Or rather, lack thereof. Do LIIs and (perhaps more so) EIIs have a tendency to not earn what they're worth? Are they more likely than other types to take and stay in jobs where they're underpaid?
Se PoLR and money/salary
Or rather, lack thereof. Do LIIs and (perhaps more so) EIIs have a tendency to not earn what they're worth? Are they more likely than other types to take and stay in jobs where they're underpaid?
I imagine that LIIs and EIIs often fail/struggle to put themselves into their employers shoes to understand what levers they can pull during salary negotiations to justify higher pay packets as they are driven by what they internally value.Originally Posted by Joy
Short: yes.
i think a lot of types could do that for different reasons...ive stuck in a job i hated and where i was treated badly because switching jobs involved so many variables and risks i couldn't chart out that it was intimidating which i could call Ne polr. whereas i can see EIIs i know being more fearless about untried options and having more faith in the future. so it probably just depends on the person. and i don't really correlate Se with money..at least not in the sense of always getting richer, or something. (then again i'm looking at jim's post and relating to it..so my behavior could also be correlated to Se polr, lol. dunno)
this answer can't be very satisfying. ha
Edit: actually, thinking of jims post, I have persistently pushed for a raise in the past.but only because I felt forced into it and completely justified, whereas I don't think I could do it just because I wanted to and figured I could get away with it.
Yeeh, there is an undercurrent of this sort to all INxx types, which is counter-weighed by their far more energetic, outgoing, and materially motivated ESxx duals.
LIIs have some kind of weird self-negation going on (too much Ti) which inhibits them from putting their interests first, while EIIs are too absorbed in the 'cult of the individual' (+Fi raised to the maximum) where their personal interests take on an all-consuming importance, even if it interferes with them finishing school, building a career, etc. They are more likely to secure their income by careful management and savings (farsighted + judicious + strategic) than by actively taking steps and putting themselves out there to make more money.
An SLE once told me that one effective way of ensuring that you're being paid more (if a raise isn't anywhere in sight) is by changing jobs and then negotiating a higher salary. This is based on his own experience as he himself has changed several jobs for exactly this reason. I can't see an LII or EII being able to easily follow this advice. They get too used to the place/group or something, too comfy and entrenched in the 'exiting order', and are unlikely to change it even if they are being under-paid ...
This doesn't have anything to do with Se afaik. Types like LSEs and ESEs on the average make for good providers for their families despite not having Se within their values.
So perhaps:
Se PoLR: not knowing what you're worth and/or lacking the forcefulness to ask for it
Ne PoLR: knowing what you're worth but not wanting to risk unforeseen consequences by getting a new job
Are you considering EII for your type, lungs?
I think types like EII and LII, especially men, can acquire the technical skills to work in fairly well-paying jobs (mid-range) that need someone of a certain expertise though. So I wouldn't necessary say that they are usually being underpaid, although they may not be as interested in climbing some sort of corporate ladder.
I also imagine that some EII's get managerial positions due to their knowledge, professionalism, and planning/organizing ability.
Being interested in other things besides money, feeling uncomfortable with the idea of having to sell themselves to a stranger and negotiate salary in an interview, lacking the forcefulness required to ask for a raise, having a partner who's the breadwinner.
I thought pretty much everyone did this, though now that you mention it, I suppose not.An SLE once told me that one effective way of ensuring that you're being paid more (if a raise isn't anywhere in sight) is by changing jobs and then negotiating a higher salary. This is based on his own experience as he himself has changed several jobs for exactly this reason. I can't see an LII or EII being able to easily follow this advice. They get too used to the place/group or something, too comfy and entrenched in the 'exiting order', and are unlikely to change it even if they are being under-paid ...
They do have strong Se though.This doesn't have anything to do with Se afaik. Types like LSEs and ESEs on the average make for good providers for their families despite not having Se within their values.
I do think that Se is at least partially related to money because the Se hidden agenda relates directly to money. Money is often seen as correlating with power.
Definitely agree.
This I can't see as much. I think most EIIs would be pretty uncomfortable directing and confronting employees. I suppose it depends on the person and the position though.I also imagine that some EII's get managerial positions due to their knowledge, professionalism, and planning/organizing ability.
Most true. My husband has engaged in this since the beginning of his career. What is does is place him in a position of demand where offers and counteroffers are made thus immensely aiding his career.
"knowing what you're worth" seems like a matter of research. Unless you're talking about an intrinsic sense of worth or something which I really hope isn't type related.
I'm not really considering eii. More that there is enough room for it to maybe work and enough people type me that so it's like whatever, exi is close enough and covers all the bases.
It's not that they lack forcefulness to ask for a raise - it's just that it doesn't readily occur to them that they can and should do it, and when it does occur it doesn't assume top priority and becomes subordinated to other interests.
EIIs and LIIs are plenty forceful when it comes to other issues, like pushing for some ideas or causes in which they are personally invested (e.g. recall how assertive tcaud was when pushing for his socionics ideas, or how assertive Maritsa is with her typings).
Not everyone, and another good topic would be what motivates different types to change jobs. Among IEIs, for example, a very common motive for changing jobs is 'negative atmosphere' at the workplace rather than obtaining a higher income.
