I just had a quick question that you might be able to help me with. The question is: How do you tell the difference between an ISTj and an ESTp?
I just had a quick question that you might be able to help me with. The question is: How do you tell the difference between an ISTj and an ESTp?
The amount of friends they have.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Not always true ^^^
I've actually been thinking about this a lot as of lately.
Well besides the obvious stereotypes (ISTjs are quieter, more systematic, more organized, etc.), it might be a bit difficult.
I'm in high school, and one thing that I noticed is that a lot of ISTj guys walk around with their headphones on, while the ESTps don't. This is probably because ISTjs don't need quite as much as ESTps.
And ESTps will go out of their way to get affection from other people. They're more likely to say crude and weird things for attention than ISTjs.
I hope that helped.
The SLEs are the ones running around doing everything as soon as it pops into their head. When they aren't running around they're showing off. ISTjs tend to conserve their energy :wink:
True! I forgot about the conserving energy thing.
I never conserve energy, never ever ever. You'll always see me running around and stuff for pointless reasons. Whereas these ISTjs I see around, they don't ever do that type of thing.
I find ESTp discussions on this site, to be highly contradictive. I was reading a thread on a hypothetical discussion between ESTPs and every other word was bitch this, bitch that. Now I see this thread asking for a distinction between one of the most repressed types (ISTj) and ESTp. Makes me question as to whether ESTPs are are being labeled fairly. I remain suspect of the whole breakdown for introverts in Socionics, so I continue to see Ti-Se as ISTP.
Also, Linda V. Berens sees EST(P) belonging to the "Take Charge" inter relation group. One thing that all of that type have in common, is being responsible even as children. Can someone explain what ESTp's are truly like, in lieu of the pretentiousness?
I don't really get what you're asking. Seems a little too broad to answer without writing a book.
... not true at all. The only reason that we call the TiSe an ISTj, is because that's the type it's suppossed to correlate to in the MBTI system. Remember, socionic types didn't originally have the four acronym thing, it's was just the way for us Westerners to adapt to the socionic system.Originally Posted by Functianalyst
... and without going into writing a book describing how the TiSe in socionics is the same thing as the SiTe in MBTI, I'm just going to point you to one of my favorite threads.
MAYBE I'LL BREAK DOWN!!!
Originally Posted by vague
Exactly, they would rather lounge around and point out the flaws in everything they see; makes me despise their asses and if I was not so understanding of their viewpoints, I would be tempted to whip out a can of whoop ass ...Originally Posted by Herzblut
Summary: I dislike ISTjs ...
Actually, I've always liked, a lot, the ISTjs that I've encountered.
That's probably a good thing then. I guess it answers any question as to whether that was my type.Originally Posted by Herzblut
I was actually alluding to MBTI in my quote Rocky.Originally Posted by Rocky
If you are about to propose that the functions Si/Te in socionics are the same for Ti/Se in MBTI, then it would take more than a book.... and without going into writing a book describing how the TiSe in socionics is the same thing as the SiTe in MBTI, I'm just going to point you to one of my favorite threads.
It is often said that ESTp-Ti sub is somehow more ISTj like than average ESTp. Why is this? ESTp-Ti sub is still Ep temperament and functionally and value wise moves towards alpha and ENTp not towards ISTj. Becomes less ISTj like than average ESTp.
If you take it further and compare ISTj-Se and ESTp-Ti. Someone might say "they are hard to tell from each other". But they shouldn't be like each other _at all_. ISTj-Se is close to ISFj where ESTp-Ti is close to ENTp. So they are almost complete opposites. Almost conflictors not almost identicals.
What do you think?
Or how about this one (as in my case):
An ENTp Ti subtype comes off as an ISTj.
An ESTp that is an Ti subtype is still an ESTp, but could adopt behaviors and values of an Ti dominant, as same for the ENTp. So an ENTp or ESTp have similarities when they are Ti subtypes.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
Umm...what? How is that possible Why not ESTp? I've heard of a version that ENTp-Ti comes off as INTj-Ti (which seems incorrect) and ESTp-Ti but never ISTj.Originally Posted by Jimbean
Seems to me this subtype theory is still quite incomplete. I don't see why temperaments should be fixed in stone like that, while functions change... the temperament itself is dependendent on the leading function, more than a thing of it's own isn't it? So if the most apparent function in someone's behavior is the creative function, it seems reasonable to mistake a creative subtype for its mirror.
I can tell you that whenever I end up using a lot of Se (with certain groups of people) I think I become more ESTp-like.
Good topic, XoX.
