EII-LSE Duality Relations (INFj-ESTj)

[Beautiful sky]

In a super healthy EII and LSE duality LSE jokes light heartedly in their dry humor and EII adds to it lol and they talk about EVERYTHING. My husband and I have been known to also talk about how we would set up colonies on Mars like whaaaaat!? Lol

[Lord Pixel]

In a super healthy EII and LSE duality LSE jokes light heartedly in their dry humor and EII adds to it lol and they talk about EVERYTHING. My husband and I have been known to also talk about how we would set up colonies on Mars like whaaaaat!? Lol

It was probably obvious I was a bit frustrated in my previous rants, but........I can attest to this in platonic duality.

[Beautiful sky]

It was probably obvious I was a bit frustrated in my previous rants, but........I can attest to this in platonic duality.

It’s okay to be frustrated. I was in your shoes for a very very long time. Even after knowing Socionics so well no dual was snapping me up. I was feeling worthless, sad and overall unworthy. My husband comes from a background in mbti. His mom is LSE too and she was a corporate mbti assessor for 30 years so he knows types and knew my type and he felt luck to have waited for me. It takes time and patience.

And there’s a reason why my duality is the relationship type called storge

[Lord Pixel]

It’s okay to be frustrated. I was in your shoes for a very very long time. Even after knowing Socionics so well no dual was snapping me up. I was feeling worthless, sad and overall unworthy. My husband comes from a background in mbti. His mom is LSE too and she was a corporate mbti assessor for 30 years so he knows types and knew my type and he felt luck to have waited for me. It takes time and patience.

And there’s a reason why my duality is the relationship type called storge

Why's that?

[Beautiful sky]

Why's that?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storge
Storge is familial love so we are a family and our love just grows deeper

[VenusRose]

Just admit it already, LSE wants someone that does whatever they tell them 2 because "they know what's best" and they only feel not anxious when they are in charge, they refrain from calling this person their slave or child because it sounds bad, but that's what they want without the feeling bad about wanting it. You want someone who makes you feel like you know best and are capable of doing anything largely because they are not. Yea it's fucked up, but it's what you want, hopefully it's out there for you. Someone without a will and mind of their own that is.

Hmm, this doesn't sound...idk, normal I guess if you could call it that. I am not sure if unusual dynamics like that are necessarily type related.

[Adam Strange]

Just admit it already, LSE wants someone that does whatever they tell them 2 because "they know what's best" and they only feel not anxious when they are in charge, they refrain from calling this person their slave or child because it sounds bad, but that's what they want without the feeling bad about wanting it. You want someone who makes you feel like you know best and are capable of doing anything largely because they are not. Yea it's fucked up, but it's what you want, hopefully it's out there for you. Someone without a will and mind of their own that is.

Hmm, this doesn't sound...idk, normal I guess if you could call it that. I am not sure if unusual dynamics like that are necessarily type related.

@VenusRose, I've actually heard a number of EII's say this same thing about their SO's. Not every one, but I'd say about 2/3 of them seem to look at LSE's this way.

I work with a male EII who is on his second marriage to a woman who is a doctor and very well off. He says that he gets to live in her very nice house and has to do the yardwork. In return, he has a small workshop in the basement. He said that she treats him like a servant and they have separate bank accounts. He went on to say that while he knows he is complaining about how she treats him a lot, they sometimes have very good times together.

I only saw her once at a party and we weren't introduced, so I don't know if she is LSE or not.

It is possible that many EII's are simply built to look out for the behavior and attitudes that @Lord Pixel described, just as LSI's are built to try to see past the possible deceptions and to try to get to the facts when dealing with EIE's.

[VenusRose]

@VenusRose, I've actually heard a number of EII's say this same thing about their SO's. Not every one, but I'd say about 2/3 of them seem to look at LSE's this way.

I work with a male EII who is on his second marriage to a woman who is a doctor and very well off. He says that he gets to live in her very nice house and has to do the yardwork. In return, he has a small workshop in the basement. He said that she treats him like a servant and they have separate bank accounts. He went on to say that while he knows he is complaining about how she treats him a lot, they sometimes have very good times together.

I was commenting on @Lord Pixel's "they refrain from calling this person their slave or child because it sounds bad, but that's what they want without the feeling bad about wanting it" because that sounded like an unusual dynamic..

I am not entirely sure what you mean "I have heard EIIs say this about their SO." Could you please elaborate?

