How to tell apart SLE-LSI and EIE-IEI

[JuJu]

Aside from temperament, which can be misleading in Socionics, especially for Betas, (e.g. ENFjs and ISTjs can seem irrational; ESTps can look rational, and INFps can be extroverted,) how do you tell the two beta NFs and beta STs apart?

Which characteristics, have you noticed, give a particular Beta type away?

[Creepy-male]

I would use Model X.

At least in my case, ISFp-Fe (introvert with extaverted subtype) coincides with Model A ESE. I don't see how this couldn't be generally expanded.

So, in other words, "wait for me to drag Brill over, again".

[jessica129]

Have I started a trend?

What's this model x people keep speaking of?

[Creepy-male]

A socionics module (it's useless if you consider it to be completely separate, imo) that considers there are 32 types (the 16 types with two subtypes each), each with only their four valued quadra elements.

EDIT

And I can't remember what the attributes were of each of the four functions. Sorry :x

[JuJu]

Have I started a trend?

What's this model x people keep speaking of?

Model X does not exist... I was a moderator at that forum for awhile, and have heard all of the bs about it before... To the extent that Model X ever did exist, Gulazon just summarized it. Only four elements per type.

Besides, Gulazon: an EIE and IEI "value" the same elements. That is to say, their quadra elements are the same...

I'm asking: how do you discern between the two types. Either the beta STs or NFs.

And yes, Jess, you started a trend.

[JuJu]

For example, how would you tell apart the Socionics types of these two:

Justin Timberlake, (a fairly extroverted Fe-IEI... interviewed by Osbourne, a ESTp: )


And John Lennon, (a fairly sluggish Ni-EIE interviewed by an INFp, who looks like an elf: )


We could do the same with the Beta STs too.

This is all to say, there's a borderline between the creative subtypes of each of the beta Socionics types that gets pretty nebulous.

[Creepy-male]

Sorry, JuJu, I meant...

You can use Model X (or at least something very similar) to work back to Model A. It certainly worked for my typing. It breaks down if you try to use a one-to-one correspondence between the two, however. (Model X SEI-Fe is not Model A SEI. (Or even SEI-Fe, but I would be inclined to disregard subtypes for Model A.))

[JuJu]

I agree with you, Gulazon. It helps one identify their quadra.

I'm writing, you know, about that nebulous area between two types--in this case, beta NFs or STs, what some call creative subtypes--model a or x or whatever you're using. .. It exists in all of the models. (see example.)

I'm wondering if there's any new insight on this forum about it.... How to make that nebulous area more clear-cut.

[Brilliand]

I would use Model X.

At least in my case, ISFp-Fe (introvert with extaverted subtype) coincides with Model A ESE. I don't see how this couldn't be generally expanded.

So, in other words, "wait for me to drag Brill over, again".

My "three clocks" model won't help here - in fact it will probably confuse the matter further, because I swap parts of the ego functions for Betas and I haven't settled yet how this should manifest.

Given that you know club and quadra, I suggest watching the superid - whichever element they use of their own accord is their HA. Model X confuses this slightly, but not seriously.

[JuJu]

My "three clocks" model won't help here - in fact it will probably confuse the matter further, because I swap parts of the ego functions for Betas and I haven't settled yet how this should manifest.

Given that you know club and quadra, I suggest watching the superid - whichever element they use of their own accord is their HA. Model X confuses this slightly, but not seriously.

Could you try to apply this to the examples posted??

It could help everyone to learn.

[Sirena]

A socionics module (it's useless if you consider it to be completely separate, imo) that considers there are 32 types (the 16 types with two subtypes each), each with only their four valued quadra elements.

EDIT

And I can't remember what the attributes were of each of the four functions. Sorry :x

You're ESE now? I'm having a hard time keeping up with you.

@juju: This is a VERY interesting topic and one I've thought about before. I have the same questions as you so it will be interesting to see what kind of feedback you'll get. Hopefully other people will be interested in contributing!

