Why are SLEs/ESTps stereotyped as simple minded player jocks?
I found a nice one and I'm paranoid that he might turn out to be a jerk. He's never gone after shallow girls and likes artsy girls because they satisfy his need for depth. Submissiveness seems to be the most important thing as he is kind of difficult.
Is he mistyped, lying, or are SLEs much better than the way that they are portrayed?
He has the tact of a brick
Americans have that idea of SLE. SLE are different depending in the sourrounding culture. Most SLE will take their literal shirt off their back for you and they love having a little "mini-audience" in a person who shows genuine interest and desire to listen -even from artsy fartsy people. Remember they love being paid attention too.
They are infinitly better than portrayed, plus, unfortunately, can also be as portrayed. Being a good person is upbringing related, not type related. What kind of parents would raise a little asshole?
To find out if he is lying, or not a good person depends on what you are willing to put up with and what you can spin through observing him "in time."
My SLE brother does not fit the stereotype at all. He is generous, humorous, is loyal to family, and lives by his own moral code.
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
Thanks. My SLE makes little sacrifices for me like sitting on the dirty ground and letting me on his lap so that i dont get dirty. He also feeds me candy when he's in a good mood.
He has the tact of a brick
lol watOriginally Posted by hyperrcrisis
I second the wat
LSI-Se 836 Sp/Sx
It looks like his candy has gone places.
I have known SLEs with shining-knight-like qualities. They seem to like to keep things simple even though they can be extremely bright and are far from simple themselves. Sometimes, they have to be reminded to think about it rather than to simply experience it. They give the impression that they're continually in 'exploration-mode' never fully committing but I knew some to be very loyal and altruistic. For every type, there's potential to be saintly or evil but most are somewhere in between; to be sure where your potential beau stands, deeds are better indicators of intentions than words, and allow sufficient time to determine consistency of both words and deeds.
a.k.a. I/O
Oh no, those are the SEEs, @Rebelondeck .
I can't say I know a single SLE that is a jock. The socionics stereotype is pretty dumb and simplistic. SLE is one of the types that I really like in how complex and fascinating they often are.
By the way you guys .....
It is not socionics that stereotypes SLE as being a simple-minded jock. That's more like some simplistic stereotypes from the MBTI community.
Meged for example even describes SLE as "complex". When in the MBTI community, that would be the INFJ/NiFe/"IEI" stereotype.
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-Duality-WorkDue to his flexibility, pliancy and fine diplomacy, TE (IEI) is often able to win over the heart of such a complex personality as FL (SLE), with his ambitiousness and subconscious aggression, who usually considers emotions to be a sign of weakness and does not wish to fall into emotional dependency with anyone else.
SLE is Ni-seeking and a fucking logician.
So is there even such a socionics stereotype about SLE. Or is it only in this forum.
SLE can sometimes be a little eccentric or nerdy. Maybe an ti creative / fi polr thing.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Well, SEEs do like to explore a lot like SLEs but seem far more hedonistic and better at diplomacy. SLEs seem more object oriented and determined to do things in their own way whereas SEEs seem more about their own vision of how things should be and how they want the world to behave but they don't usually do it in a storm-the-battlements type of way.Oh no, those are the SEEs, @Rebelondeck .
a.k.a. I/O
Also, IEIs aren't ambitious or aggressive. Meged is wrong, and MBTI is right. And INFJ is definitely IEI and not some mix of actual INFjs and some ENFjs, because the J/p switch totally makes sense outside of INTP theory-land.
No, I've seen SEE-Se that was not diplomatic at all and was more like storm-the-battlements, except not via Ti but via Fi (a personal approach instead of impersonal).
I can't tell if your tone is ironic.The j/p switch makes zero sense for many cases.
I love my SLE cousin, albeit he drives me insane. He's hilarious. Underneath all the bravado it's obvious that he is very soft hearted and generous, and super loyal to his family. He's also very curious and intelligent! He's just difficult to tolerate because he's super insensitive, tends to assume things about people w/o evidence and has a butt load of ridiculous expectations of others etc. His mind games are infuriating, especially for someone who sees right through them.
