Distinguishing between LIE and LSI

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I put this here because it's to help me decide someone's type. Anyway... suggestions?

[FDG]

Well it's usually kind of easy: LIEs are typically attracted to the "theorethical" or "speculative" part of a given subject, while LSIs' attitude is usually warier (they might be interested, but not as confident). LIEs are often busy with multiple unrelated projects / plans / skills / etc., LSIs are generally more focussed on a given part of their life.

[Azeroffs]

I don't know where to start. LSI and LIE are really different. Maybe describe the person a little?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

EDIT 4/25/11: -snip-

Better description on page 2.

[Suz]

Actually, he sounds LSE to me (TeSi)

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Actually, he sounds LSE to me (TeSi)

I could see the , but what points toward Creative?

[Suz]

I could see the , but what points toward Creative?

The emphasis on health.

Also the way he applies the Te to practical real life things-- like him trying to teach you a more efficient way of doing something.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

He didn't always focus on it. It's partly working in a cancer center and seeing what bad health does to people, and a passage in the Bible that talks about God giving man various plants for fuel (for their bodies). He religiously takes his vitamins and tries to eat as healthy of food as possible; he checks to make sure that certain bad ingredients are not in there, tries to limit our intake of sugar only to weekends, etc. "Rest" isn't really in his vocabulary, though. He doesn't tend to get enough sleep.

Ooooooh. That makes sense.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

*bump* for other opinions.

What leads me to wonder about LSI is the seeming inflexibility of his views. Basically, he's on God's side in the matter, so if you disagree with him, you're really disagreeing with God. My mother's complaint about him is that he's always right and she's always wrong. She also feels like he thinks she's stupid. I'll have to elaborate on that another time. Finally, he tends to be rather extreme in his threats of punishment. For example, he would tell my sister that she couldn't do any more dance until she "got her heart right". Mind you, the kids do 15+ hours a week. Of course, it didn't happen. Do these things conflict with Te base?

[Beautiful sky]

Are you kidding? They are miles away from each other. Imagine walking into a room occupied only by one LSI and one LIE; the LSI will be quiet and shy and reserved and much less likely to converse with you right away and the LIE being open and approachable, almost very gregareous and easy to converse with lots of information (Te).

[Creepy-male]

Out of curiosity, what type is your mother? That sounds like a criticism of a Serious type from a Merry type.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

She's ESE. It's not "stupid" in a "calm down" sort of way. More like she feels that he treats her like she is incompetent by dismissing her opinion all the time. There was a specific situation over the summer, but I won't elaborate on that till I'm on my laptop (makes it a little easier). He also has been known to spring things on her last-minute, which she really hates.

[Aiss]

Are you sure you aren't confusing his fanaticism with being an xSTj? Not saying it sounds remotely like an LIE, but what you describe about strict religiousness coupled with close-mindedness seems to overshadow every other quality.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Are you sure you aren't confusing his fanaticism with being an xSTj?

Not his religiosity but his stubbornness and the seeming inflexibility of his views. He was probably plenty stubborn before his conversion to Christianity (though I did not know him at the time). That is why I consider LSI.

Not saying it sounds remotely like an LIE, but what you describe about strict religiousness coupled with close-mindedness seems to overshadow every other quality.

In my opinion, it does, and maybe that's because it's the main complaint I heard growing up and what irritates me so much. It's what I would consider to be one of his largest flaws. He has good traits as well, of course.

[Trevor]

LSI>LSE>other.

One question: His regimented style and all those rules blahblah etc: does he consider it as more of a burden, something that just has to be done, something that's kinda just imposed on you. Or is it more like something primarily done out of enjoyement, its value being this sense of power and peace of mind it gives you. ??

[Cuddly McFluffles]

One question: His regimented style and all those rules blahblah etc: does he consider it as more of a burden, something that just has to be done, something that's kinda just imposed on you. Or is it more like something primarily done out of enjoyement, its value being this sense of power and peace of mind it gives you. ??

I don't know about "regimented". I think that he imposes those standards on us because he honestly believes it's how we're supposed to live, and he wants to "train us up properly". Probably feels responsible to God. I would have to ask him to be absolutely sure of that, but I'm not sure whether I want to bring up the subject. He'll probably find some way to tie it into God, and I don't care to be preached at.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm pretty ticked, so we'll see if I can think straight.

One of his glaring faults is that he demands respect but doesn't show it himself. We're not allowed to tell him we don't want to hear what he has to say. He'll keep talking. We're not allowed to protest when he repeats himself ten times. He'll just tell us that he'll say it as many times as it takes. Screw our feelings, our boundaries; he "loves" us, so he'll make sure that what he has to say, what will benefit us if we'll only listen, is said.

[Marie84]

I'm pretty ticked, so we'll see if I can think straight.

