What do ESTjs want in a mate?

[Beautiful sky]

Someone who is financially successful.

[Galen]

http://instantrimshot.com/

[Absurd]

Inflated ego.

[DirectorAbbie]

LSE want EII.

(I find your abbreviation method interesting. Instead of "Logical Sensory Extrovert" with an s on the end, you abbreviate "Logical Sensory Extroverts" and save on ink.)

[Roro]

Depends. If they are male, they want sex. If they are female, they want money.

[Ver]

I'd say LSEs, at least the ones I know (only four of them including my grandmother) appreciate when someone is financially successful but it's not the most important thing for them. The only thing I'd say is true for all of them is they want warmth and support. They also like people who they believe are good. However, my grandmother definitely somehow divides people into successful/powerful and less successful. She wants to have successful friends. However, if she likes you and feels you need her and you ar enot successful she can be really close to you and do anything to help you.

[Suz]

Someone who is financially successful.

That's ridic...

[Red Villain]

I'm pretty sure LSE's are more inclined to financial stability rather than success. EII's are sol.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

I'm pretty sure LSE's are more inclined to financial stability rather than success. EII's are sol.

Can I have both?

[ashlesha]

somebody who will use the term "mate" in reference to humans.

[Red Villain]

Can I have both?

No

[Cuddly McFluffles]

No

Watch me.

[Red Villain]

Watch me.

How dare you work against our lord Augusta and her pulpits, Absurd and Marstia!

[Lobo]

That's not true... I doubt that they'd have a problem with having a partner that makes little money, and if anything, it'd be that the partner is not financially independent (with whatever income they might acquire). It's in the LSE nature to provide for their partner in some tangible way, and it might actually intimidate them to have a partner one who has no need for their assistance, be it money or whatever else. Having someone they can rely on to talk to about emotional things who is patient and understanding, who provides a damper for their intensity which can in some relationship situations be destructive, who gives them affection (physical or verbal depending on their love "language"), who's relationship standing they don't have to question regularly, who is able to articulate their possibly complex emotional problems in a way that they can understand and do something to help, etc, is what I believe is the general things that they'd want from a partner.

I've discussed this with UDP recently, and also based on my previous experience in either dating or talking to other LSEs, there seems to be an importance on their relationships to have functionality towards a common goal. I think it's a very Te-thing to be in relationships where there will either be a family in the future or some other situation where there's work involved to achieve something together. I'm not really looking for that kind of relationship, hence I feel more compatible with ESEs, among other reasons why.

[noid]

I've discussed this with UDP recently, and also based on my previous experience in either dating or talking to other LSEs, there seems to be an importance on their relationships to have functionality towards a common goal.

That apply to myself too as an EII... Not like thats the main point of any relationship (even 2/3 years ago I didnt think about that), but that can be important in some way. I think LSE EII relationship tend to build with stuff like "common view" and "common goal", common moral perhaps too

[Park]

What do LSE want in a mate?

A mammal they can mate with.

[Beautiful sky]

I'd say LSEs, at least the ones I know (only four of them including my grandmother) appreciate when someone is financially successful but it's not the most important thing for them. The only thing I'd say is true for all of them is they want warmth and support. They also like people who they believe are good. However, my grandmother definitely somehow divides people into successful/powerful and less successful. She wants to have successful friends. However, if she likes you and feels you need her and you ar enot successful she can be really close to you and do anything to help you.

I would agree with this too.

I'm pretty sure LSE's are more inclined to financial stability rather than success. EII's are sol.

They also want someone who they can fix, as a project to feel more secure about themselves because they are naturally insecure.

[Red Villain]

They also want someone who they can fix, as a project to feel more secure about themselves because they are naturally insecure.

Not necessarily true. From my observations of LSE, they typically have a tremendous aversion to dating women who didn't have their shit together. They do have a pressing urge to "fix" people per-say, but do so through The Bible maxim of "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime" sort of way. Living with someone requires a tremendous level of stability on part of all house hold members and thus must be inherent to the person they expect to have there for awhile.

