LSE/ESTj Subtypes - discussion and examples

[UDP]

But Se is supposed to be an unconscious function. Which means you shouldn't be thinking consciously about it, right?

Well what does that mean?

Also I don't think you answered two of my questions. The first was - What if the person you're asking questions of just doesn't want to talk about it?

I missed that. But I sort of answered it anyways. It depends entirely on what "it" is. If it isn't that big of a deal than I don't care. Obviously people aren't going to tell me everything. And, I don't want to know a lot of things anyways. If it is not pertinent to whatever business, then I don't really care.

But when I get "paranoid", or am in an unhealthy state, then things can seem more suspicious, and people's reticence will seem more threatening. Sometimes even so much as to create problems that are not there.

The second was - What "negative behaviors" were you seeing in me, the ones that will push away my dual?

I wasn't talking about "you", Minde. I was talking about everyone in general. Every person has negative qualities that will drive their dual away - that will drive everyone away.

I wonder what idolatrie would say about that... From what I can tell, she doesn't seem to have many of these "normal" traits. I could be wrong, though, of course.

Normal?

Minde, you still seem to be interpreting unhealthy behavior as "normal". Why did you put normal in quotes?

[Christy B]

I should say something here about the LSE and asking lots of questions. In several situations this has actually helped me, a lot. By asking questions, hard questions, that maybe at times I didn't want to talk about, they have been able to help me.

If they take the information I give them and then offer some advice about what I should or could DO with that information, I really appreciate this.

[Minde]

UDP, I don't think we're on the same wavelength. Maybe I'll try again later.

[UDP]

Yeah, we don't seem to be connecting at the moment. That sounds like a good idea.

[idolatrie]

Guys. Whoa. There's a heap of things I want to respond to here, so instead of quoting people I'm just going to structure it my way.

On Questioning People
I have to admit I didn't think I did this that much. I mean, that's just not part of my self image, that I'm this interrogative individual. But I thought about a close LSE friend I have, and I guess one could interpret his behaviour as interrogative. I can see how he uses lots of questions to suss people out upon meeting them. to work out what sort of positions they have. He usually takes a more active approach with regards to that than I do, but they are all questions I would ask myself. I have noticed that sometimes people are slightly taken aback by the number of questions he lobs at them, and usually don't ask him stuff back - so it ends up seeming really one-sided. But I don't think he realises that.

Which led me to the realisation that I too do it. I just don't think about it at all. I find it very difficult to just 'sense' what people think - about me or situations or whatever, so I need to ask them to find out. And there's also this bizarre need for balance and equality in a conversation - if someone asks me a question, then I'll reply as fully as I can and then I'll add a question of my own on. Just so the conversation feels equal. It's like an imperative cannot break unless I consciously decide I want to signal to the other person I don't want to continue the conversation/interaction.

So yeah, LSEs probably do ask a lot of questions. But I don't think it is Se driven. It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them. It's like using Te and Si to make up for Fi. (I think. Someone more socionically inclined feel free to advise.)

I don't think the purpose is to test people per se. I see testing people emotionally as screwing around with them to force them to give you some kind of emotional response that they particularly want. I think someone did this to me and it fucked me over pretty badly, so I can say with 100% sincerity that I never want to intentionally do that to someone else.

Trying to determine the power dynamics in a situation and using questions to try to nudge them into revealing their position in the power hierarchy in the situation is something else entirely though. Though I prefer to not be overt about working that out! Again, I think it is using other functions to cope with needing Fi help.

On Asking Inappropriate Questions
So as a corollary of asking lots of questions in order to work out how to relate to people, I guess it is inevitable that sometimes those questions will be Inappropriate and possibly even Annoying As Fuck. Um...oops? I know I've done this and I've totally cringed about it afterwards. But I don't always learn from my mistakes and I'll no doubt do this again. It happens. If I was perfect, I'd be a damn robot. And that would be sad. Because I've heard that all the mechanics are SLIs, and then I'll never find my dual!

Seriously though. If something's inappropriate, tell me!

On Badgering the Witness
What about constantly asking the same question? Well, the LSE in question could just be a dumbass, and have the people-skills of a rock. I'm the first to admit that LSEs need all the Fi help they can get, but um, I do think we're you know, socially functional. We're not SLIs, after all. (Sorry SLIs, I totally <3 you!)

