LSE/ESTj Subtypes - discussion and examples

[UDP]

My opinion of why you wrote that was either

1) You got caught emphasizing something that really emotionally affects an EII in a negative way and you needed to find a way to demonstrate that you did consider this beforehand,

No, I did not "Get caught". Why is that so hard to understand? Is it that odd that I would say of this intentionally, on purpose, deliberately? That seems to be critical factor here.

and conveniently deflecting attention to the fact that this thread isn't about how to get along with EII's, but still attempting to demonstrate that you already know that it makes EII's uncomfortable, yet not really addressing the fact that these methods that you use to extract information you WANT from an EII really makes them uncomfortable, even though you see it as a necessary method of growth

That's not true.
It's kind of funny, because you see -- or rather, apparently I wrote things -- in such a way that implies a general maliciousness. That is what is striking me as so odd, that this is now being viewed as the norm. I don't think anybody would really appreciate that quality. Something so blatantly negative that is now being associated with me, and how I go about things, and apparently something that I want to force on to a EII even though it makes them feel uncomfortable.

If that's really what you think then yes, I would be quite upset and alarmed as well. But that is not "what I want". So I'm a bit confused as to why it is being interpreted in that way. To me it seems like this is coming from some sort of misunderstanding as to why brought all of this up in the first place. But I really don't know.

and/or

2) You are attempting to allude to a reason (an unhealthy state of mind) as to why an LSE would apply pressure in a way that would emotionally affect an EII to make them feel uncomfortable, understanding full well that it makes an EII extremely uncomfortable, yet you do it anyway because they should do it.


Just my opinion though.

I don't really understand what your point here is. I wasn't talking, ever, about how an LSE acts with an EII. I was talking about an LSE, in isolation. I was never addressing "how an LSE should act with an EII". I was actually intentionally presenting things that would be problems to establishing trust, things that no one would get along with. I was illustrating, intentionally, things that would not seem appealing. Not appealing to anyone at ally, and yes, including an EII, although that was not why I said what I said. Which is why I made this remark* (see below). I disagree with your entire interpretation of what is going on, as presented in what you said above.

LSE would apply pressure in a way that would emotionally affect an EII to make them feel uncomfortable, understanding full well that it makes an EII extremely uncomfortable, yet you do it anyway because they should do it.

The context presented in your words is not applicable. In that post I made no mention whatsoever of how an LSE acts with an EII. You are bringing th EII component into it on your own means, it is not there in my post or in my thought process.

...which is thy I wrote *

Don't you realize that I knew all of that well before I started writing that post?

I was not writing a post on "how to get along best with EIIs"
Yes, your polr ought to feel properly burned after reading that.
Consider it an expose of the dark side of things.

That's 'my' take on things.

[tereg]

The point that I'm making is simply that, what you were describing (in isolation) of the desire to have a level of disclosure that an LSE seeks (this part being independent of any type, it's just simply something that an LSE seeks) the response from EIIs in this thread is that it makes them uncomfortable. And that (at least to me) implies the question "If an LSE wants to achieve that level of disclosure (that you have described here and I have laid out in multiple blocks of quotes of yours) is it really something that an EII is comfortable receiving/experiencing/should receive/should experience?"

Edit: In other words, what if, hypothetically speaking, another type actually better prefers and is more comfortable with handling the kind of information that you're seeking to gain? Or conversely, what if, hypothetically speaking, the kind of information that an EII wants to divulge is different than what you want to gain from them?

What the rest of the discussion entailed was describing this sense of... what you were describing isn't intended as malicious, but it clearly created an atmosphere of discomfort. It could be just the way that some of us are interpreting it, but breaking it down very clearly bit by bit concisely, this is what I see:


- Describing an LSE point-of-view you started off by explaining that you want the people you interact with to be able to disclose ANY piece of information, even if it's something difficult to explain, you still would like it if they explained it to you, because information should not be withheld and information is not sacred. Depending on how important something is to an LSE, an LSE will "pressure" them to either choose to tell the truth or choose to lie about it. That is what you said.

- EII says "I don't want to feel like I have to give information, I will give information as I choose. I feel uncomfortable with the notion that you will pressure me if you want a piece of information that you consider important."

