Differences between ILE-ENTp and SLE-ESTp

[Blaze]

ESTps are more direct. However I wouldn't call this "aggressive" really. Just direct and confrontational in the sense of being very direct. ENTps are more volatile and chaotic. This is true even in the display of aggression. ESTps are more in control of themselves.

I guess it comes down to ENTp's valuing Ne>Se. So, do ENTp's ever have clearly dileneated goals towards which they strive albeit in a chaotic and volatile way? I guess at the heart of this is really the difference between a senser and an intuiter. Are we justified in saying that Se types are more goal oriented than Ne types, or are Se types just more inclined to pursue goals in a direct fashion?

Reinin strategic types are more goal oriented than Reinin tactical types. ESTp is strategic type. ENTps, imho, are very bad at pursuing long term goals unless the goals "come to them". ENTps are good at responding to challenges in their environment and in a right kind of environment providing them challenges which lead them towards a bigger goal they can at least seem goal oriented. But if left alone ENTps just run in circles without knowing what to pursuit.

i don't agree with this.

estp's can be very impulsive, and, in the process of moving toward their goals, self destruct. so they achieve their goals but with unanticipated, self destructive consequences. they think that everyone else is stupid and incapable so they do not adequately anticipate the strength of others and how others will respond to their maneuvers. they trust no one, but think that everybody is an idiot. estp's get screwed in their goals when they have not taken into account other's strengths and abilities.

entp's can run in circles before they have made up their minds about what they want. when they are exploring a lot of possibilities (and this happens esp when they are younger). at these times they will seem unfocused and all over the place. but once they have made up their minds will move toward their goals strategically and with will and determination. entp's trust everyone, and see others' strengths and potentials easily. so entp's get screwed in their goals when their trust has not been well placed.

[Expat]

estp's can be very impulsive, and, in the process of moving toward their goals, self destruct. so they achieve their goals but with unanticipated, self destructive consequences. they think that everyone else is stupid and incapable so they do not adequately anticipate the strength of others and how others will respond to their maneuvers. they trust no one, but think that everybody is an idiot. estp's get screwed in their goals when they have not taken into account other's strengths and abilities.

rather than not take into account others' strengths and abilities, isn't it rather that they don't take into account the consequences of their actions, especially regarding how others view them?

Marlon Brando wrote in his memoirs how, in his first phase as big star, he could get away with anything once the movie was well into shooting, since the studios would never fire him and lose the money they had already spent. Amazingly, he did not seem to realize that that worked only for that movie; that the longer-term consequence was the increasing reluctance of studios to cast him at all -- which explains his "limbo" period of 9 years between Mutiny in the Bounty and The Godfather. Even decades later, he still didn't seem to make the connection.

entp's can run in circles before they have made up their minds about what they want. when they are exploring a lot of possibilities (and this happens esp when they are younger). at these times they will seem unfocused and all over the place. but once they have made up their minds will move toward their goals strategically and with will and determination. entp's trust everyone, and see others' strengths and potentials easily. so entp's get screwed in their goals when their trust has not been well placed.

That makes sense.

[Blaze]

rather than not take into account others' strengths and abilities, isn't it rather that they don't take into account the consequences of their actions, especially regarding how others view them?

yes i do see this as well...that others get to know their tactics over time and move to respond. but they still underestimate the strength of others and how far others can be pushed before they will push back. with force. trust me, i know.

[jughead]

How do you tell the difference between iles and sle's? as somone else said Ile's fi polr is quickly apparent. I agree and quickly see it when they get into trouble. Whats the compare and contrast from your personal expirience...try to avoid circle jerking me with theory.

[strrrng]

Fi polr in ILEs seems to manifest more in a blithe, social awkwardness, where silly/absurd things are said/done as some haphazard means to gauge a social 'position.' it also has a more consistent quality, as they are looking for Si, and so will test changing boundaries in various ways. it sometimes feels childish, as if they simply want to see how they can prod you.

SLEs seem to be more unwittingly aloof and unconcerned with basic personal boundaries and social rules. the disregard for this comes as a price for the constant gauging of different power positions, and they often overstep themselves, undermining whatever temporary gain they believed their action to offer. however, I do find their ability to overlook people past a degree of basic usefulness to be... helpful, as it allows me to communicate with them from an objective standpoint, and build a more effective strategy.

[jughead]

cool i have probably made friends randomly with an sle then at a bar.
i take it back, he sounds more like ile now
any other opinions/observations etc?

[jughead]

If this person is SLE I just kinda hang around him passively though and have barely added any input so far. I need some videos probably.
It seems then the social scene would not offer much oppurtunity for SLE's compared to ILE's nor attract them, hence the sterotypical NF vs SF clubs (bad analogy but you get what i mean)

Perhaps i should start reading art of war, the prince etc.....

