Money: Te vs Se

[Joy]

This is actually more of an Alpha vs. Delta question.

Okay, so recently I was talking to an EII about her relationship with her Alpha boyfriend, and she expressed frustration that he didn't seem to be in any hurry to find a job after losing his almost a year ago, and didn't seem to understand why buying a house was so important to her. She felt like she was being petty by caring about his having a job when everything else about him and the relationship was so great, and I assured her that she wasn't. At that point she said that the real frustration was that she had ambitions for the future. She said that she is an ambitious person and wants her partner to be ambitious as well.

She's a student and people in her field sometimes make $100,000+ a year if they work in the right position for the right company and have experience. She said that she wanted to be there in ten years, and that she wanted to start building equity and appreciation in a house in the meantime, which is one of the reasons why she wants so badly to buy a house as soon as possible (something he seemed completely indifferent to). He, on the other hand, didn't seem to want anything out of life. As long as the bare minimum of needs are being met in which he can control the his own living space (at least one room), preferable in a reasonably comfortable environment, that's all he cares about.

This conversation sort of confused me because when I was with an LII, the topic of buying a house and building financial prosperity were a huge point of friction. He couldn't see why owning a home was preferable to renting when one can maintain a higher standard of living at a lower monthly cost by renting. He also said that my enterprising nature was one of the least attractive things about me. I assumed at the time that it was largely because he had a Se PoLR/unvalued Se.

Most of the Alphas and Deltas I know care only about being having a comfortable lifestyle and being financially secure than about financial ambitions. ESE's, who I consider to be the most enterprising type in Alpha, seem to be the best in the quadra at running small businesses and creating a comfortable lifestyle. They have strong Se, but it's also unvalued. They also have a Te role, but again, it's unvalued.

The ESE I know best is my boss. He's successful in his field (home and commercial building inspection), owns the company he works for (most home inspectors around here do), sells inspection report forms and software to other inspectors, and even owns a small amount of investment real estate. When we talk about truly wealthy people though, he has this belief that the only way to "get rich" is to be unethical and screw people over. He has a desire to make his business grow, but when I offered ideas as to ways to turn his small business (him owning his job) into a large business (one which he wouldn't have to work in) he said that it will never be that way, that he wants to reduce the amount of work he has to do and increase his income, but that it's never going to be big and that he's always going to have to be the one running it. He is also very resistant to the idea of increasing the number of units of rental property that he owns because he didn't want to have to manage all of them. When I suggested hiring a management company, he said that most of the money you make in owning rental properties is in the management. So pretty much all he's done is bought himself another job.

So anyways, I had been thinking this whole time that it was a Ne/Si vs. Ni/Se issue, but my conversation with the EII has made me question this assumption. The LII I was with would have never talked the same way she did about ambition and $100,000+ salaries.

Either I've mistyped her, or this is as much about Te as it is about Se. The really confusing thing for me is that, LSE's, who are Te dominant and have strong Se, take pretty much the same approach that my ESE boss does, from what I've seen. They get jobs in companies that they think they can stay with for many decades and in doing so ensure a comfortable lifestyle and future financial security, or they run their own companies the same way my boss runs his (they pretty much just own their job).

It's also crossed my mind that with ESxj's it's more about Ni than Se. The reason they don't try to create business systems in which they will make money but not have to work is because they're more comfortable with immediate cause and effect relationships (I work, I get paid) than less immediate cause and effect relationships (I work to put a business system together and then place good people in the system and then the system works for me).

SLI's seem like LSE's except less proactive... they just want to spend their day filling a position (that someone else created) and then go home and relax. They seem to value frugality. Slacker mom's husband fixes and sells cars in his spare time, and that's the closest I've ever heard of the typical SLI being enterprising (and I'm not sure I'd even call it that, lol). Henry Ford, assuming he was SLI, would be an exception, of course (there are always exceptions).

I'd love to hear from some Deltas on this subject. Have I mystyped this supposed EII, or is my concept of Delta's stance on the subject of money wrong? Is it possible that what I was seeing out of her was just Te valuing plus strong Ni (something which an LSE would need from her)?

[dbmmama]

this is a very interesting topic to me because my hubby sounds like the alpha boyfriend as well as your ESE boss. where my views are as yours or at least similar.

my hubby doesn't like to work at all, just play. i've shown him how to use investing and real estate, including using a management company (which he still thinks he should fire and do it himself) so THAT he can have passive income and we can still PLAY all day and have the freedom to do so.

he wouldn't have been able to spend the last months with his mom if we didn't have enough passive income coming in for us to live and do what we wanted and needed to do.

early in our marriage, i "made" him quit his job and we started numerous businesses. i've always been entrepreneurially minded. passive income rocks! i've not always been great with the practical details though. i charge in with a new venture but am not great at making sure all the details line up. and i also need to visualize that it's helping others somehow. hubby thinks that's my downfall.

