to my dear fellow EIIs/INFjs

[Saoirse]

that LSE/whoever might seem like they know best because they are telling you what to do so confidently, but trust your own instincts. maybe you can't explain why you don't think they're right on the spot, but after you've cleared up your thoughts (write them out, it helps), talk to the person. if they are a good, intelligent person, they will be more receptive than you'd expect.

speak up for yourself if you feel like there's a pattern of disrespect. often the other person doesn't even mean it the way you've been taking it, so it won't even cost them anything to behave differently, and you'll feel a lot better knowing what they actually meant.

don't follow authority figures blindly just because they Te you. your own vision is better than you think. even if it's not really good, can you live with yourself if you fail because you tried to follow someone else's vision? fail following your own. or, more likely, finally succeed.

*might not apply to all EIIs since some of us can be pretty irresponsible. applies only to the ones that feel reluctant about this, that it's hard to do.

wishing everyone the best.

[Saoirse]

LSEs are great at getting a plan accomplished but don't trust their vision or leadership.

Hmm, kind of. But even when they doubt their vision/leadership, they are still more forceful than an EII who is certain of theirs. They respond well when a trusted EII is strict with them and says "no we're doing it my way now" but it takes a dire situation for an EII to do that.

[Sol]

LSEs are great at getting a plan accomplished but don't trust their vision or leadership.

your words contain a controvertion

To trust someone it needs that one was good there, while you not. Nothing more. It's mainly not types question.

What may be added is that people in good relations tend to trust each other wider than the reason would allow. It's universal situation. Mb Fi types have some higher general conformism.

[velveteen]

THEY DON'T HAVE A PLAN.

I have the hardest time taking LSEs seriously, unless of course they're in a position of power which even then I would find it difficult to take them seriously. At their worst, they're usually just really stubborn and use false facts to get their point across.

[Raver]

Yeah, I tend to clash with LSEs initially in work situations because they mean well, but they make a lot of false assumptions and I have to constantly correct them, which becomes frustrating for both parties.

After a while though, we learn to adapt to each other and get along better. They also have a tendency to over or under prepare, which is linked to their PoLR.

[Sol]

trust LSEs on tactics (accomplishing a plan) but not on strategy (vision).

Weak Ni is overcomed by prefering predictable by T situations and methods, by inputing of excessive resources in planning.
N - is irrational vision. Regular strategy planning is based on T, not N.
LSE may to use Ni, it's harder than for N types and not pleasant as for Ni valued, - that's why they prefer avoid this.
Where LSE is professional he'll study to use anything, including weak functions, in case the experience will show they are needed.

I prefer mostly to type by Ne. Because I see this is better than T for many cases. If it needs to type thousands of actors to train it and years - I do this. I used Ni perception effectively in my past because have found the need in this. LSE are responsible and reasonable, where they notice own limits - they break them. With such approach they have high risk to overburn without emotional support and become indifferent to life and weird to people. Then you'll see problems with strategy and anything else.

[velveteen]

@domr

Maybe some day we'll know

The type whose values don't align with LSEs. I usually see through their crap quite early on and I've put a few in their place for trying to force me to do things and for their inappropriate behaviour. I can tolerate being in a room with them, as long as we keep discourse to a minimum and stick to formalities. Otherwise, our discussions are mostly a waste of time. From my experience they don't often accept social norms, while I find them to be a necessary means of functioning in this world.

[Saoirse]

trust LSEs on tactics (accomplishing a plan) but not on strategy (vision).

This is a good way to put it, though you can still run into trouble even if they agree on the long-term outcome you both want. If they only know tactics for a different kind of outcome that they've achieved in the past (whereas the agreed upon one is new to them), they might still advise you to use tactics for their previously achieved outcomes rather than the new one. If they are more mature and an EII/other type is cognizant of what is happening and capable of some firmness/assertiveness, then things can still be brought to the right track.

[velveteen]

How can you type other people without being able to type yourself?

I get along well with LSE because they are my activity pair but their stubbornness is beyond frustrating for me.

I didn't type him, the socionics system did and assuming he's tested correctly that's the problem I have had communicating with him. He says I think too much and I tell him he trivialises everything. Our conversations are a waste of time because we don't value the same things and never have.

I'm just referring to my personal experience with an LSE I know and he exhibits a lot of the traits I have read about LSEs. His objectives don't bother me. He has pretty admirable organisational abilities and could reach his goals quite efficiently. But when he acts naive or uses false information to get his points across I find it very difficult to sympathise with him, because a) he's using intellectual dishonesty to get his way and b) it's really transparent his motivations are insincere.

Tbh, I don't believe I have my head completely wrapped around the functions to be able to accurately type the people in my life/that I meet. So instead I have been assessing my relationship with them.

[Sol]

You can't substitute thinking for intuition.

You can compensate weak N by T in many situations. That's what I said and against what you said nothing useful.