ESTj Description by I/O

[Exodus]

I wrote this description and the ISTp one a long time ago for one purpose: the apparent inner anger or rage of both types.

I strongly disagree with this. Delta STs do not have "inner anger or rage" as a rule. This is much more characteristic of Se ego types, especially Beta STs who struggle with expressing their emotions in a healthy manner. It suggests you have confused them, as do these quotes:

ESTjs have a strong sense of ownership and territory - they would not allow anyone to exert control over or do things differently on their turf. They're strongly focused on their processes and objectives but often overlook the sensitivities and needs of others. They're critical in evaluating the behaviour and productivity of others while ignoring their own shortcomings, and they can express their displeasure rather corrosively.

"ESTjs have a strong sense of ownership and territory - they would not allow anyone to exert control over or do things differently on their turf."
Why would a type that values Ne and not Se display this behavior?

ESTjs enjoy competition and are venturesome, especially if there is a need to prove something. They like being leader of the pack; if they're not, they'll look for weakness in the leadership; and if they can't find any, they'll likely move on to greener pastures. Being perceived as important, substantial, or the best seems to be a goal of most ESTj. They can be very self-righteous and bold in pursuing success but sometimes these forays can be rather rash or impetuous, and that temper is always a possibility.

Although they usually have little interest in hobbies or diversions, they do love interaction with others so will participate in activities that facilitate this.

LSEs do naturally take a leadership role, but I would hardly say that it's a compulsion or that power (again, an Se theme) is something they seek out for itself. LSEs do not care much at all about how they are perceived. I'm not sure that they "love interaction with others" either; I would say that they focus their energy on activities that are both productive and enjoyable, and often this means working together with other people. But they are good-natured in general, and tend to be very emotionally balanced. I also disagree that they are "corrosive", this is much more typical of Resolute logical types.

The earlier part of the description is better but you have not correlated anything with the information elements, and you probably could go deeper into the motivations behind the behavior.

ESTjs hate chaos, disarray, lack of discipline, or transgressions of their norms, rules and or agreements. They seem to need a guaranteed, predictable future since they know that they poorly anticipate problems. They try to gain full understanding and exhaustively prepare themselves before starting any serious endeavour because they need to be ready for every eventuality. However, their impatience can cause them to overlook important considerations but having to fix their plans later can make them very anxious, irritable and or angry.

This is just plain wrong. Hating "chaos, disarray, lack of discipline, transgressions of their norms, rules, agreements" - these are all Beta ST characteristics, this is all TiSe. LSEs do not have a concept of "transgression of their norms", or if they do they don't care about it. They are extremely flexible with their expectations of others and themselves, and definitely do not exhaustively prepare themselves, in fact they tend to act in the moment and be generally unaware of the need for preparation (Ni PoLR). I also hardly think that they are "anxious, irritable, or angry" - certainly not anxious because they are focused on enjoying the present moment (i.e. Si). If anything, it's the opposite: they tend to ignore problems (as do most Si valuers) and take an overly optimistic outlook that they can deal with things as they come. SLIs can be described as irritable because of a general lack of Fe, but LSEs have role Fe which means they generally try to present a positive attitude.

[wacey]

I strongly disagree with this. Delta STs do not have "inner anger or rage" as a rule. This is much more characteristic of Se ego types, especially Beta STs who struggle with expressing their emotions in a healthy manner. It suggests you have confused them, as do these quotes:



"ESTjs have a strong sense of ownership and territory - they would not allow anyone to exert control over or do things differently on their turf."
Why would a type that values Ne and not Se display this behavior?



LSEs do naturally take a leadership role, but I would hardly say that it's a compulsion or that power (again, an Se theme) is something they seek out for itself. LSEs do not care much at all about how they are perceived. I'm not sure that they "love interaction with others" either; I would say that they focus their energy on activities that are both productive and enjoyable, and often this means working together with other people. But they are good-natured in general, and tend to be very emotionally balanced. I also disagree that they are "corrosive", this is much more typical of Resolute logical types.

The earlier part of the description is better but you have not correlated anything with the information elements, and you probably could go deeper into the motivations behind the behavior.