One of his glaring faults is that he demands respect but doesn't show it himself. We're not allowed to tell him we don't want to hear what he has to say. He'll keep talking. We're not allowed to protest when he repeats himself ten times. He'll just tell us that he'll say it as many times as it takes. Screw our feelings, our boundaries; he "loves" us, so he'll make sure that what he has to say, what will benefit us if we'll only listen, is said.

this sounds a lot like my own LSI father to be quite frank

* the part about expecting respect from others but not showing it; he seems to except someone else to personify the qualities he seeks and if they don't he becomes rather haughty and negative.
* the repetition; it doesn't necessarily have to be the exact phrases or wording, but the same point stated over and over in a very uncompromising manner.
* not caring, or at least not showing consideration, towards the impact that he has on others. It's a stubbornness in not tolerating opposition regardless of how it may negativity affect others
* in many instances, believing his ideologies/opinions are the truth and should be stated for benefits sake

fwiw, I see this as valuing >, as in, "expressing my message is more important than the potential negative affect it may have on others, and thus I'm not very concerned if people dislike me/made to feel uncomfortable by it because I refuse to be to subservient"
at least that's how I process it...

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I was hoping you would come by and weigh in. Maybe he is LSI after all.

I find it difficult to comprehend that such traits could be considered healthy and even desirable by certain types. However, it is nice to have an explanation for such behavior, and I thank you for that. It's sad and quite perplexing to me, but he wants to know why I reject him.

As an addition to the above info, IIRC, he has told me that he enjoyed how firm in my convictions I was, as well as how full of life I was. It has been mentioned by a family member that he used to dislike me, but that may have been because he viewed me as the "problem" in the situation with his sons. The explanation of that statement is rather long.

[Marie84]

I was hoping you would come by and weigh in. Maybe he is LSI after all.

I find it difficult to comprehend that such traits could be considered healthy and even desirable by certain types. However, it is nice to have an explanation for such behavior, and I thank you for that. It's sad and quite perplexing to me, but he wants to know why I reject him.

As an addition to the above info, IIRC, he has told me that he enjoyed how firm in my convictions I was, as well as how full of life I was. It has been mentioned by a family member that he used to dislike me, but that may have been because he viewed me as the "problem" in the situation with his sons. The explanation of that statement is rather long.

thank you, I'm srsly flattered

I was actually following the thread prior but really didn't have a clear picture of the type in question except for a probable Logical Rational, unlikely LII, until your last post which hit closer to home I guess. I really don't want to say "he is LSI" it's just a similarity I noticed in some of the LSI's I've observed.

Anywho, the part you mentioned about finding it hard to see those qualities as healthy is certainly something to think about, that is, if maybe we see certain things through different lenses, in the case of Socionics, from different valued perspectives and thus something appears negative/unhealthy to one person and positive to another.

[1981slater]

Generally speaking:

LSI wisecracks successfully with a slight grin
LIE wisecracks unsuccessfully with a big grin

[Cuddly McFluffles]

thank you, I'm srsly flattered

You're welcome.

I was actually following the thread prior but really didn't have a clear picture of the type in question except for a probable Logical Rational, unlikely LII, until your last post which hit closer to home I guess. I really don't want to say "he is LSI" it's just a similarity I noticed in some of the LSI's I've observed.

Ok. Yeah, LII would make little sense, especially with an ESE mother. I suspect that I can eliminate LSE, which brings me back to the two types mentioned earlier.

Anywho, the part you mentioned about finding it hard to see those qualities as healthy is certainly something to think about, that is, if maybe we see certain things through different lenses, in the case of Socionics, from different valued perspectives and thus something appears negative/unhealthy to one person and positive to another.

Definitely. If he is Beta, I can eliminate it for myself. Regardless, I would be very surprised if we were in the same quadra.

[silverchris9]

Definitely. If he is Beta, I can eliminate it for myself. Regardless, I would be very surprised if we were in the same quadra.

Ergh... I wouldn't eliminate any types for yourself based on parents. There have been times when I've been like, "[insert parent here] must be in my opposing quadra!" And then there have been times like, "[insert parent here] must be in the same quadra as me!" Parental relationships probably have more to do with non-socionics factors than any other relationship in the universe, so... yeah. Please don't type yourself based on issues with your parents.

That said, I do think that the descriptions you gave sound more LSI than LIE or LSE. I think your dad's embrace of Christianity seems, from your descriptions, more like an embrace of a system than an embrace of "the facts." Both Ti and Te can be dogmatic about THE TRUTH, but Ti tends to be a little more about "the truth" and Te tends to be a little more about "the facts".

