Differences between LSEs and SLEs (ESTj vs. ESTp)

[Adam Strange]

Because loving dogs makes people LSE.. Duh

OK, Perse, you forced my hand to write a longer reply.

No, loving dogs is more IEI. I do think dog owners lean more toward LSE than SLE, but my real reasons for calling LSE were from the statement "She is very factual, not expressive, quite authoritative. Really into dogs. Gets to the point quickly, is adventurous."

Being assertively "Factual" is LSE. Being literally sensing is SLE. Te vs. Se.
"Not expressive" seems more LSE. I have seen SLE's be very expressive, in both good and bad ways. Fi vs. Fe.
"quite authoritative" could go either way, but an LSE will try to convince you to do something, while an SLE will try to move you to do something.
"Really into dogs". I assume LSE on this because LSE like to order other people around, and dogs respond well to that. But this is admittedly a fine line.
"Gets to the point quickly" is more LSE, because they have thought about the best way to do something and want to implement it right away, while SLE are more about trying anything that works, and so are more open to suggestions.
"Is adventurous" is more SLE than LSE, for reasons stated in the last statement above, but the overall trend seems to be toward LSE. So, I guessed LSE.

In any case, if @bolong is IEI, then he/she should be able to discern if the person would rather be loved or respected. Even I can tell that, after speaking to someone for a few minutes.
Try saying something like "I really respect your opinion on this" and if they nod and preen, then LSE. If they ignore the statement (because they don't trust you), then SLE.
Try saying something like "You're a great guy" and see how they react. If they do a double-take and look at you in disbelief, then SLE. If they smile and agree, then LSE.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm answering this under the impression that I'm an ESTj; based on my perceived understanding of socionics and the opinions of other people reinforcing my views that I'm not completely delusional in my self-typing.


This is partially true, I drank at social events for the sole purpose of cutting loose. I never drank that often to begin with though, but the last time I drank I blacked out. So I can relate to that as well. After experiencing alcohol poisoning for the first time (and having my friends gf show me a recording of me acting like a drunk), I lost what little interest I had in drinking. I've been repulsed by alcohol for almost 2 years now. That isn't to say that I'm never going to enjoy a glass of wine, I just haven't felt like it.


I've never had problems with addictions of any kind, not unless you count working out.



The last time I cheated was in 1998, 6th period Social Studies. I was curious, if I could see myself doing that I would've laughed my ass off. I might as well have just stood up and stolen the next kids paper, I was literally just staring at his paper the whole time.

That being said, I've incriminated myself on more than one occasion where I didn't have to, for the sole purpose of being honest. It doesn't matter if it's a big or small issue. I don't like lying. I'm terrible at it. I know it, and anyone that knows me, knows it.

Why would someone who enjoys cheating want and appreciate moral guidance? Isn't that a logical fallacy?

ESTjs are supposed to like cheating? Well, I don't like cheating. I go out of my way to try and be what I think is a good person, and one of my biggest fears is that I'm not a good person, I'm just stopping myself from being a bad one. The thought of being like the scumbags I hate disgusts me. So this means that either, A: I'm not an ESTj, or B: You're full of shit. I have more evidence pointing towards me being an ESTj.


Bullshit.


Really? So you prefer dealing with cheats? That's your ideal dual?

I must say that's quite of bit of information for you to pull out of such a small hole. Aren't you sore? Is there some sort of refractionary period after you access your treasure chest of information? Or have you been accessing it so often that you don't even feel it anymore? Well, at least no one can ever accuse you of being afraid to get your hands dirty.

Lolol hahaha

[Beautiful sky]

And I guess I must be desperate to go quoting from Oldham but these things are listed under the likes of ESTJ.

-deviousness
-evasion or circumvention of rules
-delaying tactics
-the line of least resistance
http://the16types.info/types.php?typename=ESTJ

One of the ESTjs I work with has no real problems admitting that he likes deviousness (he actually uses that word) and under-handed methods. I can easily see why people think he and some other ESTs are passive aggressive.

I agree with a lot of your points. I know one too many LSE who cheat just to have sex or just to have a type of sexual contact that they can't with their partner and they say "you can't do everything with your wife" very sad indeed.

[YXPR]

LSEs are awful human beings. SLEs can be cool sometimes.

[Persephone]

OK, Perse, you forced my hand to write a longer reply.