This is just plain wrong. Hating "chaos, disarray, lack of discipline, transgressions of their norms, rules, agreements" - these are all Beta ST characteristics, this is all TiSe. LSEs do not have a concept of "transgression of their norms", or if they do they don't care about it. They are extremely flexible with their expectations of others and themselves, and definitely do not exhaustively prepare themselves, in fact they tend to act in the moment and be generally unaware of the need for preparation (Ni PoLR). I also hardly think that they are "anxious, irritable, or angry" - certainly not anxious because they are focused on enjoying the present moment (i.e. Si). If anything, it's the opposite: they tend to ignore problems (as do most Si valuers) and take an overly optimistic outlook that they can deal with things as they come. SLIs can be described as irritable because of a general lack of Fe, but LSEs have role Fe which means they generally try to present a positive attitude.

For arguments sake it has been my experince that LSE in professional leadership and managment position do have a tendency to over plan and over prepare the daily logistical tasks they and others are responsible for. And further, they have a tendency to verbalize their thinking in an effort to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Personally, I find this habit unnecessary and annoying, especially since plans change so much throughout the day, which usually leads to a palabable stress emanating from the LSE. Perhaps this is the latent aggression muddy textures is talking about?

This immediate switching their minds, or inflexibilty, is not an easy trait for LSE in the work place and it can lead, in the long run, to their insuffurable habit of workplace anxiety, which bleeds over into other employees. Small things become a disaster as they are forced to adapt to hangups that were not a part of the plans. LSE, unlike the SLI, are not the type to withhold expressing their Te frustrations.

Plus, they are Ne orientated, which in the work place looks like a conscious effort by them to find all the variables of what could and can happen in regards, usually exclusively, to the Te matters that are important to their Universe. In other words, they will try to cover all their bases and usually will do so usually verbally, before, during, and after a task. This can and does look like overkill.

Yet even throughout all of this, LSE seem to remain the consummate proffesional, even if they are not always mellow in regards to what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished. They are orientated towards good and stable work place relationships between them and their colleagues and will not use undue pressure not warranted within the confines of what is appropriate in that particular workplace setting.

However, they are in the asking dicotomy so their style of interaction in the workplace is more interrogation seeming then anything. This may seem confrontational about productivity, your actions, methods to do the small and large tasks you are assigned and even the placement of tools and the overall set up of your work place, yet at its heart, it really is not. LSE just can't seem to help themselves interject in this way with this style of communication.

For instance, "Why did you put that wrench over here, it is supposed to go over there?" "Where are you guys going right now, when we discussed going over there?" "How come you used that way of doing it when it is much quicker doing it this way?" [some use of algorithmic cognition in these examples].

[Exodus]

For arguments sake it has been my experince that LSE in professional leadership and managment position do have a tendency to over plan and over prepare the daily logistical tasks they and others are responsible for. And further, they have a tendency to verbalize their thinking in an effort to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Personally, I find this habit unnecessary and annoying, especially since plans change so much throughout the day, which usually leads to a palabable stress emanating from the LSE. Perhaps this is the latent aggression muddy textures is talking about?

This immediate switching their minds, or inflexibilty, is not an easy trait for LSE in the work place and it can lead, in the long run, to their insuffurable habit of workplace anxiety, which bleeds over into other employees. Small things become a disaster as they are forced to adapt to hangups that were not a part of the plans. LSE, unlike the SLI, are not the type to withhold expressing their Te frustrations.

Plus, they are Ne orientated, which in the work place looks like a conscious effort by them to find all the variables of what could and can happen in regards, usually exclusively, to the Te matters that are important to their Universe. In other words, they will try to cover all their bases and usually will do so usually verbally, before, during, and after a task. This can and does look like overkill.

Yet even throughout all of this, LSE seem to remain the consummate proffesional, even if they are not always mellow in regards to what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished. They are orientated towards good and stable work place relationships between them and their collegues.

However, they are in the asking dicotomy so their style of interaction in the workplace is more interrogation seeming then anything. This may seem confrontational about productivity, your actions, methods to do the small and large tasks you are assigned and even the placement of tools and the overall set up of your work place, yet at its heart, it really is not. LSE just can't seem to help themselves interject in this way with this style of communication.