I think the issue with wanting respect but not showing it has to do with... um... maybe positional respect, which is a concept I see more relative to betas than to deltas, although it has a cultural dimension which transcends socionics. But in general, it is sort of a beta concept, this idea that a certain person's respect is founded in their "position" and as such that is sufficient conditions for demanding respect without necessarily reciprocating, or appearing to reciprocate.

My dad is LSI, and often makes people feel stupid for not doing things in a way that "makes sense." That's another way to sort of thinking about Te vs. Ti. Is your dad more concerned with what "makes sense" (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, does he claim that the behavior is internally inconsistent, or doesn't fit within a given system, such as "if you claim to be a Christian, how can you possibly fart at the dinner table! Clearly it says right here in matthew 8, thou shalt not fart at the dinner table. Come on, you've gotta follow what it says, or just don't claim to be a Christian), or with what "fits with the facts," (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, is it more... I dunno, it feels more black and white to me, but it's more about not fitting the facts, more about external correspondence, about contradicting a fact, such as "Christians don't fart at the dinner table. Everyone knows that, come on, farting at the dinner table is just the wrong way to do it. If you farted on the toilet instead, it would just work way better, and besides, Christians just don't do that, so you better not do it either.")

Also, notice how Te has Ti in the background and Ti has Te in the background. Obviously, any deductive claim rests on an initial assertion of fact, and any attempt to apply a factual test assumes noncontradiction (i.e., you are wrong because you contradict this fact). Te foregrounds the fact and puts the idea that you contradict it in the background; Ti foregrounds the internal incoherence and puts the truth assertion (in my example, the idea that the Bible says Christians shouldn't fart at the dinner table) in the background.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Ergh... I wouldn't eliminate any types for yourself based on parents. There have been times when I've been like, "[insert parent here] must be in my opposing quadra!" And then there have been times like, "[insert parent here] must be in the same quadra as me!" Parental relationships probably have more to do with non-socionics factors than any other relationship in the universe, so... yeah. Please don't type yourself based on issues with your parents.

It has more to do with, "If he's using a [quadra]-accepted approach, I'm clearly not [quadra], because it seriously ticks me off/causes me pain," if that makes sense. However, I agree that non-socionic factors can help or hinder relations.

That said, I do think that the descriptions you gave sound more LSI than LIE or LSE. I think your dad's embrace of Christianity seems, from your descriptions, more like an embrace of a system than an embrace of "the facts." Both Ti and Te can be dogmatic about THE TRUTH, but Ti tends to be a little more about "the truth" and Te tends to be a little more about "the facts".

I’m not sure which angle he approaches it from.

I think the issue with wanting respect but not showing it has to do with... um... maybe positional respect, which is a concept I see more relative to betas than to deltas, although it has a cultural dimension which transcends socionics. But in general, it is sort of a beta concept, this idea that a certain person's respect is founded in their "position" and as such that is sufficient conditions for demanding respect without necessarily reciprocating, or appearing to reciprocate.

I agree. As far as I see things, he thinks he is to be respected because the Bible says so. He doesn’t see forcing his opinions on us as disrespect but rather doing anything he can to help us along. Our current feelings are disregarded for our practical or spiritual “benefit”. Then he: a) blames us for our negative reactions, and b) is genuinely perplexed by our rejection, because he’s “just trying to help”. In short, the problem is us and not him.

My dad is LSI, and often makes people feel stupid for not doing things in a way that "makes sense." That's another way to sort of thinking about Te vs. Ti. Is your dad more concerned with what "makes sense" (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, does he claim that the behavior is internally inconsistent, or doesn't fit within a given system, such as "if you claim to be a Christian, how can you possibly fart at the dinner table! Clearly it says right here in matthew 8, thou shalt not fart at the dinner table. Come on, you've gotta follow what it says, or just don't claim to be a Christian), or with what "fits with the facts," (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, is it more... I dunno, it feels more black and white to me, but it's more about not fitting the facts, more about external correspondence, about contradicting a fact, such as "Christians don't fart at the dinner table. Everyone knows that, come on, farting at the dinner table is just the wrong way to do it. If you farted on the toilet instead, it would just work way better, and besides, Christians just don't do that, so you better not do it either.")

Hm. Hard to say. He does tend to be very, very extreme. For example, what I said earlier about being a creationist but having no problem with the concept of micro-evolution; he flat-out told me that to believe in adaptational evolution is to reject Genesis, and that I might as well throw out the entire Bible if I’m going to believe in it.

This is a bit incomplete, but I have to run.

[Exodus]

Are you kidding? They are miles away from each other. Imagine walking into a room occupied only by one LSI and one LIE; the LSI will be quiet and shy and reserved and much less likely to converse with you right away and the LIE being open and approachable, almost very gregareous and easy to converse with lots of information (Te).