But trying to think of when I might do this. It could be as a kind of barometer for changes in attitude to some internal benchmark I have. Like I have a friend who I used to have a crush on someone I know, but she wouldn't tell me who at the time. So I'd ask her whenever I saw her 'so are you going to tell me who he is now??' to kind of work out where she was at regarding her feelings towards him. And she'd blush and stuff, and I'd get a reaction. And I'd file that all away in my little mental folder for their relationship. Did this annoy her? I have no idea. I mean, eventually she told me everything that went on, and we're both really open about the trouble with boys we both have, so I don't think it hurt our relationship at all. But um, hai thar, I'm fi-dual-seeking, I'm not the best judge of that!!

On What A Failure To Answer Means
Instinctively: you're hiding something. If there's no good reason for not answering a question - and being told it is because doing so would break a confidence to someone else is a perfectly valid reason which I wouldn't want to trespass - then I'm sorry, but I'm going to presume that it is to hide something. Think about why LSEs ask questions (I'm generalising here based on my self knowledge, and what I've seen in this thread so far, particularly from UDP). We ask to find out things in order to better understand people. So fundamentally, when someone blocks that investigation, it creates this blind spot that the LSE just cannot fathom and will automatically think the worst of.

I'm not saying that I need every single question I ask answered immediately, with complete candour (I mean, the whole world isn't made of other LSEs after all!). But if someone seems to sidestep a question that I believe is not inappropriate (if it is, see above section), then all the information available to me is that they don't want to allow me to properly construct their profile in my brain, and that's just dangerous, yo.

This attitude probably isn't fair or even healthy. But, like, LSEs are really frickin' needy. Seriously. We're like these giant dolls controlled by a tiny fragile child inside.

What If the LSE In My Life Isn't Asking Me Questions?
Congratulations, you're in the inner zone! I've noticed this with my LSE friend too - after our initial phase of basically interacting through asking each other lots of questions, we graduated to a stage of just volunteering information to each other. Bypassing asking the questions. Maybe it was recognising in each other the need to collect information in order to access people. So we'd see each other and be all 'omg, I've done this, this, this. This happened, then that. Then this other thing happened.' And like, that works perfectly for us.

Questions are a means of accessing people. So if you're not getting any, then you're at one of the two extremes: either the LSE doesn't need questions any more to access you (you're in!) or the LSE doesn't care about you enough to want to access you.


Aaaand, I think this has gotten long enough. Haha. Obviously I haven't covered everything that's gone down in the discussion in this thread, so if there's something glaring that I've missed, point it out to me.

[unefille]

This is a bit strange, but this questioning-question has exploded. I haven't read ALL of your respons, but I wanted to add that:

Although Idolatrie has now conceded that the general ESTj way of behaviour does involve a degree of interrogation, I actually don't think this is necessary always true in all circumstances.

When Idolatrie questions: This usually happens when I'm telling her something, usually an idea. She's good at pulling apart what is going on. But otherwise I really don't notice a lot of questioning fro her. Her main mode of communication is usually quite reflective and dialogue-based or, if she's excited, what I call a 'Te dump' where she blurts out a lot of information, usually in the form of observations about concrete facts - 'I did this, this happened, he wore this, it smelt like this, this, that etc'.

Maybe the Te Dump happens when LSEs are more comfortable, I'm not sure. I've never felt interrogated by idolatrie and I've never felt that she's pressed me to reveal information that I'm tentative about revealing. It might be that I preface what I'm saying with 'I would love to tell you. But I can't. Just take my word for it.' She's never questioned me beyond that. She might raise an eyebrow. But nothing more. Even our other male LSE friend has never done so. He's always respected people's rights to keep their own counsel.

When Idolatrie doesn't question: More annoying for me is that I often think idolatrie should ask MORE questions. There have been more than one situation when idolatrie didn't ask me any questions about what I was referencing/talking about/meaning, and simply proceeded to form a bizarre assumption and acted on that. Later when I asked, exasperated, why didn't you just me to clarify, she would respond: I didn't think it was any of my business to ask. I just assumed this was the case - she tried to use what she knew to piece together some understanding and deliberately REFRAINED from asking me to explain myself.