- You then say (paraphrasing) "Well, you have to remember that there is a dark side to the LSE and actually, I had already considered that before you said it. Pressuring is not the 'norm' for an LSE."

And I'll wrap up with this. Maybe pressuring isn't the "norm" state-of-mind. But I think it's clear in this thread that you have expressed a fundamental frame of mind, a desire to achieve, again, a level of disclosure that does not leave pieces of information hidden. That's what your personal point of view says. How do you get pieces of information that people withhold? Asking them. Prodding them. Pressuring them (time frame can vary). "We want IT ALL."

Again, please note that I'm not describing a "norm" here. I'm describing something more... it's something that you specifically have described that I have laid out that shows a very strong lean towards achieving, at the very least, a desire of yours to reach that level of disclosure. It's even more basic than a "norm". "Norm" would be a generalization over a span of people, whereas what I'm trying to convey is a very specific point of view that you have clearly laid out in this thread -- that being that you'd like it if people were just open with ALL of their thoughts, and how you go about trying to achieve that.

[Christy B]

I have seen one LSE-Te needing or wanting information to a point that they have gone beyond their own values/ boundaries to gain that information. I think LSEs do this a lot actually.

In one example of this the LSE-TE went through my purse and wallet without asking first and thought nothing of it because he wanted to make sure I was who I said I was, to check my age, where I was from and other stuff. I think he took (basically stole because I never got it back) my phone actually in order to get me to hang out with him again or maybe so he could get information. . . I don't know.

I think people F-with him a lot and it is hard for him to trust, so when he did start to trust me he needed to back it up with hard evidence.

It was really hard for him to be comfortable around me without making sure he had asked me enough information and checked it and re-checked it to know it was "ok" to relax.
I totally understood this, which is why I wasn't mad when he went through my shit, or asked me things repeatedly, but it did make me think, why is it ok for you to do this?

What I find interesting is that some LSE will try and get the information, and think they have a right to it, but only give you the information they want to give you. I am sure it would not have been ok for me to go through his stuff, and would have made him feel really uncomfortable and unable to trust me. This is a major contradiction in values!

Anyway, I know this guy is LSE-Te, and Idon't think that applying pressure by asking things repeatedly or even applying pressure by going through my things, doesn't make them LSE-Te.

I think it shows that without Fi to let them know what they are doing isn't right, because just because they want that information doesn't mean they get to have it, even by using force, which I don't see as Se but as unchecked Te really. They are just using Se to get what they want I guess for their Te. If they didn't thin they needed to use Se to get the information they needed they probably wouldn't because it is not as pragmatic and doesn't go along well with Si creative.

I have no idea if any of that makes any sense at all because I am really tired.

[Lobo]

I have seen one LSE-Te needing or wanting information to a point that they have gone beyond their own values/ boundaries to gain that information. I think LSEs do this a lot actually.

In one example of this the LSE-TE went through my purse and wallet without asking first and thought nothing of it because he wanted to make sure I was who I said I was, to check my age, where I was from and other stuff. I think he took (basically stole because I never got it back) my phone actually in order to get me to hang out with him again or maybe so he could get information. . . I don't know.

I think people F-with him a lot and it is hard for him to trust, so when he did start to trust me he needed to back it up with hard evidence.

It was really hard for him to be comfortable around me without making sure he had asked me enough information and checked it and re-checked it to know it was "ok" to relax.
I totally understood this, which is why I wasn't mad when he went through my shit, or asked me things repeatedly, but it did make me think, why is it ok for you to do this?

What I find interesting is that some LSE will try and get the information, and think they have a right to it, but only give you the information they want to give you. I am sure it would not have been ok for me to go through his stuff, and would have made him feel really uncomfortable and unable to trust me. This is a major contradiction in values!

Anyway, I know this guy is LSE-Te, and Idon't think that applying pressure by asking things repeatedly or even applying pressure by going through my things, doesn't make them LSE-Te.