[FDG]

SLI? I think they can absolutely be self-employed. You're making them look quite retarded with your description, honestly. I've got a SLI friend that, at my age, already owns a quite successful bar.

On the topic of financial ambitions: having a very high financial goal since early age rarely helps in accomplishing that given goal. There are an excess of variables that are absolutely not under our control. The question becomes: which type is the most likely to find himself in such a position to considering viable an high financial goal? MBTI statistics say ENTJs and ESFJs (let's now suppose that for an high number of people MBTI tests are a reliable source of type) are the types with the highest household income. Taking this fact to be true, I would say that financial aims are not quadra related.

Being very monetarily ambitious doesn't sound a very worthy goal, per se. I would fear too much that my life becomes an empty run towards success. Of course that's my subjective opinion: if somebody finds primary enjoyment in accomplishing hir very ambitious goals, then by all means he-she should work towards that. This said, I find the requests of the EII quite unreasonable: if her boyfriend his happy with such allocation and is not starving, the she would be better off finding somebody else rather than boring him with ambition talk.

[cracka]

my hubby sounds like the alpha boyfriend as well as your ESE boss.

my hubby doesn't like to work at all, just play.

This doesn't compute to me...lol.

early in our marriage, i "made" him quit his job and we started numerous businesses. i've always been entrepreneurially minded. passive income rocks! i've not always been great with the practical details though. i charge in with a new venture but am not great at making sure all the details line up. and i also need to visualize that it's helping others somehow. hubby thinks that's my downfall.

I sooooo couldn't deal with that...lol. Well... I guess it would depend on just how much trust I had for you as a significant other, that may change it, but I can't really fathom that at this point. As long as you're not the "entrepreneurally minded person" who starts a bunch of different things and never finishes them. Though, I can't say I see you that way, so it's ok...lol.

[Joy]

This doesn't compute to me...lol.



I sooooo couldn't deal with that...lol. Well... I guess it would depend on just how much trust I had for you as a significant other, that may change it, but I can't really fathom that at this point. As long as you're not the "entrepreneurally minded person" who starts a bunch of different things and never finishes them. Though, I can't say I see you that way, so it's ok...lol.

That's because you're EJ. And Si creative.

SLI? I think they can absolutely be self-employed. You're making them look quite retarded with your description, honestly. I've got a SLI friend that, at my age, already owns a quite successful bar.

Sure, they can own their jobs. Like I said, there are always exceptions. Usually they don't want to be incredibly proactive in their careers/businesses though. That's the nature of the IP temperament.

On the topic of financial ambitions: having a very high financial goal since early age rarely helps in accomplishing that given goal. There are an excess of variables that are absolutely not under our control. The question becomes: which type is the most likely to find himself in such a position to considering viable an high financial goal? MBTI statistics say ENTJs and ESFJs (let's now suppose that for an high number of people MBTI tests are a reliable source of type) are the types with the highest household income. Taking this fact to be true, I would say that financial aims are not quadra related.

Having a high income is completely different from being wealthy. Both are related to this topic though.

Being very monetarily ambitious doesn't sound a very worthy goal, per se. I would fear too much that my life becomes an empty run towards success. Of course that's my subjective opinion: if somebody finds primary enjoyment in accomplishing hir very ambitious goals, then by all means he-she should work towards that.

I completely agree that caring more for one's financial ambitions than anything else would make for an unfulfilling life. There has to be balance.

This said, I find the requests of the EII quite unreasonable: if her boyfriend his happy with such allocation and is not starving, the she would be better off finding somebody else rather than boring him with ambition talk.

I told her that she shouldn't expect him to change. If she wants to be with someone who has a job and cares about something, anything, in life... great. She shouldn't try to turn him into that person though. Either accept him as he is or move on.

[dbmmama]

This doesn't compute to me...lol.



I sooooo couldn't deal with that...lol. Well... I guess it would depend on just how much trust I had for you as a significant other, that may change it, but I can't really fathom that at this point. As long as you're not the "entrepreneurally minded person" who starts a bunch of different things and never finishes them. Though, I can't say I see you that way, so it's ok...lol.

when i said my hubby doesn't like to work, just play and he reminds me of the ESE she mentioned, i didn't mean that those two things go hand in hand or that either was "bad." my hubby is one of the funnest, coolest people there is. i was just trying to make a comparison and figuring out for myself as well the correlation, if any.

i HATE to admit it but i am one who starts a LOT of things and doesn't "finish" them. what duel helps someone like that?

