Reinin dichotomies: Positivism and Negativism

[krieger]

Smilex once had a quote sigged saying "perfection exists behind the event horizon".

I believe I know what he was thinking when he wrote that.

[FDG]

Smilex once had a quote sigged saying "perfection exists behind the event horizon".

I believe I know what he was thinking when he wrote that.

ok then give my perfect bounding to the event horizon for your pleasure

in any case i think the defintion you give at the end of your post could easily be considered as the final one

[Kristiina]

Introduction
Is positivism and negativism really so simply explained that positivist are optimists and positive happy people while negativists are pessimistic negative people. There are some areas where I'm very positive that everything will be great. And there are some areas that positivists bitch about. Also, I realized that the most pessimistic INFp type is positivist, just like the never-happy ISTp. The energetic don't-worry-about-it ESTp is negativist?! This seriously needs some contemplation here.

Be warned - I'm trying to see if the +/- makes sense.

Choosing reliable data

Positivist types have either a static plus element or a dynamic minus element in base function.
Negativist types have either a dynamic plus element or a static minus element in base function.

There doesn't seem to be clear list of what functions are positivist and what are negativist, or more precisely there are several conflicting sources. But we can use the reinin dichotomy because Reinin was smart and treat this as a puzzle. So with great pain we get a chart (I realized that judging functions can also be static vs dynamic )
I assign the base function +/- according to the negativist/positivist dichotomy and assume that creative function is with the opposite sign.


And we get +/- functions which are totally different from how I knew it.

Understanding positivist/negativist
But why would people be more positive and happy if they have base
1. static plus element
1.1.static perceiving plus element: Ne+ (Ne blocked with Ti) and Se+ (Se blocked with Fi)
1.2.static judging plus element: Fi+(Fi blocked with Ne) and Ti+ (Ti blocked with Se)
2. dynamic minus element
1.1.dynamic perceiving minus element: Ni- (Ni blocked with Fe) and Si- (Si blocked with Te)
1.2.dynamic judging minus element: Fe-(Fe blocked with Si) and Te- (Te blocked with Ni)

Lets narrow it down a little. Ne and Se observe the objects around them and it's static because their observations don't depend on their inner state. So seeing the reality everywhere around you gives you a realistic or even a positive world view, but only if you analyse inner states with pure logic and if you analyze the physical states with ethics of relations.
But somehow the opposite (NeFi and SeTi) makes you a negativist.
NeTi has Ne+ and NeFi has Ne-.

The property in question has been given various names: + has been called "short-range" and - has been called "long-range." However, these names may not always correspond intuitively with the plain meaning of the terms "short-range" and "long-range." For example, given these names, it may not be apparent why Ethics becomes "long-range" when in the ego block with Sensing, but "short-range" when in the ego block with Intuition.

So NeTi notices the short-range information and NeFi notices the long-range information. So Ne+ notices the individual internal trait of an object and Ne- notices the pattern of internal traits of the surrounding objects. Ti and Fi creative functions construct and use a system of data, but Ti can use a single object and categorize it into his system. Fi only uses the relative link between two or more objects, so all the observations tend to be more global. But I don't see why the global traits would be more negative than the local traits.

Positivist: Explains what things are (irrationals) or should be (rationals).
Negativist: Explains what things are not (irrationals) or should not be (rationals).

Aaah. This explains more - When you observe the local trait of an object and place it into an existing system, you start to ask what described the object "apple is a fruit, this apple is red, this apple is sour", but when you describe something in relation with other things, you also say "this apple is not as sweet as pears are, this apple is not as juicy as home-grown apples, this apple is ALMOST as red as Snowwhite's apple". And this kind of comparing gives the feeling that nothing is ever good enough! This kind of comparing makes a person negativist.

Testing the theory
Lets see if the same works with other types.
Te+ (Te blocked with Si) makes a person negativist and Te- (Te blocked with Ni) makes a person positivist. Both types have an ability to evaluate single traits or usages of objects (or facts with no Ti system to link it together with all other data). Si and Ni creative: Si notices the current state of the object and Ni notices the trend of change. Te blocked with Si makes a person notice and categorize many local traits, whereas Te blocked with Ni makes a person compare the trends of different objects. A trend on its own doesn't give any valuable information, but if you compare it with a previous similar trend, you will see there this trend will lead. Okay, works so far. It makes sense for ESTj to have Te+ (observes single traits) and ENTjs to have Te- (compares the trends and gets negative clauses "not as fast, not as strong").