I've always observed that she tends to see interrogative behaviour as rude and an affront. Where we are heavily questioned (or I am by the many ISTjs we encounter), she usually tells me how rude she found the questioner. And whilst sometimes I tell her that what her self-image is differs from who she actually is, I don't think that she's necessarily mistaken about the degree of interrogativeness of her behaviour. She asks questions, as do we all, but it is never becomes an interrogation or a hunt for the TRUTH without regard to my (or anyone's) right to choose not to disclose.

I'm just adding my two sense to this.

[Minde]

Asking questions (usually) doesn't bother me. In fact, it's probably a good thing with regard to me. While I do my best never to lie, I'm not the most obvious person in the world. People who don't ask me questions about myself can gain a lot just by closely watching me, making inferences from their observations. But even that way there will likely be a lot that they won't know. So asking me questions would be the only way to find out. I actually appreciate most questioning because it means somebody notices and has an interest in me.

The thing that I don't like, which is mostly what I was talking about in this thread, is when those questions cross personal boundaries into something that I just don't want to share for whatever personal reason I have.

Idolatrie, from what I can tell, you don't have problems with that. You respect boundaries, even too much sometimes from what Unefille says. You are so far what I'd expect from an LSE and you sound very nice to be around. UDP, on the other hand, seemed to be saying that not only does he push at those boundaries, but he enjoys it - he enjoys breaking down those walls and dragging forth the information. (If I'm wrong I appreciate correction.)

I should also say that asking tough questions to get me thinking isn't normally the same as crossing boundaries. I appreciate those questions, too, even if I don't answer them aloud all the time.

[UDP]

Guys. Whoa. There's a heap of things I want to respond to here, so instead of quoting people I'm just going to structure it my way.

On Questioning People
I have to admit I didn't think I did this that much. I mean, that's just not part of my self image, that I'm this interrogative individual. But I thought about a close LSE friend I have, and I guess one could interpret his behaviour as interrogative. I can see how he uses lots of questions to suss people out upon meeting them. to work out what sort of positions they have. He usually takes a more active approach with regards to that than I do, but they are all questions I would ask myself. I have noticed that sometimes people are slightly taken aback by the number of questions he lobs at them, and usually don't ask him stuff back - so it ends up seeming really one-sided. But I don't think he realises that.

Which led me to the realisation that I too do it. I just don't think about it at all. I find it very difficult to just 'sense' what people think - about me or situations or whatever, so I need to ask them to find out. And there's also this bizarre need for balance and equality in a conversation - if someone asks me a question, then I'll reply as fully as I can and then I'll add a question of my own on. Just so the conversation feels equal. It's like an imperative cannot break unless I consciously decide I want to signal to the other person I don't want to continue the conversation/interaction.

So yeah, LSEs probably do ask a lot of questions. But I don't think it is Se driven. It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them. It's like using Te and Si to make up for Fi. (I think. Someone more socionically inclined feel free to advise.)

Yes, I agree with all of that.

I don't think the purpose is to test people per se. I see testing people emotionally as screwing around with them to force them to give you some kind of emotional response that they particularly want. I think someone did this to me and it fucked me over pretty badly, so I can say with 100% sincerity that I never want to intentionally do that to someone else.

Aha, that is why you guys are getting your feathers ruffled over, the "Test" word. (I have already seen Minde's post where she feels I am enthralled by pushing people's boundaries). Obviously there is a blatant negative connotation to "testing". I should have spent more time with that, but I didn't realize it would get everyone so up in arms. When I said testing, I didn't mean "challenging" or "fucking with" someone, and I CERTAINLY didn't mean trying to get some sort of emotional response. I hate that too. When I said testing, (to put it in more connotation-pleasant terms), I was referring to what Idolatrie just said:

"It's more about getting information in a means that I can understand and slot into my data bank. I need to build up little profiles of everyone in my head, because that is what I use to determine how to interact with them."

Trying to determine the power dynamics in a situation and using questions to try to nudge them into revealing their position in the power hierarchy in the situation is something else entirely though. Though I prefer to not be overt about working that out! Again, I think it is using other functions to cope with needing Fi help.

Yeah, asking other people you trust about what is going on in their situation to get another viewpoint helps here - not just in "power dynamics", but in terms of most things, especially interpersonal stuff.

On Asking Inappropriate Questions
So as a corollary of asking lots of questions in order to work out how to relate to people, I guess it is inevitable that sometimes those questions will be Inappropriate and possibly even Annoying As Fuck. Um...oops? I know I've done this and I've totally cringed about it afterwards. But I don't always learn from my mistakes and I'll no doubt do this again. It happens. If I was perfect, I'd be a damn robot. And that would be sad. Because I've heard that all the mechanics are SLIs, and then I'll never find my dual!