Bullshit. LSI is a mirror of SLE. Fi and Ti are two completely different functions. Are you suggesting that a Ti/Fe, Se/Ni valuing type is closer to a Fi/Te, Se/Ni valuing type than it is to a type that values its own values? That's like saying an American special forces guy is closest to an British SAS guy than a British Reg is, which is utter shit.Originally Posted by XoX
An SLE couldn't give a shit about Ne, and yet it is the ILE's leading function. So how the fuck did you come to the conclusion that an SLE is closer to a Ne-valuing type than a Ne PoLR type?
Anyway, SLE-Ti is close to LSI-Se because they both value the same functions, and SLE-Ti is more prominent in Ti even though Se is their first function, and the reverse is true of the LSI-Se. Nonetheless, they're easy to tell apart. I can't be arsed explaining how at the moment.
I think you don't understand properly where the claim comes from. It comes from one quite often used interpretation for how subtypes affect functional preference. It doesnt mean your claim is necessarily wrong though.Originally Posted by Ezra
ESTp-Ti and ENTp-Ti should be similar because
a) they share the same temperament
b) they share the same creative function
c) they share the same PoLR
d) they prefer their creative function over their leading function (use it more) -> "subtype theory" says focusing on your creative function blurs your leading vs role function difference. Thus ESTp-Ti is more Ne than average ESTp, ENTp-Ti is more Se. This is the controversial claim which implies ISTj-Se is very different creature from ESTp-Ti.
ESTp-Ti vs ISTj-Se
a) different temperament
b) different creative function
c) different PoLR
d) ISTj-Se focuses more on Se, ESTp-Ti focuses more on Ti. This means ESTp-Ti has more focus on Ne than average ESTp. ISTj-Se has very little if any focus on Ne. They shouldn't be alike.
I haven't observed much about the subtypes IRL so hard to tell how this really goes.
How can it ever get clearly defined if we don't argue about it? Ok we are lacking empirical evidence a bit..Originally Posted by Thunder
Yes the subtype theory is incomplete. But about the temperament. The subtype theory claims that the preference to use creative function more doesn't make creative function your leading function. That the "leading" vs "creative" difference is structural and not directly dependent how much you actually activate the function. You "are" your leading function and you "utilize" or "use" your creative function. One subtype tend to utilize their creative function a lot and the other not. It takes conscious effort to use your creative function but leading function usage kind of comes automatically. Concentrating a lot on your creative function doesn't automate its usage. It is still a tool.Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
So according to that ISTj-Se and ESTp-Se might seem alike in behavior because you see a lot of Se thrown around. But ISFj-Se also throws a lot of Se around and might look similar too. ISTj-Se and ISFj-Se might look very similar.
However, ESTp-Ti doesn't throw around that much Se. That is why ESTp-Ti and ISTj-Se should not look that similar. ESTp-Ti should look more like ENTp-Ti with somewhat less abstract creativity and a bit more forceful posture.
I'm implying socionics theory. I agree with it, and as I've said before, there's no need to argue with it. I couldn't give a shit about the nitty gritty of it, like what subtypes are closer to which. I just want people to understand the fact that SLE and LSI as Mirrors are closer to each other than SLE and ILE. Once they understand the theory properly (and not just types dichotomically e.g. ESTp is close to ENTp because all you have to do is change one letter around and they're the same - this is simplistic and MBTT-favouring), an SLE is much more likely to consider LSI as a second option for type than they are ILE.
Now I understand, XoX, but I disagree with you.
I'm not really a fan of this math/theoretical stuff... I feel you start with observation, which is bound to be at least slightly wrong, and by applying math to it you make everything bigger, including those little mistakes. While if you just stick to observation, those mistakes will remain small.
Ahahaha ok, ok, I just don't have the patience for it (c:
Why does the sum of Fi+Ti have to be equal in I(ST)j and I(S)Tj, and why does it have to be greater than Se+Ne? Maybe it's how those functions are used, instead of their strength, that defines the type.Originally Posted by ifmd95
I don't have a problem with I(S)Tj being similar to both I(S)Fj and ESTp... why does it have to be similar to one other type only?Originally Posted by XoX
ESTp-Ti doesn't throw Se around?!? Less than ESTp-Se maybe, but they are still Se leading.Originally Posted by XoX
Cool, I do understand the value of these theories once they are calibrated, but this calibration requires knowledge of many people and their type. And by many I mean many... I don't think we can do it well on this forum, on something as undefined as subtypes.Originally Posted by ifmd95
I have typed very few people, and am in no way close to seeing subtypes IRL, so I'm gonna shut up... what I'm sure about is that I look more ESTp when I use more Se.