NOT TYPE RELATED

This is a common misconception. Extroverts are not necessarily gregarious in socionics.

@Ryene LSI seems to fit everything. Sounds a lot like my LSI mother, actually. Definitely not LIE; all the health stuff indicates strong .

[silverchris9]

It has more to do with, "If he's using a [quadra]-accepted approach, I'm clearly not [quadra], because it seriously ticks me off/causes me pain," if that makes sense. However, I agree that non-socionic factors can help or hinder relations.

Yeah, I know... I still wouldn't judge anything socionics related based on parents. I know how you're approaching it: this approach is painful to me, if it is related to quadra x, I am not quadra x. But I'm saying that no matter what quadra it's associated with, the fact that it is painful to you is going to be so exacerbated by the fact that it's your parents that the quadra aspect of it is comparatively diminished, if that makes sense. So I guess you could still use it as partial evidence for your own typing, but please don't take it as conclusive evidence.

I agree. As far as I see things, he thinks he is to be respected because the Bible says so. He doesn’t see forcing his opinions on us as disrespect but rather doing anything he can to help us along. Our current feelings are disregarded for our practical or spiritual “benefit”. Then he: a) blames us for our negative reactions, and b) is genuinely perplexed by our rejection, because he’s “just trying to help”. In short, the problem is us and not him.

I know that sucks for you. But it's not really type related... anybody can have a factual disagreement about religion. I mean, if you honestly believed that people you loved would suffer forever if they didn't believe a certain thing, wouldn't you be kind of zealous about it? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that any type can be zealous about religion. It's how they approach that zeal that is type related. Religion requires that you honestly believe that it's the truth. And so, yeah, he thinks that the people who disagree with him are the "problem," because he genuinely believes that he's right...

The only thing that sounds type related about this is the general ST inability to understand how to best affect someone's true interior deep world, and religious conversion/belief does require affecting someone's deep world, not jut their intellectual assent to a series of propositions. STs tend to think they can overwhelm you with "the truth," without really doing the important work of showing you why/how their beliefs are good.

You know what might help in typing him? What "flavor" of Christianity did he fall in love with? What I mean by this is, LSEs are much more likely to follow a very service-based Christianity. They're likely to look at it and go, "Oh, these people are doing real, practical work, I want to join them and you should too." Whereas LSIs are more likely to go in for the real Charismatic kind, because intensely emotional religious experience stimulates their suggestive function and gives them an acceptable way to really "go into themselves" emotionally. Neither way is better or worse than the other, but that is type related.

Hm. Hard to say. He does tend to be very, very extreme. For example, what I said earlier about being a creationist but having no problem with the concept of micro-evolution; he flat-out told me that to believe in adaptational evolution is to reject Genesis, and that I might as well throw out the entire Bible if I’m going to believe in it.

Hmm... that sounds LSI to me, that sounds like emphasis on the contradiction part, i.e., Macroevolution is in direct contradiction with Genesis (internal contradiction). I also think he might be LSI because I feel like I'm inclined to defend him, lol. Not that I actually know your dad, so what I'm actually defending is the idea of such a person.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Writing a long post is difficult on my phone, but I would like to address one thing in particular. His pushy behavior is not confined to his religious beliefs. He recently did the same thing to me over a job situation.

[Aiss]

That said, I do think that the descriptions you gave sound more LSI than LIE or LSE. I think your dad's embrace of Christianity seems, from your descriptions, more like an embrace of a system than an embrace of "the facts." Both Ti and Te can be dogmatic about THE TRUTH, but Ti tends to be a little more about "the truth" and Te tends to be a little more about "the facts".

I think the issue with wanting respect but not showing it has to do with... um... maybe positional respect, which is a concept I see more relative to betas than to deltas, although it has a cultural dimension which transcends socionics. But in general, it is sort of a beta concept, this idea that a certain person's respect is founded in their "position" and as such that is sufficient conditions for demanding respect without necessarily reciprocating, or appearing to reciprocate.

My dad is LSI, and often makes people feel stupid for not doing things in a way that "makes sense." That's another way to sort of thinking about Te vs. Ti. Is your dad more concerned with what "makes sense" (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, does he claim that the behavior is internally inconsistent, or doesn't fit within a given system, such as "if you claim to be a Christian, how can you possibly fart at the dinner table! Clearly it says right here in matthew 8, thou shalt not fart at the dinner table. Come on, you've gotta follow what it says, or just don't claim to be a Christian), or with what "fits with the facts," (i.e., when he criticizes behavior, is it more... I dunno, it feels more black and white to me, but it's more about not fitting the facts, more about external correspondence, about contradicting a fact, such as "Christians don't fart at the dinner table. Everyone knows that, come on, farting at the dinner table is just the wrong way to do it. If you farted on the toilet instead, it would just work way better, and besides, Christians just don't do that, so you better not do it either.")