Seriously though. If something's inappropriate, tell me!

I tell that to everyone I think I might be verging on inappropriate territory.

On Badgering the Witness
What about constantly asking the same question? Well, the LSE in question could just be a dumbass, and have the people-skills of a rock. I'm the first to admit that LSEs need all the Fi help they can get, but um, I do think we're you know, socially functional. We're not SLIs, after all. (Sorry SLIs, I totally <3 you!)

But trying to think of when I might do this. It could be as a kind of barometer for changes in attitude to some internal benchmark I have. Like I have a friend who I used to have a crush on someone I know, but she wouldn't tell me who at the time. So I'd ask her whenever I saw her 'so are you going to tell me who he is now??' to kind of work out where she was at regarding her feelings towards him. And she'd blush and stuff, and I'd get a reaction. And I'd file that all away in my little mental folder for their relationship. Did this annoy her? I have no idea. I mean, eventually she told me everything that went on, and we're both really open about the trouble with boys we both have, so I don't think it hurt our relationship at all. But um, hai thar, I'm fi-dual-seeking, I'm not the best judge of that!!

Yeah. The bold part is related to "testing" - as I used the word.

On What A Failure To Answer Means
Instinctively: you're hiding something. If there's no good reason for not answering a question - and being told it is because doing so would break a confidence to someone else is a perfectly valid reason which I wouldn't want to trespass - then I'm sorry, but I'm going to presume that it is to hide something. Think about why LSEs ask questions (I'm generalising here based on my self knowledge, and what I've seen in this thread so far, particularly from UDP). We ask to find out things in order to better understand people. So fundamentally, when someone blocks that investigation, it creates this blind spot that the LSE just cannot fathom and will automatically think the worst of.

Yes, I agree.

I'm not saying that I need every single question I ask answered immediately, with complete candour (I mean, the whole world isn't made of other LSEs after all!). But if someone seems to sidestep a question that I believe is not inappropriate (if it is, see above section), then all the information available to me is that they don't want to allow me to properly construct their profile in my brain, and that's just dangerous, yo.

Bingo

This attitude probably isn't fair or even healthy. But, like, LSEs are really frickin' needy. Seriously. We're like these giant dolls controlled by a tiny fragile child inside.

I think that's a bit much. But given the nature of your response, I get it.

What If the LSE In My Life Isn't Asking Me Questions?
Congratulations, you're in the inner zone! I've noticed this with my LSE friend too - after our initial phase of basically interacting through asking each other lots of questions, we graduated to a stage of just volunteering information to each other. Bypassing asking the questions. Maybe it was recognising in each other the need to collect information in order to access people. So we'd see each other and be all 'omg, I've done this, this, this. This happened, then that. Then this other thing happened.' And like, that works perfectly for us.

Questions are a means of accessing people. So if you're not getting any, then you're at one of the two extremes: either the LSE doesn't need questions any more to access you (you're in!) or the LSE doesn't care about you enough to want to access you.

Going back to Idolatrie's analogy of a little mental folder, if I actually get to the point where I understand you well enough and "the folder" has enough relevant information so I can understand how you function, then the questions stop, (somewhat at least). If I really understand you on a deep level, I don't need to ask so many questions, I can start aligning things towards how you like them, and be more focused on having more meaningful interaction.

Here, it's like this: the analogy of going to class. (It could be a meeting or anything else). But let's say a class room. If I go to class, and we are discussing a topic, and I DIDN'T have any reading done, or study things before hand, or have much background to know what is going on, then I will spend the class not interacting much, more trying to understand what is going on. Maybe asking questions to clarify, but in that situation, I am in "taking in information" mode. Now, if I DID do the required reading, or I have studied my notes, or it has just been a few classes of the first situation and I actually have a grasp of what is going on, then my dialogue and interaction in the class is more substantial.

This isn't the best analogy, but, I hope it makes sense. After I'm in class for a while or am well prepared and well informed about what is going on, I can address the deeper, more significant stuff of what is going on. I don't have to keep asking surface level question to keep "acquainting myself" with the situation.

So basically when you get to the level where I feel close enough to not ask you that many questions, then it's more just fluid interaction. Does that make sense? It is not a perfect analogy.