[silverchris9]

...the trouble with "concrete examples" as opposed to "circle jerking... with theory" is that concrete examples are poor ways to type as socionics doesn't really deal with predicting behavior, and when you try to predict behavior via socionics, you are generally carried wide of the mark and into limitless error. On the other hand, by describing generalities through "theory," we can make statements that a) more accurately reflect how a larger percentage of people of a given type will behave, and b) are less likely to apply to many people of other types. This is especially important when dealing with how to differentiate two types.[/sermon]

Now, that said: I can always tell from the lack of Se. Let me give some examples of two people I know really well. One is an ILE from my a capella group (let's call him ILE), the other is an SLE that I know from high school (let's call him SLE). Now, ILE and SLE both have readily apparent Fi-polrs. ILE is very comfortable offending people, pushing the boundaries of "appropriate" or "tasteful," and is constantly upbraided by his kindred, an IEE mutual friend of ours, rebuke which he takes smilingly and which does not really negatively affect their relationship. He does not hesitate to state when someone has said something stupid and say so harshly. He often tells jokes to diffuse tension, caring more about improving the general emotional atmosphere (Fe-HA) than how the tension-diffusing joke might make the person at who's expense the joke is, feel bad/hurt/offended/etc (Fi-polr). SLE is equally obvious with the Fi-polr. Some of my favorite examples, which I've mentioned on this forum before, are asking me if he should apologize for telling people that he has a black friend (me) as proof that he's not racist (typical Fi-polr move, an attempt to re-route what is really an Fi-issue through a Ti-circuit, a sort of categorical rule); asking a girl he didn't even know very well if her boobs were real (while sober, no less!); and many other little Fi-blunders like that.

But ILE has more of a "see what will happen" approach, like, he thinks of something and just throws it out to "see what will happen," a typical Ne thing to do, acting for the sake of gauging the response. SLE, on the other hand, has more of a "be direct" approach. He'll say something that may hurt or offend someone because he wants to know, or wants to deal with the subject, but just doesn't know how to approach it in a tactful way, and decides to just go for broke and say it straight out. If ILE and SLE are both approaching a conversation they don't really know how to navigate, ethically speaking, ILE is more likely to say something offensive in a joke, in an attempt to diffuse tension. SLE is more likely to say something offensive by stating something in a blunt manner, without euphemisms or gloss. Also, notice that ILE will hurt someone's feelings as a means of returning things to an emotionally comfortable state (i.e., SiFe superid). SLE will hurt someone's feelings in an attempt to

SLE is particularly okay with hurting people's feelings in an attempt to get them to "face the truth". He almost considers this a virtue. This is especially typical of the SeTi way of seeing certain things as absolutely black and white, these are the facts. He's a Christian, and often speaks of "holding people to what the Bible says." Of course, I try to point out that "what the Bible says" isn't really all that unambiguous, or at the very least, as if we shouldn't act as though you can really "hold" people to a single interpretation of a text as if that were the only way of interpreting said text. But Se is focused on "the way it is," and as such wants to see as many things as possible as unambiguously "the way it is." So SLE wants to force people to "face reality," to deal with "the way it is," "what the Bible says" (in this particular example, but it could just as easily be "what the facts of the case are," "the reality of life on the streets," "the way things play out in real human lives," etc.), and is completely fine with stepping on some emotional toes to do so.

ILE, on the other hand, doesn't offend people by forcing them to hold to "the way it is." ILEs in general are much more inclined to note all the ways that things could be, certainly not "THE WAY it is." So they're not going to offend people in an attempt to make them face reality. They're going to tend to offend people in a way that says, "why are you being so rigid? Why are you clinging to this social system? I'm going to offend you to shock you out of your narrow perspective." To return to the ILE I know, he'll say something offensive to this EIE (another mutual friend) in a way that mocks his typical beta intensity, laser focus on "the goal." ILE will make fun of people (Fi-polr stuff) when they're being "too intense" or "too dramatic" and not "easygoing" enough. ILEs are more interested in breaking people out of one way of seeing THE TRUTH (and will hurt their feelings to do so), while SLEs are more interested in

Also, this is somewhat theoretical, but this whole post I've been using "hurt their feelings" as shorthand for "cause them harm by failing to consider, or just ignoring Fi." Of course "hurt their feelings" isn't really the only thing Fi-polr does. Really, Fi-polr doesn't "hurt people's feelings." Rather, it ignores perceived duties towards others in favor of something "more important," which is generally input from one of the valued functions. For example, we have a perceived social duty not to make fun of authority figures, to respect authority figures. Well, an ILE would gladly stomp on that perceived social duty and make fun of the authority figure for reasons related to the valued function: Ne, most of all, questioning why on earth this person is considered an authority figure, what gives him/her the right to be immune from mockery just 'cause they claim to be some sort of authority, but also Ti, questioning the logic of submitting to the authority figure "just because," or just questioning the intelligence of the authority figure or the validity of his/her decisions. An SLE would be more inclined to ignore the social duty to show that the authority figure "isn't the boss of me," that the authority figure is lower on the power hierarchy than he thinks, and that the SLE is higher (classic example of this is the SLE in The Breakfast Club making fun of the principal).