Also, notice how Te has Ti in the background and Ti has Te in the background. Obviously, any deductive claim rests on an initial assertion of fact, and any attempt to apply a factual test assumes noncontradiction (i.e., you are wrong because you contradict this fact). Te foregrounds the fact and puts the idea that you contradict it in the background; Ti foregrounds the internal incoherence and puts the truth assertion (in my example, the idea that the Bible says Christians shouldn't fart at the dinner table) in the background.

It's just so funny how your Te description is all about Ti stuff (applying to a system of rules), except obfuscated and taken to the extreme (rules, systems of rules, more rules, unclear rules?). Though I guess that's what happens when you try to understand Te in terms of Ti - it makes it sound like a bad Ti.

Also, fwiw a common argument between my mother (ESE) and I is "it doesn't make sense! *tries to explain why*" "oh, of course, everything has to make sense, how could I forget *rants for half an hour about how horrible I am*". So by your typing system, I'm Ti valuing and she's Ti devaluing. In case you wondered, it doesn't work.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Yeah, I know... I still wouldn't judge anything socionics related based on parents. I know how you're approaching it: this approach is painful to me, if it is related to quadra x, I am not quadra x. But I'm saying that no matter what quadra it's associated with, the fact that it is painful to you is going to be so exacerbated by the fact that it's your parents that the quadra aspect of it is comparatively diminished, if that makes sense. So I guess you could still use it as partial evidence for your own typing, but please don't take it as conclusive evidence.

It doesn't really make sense.

I know that sucks for you. But it's not really type related... anybody can have a factual disagreement about religion. I mean, if you honestly believed that people you loved would suffer forever if they didn't believe a certain thing, wouldn't you be kind of zealous about it? I'm not saying it's right or wrong, just saying that any type can be zealous about religion. It's how they approach that zeal that is type related. Religion requires that you honestly believe that it's the truth. And so, yeah, he thinks that the people who disagree with him are the "problem," because he genuinely believes that he's right...

See above reply. Fwiw, I want him to stay out of my spiritual life. I don't mind going to people for spiritual advice, but I feel that he's lost his right to interfere.

However, the problem is that he cannot accept being disagreed with. His view has to be accepted as right, even in non-religious matters, and he will keep at it until you understand and agree.

You know what might help in typing him? What "flavor" of Christianity did he fall in love with? What I mean by this is, LSEs are much more likely to follow a very service-based Christianity. They're likely to look at it and go, "Oh, these people are doing real, practical work, I want to join them and you should too." Whereas LSIs are more likely to go in for the real Charismatic kind, because intensely emotional religious experience stimulates their suggestive function and gives them an acceptable way to really "go into themselves" emotionally. Neither way is better or worse than the other, but that is type related.

I'm not sure. He does try to be at church and volunteer there whenever possible.

[silverchris9]

It's just so funny how your Te description is all about Ti stuff (applying to a system of rules), except obfuscated and taken to the extreme (rules, systems of rules, more rules, unclear rules?). Though I guess that's what happens when you try to understand Te in terms of Ti - it makes it sound like a bad Ti.

Also, fwiw a common argument between my mother (ESE) and I is "it doesn't make sense! *tries to explain why*" "oh, of course, everything has to make sense, how could I forget *rants for half an hour about how horrible I am*". So by your typing system, I'm Ti valuing and she's Ti devaluing. In case you wondered, it doesn't work.

Aww... but I tried my best to make them sound equally ridiculous. Anyway, I'm still pretty sure that I'm right about Ti being more system based and Te being more discrete. And obviously, when you say something doesn't make sense, you don't necessarily mean, "this is internally inconsistent." nor does type dictate which test of truth (correspondence or coherence) you have to use at any given instance. Rather, it broadly describes one's default fundamental mode of thinking, like any "stereotype" of socionics.

TWO DAYS LATER EDIT: Also, nobody likes being told that what they're doing doesn't make sense, so of course when you approach your mother by telling her that what she thinks doesn't make sense, she gets defensive. With any generalization you have to be smart in how you apply it, and recognize when there are other factors at play. In the case you described, "being offended" is the dominant thing at play, not "coherence vs. correspondence." I'm sorry I didn't account for that in my initial description, but I figured it was assumed that other factors could be more important in individual situations/relationships.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

*wonders if he's going to reply to her reply* >.>

[silverchris9]

Who, me? Um... I dunno, none of the ideas I offered really seemed to help, so I just figured we'd let it drop?