But why is ENTj positivist and ESTj negativist?! ENTj has a negative function as base function so it would make sense for him to be a negativist. Confusing.

Another example. ENTj with Ni creative is positivist while ENFj is negativist. In both cases, Ni observes and compares the trend of change. ENTj has Te- and ENFj has Fe+. Plus functions are supposed to view local traits (or single objects), while minus functions are supposed to view global or general traits. So why would ENTj view general traits of the trends and ENFj view the local traits. Fe observes how objects interact on an emotional level but Te observes the trait. So Fe always needs more than one object and compares the objects, but ENFjs have Fe+, so it should be ok with only local or singular information. Mhh... Fe+ treats the interactions as a part of the object itself. It does not need to compare it to others. "he's the type of person who evokes respect from others" - this does not need to define "others" to describe this trait in the person. But do ESFjs with Fe- need to compare the collected data? A trend (product of Ni) always has more information than a single state (product of Si), so it makes sense for them to also need to compare the collected observations to previous ones. But then ESTjs who also collect information about a single state - how can they get by with only seeing the singular states of objects (Te+) and only having the information of the current state (Si). Seems like too little information. And it still doesn't explain why he's negativist.

Conclusion
Understanding how positivism/negativism, plus/minus functions and base/creative function interactions are linked is more difficult than understanding three-way ANOVA.

And another thing - Why is Fe+ Ni- type negativist and why is another type with the exact same functions (Ni- Fe+) positivist. By switching around the ego block functions, why does it always switch the positivist/negativist dichotomy.

[anndelise]

i got a little confused but I just wanted to make sure you had got this part:
for statics, the "long range" and "short range" fits in line with the -/+ signs
for dynamics, it's the opposite

Alpha & Gamma = short range(+) perceiving w/ long range(-) judging
* Alpha & Gamma statics = positive perceiving w/ negative judging
* Alpha & Gamma dynamics = negative perceiving w/ positive judging

Beta & Delta = long range(-) perceiving w/ short range(+) judging
* Beta & Delta statics = negative perceiving w/ positive judging
* Beta & Delta dynamics = positive perceiving w/ negative judging


you wrote: "But why is ENTj positivist and ESTj negativist?! ENTj has a negative function as base function so it would make sense for him to be a negativist. Confusing. "

ENTj has a long range(-) positivist base function
ESTj has a short range(+) negativist base function

I used to think that the (-) and (+) correlated with the negativist/positivist dichotomy.
And then I found out that it only does so for the statics, and that they dynamics have the opposite correlation....but still keeping the long/short range the same.

[krieger]

What you are talking about when you assign posititivism and negativism directly to functions is what Smilingeyes and I have been refering to as the Limiting and Empowering functions.

*EDIT* Wait... This is not what you're talking about...
Use these terms:
Limiting = Accepting Dynamic OR Creating Static
Empowering = Accepting Static OR Creating Dynamic
Positivism = Concrete Limiting, Abstract Empowering
Negativsim = Concrete Empowering, Abstract Limiting

And another thing - Why is Fe+ Ni- type negativist and why is another type with the exact same functions (Ni- Fe+) positivist. By switching around the ego block functions, why does it always switch the positivist/negativist dichotomy.

This becomes evident when you look at the definition of Limiting and Empowering: Limiting means Accepting Dynamic or Creating Static. Empowering means Creating Dynamic or Accepting Static. Switch Accepting and Creating and you'll switch Limiting and Empowering aswell.

But why is ENTj positivist and ESTj negativist?! ENTj has a negative function as base function so it would make sense for him to be a negativist.

Positivism means concrete Empowering/abstract Limiting, Negativism means concrete Limiting/abstract Empowering. Accepting/Creating does not factor into any of it. It might help you understand how Dynamics are limited by what they accept, though, thus making their lives more bound to what happens around them than to what ideas and interpretations they hold about those occurances.

[FDG]

What you are talking about when you assign posititivism and negativism directly to functions is what Smilingeyes and I have been refering to as the Limiting and Empowering functions.

And another thing - Why is Fe+ Ni- type negativist and why is another type with the exact same functions (Ni- Fe+) positivist. By switching around the ego block functions, why does it always switch the positivist/negativist dichotomy.

This basically reveals the definition of Limiting and Empowering: Limiting means Accepting Dynamic or Creating Static. Empowering means Creating Dynamic or Accepting Static. Switch Accepting and Creating and you'll switch Limiting and Empowering aswell.