So yeah, hope those examples were clear/helpful!

[Nowisthetime]

About ILEs:

Sometimes Fi-polr makes ILEs quite the opposite of the stereotype about them. It's the other extreme.

One ILE was very upset when he heard that a colleague of him had had sex with a prostitute. They where not friends or anything, but the ILE said that he had "lost all respect for him" because of what he did. Other people who heard about this were just "yeah, whatever...".

Some ILEs can act almost too polite in unexpected situations. Saying things like "thank you" and "please" when I think it's not really needed. Of course ILEs can use politeness as irony, but sometimes there's something else going on.

And of course the thing about treating everybody as a friend. Sometimes this strengthens the duality experience of "already knowing each other" that I can have with them.

[Creepy-male]

ILEs in general are much more inclined to note all the ways that things could be, certainly not "THE WAY it is." So they're not going to offend people in an attempt to make them face reality...

Yea I think the big thing also is the ILEs tend to just say stuff for fun to explore different ideas which to some Fi types may seem perverse or morally offensive.

However its just the Ne type playing with imaginary scenarios. Their Irrational nature usually means that they typically can juggle an idea around without having a decisive opinion about it at the time.

I'd actually say Seth MacFarlane seems ILE, in the way family guy will take random turns and play out imaginary scenario which are mostly morally offensive and assholish but somewhat entertaining in a nerdy alpha way.

[Creepy-male]

Some ILEs can act almost too polite in unexpected situations. Saying things like "thank you" and "please" when I think it's not really needed.

This seems more like Role-Fi...

but this could be how an insecure or nervous ILE acts in a situation.

[Nowisthetime]

This seems more like Role-Fi...

but this could be how an insecure or nervous ILE acts in a situation.

I agree, but I've seen it in ILEs also. But maybe it's not a good example of Fi polr.

[silverchris9]

Sometimes Fi-polr makes ILEs quite the opposite of the stereotype about them. It's the other extreme.

Oh, yeah, good point. Someone analogous to the idea of "counterphobia" in enneagram, many people will OVER-emphasize their polr, constantly afraid of tripping up on it but actually missing the point altogether. I don't know about ILEs, but I've had SLEs ask me "are we okay? did I offend you? are you offended?" when I wasn't offended at all. It's just that they don't have a good gauge for it. I imagine an ILE would be similar.

I'd actually say Seth MacFarlane seems ILE, in the way family guy will take random turns and play out imaginary scenario which are mostly morally offensive and assholish but somewhat entertaining in a nerdy alpha way.

Agreed.

Yea I think the big thing also is the ILEs tend to just say stuff for fun to explore different ideas which to some Fi types may seem perverse or morally offensive.

Yeah. Another way of saying it is that ILEs like to question taboos. So there's this big taboo about, say, incest. Alright then, let's make a cartoon that makes an incest joke. Or say a celebrity just died. Well, let's make a joke about that celebrity. These are all things that break taboos, that break the rules of what you can and can't say. But the ILE isn't doing them to "make a statement," they're just doing it because they can. They're doing it for the sheer joy of exploration, of "why not?" (this is what pisses off gammas the most, btw). The SLE would be doing it to make a statement about how the taboos or moral expectations are silly and don't reflect the real world, or how they're just arbitrary and you should just do what you have to do to achieve your goals and ignore them, or something like that.

