SLI-LIE Supervision Relations (ISTp and ENTj)

[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.