[Slacker]

My SLI husband is very good with money, and somewhat ambitious, though not as ambitious as Gammas I know. My mom is incredibly ambitious and would like it if my husband and I were more ambitious I think. But my husband just wants us to own our house, be out of debt, be comfortable, be able to afford college for the kids, and have a comfortable retirement. That's as far as it goes. But as far as retirement planning goes and what-not, he's great. If you asked my mom, she might say we aren't ambitious because she always wanted to own a business. And she did at one point but my dad made her sell it because it took up too much of her time.

My husband turned down a promotion at one point because he isn't interested in managing people and he didn't want to have to work more hours. My mom could not understand that at all. But it's really just different priroities IMO. We are very comfortable and don't need more money. But we do like to spend time together as a family doing whatever we feel like. To give us more of something we don't really need more of (money) which would end up taking away something that is of greater value to us (leisure time), and in this case something that would involve managing people which my husband would HATE, didn't make sense.

I think Deltas would rather have security than wealth, and Gammas would rather have wealth than security. We've talked about that before. So to some extent it isn't lack of ambition, it's a different goal. Although it occurred to me as I was writing this that you might define ambition differnetly than I do. I define it as "getting what you want" and you might define it as "getting ahead" in a finanical/power way.

My ESFj mother-in-law seems pretty ambitious in a way. She's into the stock market. I can't tell if she likes it mainly because it's something to talk about with people though. She's also always pushing me to get a job. But that's just about keeping busy I think, because I showed her the local job listings, or what there is of them in our incredibly bad economy, and that I'd be lucky to make enough to pay for day care, and she said that didn't matter because at least I'd be doing something. I don't get her sometimes.

The ISFps I know are generally not ambitious at all, unless they're in a relationship where someone else is pushing them.

[cracka]

when i said my hubby doesn't like to work, just play and he reminds me of the ESE she mentioned, i didn't mean that those two things go hand in hand or that either was "bad." my hubby is one of the funnest, coolest people there is. i was just trying to make a comparison and figuring out for myself as well the correlation, if any.

I knew what you meant, I was just being a bit sarcastic. I myself pretty much like to work because it gives me the means to play. So I do get that...lol.

i HATE to admit it but i am one who starts a LOT of things and doesn't "finish" them. what duel helps someone like that?

lol

[FDG]

Having a high income is completely different from being wealthy. Both are related to this topic though.

Eh, I know the difference. But high amounts of wealth (thus, property of every kind) are very, very often the result of generations of accumulations of wealth through families. That's the famous pareto social law.

Social mobility is most often based on income rather than wealth. Sure, income most often leads to wealth. Individuals - supposing they start from scratch, so self-made-men - that are able to have enough income (or that are able to speculate in a sufficiently well-though and lucky manner) to construct levels of wealth that, on a bell curve with the entire american society as basis, are on the top 5 percentile, are very very rare.

Thus unless you believe that there's a strong tendency for particular types to run in families, I think that by controlling for inheritance the correlation between type and wealth would be approximately the same between type and income.

[dbmmama]

My SLI husband is very good with money, and somewhat ambitious, though not as ambitious as Gammas I know. My mom is incredibly ambitious and would like it if my husband and I were more ambitious I think. But my husband just wants us to own our house, be out of debt, be comfortable, be able to afford college for the kids, and have a comfortable retirement. That's as far as it goes. But as far as retirement planning goes and what-not, he's great. If you asked my mom, she might say we aren't ambitious because she always wanted to own a business. And she did at one point but my dad made her sell it because it took up too much of her time.

My husband turned down a promotion at one point because he isn't interested in managing people and he didn't want to have to work more hours. My mom could not understand that at all. But it's really just different priroities IMO. We are very comfortable and don't need more money. But we do like to spend time together as a family doing whatever we feel like. To give us more of something we don't really need more of (money) which would end up taking away something that is of greater value to us (leisure time), and in this case something that would involve managing people which my husband would HATE, didn't make sense.

I think Deltas would rather have security than wealth, and Gammas would rather have wealth than security. We've talked about that before. So to some extent it isn't lack of ambition, it's a different goal. Although it occurred to me as I was writing this that you might define ambition differnetly than I do. I define it as "getting what you want" and you might define it as "getting ahead" in a finanical/power way.

My ESFj mother-in-law seems pretty ambitious in a way. She's into the stock market. I can't tell if she likes it mainly because it's something to talk about with people though. She's also always pushing me to get a job. But that's just about keeping busy I think, because I showed her the local job listings, or what there is of them in our incredibly bad economy, and that I'd be lucky to make enough to pay for day care, and she said that didn't matter because at least I'd be doing something. I don't get her sometimes.