Also, ILEs are questioning the taboo, but SLEs are smashing the taboo. It goes back to another quadra dynamics metaphor: if there's two sheets of fabric, alpha says, "let's unsew the seam between these two sheets of fabric and peek behind," beta says, "the two pieces are completely apart," gamma says "let's sew the seam between these two sheets of fabric," and delta says, "the two pieces are completely together." So an ILE will work within the general framework of "decency" because it is more comfortable, more towards physical and emotional homeostasis (SiFe) to do so. They just want to say, "look how this could be different?" "You know, it doesn't have to be this way." "Well, don't cling to that, look it could be 100% the opposite way." An SLE will refuse to work within the general framework of decency where it does not fit his/her personal view of "how things are." An SLE wants to say, "this taboo is wrong," "this taboo is stupid," "let's ignore this and just get it done." So in one way, the ILE is making a statement, but it's sort of a sly, implication: "Look! It could be completely opposite!" Whereas the SLE doesn't even have time to make a statement; he's just like, "okay, we're gonna rip through this cloth/taboo, because we're headed to something on the other side. What? If it didn't want to get ripped down, it should've moved! It saw me coming!"

btw, taboos are something I associate strongly with a) Fi, and b) gamma quadra in particular. Along the lines of the whole "quadra dynamics" thing, I see gamma as the quadra that institutes new taboos, which are sort of backed up by force until they're passed along to delta, which, to my mind, takes the taboos for granted as just a part of the way things are/part of homeostasis, part of the background, part of what we expect (Fi, I feel, has a lot to do with expectations, and making evaluations based on whether those a priori expectations have been fulfilled or not).

[Nowisthetime]

Oh, yeah, good point. Someone analogous to the idea of "counterphobia" in enneagram, many people will OVER-emphasize their polr, constantly afraid of tripping up on it but actually missing the point altogether. I don't know about ILEs, but I've had SLEs ask me "are we okay? did I offend you? are you offended?" when I wasn't offended at all. It's just that they don't have a good gauge for it. I imagine an ILE would be similar.

One ILE woman who is a teacher of philosophy is very rigid about "correct" behavior and she is very vocal about it. At an informal gathering someone took a picture and she immediately protested: "Please erase the picture from your camera, I want you to ask before taking pictures of me".

At the same gathering some of the men took their shirts off because the sun was shining and we were sitting outside. Later she commented on this in a negative way, making connections to the equality between the sexes, because as a woman, she would not be able to expose her upper body in the same way in a social situation. Then she philosophized about this for some time, about the social consequences of the sexual connotations of womens breasts, and what to do about it etc.

[Creepy-male]

Yeah. Another way of saying it is that ILEs like to question taboos. So there's this big taboo about, say, incest. Alright then, let's make a cartoon that makes an incest joke. Or say a celebrity just died. Well, let's make a joke about that celebrity. These are all things that break taboos............

and so forth

I agree completely, well said.

I think Fi takes on a different form for ethical types than it does for thinkers.

Since it is weak in thinking types, they tend to view it more from a super-ego frame rather than an id frame.

For ethicals Fi based motives come from an emotional/feeling center where they actually have a feeling/passion about something (id).

By id/super-ego I mean freudian terms.

[Aiss]

This was one example, I know SLEs of different kinds, but what they have in common is some sort of "whatever" attitude.

Lol, true, though not at all obvious based just on knowledge of elements. I've actually thought it might be an argument against this type in the beginning.

ILE and SLE I know reasonably well differ in age, social circle, family situation etc., so I'm not sure how much of my observations are socionics-related, but I'd say the former is definitely more "pushy" about some matters (or maybe I just don't like poor Se). When dealing with issues typically associated with Fi, ILE will be more awkwardly direct and forceful, jumping to conclusions, where SLE would rather be uncertain or hesitant. I know it may sound as if I got their typings backward, but that's only when it comes to Fi. I suspect it could be because of blocks - when dealing with PoLR, people seem to quickly default to their super-ego block over a stronger alternative pairing of elements, as if it was unstable. An example of this behaviour in ILE would be going over the top with hostility, basically declaring war over a slight. Or when using Se-role, totally trumping over their relations with others. In the case of SLE, it isn't really a problem, I'd rather say he's sometimes clueless as to where he stands with people or how his actions affect the relation. So when he doesn't think about it, he might show crudeness like silverchris described, but when he does, it results in uncertainty how to act (which is probably unnerving to a Se-ego) - again, something like silverchris's example, this time of asking if it's alright to use their friendship as an argument .

[Shazaam]

Ah, good question.

ENTp talks more in concepts and ideas and abstracts. ESTps is more grounded to 'raw reality' and the here and now.

I love ENTps to death, because we're almost duals anyway really (and I'm the lookalike of their duals, and vice-versa) but we both need somebody more physical and neither can provide.

[Wynch]

One ILE woman who is a teacher of philosophy is very rigid about "correct" behavior and she is very vocal about it. At an informal gathering someone took a picture and she immediately protested: "Please erase the picture from your camera, I want you to ask before taking pictures of me".

At the same gathering some of the men took their shirts off because the sun was shining and we were sitting outside. Later she commented on this in a negative way, making connections to the equality between the sexes, because as a woman, she would not be able to expose her upper body in the same way in a social situation. Then she philosophized about this for some time, about the social consequences of the sexual connotations of womens breasts, and what to do about it etc.

