Differences between LIE-ENTj and LSE-ESTj

[Megan]

Try and help do what 'their' job is and they'll get annoyed.
Be above of them and try to help them with 'their' job and they'll get annoyed.
Be one of the people running around for them and they;ll be ok, as long as you don't enter 'their' space.

Even when they don't know how to do a job they still won't like it and will spend hours upon hours studying they art of whatever you're trying to teach them just so you can't tell them what to do.

I have seen them behave like this in formal professional situations...they are extremely challenging people to lead normally. In informal situations like at home doing work on the roof or something like that then they seem not to mind people helping then out as much but they still want to lead and direct things and will likely get annoyed if someone else tries to be the leader.

[UDP]

Here's a tough question for you.

How would these two types differ in terms of coaching? If that is too unaccustomed for you, then just consider managing or one being your boss.

[Gilly]

Having had coaches/bosses of both types...

LSEs love to promote a team atmosphere; if they had their way, the team would motivate itself by its sheer team spirit and the LSE's direct use of top-down authority would be limited mostly to advice-giving and 'shepherding,' if you will; making sure the team is operating smoothly and everyone is getting along. LSEs love to lead by example: the quintessential player-coach.

An LIE is more likely to be a 'chess playeer' kind of coach, if you will, focusing on utilizing and complimenting his players' individual talents and building strategies around them. He is less likely to focus on team spirit and more on development of individual talent; rather than leading by example, like an LSE, he is more likely to say 'Watch how so-and-so does this, and see how X does that well?'

Basically the big differences are irrational function focus and Aristocracy vs. Democracy .

[Ezra]

I was told that you can't really treat Te as a function unto itself when dealing with a person. Basically, you can describe it as a function i.e. what its job is, but you can't say how Te manifests itself in people as a base or creative function, because it is different in the LSE, the LIE, the ILI and the SLI. So I'm interested to know how it differs in Te valuing types, particularly in the LSE and the LIE.

[Ezra]

Okay - if LSEs don't get the added bonus of being able to forsee events or predict patterns (Ni), what do they get?

[Ezra]

Si related then.

Anyway, I haven't really got an answer to my question. How does one's being an LSE or LIE change Te? How is Te in an LSE different to Te in an LIE? LSEs and LIEs tell me how you differ from one another. Tell me how you don't identify with Te elements of LIE and LSE respectively. Same goes for SLIs and ILIs on the forum (of which I know there are plenty).

Or is this a pile of shit - is Te the same in every person?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't care about actions. I wouldn't mind at all if somebody said "this is what you should do" as long as I really liked them and we connected on an emotional level.

I know that might sound pathetic to people but I don't really care. I can't think of actions/consequences. Just ...not in me. Something is blocked. So as soon as people ask me what I want to make of myself, what places to go, I just say 'I dunno you tell me' and either I'll follow it or I won't. This is why I prefer to have somebody just take care of me....

This is also kind of a conflicting thing because contrary to what I said above, I don't like being told what to do all the time, but with some things it's just absolutely necessary.

If I really love you (but this is very rare) I'll basically be a perfect slave. *shrug* I hate admitting this about myself, because...I think it's viewed as a weakness you know, to be all passive like that and shit, but if I could help it I would. If I get really uncomfortable I'll just cry and let people bully me... I don't know how to handle the physical pressure and I need to be protected, that's all there is to it.

[BLauritson]

I think that, theoretically, Te will always be the same in both LIEs and LSEs for example, but it manifests differently due to the creative function. I think the reason it appears different in either type is because, for the most part, you're seeing both the dominant and creative functions in action, so it looks like two different types of Te. I think it does make a difference which position in Model A Te happens to be in (i.e. leading Te is different to creative Te) but leading Te is still the same in both LxEs, it's just it looks different on the outside due to the creative function. So for example, both types may be driven to do "work", whatever "work" may be, although in the LIE it would be Te "working", while Ni provides desire to reach goals and knowledge of the means to reach those goals, whereas in the LSE it would be Te "working", while Si provides desire to harmonize the environment and knowledge of the means to do this. Or something like that. Fuck it, I'm as clueless as the next person on theoretical matters in Socionics. Been studying it for about 2 years now and still don't have a clue. Oh well, perhaps there might be something you could glean from the above. Apologies if it doesn't help at all though.

