Discussion of LSI-ISTj Subtypes

[Beautiful sky]

In my observations IRL I´ve been noticing two types of LSI that seem to exist, I don´t know whether they correspond to the Ti and Se subtypes but I think it´s probable.

One type is more forceful, more conflict seeking, less polite, more into getting into arguments and wanting to win the arguments, I´ve seen this type is common among E6s.

The other type is less forceful, cooler/colder, not conflict-seeking, more polite and often displays a quiet arrogance. This would be the Ti subtype and it´s common among E1s.

I think Discojoe is really LSI from the last time I saw him arguing with Maritsa over some thing on webcam. He´s the first subtype, for sure. More forceful, into having arguments just for proving himself right, not as cold as the Ti subtype.

I´ve come to the conclusion, after meeting some guys from the English navy and hanging out with them this weekend, that LSIs are very common in military and Ti subtypes seem to be more common among saxons/north europeans, whereas Se subtypes are more common among latins/southern europeans.

I thought it´d be nice to share this information with some of you here.

This is the only LSI type that exists. They are this way because every LSI have Fi role and this is something that they can't run and hide from.

[Logos]

This is the only LSI type that exists.

This is not true at all, nor is it true that there are just two types of LSI. Through my experiences, I have learned that LSI - as is true for all types - come in a more varied range of behaviors than is commonly assumed. Perhaps Socionicists are so set in establishing a particular type for a type that they lose sight of the amount of variance can be found within a type. Similar problematic patterns arise in zoological typology of animals.

[Jarno]

This is not true at all, nor is it true that there are just two types of LSI. Through my experiences, I have learned that LSI - as is true for all types - come in a more varied range of behaviors than is commonly assumed. Perhaps Socionicists are so set in establishing a particular type for a type that they lose sight of the amount of variance can be found within a type. Similar problematic patterns arise in zoological typology of animals.

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

[Logos]

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

To generalize too liberally for a second, there appear to be two general typing methods at stake. The first method is essentialism which draws a vertical line and claims that lines marks the "essence" of a type. In order for a person to qualify as a type, they must stand on or exceptionally near this line. This line may be a particular type description, a celebrity benchmark, or a person's preconceived notion of a type through a personal benchmark. The second method draws two distantly-gaped parallel lines and claims that a person must fall within those ranges to be of a type.

While both approaches have their pitfalls, I personally prefer the second approach which allows for greater deviation from a normative ideal and is, typically, less insistent on the defining "essence" of a type. The second approach necessarily involves defining the parameters of the type range by constantly moving the lines closer or farther apart, but I have noticed that people of this second method are less reluctant to change their type conceptions with additional facts than those who think in terms of the first method.

[discojoe]

To generalize too liberally for a second, there appear to be two general typing methods at stake. The first method is essentialism which draws a vertical line and claims that lines marks the "essence" of a type. In order for a person to qualify as a type, they must stand on or exceptionally near this line. This line may be a particular type description, a celebrity benchmark, or a person's preconceived notion of a type through a personal benchmark. The second method draws two distantly-gaped parallel lines and claims that a person must fall within those ranges to be of a type.

While both approaches have their pitfalls, I personally prefer the second approach which allows for greater deviation from a normative ideal and is, typically, less insistent on the defining "essence" of a type. The second approach necessarily involves defining the parameters of the type range by constantly moving the lines closer or farther apart, but I have noticed that people of this second method are less reluctant to change their type conceptions with additional facts than those who think in terms of the first method.

What sources does the second method use to define its type range? What is the data based on?

[Logos]

What sources does the second method use to define its type range? What is the data based on?

Whether or not a subject meets the criteria of the functional arrangement of a given type. It's the difference between saying, "This person appears to have certain qualities that matches this particular arrangement of functions," versus "This person does not fit my preconception of this type based mostly around my hated Aunt Sally and this one type description I read."

The first method has a preconception that forms their central point of origin around which they build their understanding of a type. This is an in-to-outward method. The second method attempts to gather as many points of data as they can through either contracting or expanding their parameters of understanding the functions of a type. This is an out-to-inward method.

[07490]

yes, I've noticed this with types too. There are definitely more than 2 subtypes, though the 2 subtype distinction has the advantage of a distinctive characteristic. accepting and producing results in two different behaviours. So even if there are let's say for example 8 subtypes. Then 4 of them are accepting behaviour and 4 of them producing. So far I haven't been able to see different behaviour in the other subtypes (only different VI). Therefor the 2 subtype distinction is most important.

Yes. and you add differences in E-types and stacking, DCNH subtype(if it is not the same as enneagram type). You get a lot of variation.

[Ave]

This is the only LSI type that exists. They are this way because every LSI have Fi role and this is something that they can't run and hide from.

Your post makes no sense. You say they cant hide from Fi role yet admit some of them can is in the description of the first type? Besides ypu're wrong it is clear there are two types of LSI, people just cant properly identify the sensory as LSI.

[Myst]

...it is clear there are two types of LSI, people just cant properly identify the sensory as LSI.

Why do you say that and what do people see those LSIs as, usually?