The ISFps I know are generally not ambitious at all, unless they're in a relationship where someone else is pushing them.

this is interesting because i just defined it that way to joy in a pm. but that is also why i like passive income, for the same goals of leisure and fun time with our family. we get to follow our interests, passions, fun, learning, being together, whatever we want, when we want. i don't care about "getting ahead." i care about "getting what i want" and a lot of those things take money to get and some don't.

[dbmmama]

I knew what you meant, I was just being a bit sarcastic. I myself pretty much like to work because it gives me the means to play. So I do get that...lol.



lol

ok, cool.

[dbmmama]

ok, cool.

hey, the dolphin game is starting. time to go!!!

[FDG]

My husband turned down a promotion at one point because he isn't interested in managing people and he didn't want to have to work more hours. My mom could not understand that at all. But it's really just different priroities IMO. We are very comfortable and don't need more money. But we do like to spend time together as a family doing whatever we feel like. To give us more of something we don't really need more of (money) which would end up taking away something that is of greater value to us (leisure time), and in this case something that would involve managing people which my husband would HATE, didn't make sense.

Yeah, exactly, this is a very basic principle upon which our economies are based. Each person has a specific preference for leisure time or work, and he/she will work as long as the marginal utility of working (thus, the last penny earned) will be more than the marginal utility of leisure time (which is, of course, completely subjective). How could your mother not understand this?

[Slacker]

Yeah, exactly, this is a very basic principle upon which our economies are based. Each person has a specific preference for leisure time or work, and he/she will work as long as the marginal utility of working (thus, the last penny earned) will be more than the marginal utility of leisure time (which is, of course, completely subjective). How could your mother not understand this?

My parents were school teachers and always struggled for money. And they still do in their retirement. And she grew up in a family with 8 kids that had a hard time making ends meet. I don't think "having enough" is something she's ever been used to, so based on her experience, any time you can make more money, you should.

[cracka]

My parents were school teachers and always struggled for money. And they still do in their retirement. And she grew up in a family with 8 kids that had a hard time making ends meet. I don't think "having enough" is something she's ever been used to, so based on her experience, any time you can make more money, you should.

That makes sense.

[iAnnAu]

Funny enough, in MBTI, I've read that ISTPs do better as their own bosses, and make decent entrepeneurs. But I've tried twice to have my own business, and it didn't work for me at all. Why? Because you have to spend so much time building your customer base. I'm no good at that at all.
I would love to be able to have the flexibility of setting my own hours, and I would get shit done no question. But generating the customers stymies me.
As I've said before, maybe this isn't typical of SLIs. And I certainly recognize the limitations of working 8-5 M-F for someone who's agenda is different than my own. But I'd rather manage my income for a while, build up some savings, and then blow off my steady paycheck to blast into the unknown until I have to come crawling back and try to euphemize my CV to a shape that will get me the next steady paycheck.
The LSE SO is trying to convince me that I can have my adventure *and* keep my job, but I'm not sure yet. Another reason I don't tend to stay at a workplace is because I see the compromises I have to make every single day I work there, and eventually I get fed up and want to stop having to make them. I know there's no perfect job or perfect workplace, but after a while I'd rather trade one set of bullshit for another that I'm not quite as burned out on yet.
Trying to get back ontopic ... I don't think I could sit around without a job for very long. I'd either be off on adventures or at least looking for work, depending on the current state of my finances. At least, this is the example my history provides over and over (and over and over ).

[Wynch]

Generally I would say the Se is more inclined to accumulate material wealth and to do it as a means of power. Te on the other hand is more concerned with finding the most effective method of maintaining wealth or comfort. So Deltas will be most concerned with ambition in a sense of proficient and effective modes of gaining success and maintaining their sense of comfort. Additionally, as an aristocratic quadra, they will be more inclined to strive towards certain ambitions for success (which manifest differently depending on personal circumstances). Gammas will have a propensity for both desiring material wealth and for wanting to get it in the manner that is most effective over a prolonged period of time. Betas want it all and they want it now, and they do what they need to do to get it. Alphas just don't give a fuck because the devalue both Se and Te. Certainly we can be ambitious and desiring of material comforts, but generally most alphas seem content to pursue intellectual success or to wallow in whatever is materially comfortable for them day by day.

If I may use myself as an example, I have difficulty saving money. Not because I'm particularly frivolous or just scraping by. Rather, I just don't value money. So when I want to do something or need something from the store or am asked to participate in a charitable cause, I don't really think about it. I just spend the money. I keep a mental tally in my head so I know how much I have and I budget that out so I don't stretch myself too thin, but I don't really concern myself beyond that because money is just an immediate ends to a means for me. Unless I have something to save for, I can't be bothered to save too much because in my head money is as valuable as the paper it's printed on.

0.02$