[BLauritson]

no worries, you don't have to add that after every IMO post lol. you can just say IMO or something.

I just don't want to come across as an authority on a subject I know little about.

You have wonder it it really is useful. A lot of the squabbling on the forum concerning various specifics seems to be unproductive.

Agreed, I think I tend to frequent this forum nowadays more to occupy my time than to actually learn anything new. I suppose that's what's likely to happen when a partially-defined but workable theory is made accessible to the masses - there'll be much ado about nothing. Granted there will be some new developments now and again, which is what keeps me coming here, but yes, I do agree a lot of what goes on tends not to lead anywhere.

[Jarno]

i don't know my type

I'm probably way off topic, but this shows again that somebody with a pretty high degree of knowledge concerning information elements, isn't able to find his/her type with that knowledge.

Maybe learning a lot about information elements isn't that usefull after all then.

[Ezra]

Fuck it, I'm as clueless as the next person on theoretical matters in Socionics. Been studying it for about 2 years now and still don't have a clue.

You have wonder it it really is useful. A lot of the squabbling on the forum concerning various specifics seems to be unproductive.

On top of this, there's a lot of empty speculation that leads to nothing.

[Ezra]

i don't know my type

I'm probably way off topic, but this shows again that somebody with a pretty high degree of knowledge concerning information elements, isn't able to find his/her type with that knowledge.

Maybe learning a lot about information elements isn't that usefull after all then.

Knowledge is useless if you can't apply it to life. This is the most important thing to know. So the fact that dee knows about IM elements means nothing if he can't look at his own life and say "well, I know for sure that I've used these functions in the past, and have not used these; these ones I've wanted to use but have needed help from others, and these ones I use well but don't care about".

[consentingadult]

In my experience, the difference is quite obvious: ESTjs are more likely to take a shower and change into clean clothes on a daily basis than ENTjs. Unless the ENTj has a partner who reminds him/her to take a shower.

Just kidding. A lot can be said about the differences, also because there can be circumstances that can make every type use Information Elements (called Functions in MBTI) that is not natural to that type. E.g. when in an 'attention seeking mode' (which means the individual is using his so called Mobilizing Function too much), an ESTj will use Extroverted Intuition and come up with crazy ideas and make himself ridiculous that way, whereas an ENTj might put too much emphasis on financial success (making money), supposedly confrontational behavior that often really doesn't scare anyone or even sadistic attitudes.

It's complicated and I believe there is no short-cut to understanding how these phenomena play out. Best thing is to study Socionics by reading about it (e.g. wikisocion.org), asking yourself and other people questions about it, and see how these things manifest in real life. It will take time to master this, and you should think more in terms of a few years rather than a few days or weeks before you will have a thorough understanding and be able to apply the insights satisfactory. When I turned from MBTI to Socionics, I was skeptical about Socionics too, but it was worth the effort and the study. If you do that, in a few years you will laugh about MBTI.

[Rasputin]

Maritsa...IN MBTI, ENTJs want to be efficient, whereas ESTJs are more likely to get bogged down in details. How is this different in Socionics?

Also, do not ENTj's have humanitarian values?

[Beautiful sky]

Maritsa...IN MBTI, ENTJs want to be efficient, whereas ESTJs are more likely to get bogged down in details. How is this different in Socionics?

Also, do not ENTj's have humanitarian values?

No, ENTj's have monetary values.
ENTj's in MBTI are not efficient, in MBTI it is emphasis on control. ENTj's care about the big picture so no details for them.
ESTj's get bogged down in details for hours, like if they are categorizing their books or CD’s, they will take hours to do it in the dewy decimal system. No one in either system talked about the certain negative aspects of type. But, I know them all so you can ask away.

[Rasputin]

lol...Well, can an ESTj get bogged down in details yet love to see the big picture? Is this different for ENTj?

[Beautiful sky]

lol...Well, can an ESTj get bogged down in details yet love to see the big picture? Is this different for ENTj?

ENTj's try to see the big picture in a long term application of monitary values...making risks to get reward; ESTj's are risk adverse and will move cautiously while ENTj's will risk everything in a one time deal.
INFj's will show you the big picture.