For instance, "Why did you put that wrench over here, it is supposed to go over there?" "Where are you guys going right now, when we discussed going over there?" "How come you used that way of doing it when it is much quicker doing it this way?" [some use of algorithmic cognition in these examples].

I strongly disagree.

This kind of micro-management of wanting to do things in a specific way, with all other ways being wrong, is completely antithetical to how Deltas, who value and not or , operate. If anything, their expectations for people are poorly expressed (even passive-aggressively at times) and this is often frustrating to types that value . Gamma NTs do very often harshly criticize how people do things, but this involves Se and Ni just as much as Te. What Delta STs expect is that when people are working, they are going to focus on work and not do frivolous things like socialize. I have seen LSEs get annoyed because of this before. But beyond that, they are not going to care much about the precise methods that people use to get things done, as long as the result is the same. The opposite of this is to adhere to a principle of the right way to do things, aka . Deltas are mostly going to mind their own business in the workplace if they can, to avoid conflict.

Plus, they are Ne orientated, which in the work place looks like a conscious effort by them to find all the variables of what could and can happen

I've seen this said often, is it an MBTI concept or something? This is not but . Preparation, planning for the future is an Ni theme. Someone who is focusing on Ne is naturally open to possibilities and does not fear that things could go wrong. A type with PoLR is going to be basically ignorant of the idea that anything could go wrong, and will often be blindsided when they do. What you are talking about is more like Mobilizing as in LSIs.

[wacey]

I strongly disagree.

This kind of micro-management of wanting to do things in a specific way, with all other ways being wrong, is completely antithetical to how Deltas, who value and not or , operate. If anything, their expectations for people are poorly expressed (even passive-aggressively at times) and this is often frustrating to types that value . Gamma NTs do very often harshly criticize how people do things, but this involves Se and Ni just as much as Te. What Delta STs expect is that when people are working, they are going to focus on work and not do frivolous things like socialize. I have seen LSEs get annoyed because of this before. But beyond that, they are not going to care much about the precise methods that people use to get things done, as long as the result is the same. The opposite of this is to adhere to a principle of the right way to do things, aka . Deltas are mostly going to mind their own business in the workplace if they can, to avoid conflict.



I've seen this said often, is it an MBTI concept or something? This is not but . Preparation, planning for the future is an Ni theme. Someone who is focusing on Ne is naturally open to possibilities and does not fear that things could go wrong. A type with PoLR is going to be basically ignorant of the idea that anything could go wrong, and will often be blindsided when they do. What you are talking about is more like Mobilizing as in LSIs.

Have you ever worked for an LSE? Honestly?

[Exodus]

Have you ever worked for an LSE? Honestly?

Yes in fact I have.

[wacey]

Yes in fact I have.

For an Ne characters, you are really missing the gist of what I am saying.

[wacey]

This is business logic, productivity, efficiency, systems of preparing work, getting as much done in a day as possible in the shortest amount of time, managing employees and teams all of which are assigned differing tasks and making sure products and resources are managed to maximize out put. Are you telling me LSE are some kind of cowboys at there? flying off the seat of their pants and just winging it? Preparation and planning for the future is absolutely within the realm of black logic. The logic of actions. the logic of what should be done and how best to do it.

Maybe SLI wouldnt care how other people are doing tasks, they will just do them the way they think is right themselves. LSE are a totally different story. Why else would they rub the Betas the wrong way if it was not for being pedantic about Te?

[Exodus]

Preparation and planning for the future is absolutely within the realm of black logic.

Before you said this was , now it's ?

The logic of actions. the logic of what should be done and how best to do it.

Sure, but the way you've characterized the manner in which LSEs express this value is not accurate.

Maybe SLI wouldnt care how other people are doing tasks, they will just do them the way they think is right themselves. LSE are a totally different story. Why else would they rub the Betas the wrong way if it was not for being pedantic about Te?

They would rub them the wrong way for not thinking about the future consequences or the deeper significance of what they are doing. They would also rub them the wrong way for not expressing their expectations clearly or adhering to firm principles, rather adopting an opportunistic attitude of deriving benefit in whatever way is available ( > ).

[wacey]

Before you said this was , now it's ?


Sure, but the way you've characterized the manner in which LSEs express this value is not accurate.