I think it shows that without Fi to let them know what they are doing isn't right, because just because they want that information doesn't mean they get to have it, even by using force, which I don't see as Se but as unchecked Te really. They are just using Se to get what they want I guess for their Te. If they didn't thin they needed to use Se to get the information they needed they probably wouldn't because it is not as pragmatic and doesn't go along well with Si creative.

I have no idea if any of that makes any sense at all because I am really tired.

That's messed up... what did you do?

[Christy B]

That's messed up... what did you do?

I basically said. . . "What are you doing?" and gave him a stern look like "this is not OK", and he didn't care and was looking at my ID and then looking at me and finally I got my stuff back by kind of trying to pull it away. Never got my phone back though, which he took later on (a different day) after the other incident. I didn't talk to him after that though because he went away and then I went away and canceled that phone with Cingular. I had the same # but I didn't get a new cell for almost 6 months. I have no idea if he ever tried to find me again after that. I didn't try to find him, even though I actually liked him inspite of that whole thing.

[idolatrie]

I basically said. . . "What are you doing?" and gave him a stern look like "this is not OK", and he didn't care and was looking at my ID and then looking at me and finally I got my stuff back by kind of trying to pull it away. Never got my phone back though, which he took later on (a different day) after the other incident. I didn't talk to him after that though because he went away and then I went away and canceled that phone with Cingular. I had the same # but I didn't get a new cell for almost 6 months. I have no idea if he ever tried to find me again after that. I didn't try to find him, even though I actually liked him inspite of that whole thing.

Christy, darling, I know I shouldn't be passing judgement nor are you asking anyone to, but that is seriously fucked up. What he did, I mean. It's just not alright to violate someone's personal space/belongings like that.

I know I'm dragging a rather controversial thread back up with this, but I do feel I need to defend LSEs to an extent here. So I'm not trying to start anything up again with this (which is a fairly futile statement to make since I am, by definition of writing on it, starting things up again...um, nevermind.)

When UDP wrote: "we want it all" I think I understand what he means. As an LSE, I do want to know everything. Have access to all information. But I know that just because I want it doesn't mean I'll get it. I have an ESE friend who is very comfortable always blurting out whatever question comes to mind, but even if I'm thinking the same thing, I won't ask because I feel it is socially inappropriate to do so. I always contrain myself based on whether I think it is appropriate to do something in the situation. And I'm used to not getting what I want - I really don't mean that in an emo woe is me kind of way, but just that hey, wants are unlimited. You are never going to always get what you want. And it's character-building to not get spoilt. So. *shrugs*

Going back to an earlier point:

When I ask someone about something, and they don't want to talk about it, I simply say that "if you want you can tell me when you are ready, because I would really like to know." Or if it's something that they don't want to talk about ever, so long as it's something that doesn't affect me, then I have to respect that. LSEs and ESEs don't work that way, and I do think they have to be "trained" to be patient and actually trust. This is how it could workout at the beginning level:
1) "Do you trust me?" -> "Yes"
2) "I'm going somewhere today and I will be back in (time frame), and I won't tell you what I did until I get back" -> "..."
3) When you get back, you say what it was.
4) Increase the time frame and go back to (1).

I've got to say if someone did that to me, I would feel manipulated, and in a bad way. Really bad.

I know I've made this point before, but if someone told me they couldn't explain something for whatever reason that I thought was valid, then hell yeah I'd respect that. And leave it. I know I've said pretty much exactly what Sereno said he'd say as well - give the other person time and let them know there is a friendly ear available.

I'm trying to work out why I felt upset at the 'training regime' that Sereno talked of. I think it might be that if I honestly answered the first question with 'yes' then we're talking about one of my closest friends there. People I can name on one hand. And if I trust them, then that's IT. I trust them completely. So if they went and did something somewhere else without wanting to tell me what they were doing, why would that be a problem? I already trust them. I can't imagine why it'd be any of my business anyway. If they were doing something that directly affected me, but didn't want to tell me about it, I would find that weird and disquieting, but ultimately I TRUST them not to fuck around with me. If they broke that trust, then well, that's also it for the friendship. The end. And outside my close friends, well, I don't really give a toss what they do in their own time, it's not my business.