I find this really interesting. Under these circumstances if I decided it was unfair that it was more socially acceptable for men to take their shirts off in public then I would take my shirt off as a big fuck you to social convention. Granted, it's legal for me to do so here in Ontario. Nonetheless, I would do it and relish the moment.

@Silverchris: I think your posts have been incredibly astute. I particularly agree with this "But ILE has more of a "see what will happen" approach, like, he thinks of something and just throws it out to "see what will happen," a typical Ne thing to do, acting for the sake of gauging the response."

I partially agree with this: "But the ILE isn't doing them to "make a statement," they're just doing it because they can. They're doing it for the sheer joy of exploration, of "why not?" (this is what pisses off gammas the most, btw)."

I definitely do it to make a statement a lot of the time. As above, challenging taboo is partially looking for a battle. It's like daring people to call me out on it, to tell me I'm doing something wrong, so that I can challenge the basis of that argument. If I think something is illogical or stupid, I will often make a mockery of it in the hopes that someone will call me out and I then have an invitation to take apart the problem piece by piece.

That said, the experimental aspect is still quite accurate imo. I think it comes out most in new social circumstances. Myself and my ILE friend share in common a tendency to steamroll social awkwardness. We dislike the feeling of awkward silences or people's social discomfort so we kind of pretend we're overly familiar with everyone and throw caution to the wind. It's kind of a "what do I have to lose?" attitude. That frequently results in trumping awkward with awkward, but we're completely willing to shrug that off at our own expense. Again, it comes back to this idea of making a mockery of taboo. Everythings awkward? Well why don't we point out how awkward it is by being EVEN MORE AWKWARD. We don't mind breaking the ice by being outrageously inappropriate.


SIDE EDIT: Everytime I post I think I'm Ashton.

[Wynch]

Edit: is there in English the expression "to hide behind one's finger"? Yeah, that's a Fi-PoLR one, IMO.

Can you elaborate on what it's supposed to mean? I'm not familiar with an idiom of the same wording, but we may have something else.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Maybe he means giving someone the finger and saying, "screw you", otherwise no eyed dear.

[Wynch]

Ah, that could be it.

[Wynch]

Maybe it's just me, but I'm not doing that. In such circumstances I get angry and either leave (and never visit that place again) or complain - going to ask for explanations from a responsible, etc.

I think maybe you misunderstood the situation? In most places in North America men are allowed to have their shirts off in public, but not women. Even when it is legal for women to have their shirts off (where I live), most don't ever do it, not even on the beach, because it isn't socially acceptable. I was saying that if I decided I wanted to take my shirt off, I would just do it and say hell to the taboo. There's no one to complain to about it, it's the outdoors.

Other times I behave naturally, as this is how I'm used to, nothing special. For example I have a peculiarity: when I'm at a desk at a workplace, I always take my shoes or boots off and place my feet on my sitting chair, you know like Turkish style, or Japanese style (on my knees), and different position which I change regularly. Of course, I'm doing that at home as well - except the shoe part .
I don't ask whether it's allowed or not, I simply do it, it is unlikely to hear "yes, please, take your shoes off here in the office" . If the owners or managers have a problem with that, they just have to tell me, I'm not trying to "challenge the convention" - that's absolutely of no interest to me.

I do that too, except I take my shoes off and prop my feet on my computer.

It means that you pretend to do/appear in some manner, but it's obviously not that. In general this is told to a person who uses a lot of euphemisms or avoids to address the subject directly. Like let's say someone comes to evict you from your house and he begins by telling you that he just came to talk to you.

Certainly I knew this expression but I forgot it, I'll look for it on the web, must be something similar.

That's actually hilarious. The image of someone hiding behind their finger is so perfect.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Yeah, thinking about it, I think it's like you just see from behind your finger that you're "behind" something, but actually your body is visible - and the finger is part of your body as well .

How can you be invisible while you post? 5ish or 15ish, as long as you post, you're visible, thinking that someone is identifying you with that green widget is a delusion.

It is true that when you're invisible, one can't see your current activity on your profile, like what thread are you currently viewing, although that was not what you were thinking about.

Wow, u r such an LSE. (j/k)

IMO the more you try to hide, the more you make people curious. I'm still interested in your pictures,

ENFps can like it.

[Wynch]

Yeah I know, when no one does that it feels a bit awkward, instead of relaxing, you become some sort of curiosity and target for different remarks.

But I don't think this is about taboo, but about like/dislike. Although I could not blame anyone, I prefer not to see the boobs of every woman there, so most likely I'd feel bad or disgusted about some, so the place would probably loose me as a client, as long as I'm not feeling good.

