You said that "altogether ESTjs are stupid in the most grotesque of ways.."...it was quite clear that you intended to stereotype ALL ESTjs. I believe I knew all long exactly what you meant, and it doesn't do you much credit to insult me when you dispute your own words.Originally Posted by crazedratXII
While in general I agree with what I think you mean, was it really necessary
to swear profusely and compare cops to cigarettes? Though while I think these cops are extreme examples, the two people I know that I am fairly certain are LSE behave in a toned down version of this and don't seem to be willing to consider alternatives. Come to think of it the one person I know who I am certain is SLI is slightly similiar in this regard.
LIE-Ni, i think, but maybe ILI
If you consider that the act of being stupid is confined to the behaviors of an ESTj in the particular situation being discussed, it's my leap of the imagination to imply all ESTjs within an identical situation of the cop in the video may act the same way. And that is basically what the statement 'all ESTjs are stupid' means. The concession which follows is they will act differently as they are in different situations in everyday life; and they will act differently to the extent they are not infact ESTjs, ~if we consider that ESTj is also defined by the situation observed~.
To sum up what I am saying: the statement is universal, but it is only as universal as the situation is universal. If an ESTj isn't a cop, then he isn't stupid, because he isn't having the chance to be stupid .. That is how (Se) interprets it when I talk to an (Se) dominant type, us having both just watched the video. The ESTj still has the potential to be stupid; that I agree with; but he isn't stupid, because circumstances don't allow him to express himself. On the same line of thought, like I said earlier, the precise definitions of an ESTj are up for debate; and as I use the word ESTj I choose to define it arbitrarily through the situation at hand as well. If I encounter an ESTj in everyday life who is different than all the ESTjs I have previously experienced, the situation may require me to expand my definitions of ESTj to include a subtype system; some form of distinction between ESTjs. Until I encounter that situation I don't yet have a need for such further definitions. Altogether I could go on talking toward infinity, trying to define every word I use. I think that's a waste of time, but INTjs seem to ask me to try at every chance they get.
Disclaimer: INTjs in this situation and in similar situations past; and also to the extent what I am now experiencing is an INTj in every sense of INTjness. If there are situations which contradict this situation and the language I'm assigning to it, I acknowledge the possible need for elaboration on the word INTj and their regular patterns of behavior for understanding of both now and then.
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-11-2009 at 03:06 AM.
So "altogether ESTj police officers are stupid in the most grotesque of ways whenever they have the potential to be brutal"?
But this is about as useful as saying "anybody is capable of doing something when they have the potential to do something".
That isn't a very good rephrasing. "to be brutal" doesn't fully describe the situation, and "ESTj police officers" doesn't fully acknowledge the vast potential for variance within ESTjs. It is better to just not rephrase the sentence at all, and to rely on the experience of what we're talking about to define the words.
And no, it is the equivalent of saying 'everybody can be stupid in a certain way'. The word stupid is spared because it is subjective to begin with. I don't think it relies on a situation for its definition, but instead it is defined differently for every person, and it comes to be defined over the course of many situations .. it transcends one particular moment. But all that rephrasing is only if you are liberating yourself from the specific situation which is being discussed, and taking a philosophical God perspective on things. I didn't go there, but I could if I wanted to. I briefly touched on it when I said "And yeah, I realize I could think of a ways inwhich every type fucks with the system" or something along those lines
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-11-2009 at 05:53 AM.
By using three videos of police officers beating up people who may not even be ESTj to begin with? You never did say they were ESTjs either, except for the third video...you just said "ESTjs and Ne HA / Ni polr [...] This is basically how it manifests:"
You say my rephrasing isn't very good, but how does that compare to you asserting something subjectively which you afterwards accept isn't universally true?
That still doesn't excuse the fact that you said "altogether ESTjs are stupid in the most grotesque of ways.." - you didn't even say "altogether individuals of any type are stupid in the most grotesque of ways..".
no, I accept that they are ESTj, but I reserve that they may also be more than ESTj. Not that they are anything less than ESTj. Now you're just not reading properly. My only response to what you just said would be for me to requote myself two posts back, and then the one post back. Go away and shut up please
And for this quote you need to pay attention more. I always reserve the right to modify what I say. Never retract, but always modify.
If you want to get into a god conversation now, we can discuss how every single type; not only ESTjs, are infact scum. And I will have alot of fun with that. We can start with INTjs.
Well I say you are wrong on all accounts (in my subjective opinion), and in any context you like. And I don't have to provide any reasoning because I have my fingers crossed!