Edit: My first thoughts are that Fi doms can be very easily misunderstood, I certainly am on a regular basis, if the person doesn't know me.
So perhaps he didn't mean "servant" in like a really serious way, but more so in a lighthearted, somewhat joking manner...? Besides, I don't know, this aspect of any dynamic bores me very much. "Chores" etc. or having to do things. I am not at all drawn to such things when it comes to romance/duality descriptions. I guess it is mostly chemistry I look at.

Not that people wouldn't do their chores, of course everyone would. But I wouldn't bother describing it as a part of any pair or romance dynamic. It feels very trivial.

I only saw her once at a party and we weren't introduced, so I don't know if she is LSE or not.

It is possible that many EII's are simply built to look out for the behavior and attitudes that @Lord Pixel described, just as LSI's are built to try to see past the possible deceptions and to try to get to the facts when dealing with EIE's.

Wanting a "slave" etc. at best describes a kink to me. It doesn't seem to suitable to your average "vanilla" relationships. Seems a little extreme. So I don't know if LSEs would really want that and if EIIs are "built for that" since it sounds like a peculiar taste to begin with.

I think LSE-EII is usually described as LSE being somewhat of a knowledgeable guide/teacher, and very serious, while EII being kind, empathetic, imaginative and much better at "relations" ofc due to high F>T compared to LSE.

So yeah what LP said absolutely sounds like a big stretch and not necessarily how I imagine these relationships playing out. "Someone without a will and mind of their own" and everything else he wrote...yeah I can't imagine that would be the case for the large majority of LSE-EII relationships. He seems to be talking about kink here honestly, and there is usually misconceptions about them, but I won't go into that right now.

[Lord Pixel]

I was commenting on @Lord Pixel's "they refrain from calling this person their slave or child because it sounds bad, but that's what they want without the feeling bad about wanting it" because that sounded like an unusual dynamic..

I am not entirely sure what you mean "I have heard EIIs say this about their SO." Could you please elaborate?

Edit: My first thoughts are that Fi doms can be very easily misunderstood, I certainly am on a regular basis, if the person doesn't know me.
So perhaps he didn't mean "servant" in like a really serious way, but more so in a lighthearted, somewhat joking manner...? Besides, I don't know, this aspect of any dynamic bores me very much. "Chores" etc. or having to do things. I am not at all drawn to such things when it comes to romance/duality descriptions. I guess it is mostly chemistry I look at.

Not that people wouldn't do their chores, of course everyone would. But I wouldn't bother describing it as a part of any pair or romance dynamic. It feels very trivial.



Wanting a "slave" etc. at best describes a kink to me. It doesn't seem to suitable to your average "vanilla" relationships. Seems a little extreme. So I don't know if LSEs would really want that and if EIIs are "built for that" since it sounds like a peculiar taste to begin with.

I think LSE-EII is usually described as LSE being somewhat of a knowledgeable guide/teacher, and very serious, while EII being kind, empathetic, imaginative and much better at "relations" ofc due to high F>T compared to LSE.

So yeah what LP said absolutely sounds like a big stretch and not necessarily how I imagine these relationships playing out. "Someone without a will and mind of their own" and everything else he wrote...yeah I can't imagine that would be the case for the large majority of LSE-EII relationships. He seems to be talking about kink here honestly, and there is usually misconceptions about them, but I won't go into that right now.

I mean't servant literally, and no I wasn't talking about a kink.

Te to me just sounds like a need to control and to be in control.

I have a hard time reconciling being attracted to someone who essentially wants to be in control, of everything, including you.
I could be taking the stereotype too far with Te, but I don't think it's 100% inaccurate.

[Beautiful sky]

I mean't servant literally, and no I wasn't talking about a kink.

Te to me just sounds like a need to control and to be in control.

I have a hard time reconciling being attracted to someone who essentially wants to be in control, of everything, including you.
I could be taking the stereotype too far with Te, but I don't think it's 100% inaccurate.

It is accurate. They have to be in control. It is compulsory. It pisses me off sometimes but the reason why it works with me is that I can tolerate it and do my own thing quietly and I can be stubborn too. So I have a strong personality and go toe to toe with ESTj

[Lord Pixel]

It is accurate. They have to be in control. It is compulsory. It pisses me off sometimes but the reason why it works with me is that I can tolerate it and do my own thing quietly and I can be stubborn too. So I have a strong personality and go toe to toe with ESTj

And the thing is I get the reason for it being compulsory. Dominant functions can be like an addiction each type has, so I get it.

The reason for my ranting on this duality is probably an old and tired one ( M EII, F LSE gender roles), but one I still struggle to reconcile as much as I enjoy and believe socionics and IR theory. My belief in it is what makes it harder to reconcile with, I recognize duality, I've witnessed it with my eyes and heart, but it leaves me with the feeling of an uncomfortable and intolerable future.