I assume more likely Fe Rational types use to ask for banning such things?

It is a taboo in North America. It's a different environment here than it is in Europe. In Vienna I could go to the Danube and women would be topless all over the place. There wasn't a real issue with it, it's a beach/park. Here in North America even on a beach if a woman were to take off her bikini top and lie in the sun people would wonder what the hell was going on because that's not socially acceptable at all. The only place where it's really acceptable for women to go topless is inside their house or on a beach for nudists. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if when I went to the beach near my house and lay topless in the sun that someone would try to kick me off the beach for public indecency, not realizing that in Ontario that's perfectly legal.

Clearly not me. Neither one or the other, neither to make a statement - this, in any case no - nor "because I can", but because it came to my mind and I see no problem in that. Everything "social" is out of question, and IME this is applicable to ILEs. But I see SLEs doing that, maybe more the "because I can" thingie.

I think the average ILE is aware that social conventions exist and that they're making conscious decisions to break those conventions. When I'm making a statement, it's because I see no problem in what I'm doing. If I saw a problem with it, I wouldn't do it. But at the same time I know that while I don't see a problem with it, other people do. In those cases a part of me wants the people who have a problem with it to say something so that I can correct them in their thinking. In my mind, their stance on the subject is unreasonable, after all I don't see a problem with it. When I think someone is unreasonable in their position I feel I need to correct them. It's why to this day I still can't resist challenging you on your opinion of my type

And Vero, I criticize the behavior you talk about in your second paragraph, if you read my debate with crazed or strrrng about using an ideal as a cause compared to having it merely a conclusion of your reasoning; also I wrote about this when I made the difference between what I call non-conformists and "non-conformists" - the quotes being exactly what makes them rather antonyms, "non-conformists" being fake non-conformists, they don't do things differently because they found more proper that way, but for the sake of being different. I think that's more Fi valuing.

I'm not intentionally looking to challenge the taboos or ethical rules, I basically don't give a shit about them, unless they interfere with my purposes or leave me a bad taste. Only then I check for them and usually find them absurd, but not always. (one previous example was that ridiculous squared hat of the graduates). And the other ILEs, apart me, I perceive them living in their world and not interested in taboos or what other people do - I'd say that I'm one of the most socially-oriented ILEs I know, maybe since this damn Socionics - IMO it is a misrepresentation of this type to say that they look for provocations to pick intellectual fights.

First, you're assuming that someone who hasn't explained the rational for non-conformity is somehow ingenuine in their behaviour, which is unfair. Additionally, I think you're over-generalizing. For instance, the case of my experimentation is an example of non-conformity in the face of a system that doesn't work. The system of formal greeting processes and the proper distance with new acquaintances creates unnecessary awkwardness, so rather than settle for a system that doesn't work, my friend and I try something different. This experimentation is often haphazard and we're partly curious to see how people will react to our antics, but it is ultimately motivated by an ineffective system.

Second, as a woman, social taboos very frequently interfere with my purposes and leave me with a bad taste. Perhaps this is part of the disconnect between the experiences of male and female ILEs that Blaze and I have noted in the past. We come from different social experiences where expectations are also notably different. In the case of women those demands are often pretty ridiculous and don't have any basis in logic.

Yes, an occasion to make your point is always welcome. But I usually stick into the discussion and say what I wan to say, I find a connection between what was saying and my subject and this is not so hard to do. It's not so hard to talk with you about Fi-PoLR and somehow the subject to be linked with Cyclops' pictures. <- see? it's already connected, it just misses a controversial element that will make it stick, like something that will be asked about or denied (for example that Cyclops is so anal about his pictures because he's one of those anal IEEs). That kind of things, all things are connected with each other, in one way or another.

I don't know what your point is here. It's not as though I've said that ILEs go out of their way to pick a fight for no reason. Something around them will remind them, they make a connection, and that's where it starts. In the case of my example about taking off my shirt, I said it in reference to Nowisthetime's teacher.

I said: "Under these circumstances..."

The circumstance was from Nowisthetime's post: "At the same gathering some of the men took their shirts off because the sun was shining and we were sitting outside"

The teacher commented on the injustice and I said that I wouldn't have bothered with ranting about injustice. If I felt it was stupid that men could go shirtless and I couldn't (like it is in North America) then I would just take off my shirt. And yup, part of me would want someone to challenge me so I could establish exactly why this social custom was unreasonable.

[xerx]

I don't mind offending someone to get him to see possibilities. With some exceptions.

[strrrng]

Lol, true, though not at all obvious based just on knowledge of elements. I've actually thought it might be an argument against this type in the beginning.