[Cuddly McFluffles]

OK, then.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Are LSIs necessarily practical? That may sound dumb, but here's the issue: Dad can sometimes disregard valid issues in favor of "having faith that God will take care of it". Examples:

1) He picked me up early from work yesterday (around 8pm). He had called AAA to tow his eldest son's vehicle, which had died and was sticking out into a major road. Hours later (when he picked me up), he still hadn't heard from a tow truck. He told Mom about the situation and how he was waiting on the call. Mom was irritated that he planned on sitting there for who-knows-how-long when we had a guest with us that needed to get home at a decent hour (said guest is 10). Dad's reply was that she needed to have faith that it would all work out. She eventually hung up on him out of exasperation.

2) He had recommended a well-paying job to me, one that came with benefits. He had even put in a good word for me, and the supervisor was interested if I was. While I was waiting for it to post, I got a call-back from my current job, which pays considerably less and is part time. He asked me today if I had kept up with the other job's availability and recommended that I pursue it. I told him it probably wouldn't work with my availability, and he said I'd just have to quit my other job. I think it looks very bad to turn around and quit a job that I've just started, especially for another job. He told me that any manager would understand, and he was going on about how sometimes you've got to go out and take things, and God was in there somewhere. I just quit listening to him and turned on my headphones.

So... type-related?

EDIT: Just to clarify, religiousness itself is not type-related. I'm curious whether this particular manifestation of it is.

[Computer Loser]

Are LSIs necessarily practical? That may sound dumb, but here's the issue: Dad can sometimes disregard valid issues in favor of "having faith that God will take care of it". Examples:

1) He picked me up early from work yesterday (around 8pm). He had called AAA to tow his eldest son's vehicle, which had died and was sticking out into a major road. Hours later (when he picked me up), he still hadn't heard from a tow truck. He told Mom about the situation and how he was waiting on the call. Mom was irritated that he planned on sitting there for who-knows-how-long when we had a guest with us that needed to get home at a decent hour (said guest is 10). Dad's reply was that she needed to have faith that it would all work out. She eventually hung up on him out of exasperation.

2) He had recommended a well-paying job to me, one that came with benefits. He had even put in a good word for me, and the supervisor was interested if I was. While I was waiting for it to post, I got a call-back from my current job, which pays considerably less and is part time. He asked me today if I had kept up with the other job's availability and recommended that I pursue it. I told him it probably wouldn't work with my availability, and he said I'd just have to quit my other job. I think it looks very bad to turn around and quit a job that I've just started, especially for another job. He told me that any manager would understand, and he was going on about how sometimes you've got to go out and take things, and God was in there somewhere. I just quit listening to him and turned on my headphones.

So... type-related?

EDIT: Just to clarify, religiousness itself is not type-related. I'm curious whether this particular manifestation of it is.

Hello.

If he's LSI, perhaps it's mobilizing Ni coupled with faith in God?

Mobilizing Ni in LSIs:

"The individual periodically needs an outside evaluation of how a situation is likely to develop in order to keep from worrying excessively. Without an outside reassurance that a task can be accomplished in time without hurry, or that there is no need to deal with an ongoing development and that for the moment it's best to wait and see, the individual is anxious and inclined to try to deal with such issues immediately and sometimes impulsively."

So perhaps to prevent himself from worrying excessively, he alleviates this by saying that God (as the outside reassurance) will take care of it?

Also, LSIs are very committed to their core values and will instill/project these whenever appropriate. Perhaps as the father figure, he wants make sure that the rest of the family understands this importance.

Personally, I try to tell myself God will take care of it when times are tough. (though its hard to do so all the time..)

[Cuddly McFluffles]

That is an interesting thought. Thank you.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

So those descriptions have serious "walls of text" syndrome. I plan to consolidate them into something neater (and shorter).

[silke]

so far I'm picking up LSE attitudes from these stories

"He's very hardworking … he's very, very hardworking" - LSEs and ESEs tend to have that kind of reputation, they focus on completing immediate tasks as a result the impression is that they are always doing something, constantly accomplishing tasks i.e. that they are hardworking
"He tries to get me to do things that make me healthy" - likely creative Si, ESEs will often do things to promote health of family members, would fit into Caretaker romancing style indicative of Si egos
"he tends to be unwilling to consider others' opinions; in other words, he has to be right" - Te leading types can latch onto an idea and be really stubborn about it, you can read more about this king-of-the-mountain style of arguing here: link
"It wasn't a matter of degrees of transgressing; rather, it was increasing degrees of punishment based on how many times one has already transgressed during the day" - values justice, pays attention that the punishment coincides with the number of "transgressions", definite Te
"He wants our house to be clean, because he feels that God cannot give us more if we cannot be diligent with what we have" - and more Si creative at work here
"It has been said that he does things for external recognition" - Je ego, in case of Te seeks that others respect him
"She's ESE. It's not "stupid" in a "calm down" sort of way. More like she feels that he treats her like she is incompetent by dismissing her opinion all the time." - sounds like this one might be a Ti-Te clash
"One of his glaring faults is that he demands respect but doesn't show it himself." - yeah that's Te again, he may also have episodes of super-id Fi exerting its influence, LSEs when their Fi weights in they can start feeling like they are not valued, not appreciated, and not respected enough by those who are close to them and become extra sensitive to instance of criticism or insubordination