You didn't answer my other questions...

Are you romantic?
How many computer screens do you have up?
Are you into high technology?
Do you like to cook?

[Rasputin]

I'm more inclined to be cautious. But I'm wondering what makes the ENTj so concerned with monetary values? How does the S/N dichotomy play into this, and how does it manifest accross different types? I'm guessing the focus on monetary values is because of how the N interacts with the other traits of ENTj and INTp.

[Beautiful sky]

I'm more inclined to be cautious. But I'm wondering what makes the ENTj so concerned with monetary values? How does the S/N dichotomy play into this, and how does it manifest accross different types? I'm guessing the focus on monetary values is because of how the N interacts with the other traits of ENTj and INTp.

They are concerned with riches.
S/N dichotomy only plays a role in external management of task and how the brain circuits relevent information; S gets into detail, N is wired to skip detail and see big picture first; S will make N see detail, N will make S see big picute; ESTj's know get nervous about the right time to make a choice. N integrates all information, mass amount of information, not little bits like S does. S will weight the small information; N weighs big picute to big picture and so likes lots and lots of big pictures.

[Rasputin]

Earlier, you stated that ESTj's love philosphy. In Socionics, is philospohy be default a big-picture discipline? Or is the determination in how you approach philosophy?

[Beautiful sky]

Earlier, you stated that ESTj's love philosphy. In Socionics, is philospohy be default a big-picture discipline? Or is the determination in how you approach philosophy?

I believe that philosophy for you may be love of theory combined with further understanding of how things work and what process to take to understand the workings. There are types who already have philosophy in their minds and types who need to take philosophy classes to get philosophy.

Theoretical physicists have philosophy in their mind, you won't catch them reading books on that topic, maybe they will read books on religion. It also has to do with how old you are...when I was younger, at 14 I read a lot of law and philosophy books, but not when I got older, type has to do with development at stages and age too; How old are you, if you don't mind?

[Lobo]

Rasputin, you can always spend some time posting in Gamma and Delta. Maybe you'll find stimulating conversation.

[Rasputin]

Lobo...I guess I could try that. What frustrates me is that we can't define the parameters that define the quadras, then define the parameters that define the types within each quadra, or at the very least, why we can't define the information elements in a concrete way so there is no ambiguity as to what we are talking about, and define the ego block, id block, and all four levels of paired functions, and if all these things were in place, then I'm sure I would be able to determine what my type was. It seems like it's impossible to really discuss this information for some reason.

[xixi]

Generally difference between LIE's and LSE's is that LSE's often come of as 'brick walls' in social interaction, whereas LIE's are more 'mentally flexible'.

LSE - Si (creative) is better than Ni
LIE - other way round, Ni is better than Si

From Wikisocion...

Si - "Introverted sensing focuses on tangible connections between processes happening in one place and time, i.e. the physical experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states, and the awareness of these tangible physical states consequentially leads to an awareness of health. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings leads to an interest in aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.

Therefore, introverted sensing focuses on physical sensations (sound, smell, etc.), inner physical states, aesthetics, and a concrete awareness of physical experience.

Si as creative function: The individual is naturally good at organizing relaxing activities and recreation and getting people to calm down and enjoy themselves, but displays this behavior and skill when he sees a specific need for it rather than doing it automatically, all the time. The individual does not place emphasis on being calm and balanced all the time, as opposed to those with Image:symbol_s.gif as a leading function.

The individual is aware of and attuned to people's tastes and personal preferences and likes to do things or give things to friends and family members that will cause them to enjoy themselves and gain pleasure, for example:

* creating a comfortable, clean, and spacious setting in the home
* taking them out to do something they enjoy
* finding opportunities and people with whom they can pursue their hobbies

Si as 4th function: Individuals who possess introverted sensing as a 4th function tend to be negligent to the effects of Image:symbol_s.gif and have the view that Image:symbol_s.gif aspects are of less importance than others for achieving their goals. They put a low priority on the physical, short-distance, here-and-now in relation to longer-distance and longer-term considerations. A typical manifestation is a lack of concern for small aesthetic details, since a greater focus is given on the opinion that, in the longer term, taking care of them is a never-ending exercise. This is also manifested in a relative lack of awareness of the immediate surroundings, as in noticing where objects may be if you don't have to deal with them particularly, and of your own physical sensations.