ILE and SLE I know reasonably well differ in age, social circle, family situation etc., so I'm not sure how much of my observations are socionics-related, but I'd say the former is definitely more "pushy" about some matters (or maybe I just don't like poor Se). When dealing with issues typically associated with Fi, ILE will be more awkwardly direct and forceful, jumping to conclusions, where SLE would rather be uncertain or hesitant. I know it may sound as if I got their typings backward, but that's only when it comes to Fi. I suspect it could be because of blocks - when dealing with PoLR, people seem to quickly default to their super-ego block over a stronger alternative pairing of elements, as if it was unstable. An example of this behaviour in ILE would be going over the top with hostility, basically declaring war over a slight. Or when using Se-role, totally trumping over their relations with others. In the case of SLE, it isn't really a problem, I'd rather say he's sometimes clueless as to where he stands with people or how his actions affect the relation. So when he doesn't think about it, he might show crudeness like silverchris described, but when he does, it results in uncertainty how to act (which is probably unnerving to a Se-ego) - again, something like silverchris's example, this time of asking if it's alright to use their friendship as an argument .

I agree completely about the SLE thing. (mentioned this once, I think)... literally spent 3 hours with an Se-SLE female discussing interpersonal strategies to better aid her power plays against a manipulative boyfriend. it wasn't treated as overtly significant, but it was obvious that every reaction she got from him was taken in on shaky ground, leading her to constantly reassess his intentions and whatnot (though, comically, never losing sight of her possessing a superior position of power, tangibly -- i.e. "I'm more attractive, he wants me to introduce him to my family -- fuck that, I don't need you -- etc. etc.). it got to the point where I basically had to ghostwrite text messages for her; yet unsurprisingly, she took my advice with passive agreement, as if I was merely clarifying what she knew vaguely beforehand. at one point she blithely says, "you're fuckin cool, dude" and offers more weed; this again illustrated the effect that gradual NiFe appropriate actions induced in her, regarding my position in her own hierarchy and the sense of personal boundaries (with beta STs, as long as you 'play by their rules' and demonstrate an understanding of their import, their favor increases exponentially, with personal disposition subserved to hierarchical standing). it was a comedic illustration of duality...

Hmm. I've had a lot of SLE friends and relatives over the years, and what sticks out to me is them being quite sensitive towards issues of whether someone likes/dislikes them. The vast majority have all been kind and caring people ( PoLR is frequently misconceived as making people cunning assholes, this just isn't true). They also frequently go to great lengths to make sure everyone's having a good time, things like that are important to them—to the point that many take it personally if you aren't. As a rule, I find SLEs have a lot of emotional vulnerability that the stereotypes don't avail.

Surprisingly, I have little to no experience with ILEs in any relational capacity, so I can't comment on that.

yeah, I agree about the emotional vulnerability. a lot of SLEs actually feel relatively 'soft' to me, in the sense of being quite malleable and genuinely open to emotional/personal input that can yield greater insight into their motivations and better clarify approaches they take toward others. the light-hearted naivete that accompanies this trait, makes it all-the-more endearing lol.

Perhaps i should start reading art of war, the prince etc.....

they are both invaluable

[redbaron]

I didn't read through this thread.

Fi polr is so funny. Stuff comes out that they didn't think through first or can't possibly know (or be bothered with) how it's going to affect the other person. In a way, it's a healthy way to be. I love people who speak their mind bluntly. If an SLE says something that might be interpreted negatively by someone in the room, I might add a comment that tones it down a notch. Or laugh, indicating that the comment was okay with me and nobody else should be offended. Smoothing it over is my job when I'm around these types and I do it automatically without even realizing it.

ILEs seem more child-like, wide-eyed, clueless about it. ILEs *might* be more inclined than SLEs to be sad if they knew how their comment was coming across? That could be wrong though. Maybe it's just the ones I know.

SLEs seem more confident (at least in their presentation), and not caring as much what others think of them. SLEs might shrug and write off the person who was offended with "whatever".

[mfckr]

^^^ Just sounds like impulsiveness, not unique to PoLR.

[xerx]

^^^ Just sounds like impulsiveness, not unique to PoLR.

It's practically the definition of Fi PoLR. Ti PoLR would be impulsive in the implied sense, but about Ti related stuff.

ILEs seem more child-like, wide-eyed, clueless about it. ILEs *might* be more inclined than SLEs to be sad if they knew how their comment was coming across? That could be wrong though. Maybe it's just the ones I know.

That's actually true of me and a few other ILEs. We have a better idea of how our comments can come across because of Ne (still nowhere near as good as IEEs), since we can keep track of other people's mental states better than anyone else.