If the context isn't real then that's irrelevant. The context is Se, and Se is an actual experience; the uninterpreted experience of reality. The only place point of view enters this equation is in the form of your physical proximity and the limitations of your senses. This is not something you can make up just cuz'. I think your inability to understand this may be related to having Se polr. Okay, go away now
erm, Se is just one of eight information elements that processes "reality".
Yes, and Se is the immediate subjective experience of objective reality
Edit for clarity:
If your response is based on and supposed to be interpreted using an information element other than (Se) then it is no comparison to what I have been arguing; it in no way counters, draws a parallel, or can even be considered a response. It is only your own unsubstantiated opinion. (Se) is the form of silence that can grant meaning to an objective, abstract statement. That has, at least, been the entire point of this discussion.. and a point which seems to fly by you. For you, you could try arguing there is an implication of negative (Fe) in what you say; that I should listen to you out of some social moral obligation.. That argument would be much stronger than the one you're taking now: "but what about the flying spaghetti monster" .. always an INTj favorite; and always very weak, because you cannot experience the flying spaghetti monster; but many do believe you can experience the touch of God.. What is really up for debate is the meaning of the word God, not ever really the experience of God.
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-11-2009 at 06:03 AM.
If Se is a subjective experience of reality, then how can you ensure that the context isn't real, and thus irrelevant?
I know from my immediate subjective experience of your posts that you intended to stereotype ESTjs as a whole, even if I indeed have a Se PoLR, and I can't see how a Se-dominant would be anymore able than I to point out that it was clear that you intended what you meant.
that is an interpretation attached to your experience of reality, that isnt the raw experience. Se being the raw experience is only subjective insofar as your senses, proximity, point of view of reality is subjective; and that is the subjective coupled with the immediate, as it says in the quote. The interpretation of this raw experience comes from Ni when I explain myself in words. Se is the silence which is the assumption of the Ni I am using. I would also argue Ni is both objective and transcendent. Objective in that it deals with differentiation between elements, transcendent in that it deals across multiple situations; in opposition to an immediate experience. If you're asking me to differentiate Ti from Se; I would say that Ti tries to tie in the immediate situation with other situations, and fit them all together, where Se is not interested in turning the immediate situation into anything; but only in appreciating it for what it is; and what it is, is strictly defined by physiology and the senses.
Last edited by crazedrat; 07-11-2009 at 06:10 AM.
Yea I have no idea what's going on
I just know that when someone says "all [insert type] are like this" they don't mean it literally, but they are just collecting observations and have seen a trend. There are many ways forHA to manifest, and this is probably one of them--overreacting to improper behavior.
I just don't think it's productive to counter everyone's generalization with "not all people of that type are like that" because everyone should assume that automatically. There are 16 types to represent 7 billion people, of course no generalization is going to fit all of them, especially one as broad as stupidity and a lack of empathy. That's impossible.
The saddest ESFj
...
it is so wonderful to note that we are herein found a consensus that jung was ILI; mayst thou hallelujah and rejoice.
Mimosa Pudica what have you done?
Removed at User Request
ESTj/LSEs' Ni PoLR
Examples?
They dont get why im so hilarious.
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.
Well, I get it.
When they are involved in a task they like to work maticulously and slowly not liking to be rushed or fussed by others but appreciate those who can monitor time like my cousin will paint a door for hours and while doing so appreciates being asked when she would like to take a lunch break. She'll be somewhere and has to leave and be at another place by a certain time and will stress out because she'll feel rushed and constricted by the next event
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Being Si valuing they would rather time stop and they could do things when they felt like it
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I'm not sure if that's Ni polr but this is what I've observed about my LSE partner.
- when I ask him to do sth he'll say: not now, tommorrow or sth similar. It might be his overal laziness though.
- he's almost always late.
- when we are on our way on holiday, to my in-laws etc. he counts the time and cares a lot that we either "break the record" or come exactly as he planned.-
- It's happened more Times than I can count - I'm telling him we need to do sth NOW because otherwise we won't manage to do that (e.g. buying presents before Christmas). He'll insist we have a lot of time he needs to rest or watch the play or whatever . Unfortunatelly I'm always right.
- Time is flat for him. He plans things he'll do in 20 years time not taking into account many things can happen in the meantime.
- when we go somewhere and we don't need to be at an exact time (supermarket e.g.) he hurries me up and can make the atmosphere really tense because of that.