A lack of concern for small aesthetic details is more visible in the LIE; in the case of the EIE, the low focus on Image:symbol_s.gif is more noticeable as a dislike for low-level practical details, such as filling up forms, signing documents, or filling tax returns.

Due to individuals who possess introverted sensing as a 4th function believing that Si aspects are of less importance, they tend to be thrown off course by unthought of, new or neglected introverted sensing matters.


Ni
"Introverted intuition is generally associated with the unfolding of processes over time, visions of the past and future, mental imagery, and intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects.

Ni as a creative function: The individual likes to predict the further development of the situations and topics that he is interested in. The individual applies his highly developed sense of vision not as an end in itself, but as a way of promoting the development of his more central interests and activities.

as 4th function: The individual prefers to focus on immediate tasks, taking things as they come, rather than try to evaluate the outcome of present trends. Inclination to tell stories or narrate events on a sequential basis, rather than outlining how one event led to another.

He perceives time in an undifferentiated manner: the past, present, and future are all perceived as being in or near the present. When talking about the future (especially one's longer-term plans), the individual treats it as if it were accessible today and often is not aware of all the developments that must happen first.

He generally has a poor sense of how long things will take and what the best amount of time to spend on things is. Therefore it is difficult for him to stay on schedule without extensive (even total) pre-planning.


To contrast the diff btwn an LSE and LIE in a specific domain...
Katherine Bigelow, who directed 'The Hurt Locker' seems to be an LSE. The Hurt Locker is very 'Si' orientated. It recreates for the audience the experience of war, in hyperrealistic, high impact detail, in order to communicate its central message. It manipulates sensation (Si) in order to convey a very simple, definite statement (Ni). I somehow don't think ENTj's can come up with this sort of detailed Si world in their heads.

Quentin Tarantino, in contrast to Bigelow, appears to be ENTj-Ni. If you look at his films, he likes to subvert narrative (e.g. rewriting history in Inglourious Bastards). He subverts ppl's expectations about character roles and what should happen in a narrative. I think this shows highly attuned Ni. And in contrast to Bigelow, his films are highly cerebral as opposed to 'high impact' (sensory-experiential/ Si).

[silverchris9]

Lobo...I guess I could try that. What frustrates me is that we can't define the parameters that define the quadras, then define the parameters that define the types within each quadra, or at the very least, why we can't define the information elements in a concrete way so there is no ambiguity as to what we are talking about, and define the ego block, id block, and all four levels of paired functions, and if all these things were in place, then I'm sure I would be able to determine what my type was. It seems like it's impossible to really discuss this information for some reason.

LSE. Almost positive at this point. To me, Ni is to some degree associated with Keats' "negative capability," which is the capacity of "being in uncertainties, Mysteries, doubts without any irritable reaching after fact and reason." Negative capability is not merely the capacity to accept unresolved tensions, but also to work productively within these unresolved tensions, in this case, the uncertain, unresolved nature of socionics. Ni-polr may manifest itself in a lack of this capacity; especially in the case of LSEs this may result in a desire to "know" everything such that it makes sense. The archetypal example of this is Oedipus (LSE) who refuses to simply accept the situation as it is, but relentlessly pursues and explanation that makes sense, which is both his glory and his downfall. LSEs tend to want not clear, self-contained systems of Ti neatness, but systems that are free, so much as is possible, of ambiguities (not nuances, but ambiguities), "unclear" terms, indeterminate form (to borrow a math metaphor), uncertainty in the nuclear physics sense, etc. LSEs need to operate in a world that makes sense; Ni, especially beta Ni, is about operating in things that don't make sense. Thus the idea of Ni as a really, really good educated guess.

To make a little more sense of that, I think that you are LSE, because to me your desire for "no ambiguity" is reflective of Ni-polr, or at the least, Ni-nonvaluing (can't for the life of me remember the official term that's the opposite of "valuing" in socionics). This is because I associate Ni with the capacity to operate productively in ambiguous and/or unclear ground.