Maybe this is Ne and that's why I have problems with it.Originally Posted by ifmd95
Could very well be... my knowledge of ISFj is quite lacking.Originally Posted by ifmd95
Say temperaments are 4 overlapping circumferences that intersect at mirror types when we rotate them synchronously from a starting point where all the types opposed in serious/merry dichotomy are parellel to the y axis, then the intersection always happens only when there is a perfect mirror type, so for an I(S)Tj only at E(S)Tp because they both share an equal ratio of merriness over seriousness (this dichotomy is just an example, it could be done for every dichotomy if you understand whether it's polarized in an opposite way in temperaments, or shared via quadra values (ex. tactis/strategy: perfect mirror types have exactly opposed ratios of tactics over strategy (think again about I(S)Tj and E(S)Tp, where the former is the peak of tactics, and the latter peak of strategy). This also matches empirical observations because a perfect mirror partner is one that is able to see the same side of ourself for half the problem so that we can share ideas togheter, and another half different so that there is mutual correction.Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
By the way dichotomy wise an ISFj is more similar to an ESTp than an ISTj(!!!): look for example at the recent post on gulenko's styles of thinking.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Because ISFj and ESTp are not very similar in the end. Even the Se-subtypes. One has IJ temperament and leading Fi. One has EP temperament and Fi PoLR. So it seems some other type can't be similar to both. In theory.Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
Ti is an introverted function. When you use it you are not interacting with the outside world but absorbed in your mind. Thus you should throw less Se around than someone who is not absorbed in their mind all the time. Now that I look at it from this point of view it might be that ESTp-Ti isn't more Ne than ESTp-Se. Just spends more time in his head analyzing and less time hitting people in the head. Kind of like ISTj.Originally Posted by PotatoSpirit
Some image thinking...
ESTp is a hammer with a brain. ESTp-Se is a big hammer with a small brain. ESTp-Ti is a small hammer with a big brain.
ISTj is a brain holding a hammer. ISTj-Ti is a big brain holding a small hammer. ISTj-Se is a small brain holding a big hammer.
nah...this doesn't work. I don't know what ENTp is in this imagery.
I thought all types are as similar or dissimilar dichotomy-wise?Originally Posted by FDG
You're right, I probably meant behavior-wise (I was brainstorming more than stating definite ideas)Originally Posted by XoX
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I'm completely lost in all of these posts. I didn't know there was a socionics subtype theory either originating from here or elsewhere. I dont understand anything you guys have laid out. I would think an extroverted sensing istj would be an unhealthy one based on the theory that we take on the opposite of our functions under stress. If anyone has any links or anything relating to socionics and subtype i'd be most grateful.Originally Posted by XoX
Don't worry about it - alot of what people have said is theoretical bullshit that means nothing and adds nothing to life whatsoever.Originally Posted by lefty
Damn negativists. Half empty glass, eh? A lot of what people have said is practical, useful information that means a lot and adds a lot to life.Originally Posted by Ezra
If you really want to study more then try wikisocion http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...ikisocion_home
Actually Im not sure if there is much about subtypes there. But it still is a good read
Wikisocion is the don of everything. I just don't like all this lengthy, dragged out theory. I want the facts, and I want them now. Wiki (and Rick) give them to me.
On a lighter note, XoX, no; the glass is actually half full, and these words have actually come out of my mouth in the last four days, so you are incorrect.
You know...I had been to that site once before, but something about you directing me there made me take more interest. I'm totally interested in the relationship styles: aggressor, victim, caregiver, and infantile. I always love new ways to look at these things. I love systems. I'm also highly interested in this subtype theory since subtypes are also in enneagram, and because it could lend more distinction to the types.Originally Posted by XoX
Thanks for sharing,
Rule Breaker vs Rule Abider
Estps are generally more intense and in your face, higher energy levels and I find them to have more of an outward/playful ego; whereas LSIs egos is more stubborn/serious
SLEs have more of a sexual aura, its more out there than with LSI's. More adventurous off the bat than LSI's too...both are goal oriented, but in LSI's it comes off as way more prominent.
their vibes are really different IJ vs EP
I dont know if this will help at all, but I have had at least one close friend of each. How the LSI used to phrase things would spike my emotions because he would say things that I perceived as fucked up, like they were fact, and it pissed me the heck off. Things that I didnt want to acknowledge as true, despite the logicality of it. Him, and I think LSI's in general, are less likely to sugarcoat things. Much less likely, they basically say things as they are. How I notice him and other LSI's react is with an appreciation of Fe but dont seem to feel compelled in really engaging in it. Its something that I initially found weird, but now I find admirable; their unboundness to 'Fe Social Rules'. With SLE's I feel they get more absorbed in the atmosphere, they are much more likely to contribute Fe into the interaction, put on a show so to speak, and as such I feel my interactions w them abit smoother.Their flow of communication in general is just steadier, its a constant stream of communication as to where their may be breaks in convos with LSI's.
Hard to picture an SLE being awkward, even when they are being awkward. They kinda just brush it off as having fun, while with LSIs their can be this silent tension.
