SLI-LIE Supervision Relations (ISTp and ENTj)

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I've known LSE's and LIE's who've apparently been unaware of the time that various tasks can take.

The LSE thinks that other people should be able to have things done 5 minutes ago (perhaps basing it on their own ability to understand the 'logical logistics'), and with the LIE it can result from an un-appreciation of the details of something, sometimes avoiding them like the plague.

Unless i'm missing something, Ryu, imf and myself are saying similar things here.

Except, can you clarify what you mean by XLI being good at following? Taken literally, this does not make sense, SLI's are probably the most independent type in the socion, although I think you are hinting at something else?

[Expat]

but overall they'll still probably make better estimates than say, Fe types weak in both areas described. this if by "actual work", one means getting something done objectively. Fe types might be better at projecting other things, like how long it will take to convince someone of something, but i'm thinking of tasks where that wheeler-dealer stuff is out of the way.

Which is the basic skill of sales and marketing - which is something Ryu referred to with regard to "his" LIE.

As a general comment on this thread, the basic argument of quite a few people here (not ifmd95, I am just going on with the reasoning) seems to be the ancient "I know some LIEs who are like this-and-that etc". Personally I am very skeptical of such arguments (obviously not only with regard to LIEs), especially when used to dismiss other arguments made with base from model A implications. Just because some people (Grek0, Cyclops, Ryu) have typed some other people as LIEs, it does not follow that the latter are necessarily LIEs.

In other words, I am puzzled at how they are so confident of their typings, even when it goes against the logic of model A. It should at least give them something to think.

[FDG]

I don't know the point of this discussion. If we discuss about a LIE which is so Ni that the strenght of his Te is indistinguishable from the strenght of his Fe, then it's not very surprising that he may not be very careful with technical specifications and duration of tasks. If we talk about a LIE with sufficiently strong Te, then it's probably a mistyping.

[Expat]

I don't know the point of this discussion. If we discuss about a LIE which is so Ni that the strenght of his Te is indistinguishable from the strenght of his Fe, then it's not very surprising that he may not be very careful with technical specifications and duration of tasks. If we talk about a LIE with sufficiently strong Te, then it's probably a mistyping.

Well, if a "LIE" seems to focus more on Fe than on Te, then the chances are that he's not a LIE. That's the point many people here seem to be missing; and such people should reconsider the criteria they are using to type someone as "LIE". A "LIE" who has Fe>Te is, by definition, not a LIE.

As for the "extreme Ni LIE" thingy, as long as they remain LIEs, they still - by definition - focus more on Te and Fe. Now, if to see that is difficult, then the problem lies with the competence of those who have problems seeing whether he prefers Te or Fe.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Which is the basic skill of sales and marketing - which is something Ryu referred to with regard to "his" LIE.

Of course I can't speak for Ryu but maybe what he's referring to is a different style of marketing?

As a general comment on this thread, the basic argument of quite a few people here (not ifmd95, I am just going on with the reasoning) seems to be the ancient "I know some LIEs who are like this-and-that etc". Personally I am very skeptical of such arguments (obviously not only with regard to LIEs), especially when used to dismiss other arguments made with base from model A implications. Just because some people (Grek0, Cyclops, Ryu) have typed some other people as LIEs, it does not follow that the latter are necessarily LIEs.

In other words, I am puzzled at how they are so confident of their typings, even when it goes against the logic of model A. It should at least give them something to think.

I don't follow you. As far as I can recall I haven't posted a disagreement or dismissed any of the posters views on this thread, nor am I aware of having said anything which contradicts model A (maybe others have), if I have, please point it out, it's possible i'm wrong or I haven't explained myself properly.

In regards to using actual examples of people i've typed as LIE (for instance), I can understand your skepticism if it is along the lines of.. you (Expat or others) can't personally verify it etc. For myself i'm quite happy to use and for others to use real life examples, without it socionics becomes less relevant and applicable, at least for me, it's just discussing stuff on a forum really. I would say observing the types irl and discussing this is useful to me.

Of course if someone was to talk about a type which was in clear violation of how that type should behave, then I would probably query it, with a view to learning about the type or correcting the error (however it transpired). Perhaps that is what your inferring, that they are removed from how LIE's actually are? But in regards to skepticism, there's always the risk of error, and it can be difficult to check things, but what else can we do while being in such a wide-spread community as this little forum?