I think you and I are good examples of this. We've gone through a similar process for finding our types and it sounds like we've been confused about similar things.

[JuJu]

I'll tell you, Sirena, I think that the biggest problem, at this moment, with the English speaking Socionics community, is this little problem...

If people can't get their type right, then the whole Socionics exercise is pretty moot, you know.

I'm not sure anyone has a really good way of solving it... Except, you know, analyzing Supervison.

That's why I'm asking the question... I'm hoping someone has some ideas.

To cite an example that comes to mind, Gilly has gone back and forth between the beta NF types... I have, you have. That's three of hundreds though--many people on this forum have gone back and forth...

It's probably the biggest problem with Socionics, when it comes down to it.

[Beautiful sky]

Aside from temperament, which can be misleading in Socionics, especially for Betas, (e.g. ENFjs and ISTjs can seem irrational; ESTps can look rational, and INFps can be extroverted,) how do you tell the two beta NFs and beta STs apart?

Which characteristics, have you noticed, give a particular Beta type away?

I was discussing this connection with my LSI friend and the distinction comes down to risk taking; he said he is highly adverse to risk and taking risk, which interestingly he admires in his SLE friend. Especially, risk taking in the financial sense of the word or investment sense of the word.

[Ezra]

Aside from temperament, which can be misleading in Socionics, especially for Betas, (e.g. ENFjs and ISTjs can seem irrational; ESTps can look rational, and INFps can be extroverted,) how do you tell the two beta NFs and beta STs apart?

Which characteristics, have you noticed, give a particular Beta type away?

I find it highly unlikely that an LSI seems irrational - why do you think this? Likewise with SLE; only superficially do they. As for extroverted IEIs, I see where you're coming from, although it tends to be pretty obvious after a while.

The LSIs I know are hyperrational. They tend to have this kind of smooth coolness about them, and they know it. They're confident. Some of them are relatively slow, visibly methodical thinkers, but they're all clear and systematic. Good company, and good in discussion. When the conversation is on a topic in which they're interested, they tend to get quite excited - you can hear it in their voices; sometimes more excitable than an SLE.

"Restraint" or "quiet" (at times) SLEs like myself are clearly not rational after a few days observation.

As for Beta NFs, EIEs tend to just spring up to me - the Fe is REALLY obvious. Anyone I'm mysteriously attracted to I tend to view as IEI.

[Beautiful sky]

I find it highly unlikely that an LSI seems irrational - why do you think this? Likewise with SLE; only superficially do they. As for extroverted IEIs, I see where you're coming from, although it tends to be pretty obvious after a while.

The LSIs I know are hyperrational. They tend to have this kind of smooth coolness about them, and they know it. They're confident. Some of them are relatively slow, visibly methodical thinkers, but they're all clear and systematic. Good company, and good in discussion. When the conversation is on a topic in which they're interested, they tend to get quite excited - you can hear it in their voices; sometimes more excitable than an SLE.

"Restraint" or "quiet" (at times) SLEs like myself are clearly not rational after a few days observation.

As for Beta NFs, EIEs tend to just spring up to me - the Fe is REALLY obvious. Anyone I'm mysteriously attracted to I tend to view as IEI.

AHHHH; you're driving me nuts...for goodness sake you're LIE type.

[Ezra]

AHHHH; you're driving me nuts...for goodness sake you're LIE type.

Good justification there, Maritsa, you useless individual.

[Satan]

Good justification there, Maritsa, you useless individual.

You love her.

[redbaron]

AHHHH; you're driving me nuts...for goodness sake you're LIE type.

Maritsa, Ezra is not LIE.

[Satan]

AHHHH; you're driving me nuts...for goodness sake you're LIE type.

You want him so badly.

[Beautiful sky]

You want him so badly.

I have someone else in mind to want.

[Satan]

I have someone else in mind to want.

I'm sure you have many in mind.