I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being referred to. But I think I'd find it hurtful if someone did that to me. It sounds like you're training a dog. Sit, boy, stay. Fetch. Roll over.

Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.

[Christy B]

Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.

No you are fine. Doesn't come off as ranting. Are you a teacher?

PS Thanks for your posts. They are helpful.

[idolatrie]

No you are fine. Doesn't come off as ranting. Are you a teacher?

PS Thanks for your posts. They are helpful.

Not exactly - I'm a tutor at uni whilst I'm doing honours in my first degree. So right now I'm running seminars on a subject I did three years ago. I have kids in my classes who are older/taller/bigger than me! And like, a veritable mountain of essays to mark.

I'm glad they're useful.

[Lobo]

I've got to say if someone did that to me, I would feel manipulated, and in a bad way. Really bad.

I know I've made this point before, but if someone told me they couldn't explain something for whatever reason that I thought was valid, then hell yeah I'd respect that. And leave it. I know I've said pretty much exactly what Sereno said he'd say as well - give the other person time and let them know there is a friendly ear available.

I'm trying to work out why I felt upset at the 'training regime' that Sereno talked of. I think it might be that if I honestly answered the first question with 'yes' then we're talking about one of my closest friends there. People I can name on one hand. And if I trust them, then that's IT. I trust them completely. So if they went and did something somewhere else without wanting to tell me what they were doing, why would that be a problem? I already trust them. I can't imagine why it'd be any of my business anyway. If they were doing something that directly affected me, but didn't want to tell me about it, I would find that weird and disquieting, but ultimately I TRUST them not to fuck around with me. If they broke that trust, then well, that's also it for the friendship. The end. And outside my close friends, well, I don't really give a toss what they do in their own time, it's not my business.

I don't know. Maybe I'm misinterpreting what's being referred to. But I think I'd find it hurtful if someone did that to me. It sounds like you're training a dog. Sit, boy, stay. Fetch. Roll over.

Sorry guys, I'm ranting. Been marking essays for the last couple of days straight, and it's driven me insane. I'm about ready to scratch my eyes out to escape it.

I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.

[Christy B]

I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.

Thanks. maybe you are right, but I think he thought he would see me again and would give it back. I don't think he counted on me disapearing and turning off my phone. Anyway that would have caused a scandal and would messed up his life a little and mine, so I just let it go.

[idolatrie]

I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.

I possibly overreacted. I don't know. I mean, trust is a pretty significant thing for me, and I know I have trouble trusting people, but once I do, it would hurt to have that trust questioned. So maybe you were just talking about a very different situation. I mean, UDP didn't seem to have a problem with what you suggested. And we're probably different sub-types, which may account for at least part of that.

I do get paranoid and anxious. But I think my mode of responding to that is to shut down and stop asking any questions. To protect myself from appearing vulnerable. If I'm scared about something, I will definitely not indicate to anyone that fact, until I can go find out about that thing, arm myself with knowledge and hopefully some tactical advantage. And then I'd play it off as not ever having been scared. Asking questions is one way of getting that knowledge, but it is a method that involves opening yourself up to appearing vulnerable, so that would only happen if I felt so secure in the relationship that I could actually be vulnerable. And that is kind of terrifying to think about in and of itself.

I don't think I'd need to know where my SO is every moment of the day. I have...a fairly lax attitude towards um, the physical aspect of monogamy (it's not an issue), but emotional faithfulness is something completely different, and fear there could potentially make me react in an ugly way.

[UDP]

I agree with what you are saying, it does seem like some sort of dog training. But I really didn't mean it in a "controlling" way, rather, as a favor to ease possible anxiety out of not knowing what an SO is doing. Though I made it seem that it applies to everybody, I was applying that to those that just HAVE to know everything the person does to the point that it might be sort of paranoid. There's a difference between asking out of curiosity and asking out of some kind of anxiety or fear. That's why I thought about those steps, to help remove the possible anxiety or fear caused by not knowing. Maybe what I wrote is a very bad idea, but at the time it seemed to make sense. Yeah, I'm definitely not some kind of psychologist.

And Christy, you should have called the authorities, that was stealing.

The bold sentence is very substantial.