LSE says NO to SLE right in his face

[consentingadult]

Sorry but you are just playing unnecessary mental gymnastics at this point, why don't we see Einstein ignoring facts outright, or any other prominent ILE intellectual for that matter. And remembering that SLEs are Technocrats, means we should not be seeing outright disregard for logic in those types either.

BTW there's a remarkable difference between lying and fudging facts, cleverly working with facts and misrepresenting them - always done in a realistic way, from a complete disregards for facts prioritizing emotionalism. Even when Einstein was treated with facts he didn't like, he ways came up with a perspective that undermined the points those same facts were trying to illustrate - for example he felt that data missing (which is reasonable and plausible) when failing to explain how quantum mechanics has facts which bizarrely contradicts his expected unified model of the universe. Not every ILE is Einstein of course, but the same thinking styles manifest itself at lower levels of intelligence in more common ILEs.

You unfortunately inherited the MBTI bias were ESTP is assumed to be SLE, and built your socionics theory coupled with the quadra fetish (distorts understanding of real people) were you have the sociotype archetypes you have. Either way I'll say open up to multiple socionics theories, it becomes interesting to look at how a differing type label can affect the perspectives you get from observing the same person.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E91bGT9BjYk

No you are wrong, most of all with your assumptions about me. And you do not understand the institutional nature of the rational functions, in which case you would have understood how Ti/Fi works in SLEs and ILEs with respect to social interaction, because that is what Socionics is about first and foremost, but apparently you only focus on Einsteins scientific capabilities, when we know for a fact that in social interaction, he was not the nicest person around. You are on ignore. Period.

[Myst]

The SLE is looking to me for future direction and emotional support, and the LSE is looking for a square deal, clearly defined procedures, and an area for himself where he can have respected competency. With me more than with each other, the hierarchy thing is already fixed in their minds, and they don't challenge it.

What hierarchy thing do you see with LSEs?

[Adam Strange]

What hierarchy thing do you see with LSEs?

@Myst, in my experience, LSE's tend to accept hierarchies and their place in them. They don't really try to change the system, they just get into it and try to rise within it.
I think they see people as being either better or worse than they themselves are, in the sense of everyone having a certain God-given position in society. This contrasts with my own view, which is that everyone is equal, and while some people are born into a position or a situation, they are independent of that system and can transcend or destroy it, given the right circumstances.

What I meant specifically was that both the SLE and the LSE accept my authority because that's the way things were when they were hired, despite the fact that I, personally, feel I was not "born" to this job and could rise or fall in other situations.

I have a good friend who brags about his ancestors being slave owners, and he kind of treats his workers that way. I would never brag about something like that. I would try to make that disappear from the conversation and my history.

[Eos]

What hierarchy thing do you see with LSEs?

Can he get the job done better and faster? Let's listen to his idea.

Is he in charge and makes the job harder and slower? He is an idiot.

[Myst]

@Myst, in my experience, LSE's tend to accept hierarchies and their place in them. They don't really try to change the system, they just get into it and try to rise within it.
I think they see people as being either better or worse than they themselves are, in the sense of everyone having a certain God-given position in society. This contrasts with my own view, which is that everyone is equal, and while some people are born into a position or a situation, they are independent of that system and can transcend or destroy it, given the right circumstances.

Like it's about what "cast" you are born into? I read Deltas can see things that way.

What I meant specifically was that both the SLE and the LSE accept my authority because that's the way things were when they were hired, despite the fact that I, personally, feel I was not "born" to this job and could rise or fall in other situations.

That's S vs N.

I have a good friend who brags about his ancestors being slave owners, and he kind of treats his workers that way. I would never brag about something like that. I would try to make that disappear from the conversation and my history.

Yeah I understand you there.

[Bertrand]

there's destroying something because it is evil, or simply not recognizing its existence to begin with. democrats tend to be the latter. they tend think the solution to racism is to just stop talking about it, whereas betas tend to be more pro affirmative action. bragging about ancestors being slave owners is a lot like when people only post pictures of themselves as kids, it belies the fact that they're ashamed of the current state of affairs and live in some bygone era that which for whatever reason they think reflects credit on them in the present, despite having nothing they consider worth showing in the here and now. no one gets points for what they had no hand in, its like trying to call up pure happenstance as an achievement. this is but one of the many ways people try to spin a non sequitur into some kind of virtue. skin color is just one with a rich history of violence and oppression, but this can take the form of any kind of irrational self aggrandizement. what it really boils down to is a weak ability to discern between what has value and what doesn't. like trying to peddle wood coins

[squark]

Why would that be something anyone would want to brag about? What exactly do they think is positive about it?