How to tell apart SLE-LSI and EIE-IEI

[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.

[Ezra]

This was an interesting thread until model X made an appearance.

[ArchonAlarion]

This was an interesting thread until model X made an appearance.

... and then it became super-interesting

[munenori2]

... and then it became super-interesting

... and then I JIZZED IN MY PANTS!



^.^

[JuJu]

Unefille and Idolatrie: excellent points!

I hadn't noticed their rigidity/looseness; only general bearings.

Now that I watch the interviews again, in light of what you've both written, yes, you're absolutely right... It's discernible.

I'm wondering: where's the cut-off point between types..? For example, if Dave Matthews was slightly more rigid, would he be LSI..?

It's like Unefille said... There are these border cases floating around, which are really tough to discern... Yesterday I was spotting this dude at the gym--and like unefille, with the SLE she mistook as LSI--I could not tell his type... He was more rigid than Matthews, but not as sturdy as Reed.

He had that mistrustful glare I associate with these border beta ST cases... (The NF border cases often have a very optimistic look in their eyes... I don't know if that describes it well, but that's how I perceive it.)

[Gilly]

LOL I love that interview with Lou Reed! Man, that part at the end where he sings the line from the Sinatra song about cocaine, comparing it to the VU's song about heroin...so great. "Haha, very funny, ok. This was...babum." So great. I keep watching that one part over and over...

I think I will have to refine my ideas about LSIs having seen this. He makes sense as an LSI, but he doesn't fit my typical picture. I have been thinking lately that I have a good general picture of the spectrum of Ti-LSIs, but not so much Se-LSIs, and have been thinking about a few people who I have a hard time typing that might fit best as LSIs.

/me goes out to spot Se-LSIs today

[Creepy-male]

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.

Well, the problem is, nobody actually wants to discuss typing methods, because that might destabilize their own typing. Something which they might have invested far too much into.

There's also lots of different agendas. The fact that there are 50 billion Yieldings on this forum (and that they significantly outnumber the Obstinates) means that whichever theory gets yelled the loudest and longest wins out, without critically analyzing it. I discussed this with Brill, and he drew the conclusion that Yieldings prefer "strong" logic to "detailed" logic.

[JuJu]

There are a few of us--you apparently included--who would enjoy dissecting this stuff... Who aren't here to just jerk off or live a slow death considering little paragraphs of nothing... (I like jerking off and thinking of nothing, but, you know, ad nauseum like sometimes on this forum--it gets old quickly.)

Does anyone have any experience trying to tell apart these nebulous cases? examples above

Use the examples if you'd like... Hell, it'd tickle me if you did.

[unefille]

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.

[Sirena]

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 actually see what you mean.

[pluie]

I actually see what you mean.

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.