[Beautiful sky]

Not necessarily true. From my observations of LSE, they typically have a tremendous aversion to dating women who didn't have their shit together. They do have a pressing urge to "fix" people per-say, but do so through The Bible maxim of "Give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish, you feed him for a lifetime" sort of way. Living with someone requires a tremendous level of stability on part of all house hold members and thus must be inherent to the person they expect to have there for awhile.

Yeah, that makes good sense; my bf is saying "they would rather have somebody fix them." (as in he would rather have somebody fix him)

[Suz]

Not necessarily true. From my observations of LSE, they typically have a tremendous aversion to dating women who didn't have their shit together.

What exactly do they mean by that?

[Red Villain]

What exactly do they mean by that?

Finances, general stability, etc.

[Suz]

Finances, general stability, etc.

oh...just that? but not necessarily someone who dresses sharp and is super organized and equipped?

[DirectorAbbie]

Actually, a person who understands money is more valuable than a person who has lots of money.

And a gift is better than money. Because I have a problem with spending money, and even if my husband uses my money to get me a present he could be doing me a favor buying me something I like but would never have gotten myself. (Imagine looking at every price tag like $3 is a month's wages.)

[stray]

Some of these responses sound like what LSEs are themselves, rather than what they may want. Hell, they'd be better off with an ESI than EII, if they want someone who represents stability (not to say EIIs can't be, but more strike me as idealistic).

I'm pretty sure one of my good friends is LSE. He's stable himself.. He's an airplane mechanic. His wife is an artist.. somewhat starving artist. He doesn't have any complaints though. I remember he fell for her almost right away, when they were young and didn't even have jobs. It was more about her, the person, than some ideal about work ethics.

[Beautiful sky]

LSE are very insecure though, but they won't show that to you because they are very concerned about what people think of them. Their insecurity reveals itself in dating/relationships. LSE, like SLI get bored of people because they distrust people, after a while they say "wow this person doesn't seem to have a problem with me, there must be something wrong with them" they get into conquests with a lot of people because they the attitude that they want to prove that they are attractive to women not one woman; this is where people like Sean Penn cheat, where Arnold cheats, where some have a difficult time committing, like Leonardo DiCaprio and a number of other LSE; look at Leo's track record "models" mostly; the blonds. Leo can very easily have his delivered to him, but instead he chooses to pick women up at the bar. Why? Because the conquest, it's not enough that he's famous and that women just come to him, but he as to prove that he can get them. The like to prove that they can get women, they want to be attractive to people, it's not enough to just be attractive to one person.

[Beautiful sky]

Some of these responses sound like what LSEs are themselves, rather than what they may want. Hell, they'd be better off with an ESI than EII, if they want someone who represents stability (not to say EIIs can't be, but more strike me as idealistic).

I'm pretty sure one of my good friends is LSE. He's stable himself.. He's an airplane mechanic. His wife is an artist.. somewhat starving artist. He doesn't have any complaints though. I remember he fell for her almost right away, when they were young and didn't even have jobs. It was more about her, the person, than some ideal about work ethics.

What type is your friend with?

[stray]

What type is your friend with?

I think IFj. I have a hard time seeing her as a strong Se ego (if anything, because she doesn't push or speak up a lot), although she looks like some ESIs on socionix' galleries, if that matters (Leslie Feist, Sarah Thompson, Madeline Zima). Her best friend is also SEE.

[Beautiful sky]

I think IFj. I have a hard time seeing her as a strong Se ego (if anything, because she doesn't push or speak up a lot), although she looks like some ESIs on socionix' galleries, if that matters (Leslie Feist, Sarah Thompson, Madeline Zima). Her best friend is also SEE.