Yes. That's it.

[krieger]

My latest addition to the "Labcoat's Toolbox" thread is of importance here, too... Dynamic Positivists will always show some 'diffuse' Static Negativism, same for all other types.

[Gilly]

I think you're equating Positivism to Ne values. I don't think there's necessarily any implied action; Negativists see what's not there, Positivists see what is. Negativists might seem pessimistic or whatnot because they're more prone to criticize, but obviously it doesn't imply that they are unhappy people. I'm a positivist and while I may have my moments, I don't really think of myself as a generally happy person.

[Kristiina]

using positivist and negativist to describe funtions rather than types is new for me.

Limiting = Accepting Dynamic OR Creating Static
Empowering = Accepting Static OR Creating Dynamic
Positivism = Concrete Limiting, Abstract Empowering
Negativsim = Concrete Empowering, Abstract Limiting

Are these part of Smilexian theory? I do respect Smilex for having so many ideas, but I'm afraid of explaining theories with theories that have been created to explain earlier theories that were created to explain the errors in a previous theory which were.... None of the Smilexian theories have been verified as part of classic socionics as far as I know.


Diana, that makes positivism negativism much easier to understand. You should add some of that to wikisocion.

[FDG]

Oh nobody thinks postivists are happier than negativists. It's more like a matter of optimism versus pessimism.

[Kristiina]

FDG, I'm not even entirely sure that terms optimism vs pessimism help here, because I'm very optimistic that all things will improve somewhere in the future, but everything sucks in the present. I am very optimistic about the future and always have been.

[FDG]

FDG, I'm not even entirely sure that terms optimism vs pessimism help here, because I'm very optimistic that all things will improve somewhere in the future, but everything sucks in the present. I am very optimistic about the future and always have been.

It's a relative term, meaning more pessimistic than positivists, generally speaking.

[XoX]

FDG, I'm not even entirely sure that terms optimism vs pessimism help here, because I'm very optimistic that all things will improve somewhere in the future, but everything sucks in the present. I am very optimistic about the future and always have been.

It's a relative term, meaning more pessimistic than positivists, generally speaking.

Imho everything sucks at present and is likely to suck in the future too. Increasingly so. Should trust myself to be a negahead and drop my current typing? Is this enough of a proof already?

[FDG]

FDG, I'm not even entirely sure that terms optimism vs pessimism help here, because I'm very optimistic that all things will improve somewhere in the future, but everything sucks in the present. I am very optimistic about the future and always have been.

It's a relative term, meaning more pessimistic than positivists, generally speaking.

No, I don't think so. I think negativists can be more optimistic than positivists at times.

Yeah, at times, not generally. Otherwise, they're positvist, it's simple. Anyway, you being a Fi subtype would blur this dichotomy, it would basically be almost unobservable, so it's perfectly understandable that you partially reject the "label".

[FDG]

FDG, I'm not even entirely sure that terms optimism vs pessimism help here, because I'm very optimistic that all things will improve somewhere in the future, but everything sucks in the present. I am very optimistic about the future and always have been.

It's a relative term, meaning more pessimistic than positivists, generally speaking.

No, I don't think so. I think negativists can be more optimistic than positivists at times.

Yeah, at times, not generally. Otherwise, they're positvist, it's simple. Anyway, you being a Fi subtype would blur this dichotomy, it would basically be almost unobservable, so it's perfectly understandable that you partially reject the "label".

Except I don't think optimism/pessimism are the right terms to describe the difference -- especially when there are other ways to look at it that make a lot more sense, fit much better, and show the difference more clearly in a larger range of people and times.

So how would you describe it? Because negativists have this tendency of thinking that nothing is truly the right term, especially in negative things that apply to them

Now seriously. Take for example this conversation, how you're focussing on how the definition is wrong, and I am focussing on how it's right. Nobody believes I'm happier than you or vice versa, simple because neither is complaining about their life situation. Yet the stances seem to be clear, right? I am optimistic about the definition of positivism/negativism, whereas you try to demolish it - I think sometimes those thought patterns are so embedded that we cannot even notice them in action.

[FDG]

Well I'm seeing what doesn't fit (neg). I'm not really being pessimistic about it.

It's like I said earlier:

Positivist -- focuses on what is there, and expands on it
Negativist -- sees what is missing/wrong and tries to fix it.

I didn't come up with them though, it's from something machintruc brought up a long time ago. Pessimism implies that you're expecting things to be bad -- and that doesn't fit, doesn't line up with what negativism is. I don't expect the worst, but I do see where there are problems. There's a difference.

Ok, so what about if the definition is not extended to a longer time frame but just to the actual happenings? The suggestion from labcoat can be thus integrated in your view, due to the fact that being part of the gamma rational couple you would show optimism towards the future (TeNi), whereas trying to fix what's wrong in the present.

[Gilly]

I think you're equating Positivism to Ne values.

I am, or Kristiina is? I realize that both my examples were of Ne-valuing folks, but, I can easily see ENFps as negativists even though they're Ne.

I don't think there's necessarily any implied action; Negativists see what's not there, Positivists see what is. Negativists might seem pessimistic or whatnot because they're more prone to criticize, but obviously it doesn't imply that they are unhappy people. I'm a positivist and while I may have my moments, I don't really think of myself as a generally happy person.

yeah. Except, why wouldn't an action follow?

I think you are. Positivism in an SLI would, if anything, tell him "This is what the car is;even if there are a few things wrong with it, it does what it needs to do. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now if he had a particular interest in making cars go fast, I think it would be his Ne values, specifically -Ne, that would make him think "This car could go faster; "

I guess a semi-predictable action usually follows, but I'd want to avoid equating either with a set of actions because people will end up saying "Oh this person checks her work for all errors, she must be negativist." The basic thing is that they notice "what is" and "what is not." The best way to recognize it is, IMO, speech.

[Kristiina]

I think you're equating Positivism to Ne values.

I am, or Kristiina is? I realize that both my examples were of Ne-valuing folks, but, I can easily see ENFps as negativists even though they're Ne.

I don't think there's necessarily any implied action; Negativists see what's not there, Positivists see what is. Negativists might seem pessimistic or whatnot because they're more prone to criticize, but obviously it doesn't imply that they are unhappy people. I'm a positivist and while I may have my moments, I don't really think of myself as a generally happy person.

yeah. Except, why wouldn't an action follow?

I think you are. Positivism in an SLI would, if anything, tell him "This is what the car is;even if there are a few things wrong with it, it does what it needs to do. If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Now if he had a particular interest in making cars go fast, I think it would be his Ne values, specifically -Ne, that would make him think "This car could go faster; "

I guess a semi-predictable action usually follows, but I'd want to avoid equating either with a set of actions because people will end up saying "Oh this person checks her work for all errors, she must be negativist." The basic thing is that they notice "what is" and "what is not." The best way to recognize it is, IMO, speech.

do you look for specific phrases in speech or do you just try to spot the balance between positive ("it is") and negative ("it isn't") clauses.

[XoX]

So would this be a good example of negativist vs positivist way of talking:
"This car is too slow" vs "This car could go faster"
(perhaps ESTj vs ISTp)

[Gilly]

Well, I suppose in most cases, a small amount of subjective interpretation is necessary, but I don't find it to be too hard to determine if you observe someone sufficiently.

That could be an example, but it would take a lot more evidence than that for me to be convinced of something.

[discojoe]

I think a general distinction can be made between the two:


At my work, there is an LSE woman who was discussing the origins of the current fiscal situation in most of the western economy. I interjected that, in the US, the problem is entirely the fault of the Federal Reserve. Her immediate answer was "No, it's because people are scared away or blah blah blah." I forget exactly what she said, but the point lies in the way in which she negated my statement.

The LSE didn't have any idea what I was talking about, but she denied the verity of it regardless of that fact. Instead of asking me to substantiate my position, she just refuted it. It's akin to a child saying he saw a ghost; the traditional response isn't to say "What do you mean?" but "There's no such thing as ghosts." The latter response is negativism, and the former, positivism.

When a positivist hears a proposition they disagree with, their tendency is to first ask the speaker to clarify his meaning.


Person to LSE: "Let's sing the theme to Winnie the Pooh."

LSE: "No. What are you talking about?" (not a question)


Person to LSI: "Let's sing the theme to Winnie the Pooh."

LSI: "Huh? Why?" (actually curious)


See, the difference is subtle, but it's there mirite.

[Galen]

I was about to respond to this post with a "that's not quite right," but that would have probably just proved your point anyways lol.

It seems to me that what happened with that ESTj was that she already had her own conception of what the problem is. So to hear that the problem could be anything else immediately conflicted with what she had already come to believe. I've found myself guilty of the same kind of thing, but I'm not entirely convinced that's just due to negativism. I'd need to look for this in all other types.

[Trevor]

The latter response is negativism, and the former, positivism.

I can do both kinds of response at will.

[DirectorAbbie]

I disagree with you, discojoe. MY SEI brother and I love asking, "Why?"
Negativists fix problems by taking away bad parts. Positivists fix problems by adding good parts. My rube goldberg device is shorter than yours.

[golden]

Wow, never read that Gulenko carefully before. Very helpful. And "negativist" describes me better than any of the 16 types, so from now on maybe I should just go with that.

He almost lost me when he got to the part about believing in human nature as good/bad, but then he made an important distinction--that positivists do not necessarily believe people are inherently good but do conduct themselves as if they were. I believe people ARE inherently good but conduct myself as if they were NOT. Ugh.

Also, here I see one of the possible drawbacks--though not necessarily an insurmountable one--of Activity relations. Hrmm. How do two negativists get their shit together?

[Beautiful sky]

I was about to respond to this post with a "that's not quite right," but that would have probably just proved your point anyways lol.

It seems to me that what happened with that ESTj was that she already had her own conception of what the problem is. So to hear that the problem could be anything else immediately conflicted with what she had already come to believe. I've found myself guilty of the same kind of thing, but I'm not entirely convinced that's just due to negativism. I'd need to look for this in all other types.

I don't think so...Te being a extraverted logical type would not have made a comment if it was not accurate and was externally objective gathered by reputable sources (not just one sided); Te is very good with knowing which objective fact is valid or not. The person he's talking about is most likely an SLI. What Dj did here, with this other individual is Te and the other person seems to do subjective gauging which is some sort of an introvert.

Extroverted logic, or , is an rational, extroverted, and dynamic IM element. It is also referred to as Te, P, algorithmic logic, practical logic, or black logic (because the symbol is black).
Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.
The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.
Since perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.

[EyeSeeCold]

Also, here I see one of the possible drawbacks--though not necessarily an insurmountable one--of Activity relations. Hrmm. How do two negativists get their shit together?

When you're down, all you can do is look up. They feed off the mutual negativity and try to do something positive.

Since perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.

Hmm, this is a great way of looking at it. So dominant Dynamic types judge people by activity?
Interesting.

[Beautiful sky]

When you're down, all you can do is look up. They feed off the mutual negativity and try to do something positive.



Hmm, this is a great way of looking at it. So dominant Dynamic types judge people by activity?
Interesting.

yes. Because, that's what E does, observes in the objective sense of the word. If you're not observing with Te (work, other's actions, information, objective data) than how can that function process and collect info or exist in the evolutionary sense; it can't.

[EyeSeeCold]

It such a simple perspective that I've overlooked all this time.

So basically:
ExFjs judge you by irrational activity (moods, excitability, cooperation, involvement)
ExTjs judge you by rational activity (goals, work, purposeful actions, efficient output)

I guess I do judge people by their output...it shows in my unwillingness to respect someone just because of their external relation to a subject i.e. position / status (), but rather the things they do and the things they say. Here I make ethical judgments.

But back to the Extraverts.

So a person with low quality / quantity will be judged negatively? Hmm. I think I see why ESEs can be weirded out by ILIs, because the activity is so low ILIs can't be read. Amazing.

Thanks for that.

EDIT:
That also means types with / PoLR are respectively "invisible" to / dominants. And if not invisible then looked down upon.

EDIT 2: And this is why Supervisors are Supervisors, I suppose this goes for Benefit Relations too.

[Beautiful sky]

You're welcome.

This is why Golden told DJ in a post that she ignores/her eyes glaze over some of his posts, that's her Te PoLR.

I, on the other hand, can't ignore it. I actually like it and am draw to it like a magnet. Kind of like how I was draw to my cousin from when I was very young and till now. To me, there's this psychological comfort to it all.

[golden]

This is why Golden told DJ in a post that she ignores/her eyes glaze over some of his posts, that's her Te PoLR.

Could you provide me a link to the thread where I said that? I don't recall it. (Although possibly my eyes glazed months ago when he posted that photo of his dick. Maybe his dick is Te or Si.)

The posts I struggle with the most on this forum are often--not always--by Alpha NTs. That must be my Alpha Ti-PoLR.

[Beautiful sky]

Could you provide me a link to the thread where I said that? I don't recall it. (Although possibly my eyes glazed months ago when he posted that photo of his dick. Maybe his dick is Te or Si.)

The posts I struggle with the most on this forum are often--not always--by Alpha NTs. That must be my Alpha Ti-PoLR.

Sure:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6&postcount=39
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...0&postcount=35
From Dj's "What's my type mirite?" thread

[golden]

The LSE didn't have any idea what I was talking about, but she denied the verity of it regardless of that fact. Instead of asking me to substantiate my position, she just refuted it.

LSE is a serial reframer. I'm not sure this is an example of positivism in the type.

[Beautiful sky]

what do you mean by a "serial reframer"?

His reaction to you was quite extreme in that thread, which is another very typical characteristic of LSE types, the extremes of behavior.

"Due to this he [LSE] is inclined to do hasty conclusions and frequently commits ethical slips which complicates his relationships with people surrounding him. Lack of patience and self-control sometimes makes him sharp and tactless, he doesn't have enough not only diplomacy but also self-criticism."

This tactless behavior is not common to SLE types who are much more patient.

[golden]

Sure:

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...6&postcount=39

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...0&postcount=35
From Dj's "What's my type mirite?" thread

Lol, thanks.

I am afraid you completely misunderstood.

In the first post you linked to, I made no mention of his posts or my eyes glazing. There I see no comment from me on the comprehensibility of his writing.

And in the second one, DJ had asked me to marry him in an earlier post. That's what I was ignoring. He made a joke, and I responded with a joke.

I read every word he wrote in that thread.

I've read most everything he's posted since I joined the forum without any trouble--I find him extremely clear and easy to follow. I'm not sure this is type-related, though. He uses grammar 'n' paragraphs 'n' stuff.

[Galen]

I don't think so...Te being a extraverted logical type would not have made a comment if it was not accurate and was externally objective gathered by reputable sources (not just one sided); Te is very good with knowing which objective fact is valid or not. The person he's talking about is most likely an SLI. What Dj did here, with this other individual is Te and the other person seems to do subjective gauging which is some sort of an introvert.

Extroverted logic, or , is an rational, extroverted, and dynamic IM element. It is also referred to as Te, P, algorithmic logic, practical logic, or black logic (because the symbol is black).
Extroverted logic deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behaviour, algorithms, movement, and actions.
The how, what and where of events would be the external activity of events, activity or work would be the external activity of a machine or individual(s) and algorithms describe the external activity of objects.
Since perceives objective, factual information outside the subject (external activity) and analyzes the rationale and functionality of what is happening or being done or said. "Quality" to a type is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. So types basically evaluate people and things using the same criteria.

I don't see how this contradicts what I said at all.

[Beautiful sky]

Because if the coworker were LSE she would not form a conclusion on conception but rather on Te, collection of objective data.

[Galen]

Because if the coworker were LSE she would not form a conclusion on conception but rather on Te, collection of objective data.

The act of coming to conclusions is a basic human faculty and not type related.

[golden]

what do you mean by a "serial reframer"?

His reaction to you was quite extreme in that thread, which is another very typical characteristic of LSE types, the extremes of behavior.

"Due to this he [LSE] is inclined to do hasty conclusions and frequently commits ethical slips which complicates his relationships with people surrounding him. Lack of patience and self-control sometimes makes him sharp and tactless, he doesn't have enough not only diplomacy but also self-criticism."

This tactless behavior is not common to SLE types who are much more patient.

LSE: "It's not this; it's this."

Tell an LSE that you are trying to figure out what finger foods to supply for a meeting. LSE: "The problem is that you're looking for finger foods. The meeting is scheduled near lunchtime, so what you should be doing is looking for a complete meal to serve."

That's an innocuous example, but it's a construct you'll see in serious conversations and in arguments, too. Rather than addressing the problem as YOU define it, redefining it. Reframing.

[Beautiful sky]

LSE: "It's not this; it's this."

Tell an LSE that you are trying to figure out what finger foods to supply for a meeting. LSE: "The problem is that you're looking for finger foods. The meeting is scheduled near lunchtime, so what you should be doing is looking for a complete meal to serve."

That's an innocuous example, but it's a construct you'll see in serious conversations and in arguments, too. Rather than addressing the problem as YOU define it, redefining it. Reframing.

Yeah but don't you think he does that in this thread by stating what LSE is (according to him) and what LSI is?