I find this unusual. I can see them become aggressive but only when they're cornered or threatened. The ones I've known can be rather challenging and flippant but tend to be conflict avoiders.......
a.k.a. I/O
I have the same experience as you. Although am wondering that maybe they are both as object-oriented, but SEEs are able to mask it by Fi. They fit in better because they are social players. Basically the creative function decides how the base is going to be realized.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
I agree. I had meant to say objective oriented; I can only blame the oversight on frequent LII blindness.Although SEEs have objectives as well, I find them to be more positionally or conceptually driven; they collect more to 'possess' rather than for use or achievement......
a.k.a. I/O
Last edited by Rebelondeck; 08-15-2017 at 02:58 PM. Reason: spelling
No one else pause at he like artsy girls to satisfy his need for depth?
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.
I said INTP. I assumed it'd be obvious that that's ironic. But yeah, the J/p switch makes no sense. I got INFJ on MBTI because I like the J dammit. Why have fun when you can have money and awards and march around with a bunch of medals on your jacket like a Banana Republic dictator?I can't tell if your tone is ironic.
The mind games annoy me also, but they should show you how insecure some SLEs really are.
Healthy SLEs won't waste their time testing you, therefore, you're probably dealing with someone unhealthy. Unhealthy SLEs often have a complex where they crave respect, and as such, they will play mind games with everyone around them to assess their strength, a form of projection. They talk loudly, try to throw their weight around and start fights for no obvious reason.
"Do u respect me bitch? Yeah, I am a fuckin tank, and I said, do u respect me?!?!"
Most likely, an SLE who does this will have a micropenis. Just ignore them.
Duly noted. And if that's the case, all the SLEs I have known have been unhealthy.
@hyperrcrisis where are all the mature SLEs at?
They are the girls.
@hyperrcrisis where are all the mature SLEs at?
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.
There are definitely some childish, obnoxious SLE women around. Immaturity affects both sexes.
From what I've observed, female SLEs tend to be tomboys with a girly streak. They have a shock value sense of humour, they're energetic, decisive and keen to see how far they can push you. Sassy, blunt, a bit trollish. SLE girls can also be very loyal if a bit possessive and bossy (this is quite unlike SEEs, who can't ever decide what they want).
I usually find SLE women easy to get on with, being in activity relations with them, but this does depend a lot on other things like their Enneagram type and instinctual stacking. Competency triad SLEs (1, 3, 5) and/or SX-first SLEs are the easiest for me to connect with.
Last edited by Spermatozoa; 08-16-2017 at 03:39 AM.
OK then I don't know what kind of aggression vs diplomacy you are talking about. To me "challenging and flippant" is hardly diplomatic.
And because you didn't put "too" at the end of your original sentence I wasn't sure if you had a typo somewhere so I asked. INFJ can be IEI fine btw
Edit: oh I think if I'd heard your tone/saw your expressions for indicating emphases in that sentence instead of the written line "sounding" totally even/neutral by default, maybe I wouldn't have needed the "too" addition... I managed to read it in a non-neutral way now. Interesting. And totally off topic lol.
I don't think that was really off-topic.And because you didn't put "too" at the end of your original sentence I wasn't sure if you had a typo somewhere so I asked. INFJ can be IEI fine btw
Edit: oh I think if I'd heard your tone/saw your expressions for indicating emphases in that sentence instead of the written line "sounding" totally even/neutral by default, maybe I wouldn't have needed the "too" addition... I managed to read it in a non-neutral way now. Interesting. And totally off topic lol.
And MBTI actually has reasoning for that, which is that introverted rational functions don't manifest themselves externally, which means they won't be "externally orderly". This is based on Jung, but also leads to the misfortune of introverts all being a bunch of slobs when you add in P and J being conscientiousness in MBTI in the first place.
And are you sure that's not because you're mistyping a lot of people? I mean where's your?
...More like Friends in Benefit.
K lol
I did say MBTI uses this assumption ("assuming that the introverted version won't manifest in behaviour")... of course it's nonsensical. Jung never said such a thing, either.And MBTI actually has reasoning for that, which is that introverted rational functions don't manifest themselves externally, which means they won't be "externally orderly". This is based on Jung, but also leads to the misfortune of introverts all being a bunch of slobs when you add in P and J being conscientiousness in MBTI in the first place.
It's not about being orderly though, see here: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-p...ing.htm?bhcp=1
"Don't confuse Judging and Perceiving with a person's level of organization. Either preference can be organized."
I wasn't talking about my own typings of people.And are you sure that's not because you're mistyping a lot of people? I mean where's your
Ne isn't really needed for typing people. Ne would be needed only if trying to type from little detail.