I've been wondering if that's anyhow type related - I've noticed very similar traits in my LSE and my ESE mum. They are both veeeeeeeeery forgetful - they are very often in a hurry in the morning and are constantly forgetting mobile phones, wallets, ID cards . They also put things at random places and then spend ages tryin to find them. I'm trying to make him realize it's nice to put things back in their place but he's too impatient to do that - he doesn't care about it. It seems to me it's difficult for him to imagine he'll need these thins in the future.It's happened many Times with his car keys, gloves, cap etc. He needs to buy new ones at leasr twice every season. It's really annoying.
Yeah all those are Ni related. When my bf is in the relax mode I see that and get in bed with him. This usually leads to making love and relaxing which I need so much since I am such a stressed and uneasy person internally. When my bf is tense I remind him that he is and to be careful of being too blunt and hurting people's feelings. He accpts my eithical remarks which make both of us happyI'm not sure if that's Ni polr but this is what I've observed about my LSE partner.
- when I ask him to do sth he'll say: not now, tommorrow or sth similar. It might be his overal laziness though.
- he's almost always late.
- when we are on our way on holiday, to my in-laws etc. he counts the time and cares a lot that we either "break the record" or come exactly as he planned.-
- It's happened more Times than I can count - I'm telling him we need to do sth NOW because otherwise we won't manage to do that (e.g. buying presents before Christmas). He'll insist we have a lot of time he needs to rest or watch the play or whatever . Unfortunatelly I'm always right
- Time is flat for him. He plans things he'll do in 20 years time not taking into account many things can happen in the meantime.
- when we go somewhere and we don't need to be at an exact time (supermarket e.g.) he hurries me up and can make the atmosphere really tense because of that.
I've been wondering if that's anyhow type related - I've noticed very similar traits in my LSE and my ESE mum. They are both veeeeeeeeery forgetful - they are very often in a hurry in the morning and are constantly forgetting mobile phones, wallets, ID cards . They also put things at random places and then spend ages tryin to find them. I'm trying to make him realize it's nice to put things back in their place but he's too impatient to do that - he doesn't care about it. It seems to me it's difficult for him to imagine he'll need these thins in the future.It's happened many Times with his car keys, gloves, cap etc. He needs to buy new ones at leasr twice every season. It's really annoying.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Ver, you should either do the shopping or keep reminding him. My bf is usually good about getting gifts when he's ready. As for the keys and lost items idk never happened to us.I'm not sure if that's Ni polr but this is what I've observed about my LSE partner.
- when I ask him to do sth he'll say: not now, tommorrow or sth similar. It might be his overal laziness though.
- he's almost always late.
- when we are on our way on holiday, to my in-laws etc. he counts the time and cares a lot that we either "break the record" or come exactly as he planned.-
- It's happened more Times than I can count - I'm telling him we need to do sth NOW because otherwise we won't manage to do that (e.g. buying presents before Christmas). He'll insist we have a lot of time he needs to rest or watch the play or whatever . Unfortunatelly I'm always right
- Time is flat for him. He plans things he'll do in 20 years time not taking into account many things can happen in the meantime.
- when we go somewhere and we don't need to be at an exact time (supermarket e.g.) he hurries me up and can make the atmosphere really tense because of that.
I've been wondering if that's anyhow type related - I've noticed very similar traits in my LSE and my ESE mum. They are both veeeeeeeeery forgetful - they are very often in a hurry in the morning and are constantly forgetting mobile phones, wallets, ID cards . They also put things at random places and then spend ages tryin to find them. I'm trying to make him realize it's nice to put things back in their place but he's too impatient to do that - he doesn't care about it. It seems to me it's difficult for him to imagine he'll need these thins in the future.It's happened many Times with his car keys, gloves, cap etc. He needs to buy new ones at leasr twice every season. It's really annoying.
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
LSEs don't really have Ni PoLR, that's just a formality of the theory. In reality, LSEs are the superhumans of socionics. They bench-press their Ni-PoLR and then eat it for breakfast afterwards. Then they crap it out on the rest of the world and laugh maniacally... because they can. Only SLEs can match LSEs in terms of confidence - but in the end, in sheer brute-ness, the LSE will win. And then drink a beer afterwards. And then finish cleaning the bathroom. And then scrub the floor. And then run off to their third job, for fun, to work a bit more before bedtime.
more so than ESEs, micromanaging (time). they effectively need every detail of a process accounted for, and to this end will often go over things several times, sometimes reorganizing and reassigning tasks on the spot. both a severe, meticulous methodicalness and a somewhat frenzied impatience typically come about.