They would rub them the wrong way for not thinking about the future consequences or the deeper significance of what they are doing. They would also rub them the wrong way for not expressing their expectations clearly or adhering to firm principles, rather adopting an opportunistic attitude of deriving benefit in whatever way is available ( > ).

In my experience working closely with LSE in a mid sized company that my assessment is actually extremely accurate. Of course you don't have to believe me and thats fine.

They would rub them the wrong way by going for the actions of how to do something instead of the underlying process involved in order that others may find and discover their own ways of preforming an act Ti vs Te.. Ti will explain and maybe reexplain, but they will not expect that it should be done exclusively the way they might do it. LSE will have this expectation that things are done their way, period. And if you are doing it differently then there is definitely something wrong with you.

And to say LSE are not aware about future implications of their's and other's actions in the realm of Te is false. They want to do something right the first time, which leads to a extended preparation period. The devil is in the details when it comes to black logic. You must be thinking about SLIs or something here.

[consentingadult]

... getting as much done in a day as possible in the shortest amount of time...

This is not quite the case, if I understand you correctly. The efficiency of LSEs is about getting more done in the same amount of time (i.e. making the most of the time available). This as opposed to the efficiency-attitude of SLIs, which is about getting specific things (a preset amount) done in the shortest amount of time. To put it differently: LSEs want to make the most of a 9 to 5 workday, whereas SLIs strive to get the job done and go home early.

It is this difference in attitude that is an important reason why IEEs can endure SLIs much longer than LSEs. IEEs interacting with LSEs feel physically worn out after a while, and this is the reason why in activity relations between IEEs and LSEs the IEEs need a temporary break from the relationship every now and then. This is not entirely to blame on the LSEs: the recognition-seeking mobilizing-Te can-do-attitude of IEEs gives LSEs a false impression, the (refreshing) impression that the IEE is willing and capable of doing more. Meanwhile, the IEEs have an unconscious expectation that the LSEs will protect them from overexerting themselves, which is what an SLI would take care of in a relationship with an IEE. (I'm reminded of an LSE woman at work yesterday, who, each time she brings me my latte, offers to already put the sugar in it for me. Such obvious caretaking behavior is a sweet thing to see, in a sense more charming than the more subtle, covert caretaking behavior of SLIs).

Likewise, LSEs probably need a break from IEEs because of an overdose of Ne, which is encouraged by LSEs because of their recognition seeking mobilizing-Ne, giving the IEE the false impression the LSE wants more of it.

[wacey]

This is not quite the case, if I understand you correctly. The efficiency of LSEs is about getting more done in the same amount of time (i.e. making the most of the time available). This as opposed to the efficiency-attitude of SLIs, which is about getting specific things (a preset amount) done in the shortest amount of time. To put it differently: LSEs want to make the most of a 9 to 5 workday, whereas SLIs strive to get the job done and go home early.

It is this difference in attitude that is an important reason why IEEs can endure SLIs much longer than LSEs. IEEs interacting with LSEs feel physically worn out after a while, and this is the reason why in activity relations between IEEs and LSEs the IEEs need a temporary break from the relationship every now and then. This is not entirely to blame on the LSEs: the recognition-seeking mobilizing-Te can-do-attitude of IEEs gives LSEs a false impression, the (refreshing) impression that the IEE is willing and capable of doing more. Meanwhile, the IEEs have an unconscious expectation that the LSEs will protect them from overexerting themselves, which is what an SLI would take care of in a relationship with an IEE. (I'm reminded of an LSE woman at work yesterday, who, each time she brings me my latte, offers to already put the sugar in it for me. Such obvious caretaking behavior is a sweet thing to see, in a sense more charming than the more subtle, covert caretaking behavior of SLIs).

Likewise, LSEs probably need a break from IEEs because of an overdose of Ne, which is encouraged by LSEs because of their recognition seeking mobilizing-Ne, giving the IEE the false impression the LSE wants more of it.

You kind of ran with what I was saying and elaborated on it. I pretty much agree with everything you just said here, you fleshed it out nicely.

And see its funny because for myself, the very "help-full" and well meaning small acts by an LSE in my work place, although kind in that Te sort of way, can be irritating and cause me to avoid them. I find myself internally rolling my eyes when I hear "one more little tip". I would assume this falls into their, as you put it "recognition seeking mobilizing Ne"? Voicing the facts of the external world Te in order to supply Ne with information which it in turn can use later on?