[redbaron]

The LSIs I know are hyperrational. They tend to have this kind of smooth coolness about them, and they know it. They're confident. Some of them are relatively slow, visibly methodical thinkers, but they're all clear and systematic. Good company, and good in discussion. When the conversation is on a topic in which they're interested, they tend to get quite excited - you can hear it in their voices; sometimes more excitable than an SLE.

yes, every word of this is true, ime.

"Restraint" or "quiet" (at times) SLEs like myself are clearly not rational after a few days observation.

Yes, usually the more restrained ones are Ti-subs. They can be pretty unpredictable.

[Satan]

Yes, usually the more restrained ones are Ti-subs. They can be pretty unpredictable.

So can you.

[redbaron]

So can you.

that's what I've been told. :wink:

[Satan]

that's what I've been told. :wink:

come on aim

[Blaze]

Aside from temperament, which can be misleading in Socionics, especially for Betas, (e.g. ENFjs and ISTjs can seem irrational; ESTps can look rational, and INFps can be extroverted,) how do you tell the two beta NFs and beta STs apart?

Which characteristics, have you noticed, give a particular Beta type away?

LSI: immovable rock.

SLE: con artist

EIE: drama queen

IEI: poet

[Ezra]

SLE: con artist

I resent that.

[Beautiful sky]

I resent that.

You know, Ezra, Se ego doesn't mean being mean and a jerk, it means statics of objects.

Maritsa, Ezra is not LIE.

Yes he is.

[Ezra]

You know, Ezra, Se ego doesn't mean being mean and a jerk, it means statics of objects.



Yes he is.

LMAO @ you maritsa get over yourself

[Beautiful sky]

LMAO @ you maritsa get over yourself

That's a funny thing that you should tell me Ezra...no seriously...it's obvious as hell that you and I aren't very good relations...you telling me to get over myself is very Gamma ish....

What is the purpose of me getting over myself?

[Blaze]

I resent that.

oh you know i don't mean that in a bad way you slickster :wink: go ahead, sell me some ice.

[Ezra]

oh you know i don't mean that in a bad way you slickster :wink: go ahead, sell me some ice.

Ahaha!

[ladyinred]

For me, it's actually really really clear that Timberlake is IEI and Lennon EIE. Watch how Timbelake sits, how he moves: there's a smoothness, almost a sense of consideration in his movements. He's still for the greater part and when he moves, he's making a 'large' gesture, something used for emphasis or to draw attention or to make an effect. On the other hand, Lennon's movements are almost compulsive. He's *twitchy* (oh god, as am I), not in this fidgety, nervy-ness way, but on a micro-level, he doesn't stop moving -- he can't seem to find physical equilibrium. Even when he's not 'making movements or gestures', his fingers are still moving up and down, his head is constantly changing its tilt. If exaggerated, it would be jerky and awkward, but it takes places on a more micro level and at the level of his whole frame, he doesn't move too much there, which is what gives the more 'sluggish' vibe, but even his stillness (when he is still) feels tense and unnatural -- the difference between a body being at rest and a body being held tightly so as to prevent it from moving. Both aren't moving, both are still -- but the difference in their states is palpable.

I think Lou Reed and Dave Matthews hold themselves very differently in these vids. DM seems to lead with his energy, almost like he's leaping forward from his body. He holds himself quite loosely, his movements seem erratic but very organic (scratching his face). LR holds himself very tightly, even when he leans forward he's holding something back. You as the viewer are drawn to him, as opposed to DM seeming to be drawn to you. LR's movements are deliberate and firm (the fist to emphasise his point).

I think SLEs seems to come forward and challenge you, get in your face and say 'do you think you can take me on?' but LSIs seem to sit back and let you fall into the trap of bringing the challenge to them.

I think EIEs and IEIs are more easily confused than SLEs and LSIs.

For you. Other way around for me (as my optimistic crushing on a recent SLE reveals lol). Which I'm sure you meant to say, though -- that Beta STs are more likely to recognise between their identical and mirror and vice-versa for Beta NFs.