No, loving dogs is more IEI. I do think dog owners lean more toward LSE than SLE, but my real reasons for calling LSE were from the statement "She is very factual, not expressive, quite authoritative. Really into dogs. Gets to the point quickly, is adventurous."

Being assertively "Factual" is LSE. Being literally sensing is SLE. Te vs. Se.
"Not expressive" seems more LSE. I have seen SLE's be very expressive, in both good and bad ways. Fi vs. Fe.
"quite authoritative" could go either way, but an LSE will try to convince you to do something, while an SLE will try to move you to do something.
"Really into dogs". I assume LSE on this because LSE like to order other people around, and dogs respond well to that. But this is admittedly a fine line.
"Gets to the point quickly" is more LSE, because they have thought about the best way to do something and want to implement it right away, while SLE are more about trying anything that works, and so are more open to suggestions.
"Is adventurous" is more SLE than LSE, for reasons stated in the last statement above, but the overall trend seems to be toward LSE. So, I guessed LSE.

In any case, if @bolong is IEI, then he/she should be able to discern if the person would rather be loved or respected. Even I can tell that, after speaking to someone for a few minutes.
Try saying something like "I really respect your opinion on this" and if they nod and preen, then LSE. If they ignore the statement (because they don't trust you), then SLE.
Try saying something like "You're a great guy" and see how they react. If they do a double-take and look at you in disbelief, then SLE. If they smile and agree, then LSE.

For god's sake noooo

[jaein]

For god's sake noooo

What's wrong with his comparisons?

[jaein]

I know one too many LSE who cheat just to have sex or just to have a type of sexual contact that they can't with their partner and they say "you can't do everything with your wife"

Eck, that's terrible.

[Persephone]

What's wrong with his comparisons?

Animal preferences are not type related. LSEs can be emotional especially women. We are taught to be emotional after all (gender/culture specifics). Expressiveness is shaped by many factors. "You are a great person" reaction does not always work and wouldn't with an LSE woman I know. Everything is not type related and taking socionics for some kind of religious truth is just wrong imo.

[bolong]

Animal preferences are not type related. LSEs can be emotional especially women. We are taught to be emotional after all (gender/culture specifics). Expressiveness is shaped by many factors. "You are a great person" reaction does not always work and wouldn't with an LSE woman I know. Everything is not type related and taking socionics for some kind of religious truth is just wrong imo.

Yeah, there are like 4 pages where everyone is assuming the LSE/SLE being hypothetically discussed is male, and I will not be trying to say "You are a great person" out of the blue to see her reaction. But, I do tend to think that animal lovers who wear that as part of their personality tend to be delta. But, idk, that's based on a very small sample size.

@AdamStrange thanks for your input.

[Adam Strange]

Yeah, there are like 4 pages where everyone is assuming the LSE/SLE being hypothetically discussed is male, and I will not be trying to say "You are a great person" out of the blue to see her reaction. But, I do tend to think that animal lovers who wear that as part of their personality tend to be delta. But, idk, that's based on a very small sample size.

@AdamStrange thanks for your input.

You are welcome. My mother and sister are both LSE, and you can totally say that stuff to either of them. Not out of the blue, of course, but when the time is right, be ready.
@Persephone, I was trying to give bolong a clear, concise method for telling them apart, right now, over the phone. I'm pretty sure that IEI's have trouble with this, as intuitive as they are, because half the IEI's I know are involved with LSE's. And they are pretty unhappy about it, for the most part. They seem to have confused a good material provider with a good emotional supporter.

One other thing, bolong. Female SLE's often wear their hair in a bun on top of their heads. I rarely see LSE doing that. It seems to be an Se thing. SEE's do it, too.

[Aylen]

Try saying something like "I really respect your opinion on this" and if they nod and preen, then LSE.

I really respect your opinion on this, Adam.

[Adam Strange]

I really respect your opinion on this, Adam.

Interesting.

My first reaction on reading that was to doubt it. Maybe that means I'm more SLE than LSE.

[Aylen]

Interesting.

My first reaction on reading that was to doubt it. Maybe that means I'm more SLE than LSE.

[wacey]

For god's sake noooo

This seems pretty accurate in my interpretation?

[wacey]

Animal preferences are not type related. LSEs can be emotional especially women. We are taught to be emotional after all (gender/culture specifics). Expressiveness is shaped by many factors. "You are a great person" reaction does not always work and wouldn't with an LSE woman I know. Everything is not type related and taking socionics for some kind of religious truth is just wrong imo.

Yes, very, very true, good point.