[strrrng]

since we can keep track of other people's mental states better than anyone else.

how does this follow from what you said?

[mfckr]

That's actually true of me and a few other ILEs. We have a better idea of how our comments can come across because of Ne (still nowhere near as good as IEEs), since we can keep track of other people's mental states better than anyone else.

Lol. You guys just think you do.

[silverchris9]

That's actually true of me and a few other ILEs. We have a better idea of how our comments can come across because of Ne (still nowhere near as good as IEEs), since we can keep track of other people's mental states better than anyone else.

bs. Ni is also good at guessing other people's mental states, NiFe even more so. That said, what an NiFe would consider the important aspects of a person's mental state and what an NeFi would consider the important aspects of a person's mental state differ significantly. So really, IEEs would do best at the kind of monitoring of someone's mental state that you're talking about, but an IEI, EIE, or EII might be able to accomplish an equal level of results.

[mfckr]

bs. Ni is also good at guessing other people's mental states, NiFe even more so. That said, what an NiFe would consider the important aspects of a person's mental state and what an NeFi would consider the important aspects of a person's mental state differ significantly. So really, IEEs would do best at the kind of monitoring of someone's mental state that you're talking about, but an IEI, EIE, or EII might be able to accomplish an equal level of results.

Yeah, I actually do believe gives the greatest edge in accurate awareness of others' mental states.

Though I think you're going to be generally better at reading people of your own quadra regardless. and confuse the shit out of each other quite frequently.

[silverchris9]

ILEs seem more child-like, wide-eyed, clueless about it. ILEs *might* be more inclined than SLEs to be sad if they knew how their comment was coming across? That could be wrong though. Maybe it's just the ones I know.

SLEs seem more confident (at least in their presentation), and not caring as much what others think of them. SLEs might shrug and write off the person who was offended with "whatever".

I think I agree. I think that SLEs tend to be like me/maybe IEIs in that they have a very limited circle of people whose opinions they care about. If you are not in that circle, they don't care. But if some IEI whose opinion they valued was offended by something they said, it would be a big deal. Whereas I think ILEs are more likely to be to sad if they feel like they're really hurting just about anyone. Perhaps an aristocratic/democratic thing?

[redbaron]

I think I agree. I think that SLEs tend to be like me/maybe IEIs in that they have a very limited circle of people whose opinions they care about. If you are not in that circle, they don't care. But if some IEI whose opinion they valued was offended by something they said, it would be a big deal. Whereas I think ILEs are more likely to be to sad if they feel like they're really hurting just about anyone. Perhaps an aristocratic/democratic thing?

yeah that sounds right.

[strrrng]

Yes. A new york state of mind.

[silverchris9]

don't smile heart that. I hate Billy Joel with all my soul.

...i just like that one song.

[strrrng]

oh, I thought you were referencing nas. forgive my racial stereotyping.

[silverchris9]

oh, I thought you were referencing nas. forgive my racial stereotyping.

lol. I don't even know the nas song. But thank you for thinking I'm cool enough to listen to nas. All I know is "roll up every station, wreck the DJ" or whatever.

[Creepy-male]

Ah, good question.

ENTp talks more in concepts and ideas and abstracts. ESTps is more grounded to 'raw reality' and the here and now.

I love ENTps to death, because we're almost duals anyway really (and I'm the lookalike of their duals, and vice-versa) but we both need somebody more physical and neither can provide.

lol yep this is one of the reasons I think I am ILE, my two good friends in highschool were SLE and IEI. Everytime I hang out with the IEI friend we get along really well and our intuitive abstract sense usually works together very well, but we end up not being grounded and realistic enough and we just sit around philosophizing and smoking weed all day. My SLE friend and me got along well for 1-2 years in which we were both curious/impressed by each other but then we started to always compete with each other because each of our egos were the other persons role. I wanted to believe I was really competent with Se, but I would lose interest quickly and go more abstract with the Ne....he wanted to believe he was really competent with the Ne, but he would lose interest and go back to be grounded. Eventually we would both try to one up each other and we'd get on each others nerves. I would use logic and intuition to make good arguments to annoy his mind, and he would use Se to just bulldoze through this all and go for the jugular saying things to upset me. I would remind him he wasn't good with his role function and he'd do the same to me. After something like 1-2 years of constantly being in a sort of cold war against each other, we finally learned to tolerate each other, but still the grounded/intuition thing constantly gets in the way... which is something I don't like about socionics. I think SLEs and ILEs can make a positive relationship if they know how to deal with that relationship. Its supposed to be competitive but the other persons ego is supposed to help you with developing and challenging your weaknesses. Some distance and mediation is required though, its a sort of competitive, mutual admiration at a distance thing.