Yeah, I s'pose I better throw in my two pence since I said it would've been an interesting thread.

I know what you mean, and I don't think it's only these types that are difficult to differentiate between. I for one (I set up a thread on this a short while ago) have trouble telling the difference between an EIE and an SLE (just by observation, obviously). While I'm not so sure Beta Introverts are hard to tell between, or duals, I find SLE-EIE and the two you mentioned are the ones I'm most concerned with.

I basically use the temperaments to decide between mirrors. I sometimes think I'm LSI, but then I realise not only that I prefer IEIs as much as I fucking love EIEs, but also that there are elements about the SLE that just don't fit with the LSI. Besides the IJ thing, SLEs also have more of an irrational (in the true meaning of the word), impulsive air about them. While they may not, in comparison with some of the rest of the socion, look/seem or even be particularly impulsive or irrational, they are certainly more so than LSIs. LSIs are far more methodical, systematic and careful in both thought and deed. They are more difficult to change - while all Beta STs are stable, grounded and confident, LSIs go that little bit more. An LSI is like an oak - totally fucking solid and unmoveable, an SLE like a willow (especially like the one from Harry Potter) - still grounded, but somewhat aggressive when it comes down to it. With an SLE, you'll generally sense more of a kind "FUCKING YEAH MAN WAHEYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!" quality to many of them (especially Se subtypes). With LSIs, there is none of this. Compare someone like Joe Pesci in Casino or Goodfellas (or if you haven't seen those films, any of his films, really) - SLE, probably Se subtype - with Denzel Washington in American Gangster - LSI, probably Se subtype as well.

Hope that helps. I don't feel I know enough about EIEs and IEIs to give any decent distinctions between them.



+1



No it didn't.

No, I wouldn't think so. As in, it is not how rigidly a person holds themselves that for me differentiates between SLE and LSI. If DM held himself more rigidly, sat up instead of leaning forwards, his energy would still be pushing forwards, you know? I think SLEs have a looseness, a 'largeness' if you will about their expressions and gestures. Their energy expands to fill the space around them. They express their emotions through the wideness of their smile (amused, entertained), the sprawl of their body (comfortable, at ease), an arm slung around someone's shoulders ('you're mine').

LSIs on the other hand express their energy in a far more contained way. They occupy or 'own' the space they are in without spreading further than the limits of their body. Gestures are more deliberate, more controlled. Instead of a wide grin, they'll show their amusement with a raised eyebrow, a half-smirk and some kind of amused expression in their eyes. A hand on your forearm says 'I want to touch you'. Rather than enveloping you with their presence, they invite you to come to them.

Actually, I'll send you a pic of two friends of mine who I think are LSI and SLE which I think shows some of the differences.

And also YES THIS @ everything Ezra said above.

I think ISTjs are easy to tell apart from ESTps. ISTjs are reclusive and slowly pull you into their little bubble. ESTps have this expansive energy.
The other night I was walking and I felt like this boom presence, and I could tell it was an ESTp, I didn't need to look up to clarify. ESTps have this high energy, high impact, full on sexual energy - it's invigorating and intimidating. ISTjs have this far more subtle sexual energy, it's like they simmer, it's aggressive yet calming and stable. (actually no, I take it back, they are intimidating in a sexual way too; I think this is probaly an IEI thing... lol).


Also they appear very different, it's not until you get deeper into the ISTj that you see how opinionated and 'tough' they are. ESTps are upfront, you know what they want. ISTjs are closed off and only show you what they want you to know. ISTjs come across as polite and friendly, you can't always tell what they think or feel. ESTps are like crazed, bouncing off all over the place, or just sit back and watch but the intensity never leaves them; their easy to read, whatever they feel; you will feel it too.