Because gammas are not nearly as paternalistic in their administration of Te. The phrase "don't ask, don't tell" comes to mind when describing gamma Te and funny enough SLI. If you don't ask them, then usually they won't tell you. With LSE unsolicited advice, even actual physical help, is the normal.

Your post also is helping me confirm that delta is not the quadra for me.

[consentingadult]

You kind of ran with what I was saying and elaborated on it. I pretty much agree with everything you just said here, you fleshed it out nicely.

And see its funny because for myself, the very "help-full" and well meaning small acts by an LSE in my work place, although kind in that Te sort of way, can be irritating and cause me to avoid them. I find myself internally rolling my eyes when I hear "one more little tip". I would assume this falls into their, as you put it "recognition seeking mobilizing Ne"? Voicing the facts of the external world Te in order to supply Ne with information which it in turn can use later on?

Because gammas are not nearly as paternalistic in their administration of Te. The phrase "don't ask, don't tell" comes to mind when describing gamma Te and funny enough SLI. If you don't ask them, then usually they won't tell you. With LSE unsolicited advice, even actual physical help, is the normal.

Your post also is helping me confirm that delta is not the quadra for me.

Mobilizing-Ne is made up of different things, and your item certainly can be one of them, but how Mobilizing Ne manifests itself also depends on the type of the person interacted with. When interacting with an EII or an IEE, Mobilizing-Ne means the LSE jumping on the Delta NF bandwagon so to speak. In other cases it might be the LSE elaborating their 'grand narrative' on some subject, and typically violating some Ni-aspects of reality:

http://mavericksocionics.blogspot.nl...-and-polr.html

[applejacks]

This is not quite the case, if I understand you correctly. The efficiency of LSEs is about getting more done in the same amount of time (i.e. making the most of the time available). This as opposed to the efficiency-attitude of SLIs, which is about getting specific things (a preset amount) done in the shortest amount of time. To put it differently: LSEs want to make the most of a 9 to 5 workday, whereas SLIs strive to get the job done and go home early.

It is this difference in attitude that is an important reason why IEEs can endure SLIs much longer than LSEs. IEEs interacting with LSEs feel physically worn out after a while, and this is the reason why in activity relations between IEEs and LSEs the IEEs need a temporary break from the relationship every now and then. This is not entirely to blame on the LSEs: the recognition-seeking mobilizing-Te can-do-attitude of IEEs gives LSEs a false impression, the (refreshing) impression that the IEE is willing and capable of doing more. Meanwhile, the IEEs have an unconscious expectation that the LSEs will protect them from overexerting themselves, which is what an SLI would take care of in a relationship with an IEE. (I'm reminded of an LSE woman at work yesterday, who, each time she brings me my latte, offers to already put the sugar in it for me. Such obvious caretaking behavior is a sweet thing to see, in a sense more charming than the more subtle, covert caretaking behavior of SLIs).

Likewise, LSEs probably need a break from IEEs because of an overdose of Ne, which is encouraged by LSEs because of their recognition seeking mobilizing-Ne, giving the IEE the false impression the LSE wants more of it.

Awesome post and insight. This perfectly sums up the relationship between me (IEE) and my Mother in Law (LSE). She will never offer me something without also making it for me herself- be it a meal, a drink. She does this for everyone, and tragically it goes under appreciated, which leads to built up anger. Somehow I can see and understand that, so I'm more inclined to give grace and appreciation to appease any rage.

My SLI husband will kiss my forehead or politely offer to help me as a form of caretaking. It's not as insisted as charming LSE is, but it is still there, if not gentle and overt.

In rather simplistic terms, I used to say my Mother in Law was the extroverted version of my husband. Both have anger. Both can be kind and caring caretakers, but they are made manifest very differently.

[Beautiful sky]

For arguments sake it has been my experince that LSE in professional leadership and managment position do have a tendency to over plan and over prepare the daily logistical tasks they and others are responsible for. And further, they have a tendency to verbalize their thinking in an effort to make sure everyone is on the same page.