[Rasputin]

Extraverted logic......external dynamics of objects: focus on activity of objects (location, time, speed, etc.), what we refer to as objective parameters, leading to patterns that we call algorithms and methods. Objective parameters are like variables in an equation that form an active system occupied with variables whose values are real people and objects.

Extraverted sensing......external statics of objects: (share, texture, impact, force, etc.), what we refer to as properties of an object or objective traits, leading to action toward objects via mobilization or arrangement, manipulation of force to achieve desired results.

is less introspective than because it focuses more on taking immediate action before thinking first due to it's orientation to apprehend external statics of objects, it's as though there is a compulsion to enact the external dynamics of objects once their statics are apprehended. apprehends external dynamics of objects, already seeing how force is shared between objects as a system and seeking to implement statics of objects through proper analysis and organization into a system.

This makes the more introspective function and the more active, spontaneous function. is still concerned with action, but planned action, action coordinated with the system, hence the notion of proper action, the proper way to do things, and concern with how things are arranged...all of which can be seen to derive from principle, the implementation of principles.

I'm planning to delve into the functions more thoroughly, but this is just a start, meant to demonstrate why I see as more introspective and detailed and as more spontaneous and active.

[Azeroffs]

I was just thinking about the difference between ENTj and ESTj.
I'm fairly sure that my dad is ESTj and so I'm trying to mix experience and theory to get to some core differences.

The difference between ENTj and ESTj is like the difference between planning and execution. Both types focus on how things work around them and how to manipulate space, but at a more core level ENTj are much more aware of the big picture while ESTj are much more aware of space itself. Both want to accomplish tasks effectively and with as little waste/error as possible.

ENTj, being that they are more aware of the big picture of opportunity and possibility, know well what they have to do to accomplish as much as they can over time. The problem they have is with noticing or even skipping the small steps necessary to accomplish what they know they need to do. They are decently able to accomplish tasks however they are often worse than they would like to think as they just aren't willing to put in extra effort if they don't see long term gain. In my experience this becomes painfully obvious when trying to do any kind of work with my dad. I find myself making mistakes far too often as in general I'm just physically oblivious in combination with trying to work too fast to get it done.

ESTj, being that they are more aware of physical space, know exactly how to accomplish a task step by step and with great detail. The problem is that their efforts will often go to no end over time. As ENTjs are pretty good at accomplishing tasks, ESTj are aware of the bigger picture, but they aren't as good as they would like to think. Even though something may be important, they often miss that the extra work they do has no long term benefit, and therefore not as important as they thought. My dad will often go overboard in perfecting things for no real reason. He'll fine tune something that will just be undone later and spend extraneous amounts of time doing so.

[DirectorAbbie]

Yeah. Phoey on longterm benefit. Quality regardless of necesity. The primary differnece that I've seen is that ENTjs have a more sarcastic humor, but I've only met a few ENTjs.

[Azeroffs]

Yeah. Phoey on longterm benefit. Quality regardless of necesity. The primary differnece that I've seen is that ENTjs have a more sarcastic humor, but I've only met a few ENTjs.

Yeah, I'd say as far as interaction, there's relatively little difference, except maybe in conversation choices. Both just try to blend into the Fe-atmosphere until you get to know them.

[Azeroffs]

As far as how Te-creative is different..

Te creatives aren't as focus on changing their environment. Instead focus on how their environment naturally evolves. For SLI, that means their immediate environment and for ILI, events through time.

Te creatives, like all IPs, are observers. As they watch things change around them, they naturally gain insight into how the world works. They become experts very quickly because they thoroughly watch and understand the changing processes. They aren't drawn to change circumstances the way Te-base types are, but when they do, their expertise comes out. With slight variations between the two types, Te-creatives quite naturally do effective and detailed work without much wasted time or energy.

They are able to supervise their Te counterparts by clearly pointing out which details are unimportant and just not worth it (ILI-LSE), or by pointing out which steps are necessary to get an exact result (SLI-LIE).

[Cyrano]

As far as how Te-creative is different..

Te creatives aren't as focus on changing their environment. Instead focus on how their environment naturally evolves. For SLI, that means their immediate environment and for ILI, events through time.