IEIs and EIEs are more similar I guess. IEIs are often weirder and have better dress sense :tongue:. Lol, that's my shallow analysis...

i noticed that too; but i doubt my observations too much, but since someone else said it, yeah; i see that too.

definitely with the LSI and SLE as well.

also, i think a good way of telling the difference is that when a rational beta states something, the way they get their point across is usually very clear... as where the irrationals tend to really ramble, and speak in chunks. but in the end their point or idea is developed, but in a less consistent manner.

its like... subtle but equal and solid additions to the portraying of their idea (rational) versus smoother but inconsistent in "size" additions (irrational)

basically, irrationals jump around and tend to ramble more than rationals.

let's see how people nitpick at that.

Hey, found this site today. First time poster. Go easy. lol

Im an IEI and my older sister is an EIE. One total difference between the two types ive noticed is EIE's dont like to have conversations about nothing. The abstract qualities you see in the IEI's eclecity of weird, arent expressed by the EIE. EnFj's seem to be more practical, and interested in things that they can apply. Infp's i noticed seem to be intrigued by things they can analyze and break apart into their heads to draw the nourishment from later whenever the intuition pops.

I find it highly unlikely that an LSI seems irrational - why do you think this? Likewise with SLE; only superficially do they. As for extroverted IEIs, I see where you're coming from, although it tends to be pretty obvious after a while.

The LSIs I know are hyperrational. They tend to have this kind of smooth coolness about them, and they know it. They're confident. Some of them are relatively slow, visibly methodical thinkers, but they're all clear and systematic. Good company, and good in discussion. When the conversation is on a topic in which they're interested, they tend to get quite excited - you can hear it in their voices; sometimes more excitable than an SLE.

"Restraint" or "quiet" (at times) SLEs like myself are clearly not rational after a few days observation.

As for Beta NFs, EIEs tend to just spring up to me - the Fe is REALLY obvious. Anyone I'm mysteriously attracted to I tend to view as IEI.

LSI: immovable rock.

SLE: con artist

EIE: drama queen

IEI: poet

bump

[Pookie]

You can pretty much throw out every thing I said. My sister isn't EIE

[PrettySavage]

You can pretty much throw out every thing I said. My sister isn't EIE

What is she, then?

[Pookie]

What is she, then?

ESI-Se. Probably E-3

[Spermatozoa]

ESI-Se. Probably E-3

Want to introduce us?

[Squirrel]

Demonstrative vs Ignoring

PoLR vs Role

[seeking it]

Demonstrative vs Ignoring

PoLR vs Role

Mind putting that into everyday words. I see you retyped as SLE so I am curious

[Squirrel]

Mind putting that into everyday words. I see you retyped as SLE so I am curious

The biggest difference is that PoLR is 1D ( realises only its own experience ) while Role is 2D ( understands what is acceptable and what is not around it , and strictly adhere to it. )
Role performance better than PoLR which gives headache to the person

I can't give you practical examples honestly, because the same thing can come from other functions

If I tell you, for example, that Fi PoLR has difficulty forming relationships or realising other people's feelings that are not visible on their faces, it's true but it applies to any logical type in general, and to any 1D Fi type in particular (Fi PoLR + Fi Suggestive , therefore ExTx types )

What distinguishes PoLR and Role from Suggestive and Mobilizing is being in Super ego block: the person feels resentment because he realizes that society demands these functions from him , and often uses them as a mask in society.


Demonstrative vs Ignoring :

I didn't read much about them honestly because my focus is more on the weaker functions

Demonstrative function is very powerful , it is your strongest function with the leading function , it may not appear directly to you, but others see it clearly, especially before developing the creative function

Ignoring is less visible but gathers information to support the leading function , it might seem very weak to others , but person easily uses it when needed

Demonstrative is 4D , Ignoring is 3D

more information about dimensions theory :

1D ( all functions )

2D( all functions except Suggestive and PoLR )

3D( only functions in Ego and ID Block)

4D( only Leading and Demonstrative functions )

Indicators of dimensionality