I've known LSE and ISFj who didn't work out because even though the ESI is secret about their family happenings and doesn't reveal much about what goes on in the inside, their "problems" are that the ESI are sensory types like the LSE so they don't help the LSE focus on the big picture, they bombard the LSE with a barrage of their problems, because ESI like most Gamma tend to be insecure and very attached to immediate sensory things (things about themselves, what others say about them, etc) and hence seem to complain a lot about small and unimportant things; criticizing things as well. I would doubt that this relation, though very seemingly attractive is a good fit for one another. We both have values, ESI and I, so the LSE is attracted to that and they find that appealing.

I keep LSE and any dual keeps the relationship in balance.

[stray]

I've known LSE and ISFj who didn't work out because even though the ESI is secret about their family happenings and doesn't reveal much about what goes on in the inside, their "problems" are that the ESI are sensory types like the LSE so they don't help the LSE focus on the big picture, they bombard the LSE with a barrage of their problems, because ESI like most Gamma tend to be insecure and very attached to immediate sensory things (things about themselves, what others say about them, etc) and hence seem to complain a lot about small and unimportant things; criticizing things as well. I would doubt that this relation, though very seemingly attractive is a good fit for one another. We both have values, ESI and I, so the LSE is attracted to that and they find that appealing.

I keep LSE and any dual keeps the relationship in balance.

I've known them for a long time, but I don't know what their private life is like. I know them seperately pretty well, and they confide in me, but I don't know what they're like together privately. All I know is that they seem to have a better relationship than most I know.

[DirectorAbbie]

Some of these responses sound like what LSEs are themselves, rather than what they may want.

Exactly.

[Beautiful sky]

I get though why an LSE would be attracted to both an SEE and and ESI; both have this ability to control how they look to others and the LSE, being concerned about how they look would like this quality about these two types. An ESI, unlike myself, is almost always dressed elegantly, they behave nicely (withholding their negative comments) and they behave in appropriate ways because they are concerned about image and social cues; whereas I'm not. I am more directed by my own ideals, I don't think so much about what the society sees me or thinks of me as I'm about living up to my ideals, being a humanist, against overwhelming conflict and odds. I'm just more comfortable criticism and I'm a lot more secure, but I don't look that way on the outside.

[stray]

I get though why an LSE would be attracted to both an SEE and and ESI; both have this ability to control how they look to others and the LSE, being concerned about how they look would like this quality about these two types. An ESI, unlike myself, is almost always dressed elegantly, they behave nicely (withholding their negative comments) and they behave in appropriate ways because they are concerned about image and social cues; whereas I'm not. I am more directed by my own ideals, I don't think so much about what the society sees me or thinks of me as I'm about living up to my ideals, being a humanist, against overwhelming conflict and odds. I'm just more comfortable criticism and I'm a lot more secure, but I don't look that way on the outside.

I thought EIIs were supposed to be less individualistic about ideals, since their Ne incorporates various perspectives, trying to find the "big picture". Hence, the "martyr" labels, self-sacrificing, rather than more self affirming. Even the label "Dostoevsky" is supposed to be about that, illustrating how he could dig deep into the psychology of other people and present their perspectives (For example, Dostoevsky said the "Underground Man" from Notes from Underground was nothing like him, even though it's one of the most vivid portraits of someone's inner life).

Anyways, this is probably off the point.

[Beautiful sky]

I thought EIIs were supposed to be less individualistic about ideals, since their Ne incorporates various perspectives, trying to find the "big picture". Hence, the "martyr" labels, self-sacrificing, rather than more self affirming. Even the label "Dostoevsky" is supposed to be about that, illustrating how he could dig deep into the psychology of other people and present their perspectives (For example, Dostoevsky said the "Underground Man" from Notes from Underground was nothing like him, even though it's one of the most vivid portraits of someone's inner life).

Anyways, this is probably off the point.

we are less individualistic about ideals and more humanistic as in our single ideal encompasses all of humanity and our outlook on all of humanity, this is the reason why we're able to step outside of individual expectations of us and be ourselves and say what we want without other's exceptions of us. We take those perspectives and shape them into our own value structure.