Lastly, I dont know if this is an Fe ego thing, an Fe creative thing, or maybe not even Fe related but I find myself compelled to put Fe out there alot of times to not awkwardise interactions. SLEs for me are one of the types where you can literally just not worry about that kind of stuff. Their behavior patterns elicit Fe responses from me very naturally. In this way it takes the pressure off. They are entertaining, edgey, and stimulating for the most part so it automatically elicits that kind of responses from me.
<Crispy> what subt doesnt understand is that a healthy reaction to "FUCK YOU" is and not
I agree w/ everything Pirate said. LSIs seem more rigid. SLEs seem more fluid. SLEs use Ti in the service of Se so they're more able/willing to bend the rules to reach their goal. LSIs use Se in the service of Ti so their systems come first and their actions follow the rules. Therefore they can come across as more "proper".
I dunno, I find it hard to prescribe specific traits that are consistently different; sure LSIs tend to be more stereotypically introverted, but I have encountered some VERY reserved Ti-SLEs, and some extremely outgoing and talkative LSIs of both subtypes, so that's not really a sure bet. Actually I tend to think that, while SLEs are more naturally outgoing and usually have more finely tuned people skills, LSIs as a group tend to be generally more sociable; they seem to get more out of it, and are probably more likely to socialize or talk casually, "just for fun," whereas an SLE's social life is generally either a realm in which power is to be gained, or geared towards specific discharge, getting praise, bonding with close friends, etc.
The real key, I think, is gauging the general energy, the sense of the person: when you interact with LSIs, they seem like they are coming from somewhere to talk to you, as though engaging with people is a sort of "venturing out" of their natural state. Even the really most outgoing of them seem like they are sort of reporting their thoughts to you; when "narrating" they tend to speak sequentially and categorically. Some of them talk really fast; sometimes they don't pay any heed to whether or not the person they are speaking to can understand them properly or keep up with their train of thought. If you just let them go, they can kind of steamroll conversations; to have effective two-way exchange with them you have to be able to tell both when it's "your turn" and when it's ok to interrupt them (and some of them DEFINITELY need to be interrupted, or they will rant for ages ).
SLEs, on the other hand, are ALWAYS gauging you in conversation, always calculating. The more talkative ones will use various tactics to draw you out, sometimes ranting as a way to throw you off or put you in a place where they can tell more about you, by entrancing you (watch out for the 3s here, especially ), making you uncomfortable, poking and prodding, or sitting back laconically until they see something they can bite at. They are always testing you, always trying to gauge where you stand; it almost seems like they are so certain of themselves, but nothing else at all. SLEs tend to seem more loose and sporadic than LSIs. Se-LSIs tend to have a "tight" feeling, like they are maintaining specific personal boundaries, and Ti-LSIs generally seem just very composed and maintained; SLEs are always more casual and receptive than either. Ti-SLEs, especially the 3s, can seem very composed, especially in a professional setting, and have a distinct almost dangerous-seeming coldness to them, but even then you can see a tinge of that potential skater punk/surfer just below the surface, ready to cut loose at the first sight of ruckus.
SLEs don't think before they do anything and end up fucking themselves over.
Rationality is the big difference. LSIs won't do something unless it makes sense and until it has been proven to make sense according to Ti (whereas an EIE wouldn't do it until it made sense according to Fe, perhaps?). SLEs will do something just for the hell of it, for the sake of experience. Also, SLEs are more prone to using Ti as a "toy" that is, to making spurious (but apparently sound) arguments for the hell of it.
In class, my LSI friend will pay attention and not really cause problems or anything as long as the information presented seems worthwhile. If the information presented no longer seems worthwhile, he will either ignore it or go to sleep or something. If the teacher does something "illogical" he will harp on it incessantly. By contrast, my SLE friend will pay attention but will usually do something else. More demand for stimulation or something. If the information no longer seems worthwhile, he'll attempt to interact with his environment somehow rather than just ignoring the teacher/sleeping. Frequently this takes the form of him writing his name on random stuff that's nearby. But I think that's being-weird related, not type related. If the teacher does something illogical, and it affects him or others he cares about, he will normally want to say something to the teacher about it, or embarrass said teacher in class about it. SLEs generally have to be held back or hold themselves back from taking action on things that bother them, whereas LSIs don't need to hold themselves back. They naturally weigh the situation before deciding whether or not they need to take action---they don't have the same immediate/natural inclination to action.
Also, in writing this description, I realize that we really do expect our own behavior and our duals behavior, and see this as natural, and deviations from this in some way unnatural, even if we intellectually know that such behavior is 100% natural and normal. Random thought.
Not a rule, just a trend.
IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.
Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...
I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.