Te creatives, like all IPs, are observers. As they watch things change around them, they naturally gain insight into how the world works. They become experts very quickly because they thoroughly watch and understand the changing processes. They aren't drawn to change circumstances the way Te-base types are, but when they do, their expertise comes out. With slight variations between the two types, Te-creatives quite naturally do effective and detailed work without much wasted time or energy.

They are able to supervise their Te counterparts by clearly pointing out which details are unimportant and just not worth it (ILI-LSE), or by pointing out which steps are necessary to get an exact result (SLI-LIE).

Very insightful post. As an SLI I find that I am able to adapt to my suroundings, but have a blind spot when it comes to advancing conditions. I love finding a work-around, but need an intuitive to step in with a long-term solution. Duct tape doesn't fix everything!

[Azeroffs]

Also, I think I should mention that Te isn't really about work as much as it is about knowing how the environment works and how to change it. Work is just nice example of something that requires logical action and procedure. Te is really about being aware of the how of just about anything that involves external processes and functioning which could be work just as easily as it could be play.

However, Te types more than other types, and I think gammas especially, recognize the importance of work. Work is something which must be done in order to acquire what one wants to acquire in life. Work is an action which must be taken in order to get to a certain result.

This also might be a good way of distinguishing Te-base and Te-creative. While both recognize the importance of work. Te-base is more driven to actually do it in order to change their circumstance. I think it's pattern and not necessarily a rule of course.

[stevENTj]

I'll use a car example.

An ENTj wants a fast and efficient car that gives them an image of success ( HA) and will also get them to and from wherever they need to go as quickly and as efficiently as possible.

An ESTj is more focused on keeping the car, whatever it is, looking and running great. The ESTj is the one that will wash and wax the car every single week. They'll also swap out the standard motor oil for synthetic, but then still change the synthetic oil every 3000 miles even though it can go just fine for 7500 or 10,000 miles if not longer.

Maybe the ENTj will think all of this is a complete waste of time. Why wash and wax the car every single week if it's just going to get dirty again. Ok maybe washing once in awhile, but also waxing every week? And why bother with much more expensive oil if you're still going to change it frequently?

The ENTj is thinking more about the time required to do a specific task and what if any long-term benefits there are and if the task is "worth it" or not and if they'll get a good 'return' on their efforts with their . If I wash and wax the car every week, it's still going to get dirty, and nothing is really going to change. If I change the oil way more than I need to, does that mean I'll get longer engine life or some other tangible benefit? No. Waste of time, says the ENTj.

The ESTj however is not thinking that way. They're thinking with creatively which cares not about long term benefits or whether something is worth it or not but rather the physical state of things right now. So you washed and waxed the car last week and drove it outside right? Well guess what, that means it's no longer in the "perfect" state of cleanliness so it needs to be washed and waxed again. You changed to synthetic motor oil 3000 miles ago, and even though synthetic can go 7500 or more miles easily, guess what? It's still "used" motor oil that is not in the "optimal" state and needs to be changed so that it's "perfect" again. Doesn't matter if there's really no long-term benefit or that the cost/benefit ratio hasn't been optimized yet. The physical state, right now, isn't optimal, so time to wash and wax and change the oil.

ESTjs are also the only type of people that I've seen go into barber shops who already have seemingly perfectly sculpted hair for just the slightest trimming. Doesn't matter that they could easily go another month before they'd really need a haircut and could save a whole bunch of money if they just got their haircut every month or two rather than every week. The fact is, they've deemed that the physical state of their hair is outside of their incredibly tight and exacting specifications and it must be taken care of so that it's perfect again, just like all of that washing and waxing and "needless" oil changes on the car, from the point of view of the ENTj. Barbers love ESTjs. They hardly do any work, but ESTjs still pay the same price as everybody else, and they come back every week rather than every other month.

An ESTj will be horrified at an ENTj's car, seeing that it might be 1000 miles overdue for an oil change, and that it probably hasn't been washed and waxed in a looong time. And OMGGG... look at that brake dust on your wheels! And the ENTj might not even care. An ENTj might have even had his 1000 mile overdue oil tested at a laboratory to see if he can safely squeak that extra bit of mileage out of the oil before changing it, so that he's sure he's being as efficient with his time, money, and resources as possible. Washing and waxing?? The ENTj will do this before selling the car so that he can get the very best price for it (return on investment), and probably not much if any times during actual ownership. He might even hire a professional photographer to take some pictures if he thinks he'll be able to get a higher price on the car thus justifying the expense of the photographer. It's all about return on investment and being as efficient as possible. The ESTj never has such worries when selling the car, because it still looks showroom fresh no matter the mileage. He might even have a "beater" car to drive whe the weather isn't nice that he doesn't care about as much, so as not to get his "baby" dirty.