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Description completed... I think. My brain's fuzzy right now, so my thinking processes are offline. I'll try to post it tomorrow.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

Here you go. It's still pretty long, but there should be less redundancy, and info is separated into paragraphs now.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He’s a generally decent person who really loves his family. He works hard and puts in overtime constantly so we have money to do things. He seems very extroverted, though he once told me that he viewed approaching people as a “task” set by God. He’s very long-winded and prone to lecturing/sermonizing, and he will repeat something as many times as he feels is necessary, even if we react negatively to it. He also dislikes when we complain or express anger, telling us we’re supposed to “give it to Jesus”, and citing what happened to the Israelites in the OT when they complained. He doesn't like to read things that are not beneficial to him, and he has asked me before how I thought a certain series would benefit me when I asked permission to read it (long story).

He works in a laboratory at a medical center; the job is apparently fast-paced and very detail-oriented, and he does both just fine. He said that his perfectionist traits tend to carry over to home life, as they’re not so easy to just turn off when he leaves work. He also has a tendency to try and cram too many tasks into too little time, trying to fit things in at the last minute and making us late to go places.

Depending on one's view of the situation, he is either highly principled or morally uptight. Everyone in the family (we number 7 in all) thinks he’s a stick-in-the-mud. He won’t watch a movie if it has even one swear word in it; he believes that even one bit of something bad is too much. He has, however, shown himself willing to bend certain rules at times. I remember an instance where we were going on vacation out of state and the hotel, which had told us we could fit five people in the room, told us at the very last minute that it couldn’t be done. He was in favor of sneaking me into the hotel room anyway, since they had said up until then that it would be alright. So maybe he makes a distinction between rules and moral principles? He seems pretty accepting of liveliness, though. He’s made comments on how I used to be a lot of fun and how he enjoyed my energy, when to be frank, I was a loud kid who bounced off the walls. And, of course, he doesn’t seem to be turned off by Mom’s spastic personality. He can be fairly expressive himself at times.

He’s pretty verbally affectionate. He’ll say things like how we’re the “most beautiful Mom/daughters he could dream of marrying/having.” I suppose he’s also physically affectionate. He tends to hug us before he leaves for work and before he goes to bed. He seems to feel like we shouldn’t be able to refuse his hug, though (which pisses me off). He likes to joke and tease; the family atmosphere is one of friendly combat.

He seems to be pretty non-confrontational, at least outside the house; whether this is innate or due to disapproval issues rooted in his childhood, I can't fully say. Mom has really gotten on his case before because he needed to take care of something (like renters who weren’t paying, or something like that), and he wasn’t doing so. He seems to be more future-focused than Mom is, particularly in terms of saving versus spending. He has his impractical moments, though (figuratively jumping off a cliff and expecting that “God will take care of it” is not faith).

He used to try to show me that I could do a job faster by demonstrating it himself. It never caught on; I'd just get irritated. He seems to have since accepted that I work slowly, even telling me I should choose one job over another because the former was fast-paced (and also because the latter would utilize my perfectionistic tendencies). One of our more recent issues is how he’ll ask us to do something, indicating that we have a choice when we really don’t. We ran into that recently, where he asked if I was interested to hear something in the Bible (we saw the verse on a bumper sticker); and when I decided to be honest for once and tell him I wasn’t, he said, “At least someone was,” and read it anyway.

As I’ve mentioned before, he expects respect (read: obedience and agreement) from us, but he doesn’t necessarily feel like he has to give it in return. Perhaps a better way to put it would be that if he feels that what he has to say is going to benefit us in some way, he’ll push as hard as he needs to or talk as long as he needs to (even if he told us it wasn’t going to take long, or that he was only going to read so much). We’re apparently supposed to be understanding about this because he loves us and has our best interests at heart; and if we complain about his taking too long during devotions, we get the “God didn’t have to care about you, but He did, so shouldn’t you care about God?” spiel. Or some variation thereof.

Health:
He is very concerned with matters of health, something he latched onto some years ago: he checks to see what ingredients are in the food we buy; he only wants us to have sugar on weekends; he wants us to take vitamins; he wants us to get to sleep at a decent time, etc. Probably greatly due to this, he rarely gets sick. He does, however, have a tendency to overwork himself and get too little sleep.