That's not quite the same thing though. The introverted version can manifest itself in behavior without manifesting itself as orderliness. Let's say you have a stereotypical mathematician, which would be Ti Ni in original Jung. They're so busy working with mathematical systems in their head that they bump into walls and misplace all their things. That clearly manifests in behavior, and clearly doesn't manifest as orderliness. That's stereotypical and annoying, but it is a counterexample to thinking introverted rationality translates to external rationality.
...You mean like what the whole Internet is? Even if you want to argue that somehow a few pixels here and there are actually a ton of info about someone, you can connect the dots the same way and get two entirely different pictures easily, so how do you distinguish them then?Ne isn't really needed for typing people. Ne would be needed only if trying to type from little detail.
I guess you could say that
They really know how to turn on sweetness and schmooze to achieve an effect; challenging and flippant are revealed to close friends and those that don't matter. They can be rather deliberate in a carefree and likeable sort of way........
a.k.a. I/O
Hm? I was talking about this strictly in terms of Rationality/Irrationality.
No, Ji isn't the same as Je but it still manifests in an observable way. Or we wouldn't be talking about anything lol
I wasn't talking about using just one photo or one forum post....You mean like what the whole Internet is? Even if you want to argue that somehow a few pixels here and there are actually a ton of info about someone, you can connect the dots the same way and get two entirely different pictures easily, so how do you distinguish them then?
If the dots can be connected in two such different ways then the available data is too ambiguous.
If Je outwardly manifests as orderliness, and you know based on principles that Ji is analogous to Je in the way Pi is analogous to Pe, you don't need for it to manifest as orderliness even if Je does to be able to recognize it as Jx. It needs to manifest as something, but not necessarily as that, or really in any obviously similar way to Je at all. It depends on how you define Jx though.
That picture's still ambigious despite having lots of detail. That was my point.I wasn't talking about using just one photo or one forum post.
If the dots can be connected in two such different ways then the available data is too ambiguous.
Let's replace "orderliness" with "trait X", that Je will manifest in behaviour observable by others. MBTI claims Ji cannot manifest "trait X" and this is where MBTI goes utterly wrong.
Very nice Ni picThat picture's still ambigious despite having lots of detail. That was my point.
Anyway, I can exclude some interpretations for that pic (and in general, for other situations too) if I look closely enough. I'd still prefer having some of the details being more clear before I can claim a conclusion with 100% certainty. In that case, yah, just find a way to make them clearer.
It's not wrong in principle though, which is what you seem to be claiming. If you define that Ij types are not externally orderly in MBTI, then anyone who is externally orderly is not an Ij type in MBTI. MBTI is just a bunch of principles to try to explain what you see. If it makes everyone ESxJ beyond the point where it's not even vaguely useful to type someone as that, that's just proof it's silly, but not that it's internally wrong. That's like asking "What did the bank robbers look like?" "Oh, they all had two legs." That's nearly completely useless, but not wrong.
Thanks. This is the elaborated version of a Dalí sketch but no one is saying whether this one is done by him or not, and who else exactly did it if it's someone else.Very nice Ni pic
I don't think MBTI makes everyone ESxJ...
Yes, it's wrong in principle because "trait X" is a Rationality one (I didn't explicitly say so because I thought the previous context indicated it). This idea that introverted functions are not observable in behaviour or other manifestations (speech etc) is crazy.
Ah, cool.Thanks. This is the elaborated version of a Dalí sketch but no one is saying whether this one is done by him or not, and who else exactly did it if it's someone else.
he likes artsy girls because he hates conformity (Fi polr) but he cant stand more than one date with them. they mostly hoard too much random quirky crap for him. im different because i hate whimsy and im a bit elitist with my taste in everything (beta aristocracy). also i only take him to death related exhibits eg. sculpture maze in a cemetery, photojournalism gallery on war.
@thelocust idk where the mature ones are. i happened to meet mine on a train lol we both went to academically gifted schools and he's a scientist now. hes an ESTP-D-Ti 8w7 which makes him a bit more resposible i think. sometimes i wonder if he's mistyped since he's a bit of a nerd but then i remember that he's aggressive for no reason and loves modifying cars so that he can go F A S T
He has the tact of a brick
Do you catch where I was coming from? Artsy as a proxy for depth is a really odd assessment.
Anyway, hating conformity is a young person thing. most people, SLE included, develop massively once they get out of that stage in life. The dumb jock stereotype comes from their physical nature and competitiveness, and of course young people's prediliction for putting people down to raise their own worth.
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.
we're not your average rebellious teenagers. we're satanists and we've been like this since the age of like 5
He has the tact of a brick
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote