Anything at all would help; thanks.
Anything at all would help; thanks.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
SEEs have a tendency to be aggressive females and LSEs tend to be attractive males.
“We cannot change the cards we are dealt, just how we play the hand.” Randy Pausch
Ne-IEE
6w7 sp/sx
6w7-9w1-4w5
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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.
- 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
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
Sorry to knit pick. Maybe I'm just in that mood...
Doesn't everybody, though?
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?
Doesn't that depend on the type of who's doing the reading?
Wouldn't an EFj express more emotion than an ETp?
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.
Interesting. You mean they express a lot of Fe drama and don't offer Te-based problem-solving?
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.
Projection is ordinary. Person A projects at person B, hoping tovalidate something about person A by the response of person B. However, person B, not wanting to be an obejct of someone elses ego and guarding against existential terror constructs a personality which protects his ego and maintain a certain sense of a robust and real self that is different and separate from person A. Sadly, this robust and real self, cut off by defenses of character from the rest of the world, is quite vulnerable and fragile given that it is imaginary and propped up through external feed back. Person B is dimly aware of this and defends against it all the more, even desperately projecting his anxieties back onto person A, with the hope of shoring up his ego with salubrious validation. All of this happens without A or B acknowledging it, of course. Because to face up to it consciously is shocking, in that this is all anybody is doing or can do and it seems absurd when you realize how pathetic it is.
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?
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.
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 guess it comes down to personal experiences then.
We can easily be trained to use facial expressions.
After all, they do tend to simplify communication.
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?
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.
Last edited by uniden; 06-23-2012 at 07:14 PM.
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.
They both pick up on properties of objects with their Se
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
LSEs and SEEs can look pretty similar for some individuals. However, there's some consistent differences I've noticed:
On giving criticism:
Outward behavior and expression:
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.
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.
Do ESFP squander the creative potential of ESTJ as they hone in on everyday matters?
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
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
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.