To use your own line of reasoning: money is also a tool for attaining a comfortable, healthy, safe lifestyle - living in a good neighborhood usually costs more than living in a ghetto, healthy food is more expensive than buying processed canned garbage, gym membership, vacations, summer camps for kids etc. it all costs money. So then Si, in its usual socionics interpretation, would also be directly related to making money.
I don't think one would trust the market to set a rate; you should fight for the rent instead.
One gains relative wealth by either being willing to do something that others are not able to do (making you absurdly valuable to many bidders), or by risking assets (credibility/repuation, capital) when others are not. You're effectively flipping the table so you are the landlord and by your presence, you add value and thus it is of benefit to them for you to work alone for them by their own metrics.
I often ask myself the question when interviewing people 'What would I think if this person works for my competitor?' It is usually the most profound and important question that people fail on. If I am indifferent because I think they either lack passion, conviction, energy or experience relevant to the position then it's always a no even if everyone else thinks they are 'okay' or 'good'. It's the same when an employer looks at remuneration 'Is it worth paying this person more to guarantee they don't waver?' with the caveat that peoples drive/energy and even commitment will drop after several years in the same role.
I suppose it's more a matter of lack of interest in finding out.
NTR
My brother works a job he loves, he could get something worth more but he doesn't really climb or thirst the same as me.
A close friend of mine however makes plenty, his dad runs the company.
Types don't exist in a vacuum, their metrics shouldn't either.
Easy Day
You've got age on me so correct me if I'm wrong but I suspect most of the LII/EIIs I know to stay with employers/companies they enjoy and to slowly work their way up a pay/authority ladder over 30-40 years in a sort of "American Dream" fashion.
Easy Day
Jobs for life probably worked in the 60s and 70s, these days... :/
Thanks lungs this is very revealing about what Ne-POLR is like (maybe needs to be linked to the other thread -- the one on LSIs and Ne-POLR).
To contrast my own experience -- i've gone through at least 2 iterations of jumping ship from a career path that I was not enjoying, into the great unknown (sort of). The first time, I did prepare my new path before I jumped ship. The 2nd time, i jumped more blindly, hoping all would turn out well; basically i told myself that anything would be better than this, and that I'm sure i would find something. Thankfully things worked out just fine. Fi does help some with this, because both times I had a fairly good sense of who was my friend and who would be willing to accept me. My first path switch was a bit riskier because i was switching specialties in medical residency, and if something goes wrong along the way (e.g. my ex-program falsely badmouthing me so they dont look bad, or my new program thinking i'm fickle and too much of a risk to take on, etc), my career is essentially over because I can't practice medicine without having completed residency. That was why I took great care in ascertaining that my next step was set in stone before I left; it didn't end up being totally set in stone before i did so, because things came down to a contract renewal deadline, and i didn't want too much time between when my ex-program knew I was leaving and my official resignation announcement, to avoid any plotting by them to either keep me or ruin my reputation somehow. The 2nd career switch move involved much fewer consequences just because I already have credentials to go forth and make a career my own.
However, to answer the OP -- i would bet that delta NFs in general tend to be overworked and underpaid, for a few reasons. Firstly, avoidance of confrontation. Secondly (perhaps this should be firstly), delta NFs tend to go after careers they feel strongly about, from an ethical standpoint. In other words, they are in it for that meaningful purpose, so money is secondary.
Likewise, LIIs (and idk, maybe ILEs too) tend to be in it for the enlightenment aspects (i.e. thinking up wild and crazy ideas, trying to pursue those ideas), and money ends up being secondary. Even if they end up being financially successful (e.g. Mark Zuckerberg), they did need to take some leaps of faith to get there.
Enneagram: 9w1 6w5 2w3 so/sx
I think they're less likely to put themselves forward for a raise or to negotiate around the politics of your average workplace (weak), so yes, I do think they earn less than would be commensurate with their skill.
No. Salary is not type related. You can easily find a negation for most of the claims in this thread (ex. where a Se dom can push for a higher salary in negotiation a Ne creative may be better at just scouting for a position that maximizes their own earning potential).
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
@ OP: dunno
personally (i'm almost se-polr), i'm reaaalllly good at making money but don't have the motivation to rise to the top of some corporate food chain or see the point. plus focusing on career issues means less time to focus on less stupid stuff.
though lately i've been working my ass off to save a ton of money and take an extended vacation.
also, at some point i intend to buy like a gigantic storage space to build a beowulf cluster in order to perform experiments with economic modeling. (a beowulf cluster is a large number of connected computers operating together to form something like a supercomputer.)
Fair enough.
Easy Day
of course you can find exceptions and outliers, but what the OP was asking about were trends in how type might correlate with pay. if all types are polled for their income, it's doubtful that they will all answer land within the same figure. there were polls done like this on MBTI forums that showed statistically significant differences.
And I'm arguing that I can't see why there should be discernible trends.
They're based on MBTI typings and their convergence to the corresponding socionics types is far from 1:1.there were polls done like this on MBTI forums that showed statistically significant differences.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
When is everyone going to learn that the action itself does not determine the functions, but that it's a matter of performance.
Lots of famous people have been in jobs like that. No matter how advanced society gets, somebody has to still take out the trash right?
Though we pay mass manipulators/charmers the most amount of money, and they get the most respect from society, it doesn't mean the practical deadend jobs still don't need to be done. Blue collar heroes ftw.
You could say 'in the future robots will do all that.' Yeah well who is gonna build the robots?
Other robots.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote