Questioning is the root of all knowledge, blind faith reveals ignorance. You are simply appealing to respect for authority.
P.S. agree with ESTJ opinion.
Questioning is the root of all knowledge, blind faith reveals ignorance. You are simply appealing to respect for authority.
P.S. agree with ESTJ opinion.
Most obvious LSE in existence. Up there with Hulk Hogan and Mark McGuire.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
Bush and Schwarzenegger: probably C-LSE
Last edited by JohnDo; 01-03-2010 at 01:59 PM.
Arnold Schwarzenegger and Donald Rumsfeld: probably C-LSE
Edit: I thought they were N-LSE but it came into my mind that the father of my cousin's husband is N-LSE.
So Bush, Rumsfeld and Schwarzenegger are all C-LSE I think.
Last edited by JohnDo; 01-03-2010 at 02:00 PM.
It's representative of his desire to be courageous and brave.
I was reading yesterday about how he provided for his mistress and her child for years, in stark contrast to the very equal relationship between him and Maria Shriver, who had wealth comparable to his. How LSE of him: at first, as a conservative, he was drawn to her abundance of Te aspect. Now he's finding that the Te alone is fleeting, and his true role is as a provider.
I don't like LSE typing for him. As a matter of fact, it's one of the stupidest typings I've ever seen.
He was a badass SLE/ESTP:
-He was always in motion, zealous about life, and seemed to live life to the fullest. Observe how smooth he is in social settings. He is a natural player:
-He was fearless, ESTPs being known for living in the moment, he made a lot of short term decisions that cost him in the long run, like partying with strippers on his 50th birthday, for instance:
http://www.thatsfit.com/videos-partn...-517081826-298
-He liked center stage. Arnold was very entertaining as an actor in his action packed films:
BTW, Terminator kicked some major ass.
And it didn't stop with acting, as this guy never settled; he was always on the go, jumping from one thing to another- body building, acting, politics, etc.,
-While not anti-authority, but as risk takers, ESTPs can easily find themselves in trouble. Arnold sure did:
-ESTPs attract many friends/happenings, which can often play havoc with their family time, especially if there is any tension at home. This one is obvious looking at his recent break down:"...Three of the women claimed he had grabbed their breasts, a fourth said he placed his hand under her skirt on her buttock. A fifth woman claimed Schwarzenegger tried to take off her bathing suit in a hotel elevator, and the last said he pulled her onto his lap and asked her about a sex act."
-----"...Sources say the couple has spent "very little time together" for several years. Maria was frequently absent from Sacramento while Arnold was Governor.
The situation got worse once Arnold left office and decided he wanted to resurrect his movie career. Maria felt Arnold was becoming more erratic -- more "unstable."
Exactly...Non-conforming, rebelling, and chasing after power. Basically, he was/still is impulsive as hell- I would definitely NOT associate this with LSE. At all."...I was one who did not conform, and whose will could not be broken. Therefore, I became a rebel. Every time I got hit, and every time someone said, 'you can't do this,' I said, 'this is not going to be for much longer, because I'm going to move out of here. I want to be rich. I want to be somebody.'"
Forgive me if I'm being influenced by MBTT or Keirsey conceptions of the ESTJ, but is this really insight into the mentality of an LSE?
---
---
Arnold as an LSE? You guys on crack? Come on now, use some common sense people
Last edited by Computer Loser; 06-09-2011 at 04:31 AM.
He seems EJ, not EIE.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
He actually reminds me more of FDG than anyone, for whom I am torn between LIE and LSE, and who is most likely also 3w2, although Fabie seems more sp/sx whereas Arnold is probably so/sp.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
If it came down to "merry" vs "serious", then I'd put him in the SLE camp too. I'm not sure if it's a good dichotomy though. Maybe LSE-Si could be gregarious on the same level too. He seems to be just that in off set situations. Instrusively so, in kind of asshole-ish ways. I wish I could find one video where he was on a movie set screwing with everyone, and put his cigar out in this dude's lunch. It reminds me of an SLE I knew, who'd sometimes pull right on to people's front yards in the middle of the night, honking their horn to pick up a friend, waking the parents up.. and making no apologies about it. It's fucked up, and cringeworthy, but somehow funny to me.. LSEs, if anything, seem more controlled and more obviously principled.
I've never seen LSEs as ethical conformists, they value Fi too much. Not that Fe types are the conformers but its a lot more typical to see standard behaviors and processes mirror the outside observation of extroverted IMs, such as with ESTps Se and Fe, and ESTjs Te and Ne. It's perfectly logical to assume the function orientation in all of these. So types would not conform in every single way, but depend on which valued outlet with which they're identifying things objectively. With that being said I've seen Arnold as pretty Te/Fi. Group conformity and clarity with more logical matters, ethical matters more individually assumed. I think communication clarity is more often on the + given extroverted functions, ie. objective matters have been developed standardly enough throughout history, but that's another matter and just one likely influence of the extroverted factor.
Via the OP, I think Ezra would probably relate with him too, since from what I've seen he comes across LSE too, but thats also another matter.
Yes, they are very strong willed individuals as is my boyfriend. They have long memories and can hold on to things that happened to them in childhood, deeply affecting their emotions. They are not conformist; they pride themselves on doing what they want. Period.
I can't express how this situation ticks me off...makes me angry...makes me look like I'M RIGHT!!!
HOW COULD HE HAVE DONE SUCH A STUPID THING?
Last edited by Beautiful sky; 06-09-2011 at 04:00 AM.
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
I've never seen LSEs as ethical conformists,Yes, ESTPs and ESTJs are both non conformists, but they express/approach that it in different angles (Hence, quasi-identical):They (LSE) are not conformist; they pride themselves on doing what they want. Period.
ESTPs are more rebellious, you-can't-stop-me-motha-fucka from chasin my dreams, erratic type of non-conformity.
ESTJs are more traditional, its my-way-or-the-high way, anal but reasonable type of non-conformity.
I believe people characterize the ESTJ type as conformist because they do want to appear as "normal" as possible according to societal standards. Whereas with ESTP, not really, hence the going after big dreams thing.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 06-09-2011 at 04:51 AM.
Hmm also I think SLEs and LSEs are sometimes confused on here because LSEs can act tough and irrational too, you know, and its just bad stereotyping. LSEs aren't all your traditional businessmen, nor are they all dominating types. It's best not to even go there with that kind of superficiality, and look deeper into the type of cognition, not the rigid form it takes. Being rational doesn't make you more obstinate, traditional, well-mannered or anything, but is based on how we intake information.
Eh.
Last edited by 717495; 06-09-2011 at 05:02 AM.
Yeah, sorry about the superficiality, but just as a general gist/for practicality's sake, that's the best way I can compare the two.
Gangsters and supervisors. Both anal from afar. Different motives close up.
My general observations too superficial for you?Eh.
I never mentioned anything about rational. My main point was that ESTPs are more impulsive than ESTJs, hence ESTPs seem more erratic with Se, in their approach compared to ESTJs, Te, or "using whats proven to work" approach.Being rational doesn't make you more obstinate or traditional or anything, but is based on how we intake information.
Last edited by Computer Loser; 06-09-2011 at 05:56 AM.
Lol, I think gangster and supervisor might work sometimes, but you have to not assume exactly what it is to be a supervisor. ie. you can't compare your past anal supervisor to all possible LSEs and just forget about the thought process inherent to all other LSEs in common with this person. You have to take these stereotypes with a grain of salt, and ask yourself the essential questions: what leads these more useful steroetypes to be formed? what qualities do REAL LSEs have that might make them good supervisors? what could many other LSEs be better at? etc, and try to find contrasting types in supervisory positions who aren't LSE, simply by ridding the basic supervisory factor out of the typing process and noticing how they interact with different people.
Yeah, good point, good questions. I look at types as the skeleton, personality/culture/life experience/the other crap as the meat. Trust me, I ask all those questions to myself automatically. I use the stereotypes as a reference point to start somewhere.
We can talk about Te this Ne that, Renin this, Jung that, dickonomy this, vaginacotomy that, but what does it mean in real life? I'll save that theoretical stuff for the NTs- whoops, just stereotyped again.
So anyway, back to the original question. What about Arnold's life struck you as LSE, Te/Fi valuing good sir?
Last edited by Computer Loser; 06-09-2011 at 06:08 AM.
It is, actually. Se-devaluers chafe under authority and a hierarchical power structure (strict hierarchy is more of a Beta theme; Gammas are power-conscious, but in a more fluid manner -- more related to the individual worth or "weight" of people); which is why the majority of MBTI ESTJs are actually SLE or LIE rather than LSE. Mind, my typing of the Governator is actually SEE for reasons unrelated, but this actually makes Delta more likely rather than less.
What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.
Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).
For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.
-Victor Gulenko, Dmitri Lytov
ESTj
If you can't see it that just means you're deaf.
The SLE description sounds like ass in comparison.
Both don't sound all that cool though.
Maybe it's just the business angle in general. Both descriptions don't have any soul to them.
I guess the subtle notes of impulsive, almost higher Perception qualities in the LSE ("gambling man") sound cooler at least. And the "strict dress code" of SLE sounds like an unadventurous square.
I thought this would happen after the scandals.
Come in, Obersturmführer is way too dumb anyway. No dumb people policy in delta.
Don't worry about that, Streetfighter Ryu has a surplus, you can always snatch one or two.Except, if I do that, I have to play the role of some retarded LSE Middle Manager's cookie baking EII martyr housewife. And like it.
Thanks for clearing that up. I suppose the Ti would fall in line with Gulenko's Holographic cognitive style (fwiw), but EP temperment would seem less premeditative from the outside. I don't find SLE predictable/squarish in actuality either.
ananke's contrast between LSE and SLE is good and to the point. Indeed "gambler" doesn't sound like LSE, except he goes headlong into things and takes decisions on the fly (that's some sort of risk-taking). SLEs tend to analyze and plan the tactics ahead in order to strike once, though they are more prone to enter endeavours that are risky in themselves - untested waters, uncertain success, but the promise of a great outcome.
Also, IME while LSEs are the ones who boast having "nothing to hide", SLEs keep their intentions secret, avoiding to spoil the premises they start off. I doubt SLEs can fully trust anyone. Unlike LSEs, who consider agreements to be a given and easily designate people to tasks for the common good, SLEs insure technically they can't be cheated, they tell in your face they need a physical guarantee when it comes to money & stuff. SLE needs control from the start, LSE manages things under way.
Ryu's seriousness, inflexibility, and inability to even listen to the protests around him - not to mention his redneck conceptions of gender, reminds me of this Delta ST gym coach I had once, who made me run laps for weeks for not wearing the proper gym shorts (mine were too "gay" and colorful apparently). Maybe they're all LSI, who knows. Either way, these kind of people are my conflictors.
Well, I think you're thinking about the wrong sandwich.
Well, I can't say I'm not deaf to opposition but it so happens I actually agree with Kassie or other delta NF(s) for the most part.
Right on! I'm bookmarking this
Thanks Kassie.
ESTJ, one of rare ones in big politics
I dont think there is a single well-informed person on this board, aside from those who simply accept his self-typing because its his self-typing and dont pretend to "know better" (ie lazy bitches), who believe UDP to be LSE. Absolute utter rubbish. He is most likely EII, in my opinion, or perhaps LII.
But, for a certainty, back then,
We loved so many, yet hated so much,
We hurt others and were hurt ourselves...
Yet even then, we ran like the wind,
Whilst our laughter echoed,
Under cerulean skies...
-
Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html