Edit: something else which may be relevant, how others of a different type view a certain type may be different to how an identical would view them. I suppose it's interesting to see how other types view each other, whether it's right or wrong (usually there is a different slant of 'perception', but with discussion one would still expect it to be able to be tied in with model A, if said typings are correct). As an ILE I know once said, something along the lines of: it's not quite 16 types when there are different cameras/lenses looking at the same thing.

[UDP]

And if This is the guy's weakness. . . don't you see how that doesn't fit LIE? No concern for Fi-related things? No awareness of Te-related things? How the heck is that an LIE?

Perhaps how I worded things is confusing you. Obviously I would not say an LIE has "no awareness of Te related" things.

What I said was...
"The problem is that he has no concern or even awareness of how his actions actually affect other people, and he's not aware of the time it takes to do the real, actual work of things"

That doesn't mean "He doesn't value Te". A more specific way of saying things, perhaps, is that he is clueless about the details and practical aspects of what he talks about. (To me). He's good at planning and arranging, but he is terrible at managing things that are critical to success of programs. He hopes to just assign plans for other people to follow, and hopes that they will do well in them. (ETA Also, from my perspective, "real, actual work" involves Te+Si things, and the person didn't have much consideration for Si). I saw him as basically unwilling to do any legwork that he didn't see as immediately beneficial for him or his image; so in fact, he was extremely focused on Te, but imo, he was unhealthy in that he was so ego-focused that he wasn't able to see how his efforts to make himself look good got in the way of things. Not look good in a "Fe-sense", but in a "Te-sense" of opportunities, resume building, connections, etc).

That is what I was talking about for "actual work". He's overly optimistic about the success of such things.

The person struck me much more focused (too much so) on the long term impact of things - plans, ideas, scheming and positioning, and was in fact obsessed with such. You could say he was 'obsessed' with Te and Ni. Fe was his tool that he developed to help him in this way, although he's not very good with it despite the polish he tries to put on it. He's concerned about Fi as he gets very nervous about Fi issues as he deals with them extremely awkwardly.

If I was to say anything needed to happen, I'd say the person I was talking about needed his dual to straighten him out some -- help him tone down his obvious over-focus on Fe, and give him some Fi/IJ stability in terms of people, and finally give him help with Se practicality.


PS: you should be able to tell that I don't think much of the person. This doesn't affect my typing of the person, however - and it's even more a point of why I am making a big deal about how he was LIE, and not just an EIE in 'the opposing quadra'. It's more about a 'bad person' who is an LIE (LIE E3), than someone being an LIE that I don't like. What I'm describing is an unhealthy LIE E3, that's all. I've been around other LIEs who are different this, in terms of both enneagram and health, and they are different. But I do not think the person is "Fe>Te".

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[unefille]

Knowing two LIE-Ni who are both E3 (3w4 so/sp and 3w2 sp/so), I can't say either of them sound the way Ryu is describing his LIE to be. Both are quite open to being corrected on their factual knowledge. It's not because they're more eminently reasonable than most people (by virtue of being LIE or something) or that their always correct (definitely not the case, as I've corrected them more than once) -- but this is an area of confidence for them. It doesn't hurt their ego to be corrected, they consider my points on merits and then bolster their own position, unless I convince them otherwise, which they've always been perfectly happy to acknowledge if that is the case.

To an LII (or other Ne-valuing person), an LIE might seem more 'obstinate' about their 'credibility'? Sometimes its a matter of a different threshold before which someone will entertain a position as legitimate or actively revise their own and Se-valuers tend to have a higher threshold, irrespective of Fe/Ti/Te/Fi.

On the other hand, if you were to critique the LIE's manner of presentation - ouch. They both puff themselves up a great deal about 'showmanship' and 'selling the product', but it's clearly where they are the least confident. Maybe this is what Ryu means? It's where they focus a lot of their conscious efforts, and they sort of try to 'deconstruct' things like charm, or charisma, and package it into a 3-step process. I find them very alien when they do that; they're very mechanical about all that jazz. It's possible that where a non-E3 LIE might either care less about their presentation and affect on others, or be more openly insecure, an E3 LIE is simply more overtly focused on the 'superficial' aspects of Fe: basically making an impression. And the do it via Te rather than actual Fe, which is why I feel like they're sometimes wielding blunt instruments in a glassware shop. They don't focus on what is going on 'underneath', they focus entirely on the words -- and so they miss their cues and seem bizarrely off-tune and really really fake, like a deaf man trying to sing.