Personally, I find this habit unnecessary and annoying, especially since plans change so much throughout the day, which usually leads to a palabable stress emanating from the LSE. Perhaps this is the latent aggression muddy textures is talking about?

This immediate switching their minds, or inflexibilty, is not an easy trait for LSE in the work place and it can lead, in the long run, to their insuffurable habit of workplace anxiety, which bleeds over into other employees. Small things become a disaster as they are forced to adapt to hangups that were not a part of the plans. LSE, unlike the SLI, are not the type to withhold expressing their Te frustrations.

Plus, they are Ne orientated, which in the work place looks like a conscious effort by them to find all the variables of what could and can happen in regards, usually exclusively, to the Te matters that are important to their Universe. In other words, they will try to cover all their bases and usually will do so usually verbally, before, during, and after a task. This can and does look like overkill.

Yet even throughout all of this, LSE seem to remain the consummate proffesional, even if they are not always mellow in regards to what needs to be done and how it should be accomplished. They are orientated towards good and stable work place relationships between them and their colleagues and will not use undue pressure not warranted within the confines of what is appropriate in that particular workplace setting.

However, they are in the asking dicotomy so their style of interaction in the workplace is more interrogation seeming then anything. This may seem confrontational about productivity, your actions, methods to do the small and large tasks you are assigned and even the placement of tools and the overall set up of your work place, yet at its heart, it really is not. LSE just can't seem to help themselves interject in this way with this style of communication.

For instance, "Why did you put that wrench over here, it is supposed to go over there?" "Where are you guys going right now, when we discussed going over there?" "How come you used that way of doing it when it is much quicker doing it this way?" [some use of algorithmic cognition in these examples].

This is a great post wacey. LSE are planners.

[wacey]

This is a great post wacey. LSE are planners.

Thanks maritsa. When it comes to Te, yes they are planners and will do so augmented by an Si creative function, so they look at all the sensory details that go hand in hand with Te. And if they are your manager, they will monitor your actions as well. Being extroverts they will also comment on them, which is why they make their conflictor IEI nervous and defensive, as they feel they are continuously questioned on the appropriateness of their actions. Which causes them to second guess themselves and the built up experiences their introverted intuition tells them.

I have some knowledge and time watching a few closely.

[Beautiful sky]

Thanks maritsa. When it comes to Te, yes they are planners and will do so augmented by an Si creative function, so they look at all the sensory details that go hand in hand with Te.

I have some knowledge and time watching a few closely.

I appreciate your observations. It's finally adding to everything about LSE that I've been saying thus far that other people were associating with Ni traits instead. I was getting very frustrated

[wacey]

I appreciate your observations. It's finally adding to everything about LSE that I've been saying thus far that other people were associating with Ni traits instead. I was getting very frustrated

Cool.

[consentingadult]

This is a great post wacey. LSE are planners.

No, they are micromanagers...

[Beautiful sky]

No, they are micromanagers...

LSI are

[wacey]

No, they are micromanagers...

Same difference really. The best laid plans go out the window as soon as activity starts happening and then LSE needs to maintain control of the process .

That's how I view it anyway. Seems like delta NFs dont mind that type of management because it covers both Te logics as well as sensate details for them.

[wacey]

No, they are micromanagers...

Oddly, or maybe not oddly, I've noticed the same micromanagement tendancies in EII when they are in position of logistical authority for the daily tasks.

This has been major cause for conflict between myself and them that borders on extinguishment as they sort through, linearly, the process they believe to be the most effective. In fact the biggest interpersonal work place arguments I've ever had has been with EII. This does end up looking like micro managment and poor judgement often at several points throughout the day as they change thier mind about what is "best" to do. The weak yet expected Te produced by them is very apparent. On top of this they become flustered and perfectionistic about inconsequential logics of actions details. This is similar to the LSE.

Also because they are linear rationals, any task completion done spontaneously by others will cause discomfort for the EII unless it in accompanied by strong Te validation for them in their eyes. This could come from a more chilled out source such as a SLI or LIE. However if it comes from a source they do not deem to be immediately graspable through black logic, such as a task done with high energy by an Se valuer, then they will cause an upset. For example moving a company vehicle to a different location without telling will produce unnecessary fear and irritability within them. The same goes for LSE.