An ESTj gets so much practice working on and maintaining things in such great condition that they can do it in their sleep, blindfolded, with one arm tied behind their back. So obviously they'll get incredibly frustrated very quickly with the ENTj who does not bother with such things very much, will make a lot of 'stupid mistakes', or miss a lot of details that the ESTj won't.

Looking for a used car? Buy one from an ESTj, but be more careful with one from an ENTj.

[DirectorAbbie]

Why synthetic oil? If I'm gonna get a car I'd want it to be as real as possible.

As for the haircut, I'd probably do that sort of thing if I hadn't been raised by a penny-pinching SLI.

I know an LSE who details cars.

[stevENTj]

A TV show example, if any of you ever watched Star Trek Voyager.

The captain, Janeway, was the ENTj. Chikote, the first officer, was ESTj. Janeway was the one always searching for the best and most efficient way that would get them home as quickly as possible, and possibly being willing to risk the health of the ship and crew along with forming questionable alliances if she thought it would help them get home faster. She and Chikote often butted heads, as he was more concerned about the fundamental well-being of the ship and crew and was not willing to take any risks, even when there were potentially huge benefits in that they could all get home a ton faster. His concern was the physical well being of the ship and crew right now . Getting home faster was not something he was nearly as concerned with.

[stevENTj]

Why synthetic oil? If I'm gonna get a car I'd want it to be as real as possible.

Because it has better protective qualities, can withstand extreme temperature cycling a lot better and doesn't break down as quickly, and you can go about twice as long between oil changes with it. It also costs twice as much as regular 'dino' oil. Synthetic is especially useful if you have a car with a turbocharged engine. Turbochargers spin at up to 100,000rpm, get extremely hot, and are often cooled at least in part via the oil. A lot of cars with factory turbocharged engines are coming with synthetic oil as standard now for this reason. If you really want to get down to the nitty gritty, synthetic oil also has a bit less drag which in theory results in better power and efficiency from the engine, but you'll be hard pressed to measure any real world difference. creatives go crazy about that and go for synthetic oil just for that reason alone, regardless if there's any "real" benefit or not. The fact is, it's better. The question is whether you're willing to pay for it or not.

I don't bother with it, but don't have a fancier car. The car I have recommended that the first oil change be done at 5000 miles. Many people said you needed to get it done at 500 or 1000 miles but I thought that was nonsense and did actually get the oil tested, at 5200 miles, by a lab that does such things. The lab results showed that the oil was definitely approaching the time to change but was still 'OK' for use, thus no need to change early, and maximizing the cost/benefit ratio. :wink:

As for the haircut, I'd probably do that sort of thing if I hadn't been raised by a penny-pinching SLI.

I know an LSE who details cars.

You're fitting the profile.

[Azeroffs]

...

I kinda got into this with my dad. I wanted to wax my hood because I just painted it myself, and he keeps pushing me to wax the whole thing. I reallly don't want to, and I even told him straight that wax will probably never touch my car again. I was just doing as one time thing to complete the painting of my hood... which looks like crap.. . The only reason I repainted it was because it started rusting and I didn't want to have to buy a new hood. At this point I don't really care what my car looks like as long as it gets me from A to B.

As for the status symbol. I could see that being important, but at this point in my life, I can't justify the expense of getting car for the purpose of status. I'd be more likely to have a higher status if I don't go into debt for a car. I want actual status not apparent status. Sometimes you have to fake it til you make it, but again at this point it's not justified.

[jonkopa]

What ways are there to distinguish the two in real life?

[blackburry]

LSEs tend to do things in moderation. LIEs tend to go overboard and be "all-or-nothing"-- Think of the guy from "Dirty Jobs"-- He's like a few of the LSEs I know.

[Saberstorm]

Look at the Reinin traits. In particular, ask Absurd about them. LSEs tend to be taller.