4w3-5w6-8w7
"Last night, I was playing a full-screen game and I looked at the clock. It said it was about 15 'til 10, so I thought I'd play for another 20 or so minutes then go to the internet before bed. I started getting tired, so I checked the clock again. It was still not quite 10:00 and too early to get ready for bed. So I kept playing, figuring after a few more rounds it would be later. But I went through many rounds, and time seemed to stand still. It was always just before 10:00. ...turns out my clock battery needed replaced and I stayed up 'til 1:30 waiting for 10:00."
-me, chatbox, 02-05-2015 03:54 PM
My manager has asked me to manage one of her employees who is LSE. I've been given the task of streamlining her activities as well as helping her learn a new computer system. She's in her early 60s so bearing that in mind too:
- she drafts instructions for a procedure, then i type it up on the computer and i give it to her to make sure it's ok. It comes back to me with more amendments, I correct. Then guess what? She has more things to change. LITERALLY the 10th time I get it back, I keep noticing she is changing stupid things like synonyms and even going back to things she had previously written. I go to her "do you think we have THE MAIN IDEA now?!?! stop giving it to me to correct, when you have finished, then I will do a final copy and that's it".
- she complains she has a lot of work to do. management and i discuss this amongst ourselves and agree she doesn't, they have heard her complain before and have already taken off a significant amount of work. what she is assessing is her workload at the current, very, very moment. She can't seem to think steps ahead, eg. like once she's completed some tasks, that she won't have ANYTHING to do.
- we have some outstanding work for her to do that's been hanging around for 3 months, it needs to be done.
i sit with her as she does it, she is painstakingly slow. she looks at each task one by one, assesses it and then if it's easy, she does it. if it's hard, she puts it to the side. me thinking to myself: "aren't you best to do the hard once since you already took 5 minutes to look through it already?"
- we start work on new computer system. we get an email from IT saying something that went wrong, it says 'please pause for a moment, something is creating an error, we need to reassess ASAP'.
she FLIPS out: "no i'm not going to bow down to them", "why didn't they tell us this would happen at the start?" "i'm telling you management is setting me up."
Me: "have you called them?"
her: "no, i'm not....just no"
me: "it sounds like it's urgent"
her "how dare she say "fix this" i don't know how to fix it"
me: "look i'm not even going to react yet, we don't even know what has happened. it might not even be our fault. now why don't we call them up to see what is actually going on"
her *storms off*
i call up and it's got nothing to do with what we had done from our end
today one of my colleagues gives her something to delete. she comes back and says she doesn't think it should be deleted. employee says it does because if we get audited we will get in trouble. she doesn't want to do it because it creates a job for her that will take "all" day
How did you determine her to be LSE (not so sure I can really spot them)? She seems pretty indecisive regardless and seems unable to stay focused.
as a vulnerable (4th) function (ESE and LSE)
The individual prefers to focus on immediate tasks, taking things as they come, rather than try to evaluate the outcome of present trends. Inclination to tell stories or narrate events on a sequential basis, rather than outlining how one event led to another.
He perceives time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future, especially one's longer-term plan), the individual treats it as if it were accessible today and often is not aware of all the developments that must happen first.
He generally has a poor sense of how long things will take and what the best amount of time to spend on things is. Therefore it is difficult for him to stay on schedule without extensive, even total, pre-planning.
In order to be happy and productive, LSEs need a stable environment without sudden, unexpected changes. It takes them a while to get into a "groove" and find their rhythm, and any uncertainty about the future tends to fill them with a dread that makes it hard to be productive at all.
LSEs tend to express a simplistic vision of the future where their hard work pays off in the long run, or where everything in society goes hopelessly awry. They are not easily able to incorporate many different forecasts into their view of the future, relying instead on the trend of visible changes around them.
LSEs generally avoid talking about things that might or might not happen that don't depend on them, though they may think about these things to themselves. Discussions about what might or might not happen that are not based on provable facts distress them. Speculation not steeped in reality is a waste of time.
LSEs They prefer to believe that change depends on our actions and choices rather than on external events over which we have no control.
LSEs tend to have an unchanging habit of either being chronically late or chronically early. They rarely know or think about how long things will take, and their estimates are often way off. They are often surprised by the amount of time that has passed between events, and wonder where the time has gone. LSEs tend to want everything done as well as possible and to the highest possible quality, often failing to consider the amount of time necessary to do the job in such a way.