[UDP]

Don't talk down to me.

I'm not talking down to you.

You continue to say (and show how) the man is Ni and Fe-focused, but have yet to show how he has any ability whatsoever in Te.

Because I took it for granted. You doubt that he's LIE, but I'm coming from the standpoint that this person is already LIE. Think about it.

If you want to interpret everything I said as him being Fe focused - but that's your interpretation of things. Diana's thoughts. My thoughts are that he's using Fe as a tool, and he's absolutely, clearly, undoubtedly Te dominant, because all his Fe actions are subordinate to his Te goals. Fe never, ever, ever is used without the consent of Te. This is why he is LIE. If I've not expressed that clearly, or I've made it sound like he is really Fe dominant, then my words were wrong.

What "Fi issues" is he concerned with? You already earlier said that he was unconcerned with Fi matters.

I think you've mistyped him, and this is probably why:

imo, in striving to be "objective" you're being less so.

Right... Here's what I think: you only saw me commenting about Fe and Ni and you disregarded my remark about him being LIE. So you assumed you knew better than I did, and because I didn't present you with a full list of how this person is clearly Te leading and clearly LIE, it furthered your thinking that I don't know anything about what I'm talking about and the person is EIE.

I obviously have dislike for the person, so your comment about being "objective" is out of place. I don't like the person but that doesn't affect my analysis of the situation, particularly in terms of socionics.

As for his Fi issues, he gets very insecure and acts reallllly weird when he thinks people are not liking him or think poorly of his character. He tries to be light and positive when this happens, but his attempts at Fe really start to tank. His Fe is so polished because he's not very secure about it, but it's very shotty - tricks and gimmicks. It's nothing like a real Fe dominant. He's looking for an ESI to calm him down and get him to stop all of that stuff. Also, particularly in terms of Fi, he gets very nervous when you make any question about him being on bad terms with someone, particualrly someone he thinks of as valuable. He tries to send personalized notes to 'help maintain' relationships with people, especially if he's worried about them falling apart. It's a lot of typical "EJ effort" expended, but he realizes that he has no control over how other people feel about him or think about him, he doesn't see himself as in charge of ethics or relationships in any way (in terms of his subconscious). All he can do is put forth effort. He's absolutely not F in ego.

[UDP]

Knowing two LIE-Ni who are both E3 (3w4 so/sp and 3w2 sp/so), I can't say either of them sound the way Ryu is describing his LIE to be. Both are quite open to being corrected on their factual knowledge.

Where did I say the person I'm talking about is not open to being corrected on factual knowledge?

Wha?

n the other hand, if you were to critique their manner of presentation - ouch. They both puff themselves up a great deal about 'showmanship' and 'selling the product', but it's clearly where they are the least confident. Maybe this is what Ryu means?

How people are getting things other than that, I don't know.

It's where they focus a lot of their conscious efforts, and they sort of try to 'deconstruct' things like charm, or charisma, and package it into a 3-step process. I find them very alien when they do that; they're very mechanical about all that jazz.

Right....... that's just what I said...........................

Some LIEs do try to use Fe as a tool, and that's what happened in the above example I gave. His Fe was terrible, imo, but because he polished some things enough, it worked on other people, at times. He tries very hard at 'appearing successful', and how he presents himself to other people - some have said he's charismatic.
...
He's said "life is sales", and he will use whatever tactic to try to sell himself or whatever he's doing - such as exploiting morality or trying to woo the opposite sex. Although he'd never ever label it as such - save for when he's trying to get you to see his way and as a 'joke'.

[FDG]

Who's the hot girl in your avatar UDP?

[unefille]

Where did I say the person I'm talking about is not open to being corrected on factual knowledge?

Wha?

How people are getting things other than that, I don't know.

Right....... that's just what I said...........................

You quoted Grek0 in agreement and that was what he was essentially saying. That was the post that Diana said sounded more like an EIE and you disagreed with her. That's how I think your original post was open to being read anyway.