Religion:
He is very, very dedicated to his religion. He likes to volunteer at church, especially in the children’s church or the church dramas. He’s also very committed to facilitating our spiritual growth. Unfortunately, he comes on way too strong. We found a clip where a Christian comedian talks about people who are “over-saved”; that’s him all the way. We get way too many mini-sermons, and that’s not counting the “evening devotions”. He tends to operate under the belief that our growth is more important than our feelings, so he’ll push his opinions on us long after we’ve expressed disagreement. Of course, we aren’t allowed to call him on his crap, argue back, or walk away; that’s disrespectful, and God said he’s the head of the house and must be obeyed, so if we disobey him, we’re really disobeying God. He really needs to learn about mental boundaries. He also has tended to neglect projects that need to be done at home because he’s off doing stuff for church. This greatly pisses my mother off. She and her mother have said that he’s approval-seeking, which is why he does so much at church.

He finds a way to relate pretty much anything to God. He is very much into picking up after oneself, keeping our coffee-maker full of water at all times - basically "being a blessing" to others in the house. He wants our house to be clean, because he feels that God cannot give us more if we cannot be diligent with what we have.

Anecdote - A rather recent experience that I had: I receive the Popular Science magazine (present from my mom), and I found something fascinating in it about what was known as the fastest-evolving bird(/creature?). Now, I am not a believer in evolution; but I see no problem with the idea of animals adapting to their environment. Well, I mentioned the birds to my dad. Long story short, he believes that even the idea of adaptation of species is unbiblical and wrong. He said that God created every animal at Creation the way they are now, and if I don't believe that, I might as well toss out the Bible. I got mad at him and told him he was being close-minded. Not long after, I just walked off. A day or two later, he brought it up and apologized for his getting angry over it, and i apologized for opposing him in front of the kids (he prefers I do it when they are not around, as it doesn't set a bad example, and I understand this). Well, neither of us was budging from our belief on the issue, regardless of our acknowledging having gone at it the wrong way. I made some comment along the lines of "We'll have to agree to disagree". Before we got to my school, he asked if I would at least pray and ask God to show me if I was wrong (or something like that). I ignored him, and I haven't done what he asked; because the way in which he asked came across to me as him still thinking himself right and being unwilling to consider the possibility of being wrong. I shouldn't have to be the only one willing to admit that, so I chose not to be.

Discipline:
His strictness in a disciplinary sense has gone from one end of the spectrum in the span of my parents' 16-year marriage. When my stepbrothers and I were children, we would get swats, or we would have to stand in the corner; my eldest brother racked up a whopping 23 hours in the corner, though I forget why. At one point, there was a "check" system, basically a certain punishment based upon the number of offenses we had committed in one day (the punishments built upon each other). Now, he may ground; he doesn't seem to spank often; he threatens (sometimes extreme punishment, like no dance classes for kids who take 11+ hours a week) but doesn't necessarily follow through, giving many, many chances to change one's behavior; or he will tell the kids to go fix their attitude by praying and then rejoin the family.

Anecdote 1 - The one incident that really ticked me off was when my little brother made some comments about my little sister at their dance class that really embarrassed her. Mom asked Dad what kind of punishment my brother should get for that. In the end, "praying and getting his heart right, and not doing that again" was the punishment Dad decided on for him.

Anecdote 2 - I remember this system he and Mom set up when we were younger; we'd get a "check(mark)". Each one had a different punishment of increasing severity.

It wasn't a matter of degrees of transgressing; rather, it was increasing degrees of punishment based on how many times one has already transgressed during the day. It could be anything: hitting your brother earns you the first punishment. Not listening to Mom and Dad earns you the second punishment on the list, not because it is any worse than the other but because it is the second transgression of the day. Something else done wrong earns the third punishment, and so forth. It started over each day. That's not to say if you did something huge it wouldn't be judged accordingly; but that was the basic system.

Socionics:
When I first introduced him to it, he soon asked me where the practical benefit lay. He later asked me (more than once) how I plan to apply it in my future. A couple of times, he has gotten caught up in Socionic definitions that do not follow the colloquial meaning of said term (like "ethics", for example). He also believes that “one cannot put God in a box”. He sometimes asks me how I'm going to apply Socionics to...I guess what I'll be doing with my life. He also talks about how a system has to be grasp-able (my words) by people. And he wanted to know the practical application of Socionics after I kept mentioning it to him.

Other anecdotes:
Back in winter of ’08, we spent Christmas in California with Mom’s father and his wife. We took a day to go see a fish hatchery; and on the way, we stopped at a McDonald’s. Long story short, Mom and Dad disagreed over what to do about food. Dad wanted to save money, and Mom just wanted everyone to enjoy themselves. It ended with Dad ordering something inexpensive (that he apparently really did want) and Mom stomping off in a huff and sitting outside by the van while the rest of us ate.