functions so their physical activity is going to "flow" better, naturally moving from situation to situation. LSEs contemplate how things evolve across space and time, but they tend to come to a standstill, physically.

[Beautiful sky]

Do ESFP squander the creative potential of ESTJ as they hone in on everyday matters?

[Number 9 large]

SEE = 3w2
LSE =8W9

[Number 9 large]

I was just kidding, lol.

The classic im kidding after saying bs

[Raver]

The classic im kidding after saying bs

I was obviously teasing Maritsa with that post back then. If you were around 7 years ago, you would have known I was.

[Rebelondeck]

Although the descriptor of one can apply to the other, it's usually not as prevalent.

SEE vs LSE

experience vs dominate
explore vs lead
open vs flexible
self-righteous vs opinionated
evasive vs confrontational
cheeky vs serious
unrestrained vs dogmatic
freedom vs control
wants more vs wants closure
vision vs knowledge
veiled vs in-your-face
needs stability vs needs perspective

a.k.a. I/O

[youfloweryourfeast]

LSEs tend to be much more knowledgeable and interested in new possibilities than SEEs. Also they have higher IQs and tend to be more like scholars or college professors. Though SEEs have better fi and are more able to navigate all their relationships and are more into entertaining people(kinda like EIEs the very extroverted ones), LSEs don’t seem to want to be the center of attention, rather observe but can still add in lengthy replies at times. SEEs seem to prefer creating a brand or business based off maybe design, and they tend to enjoy a platform for example YouTube, where they can show off their se and their adventures. LSEs are not really into creating things for example art or music that is what SEEs thrive in. LSEs enjoy looking at and listening how ever. If I compare my LSE friend or my father they love reading or watching documentaries on different topics.