When making plans for the future, LSEs typically do not leave room for unforeseen obstacles. These obstacles frustrate the LSE because they destroy the established rhythm of operations and require switching gears. In talking about their goals for the future, LSEs often leave out intermediate steps, leading others to consider them naive. In LSEs' opinion, the important thing is to express a clear goal; the step-by-step process of getting there is less important.
LSEs get irritated by people who take forever to do things, or who slow down the overall pace of work for no good reason. If someone appears to be doing nothing, the LSE will assume that nothing beneficial is taking place.
Last edited by Aylen; 02-13-2015 at 07:44 AM.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
I do a lot of those things, yet, I am not LSE nor ESE.I'm not sure if that's Ni polr but this is what I've observed about my LSE partner.
- when I ask him to do sth he'll say: not now, tommorrow or sth similar. It might be his overal laziness though.
- he's almost always late.
- when we are on our way on holiday, to my in-laws etc. he counts the time and cares a lot that we either "break the record" or come exactly as he planned.-
- It's happened more Times than I can count - I'm telling him we need to do sth NOW because otherwise we won't manage to do that (e.g. buying presents before Christmas). He'll insist we have a lot of time he needs to rest or watch the play or whatever . Unfortunatelly I'm always right
- Time is flat for him. He plans things he'll do in 20 years time not taking into account many things can happen in the meantime.
- when we go somewhere and we don't need to be at an exact time (supermarket e.g.) he hurries me up and can make the atmosphere really tense because of that.
I've been wondering if that's anyhow type related - I've noticed very similar traits in my LSE and my ESE mum. They are both veeeeeeeeery forgetful - they are very often in a hurry in the morning and are constantly forgetting mobile phones, wallets, ID cards . They also put things at random places and then spend ages tryin to find them. I'm trying to make him realize it's nice to put things back in their place but he's too impatient to do that - he doesn't care about it. It seems to me it's difficult for him to imagine he'll need these thins in the future.It's happened many Times with his car keys, gloves, cap etc. He needs to buy new ones at leasr twice every season. It's really annoying.
I've noticed some LSE's have this tendency where they're like nervously putting a lot of effort into justifying themselves or elaborating on something. It's almost as if they're trying too hard to seem open-minded or consider multiple perspectives. Like they'll say something like this:
"I like women, you know. I'm not a mysognist, but there are some women I'm not attracted to, you know. But that's just my preference. Some people like a certain type of woman, other people will like other types of women, and I like the women I like, you know? Noone person's preference is better than the other, and it doesn't mean they're bad, you know. Some like em big, some like em small. Everyone has their own preference. I'm just a normal guy. I'm the type of guy that treats people with respect you know. Some people don't show respect but you know, that's how some people choose to live their life and I understand that. I'm not the type of guy that's going to judge them for it. I got my momma back home and 3 brothers and sisters, and they always taught me to treat people how you'd like to be treated, and you know, that's what I do day-in and day-out."
Maybe it reflects Ni-PoLR because they feel like they have to spell everything out in one moment, instead of prioritizing certain facts or assuming some things are implied. In general, I get this vibe of all this surplus energy being putting into one moment without discriminating or considering the big picture.
Last edited by suedehead; 02-13-2015 at 03:43 PM.
Mr. T basically does what I just described.
You could be LSE. Why ILI?
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That quote is where LSE is uncertain about harboring personal judgements on their feelings about relationships
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I don't make plans. I make decisions. I'll decide to go somewhere to eat, but I won't necessarily plan to eat there. Because I can follow through with my decision; I can't control enough factors to make a plan work.
At work, I often need to estimate how long it will take to get something done. Sometimes I'll suggest they come get it in two days, and in two hours I'll have it ready for them. Other times I'll suggest they pick it up in two hours, they arrive, and it's not ready (though not for lack of trying).
But Te is planned action
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Well, what do you mean by that? I decide to do something then I do it. But I don't have long-term goals. I want to be in God's will and don't know what He has planned for me. If I make plans, they may not coincide with His, they will fall apart, and I will be unhappy at my failed hopes.
That is much more spontaneous action. Te is for example is my bf asks before we sleep what time i will have to be at work in the morning. In the morning he wakes up eatly to remind me and to give me enough time to get ready and be showed. By mid day he'll ask me what my evening plans are so that he can make plans
Dual type
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
That's less than a day of planning ahead. I'll schedule a week in advance. I just don't see the point of having long-term goals.
By "I decide to do something then I do it," it could mean, "I decide to do something in fifteen minutes. Fifteen minutes later, I do it."
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