And as a man, even though I am EII with infantile romance style, the idea of being essentially dominated by a woman is not appealing to me. And I imagine Te can be dominating. Especially in times where Te-dom tries to tell you what to do (without respectable explanation)but you can't tell Te-dom what to do, and considering that ethically that completely lacks any fairness and it's something I cannot tolerate for any amount of time. So imagining that in a relationship that is considered ideal just sounds like one big fat Nope! to me.

And perhaps my statement sounds chauvinistic, because it seems to imply that men should only be able to dominate women and not the other way around. But consider this. A man being dominant in the relationship, provided the man is not abusive or a prison ward, is seen a protector and a leader, and that is his role. A dominant woman in the relationship the man is always, and if not always 9/10 seen as weak, and probably has no idea how to assert himself. The one more physically capable should protect, the one more physically capable should be the one out front making sure the coast is clear. To take a man, and put him in a situation to not utilize what biology has given him, is to take away the burden of responsibility he has been given biologically. "With great power comes great responsibility." It also stymies his potential as a man, he could provide protection and leadership, but he is being protected and lead by a woman, who is less physically capable. You would not use a horse to pull a ton of coal if you had a bull. Biology has given men purpose, purpose that is not realized when men are protected and lead by women in a relationship. In a mass crisis situation all this playing pretend that gender roles don't exist would wipe away in a flash, life puts things in order so that it can protect itself, and in a crisis, women and child first, because life is utilizing the purpose of men's strength, and nobody would argue about their roles.
Men's strength is for protecting women, and if not soley, women are a benefiter of this strength when in a relationship dynamic of the former much moreso than the latter if it's even a factor between dominant women and weak men. And the biggest protection from men for women are weapons and other men. And I am an EII man but I also am in favor of traditional gender roles where "a man is the man 60% of the time." God knew what he was doing.

[ooo]

tbh, in socionics 'dominance' is already taken by Se. Si is 'caregiving'.

I can see how a Te can be a bit stuck in their own ways, but from that to "dominance" there's a long long way.

[andreasdevig]

no they don't. We just want a peaceful and creative environment full of love and support for our work and interests - me with cooking and him with his love of fixing motorcycles

Please, ask your husband to get a better hobby. Loud motorcycles are non-conducive to a peaceful and pleasant environment/society.

[Adam Strange]

Please, ask your husband to get a better hobby. Loud motorcycles are non-conducive to a peaceful and pleasant environment/society.

I knew an LSE who was nuts about mechanical watches. He had a bunch of them, and loved to take the backs off and look at the mechanisms.
Another one is an ice-boat racer who designs and builds his own ice-boats. Completely wind-powered and almost silent.
No toxic emissions or loud noises, either.

[andreasdevig]

I knew an LSE who was nuts about mechanical watches. He had a bunch of them, and loved to take the backs off and look at the mechanisms.
Another one is an ice-boat racer who designs and builds his own ice-boats. Completely wind-powered and almost silent.
No toxic emissions or loud noises, either.

That's cool. I was under the impression that mechanical stuff was more Se-related, I guess. But perhaps it can be Te or Si as well.

[Adam Strange]

That's cool. I was under the impression that mechanical stuff was more Se-related, I guess. But perhaps it can be Te or Si as well.

I think Te-types like to know how to put stuff together. Once you know that, they start calling you an engineer.

Personally, I have X-ray vision when it comes to machinery. I first got interested in machines when I saw a lathe at a friend's house, and thought how much more efficient a lathe would be compared to a saw and a file. I immediately realized that a machine could multiply my labor output by several multiples, so I had to have one. (I actually remember thinking that.) It's that Te-efficiency.

But there's also the Te-process question of, How does that work? What makes all the things go 'round and 'round?

I don't think Si or Se is mechanical stuff. Si-doms can be interested in mechanical stuff, especially if they are Te-creative, and Se-types typically are interested in machinery because it makes them more powerful and more needed. I haven't met any SLE or SEE machine designers yet.

[The Reality Denialist]

Te and machines.


I tend to have little interests in actual machines as I rather abstract functionality. The funny result from that from there is the combination view of things. Makes me quite unique at troubleshooting computers. Hopping between processes but I have no desire to become good at 3D modelling or such. I have seen Te creatives fussing about book keeping programs. Sounds boring and make me want fork the process.

[Beautiful sky]

And the thing is I get the reason for it being compulsory. Dominant functions can be like an addiction each type has, so I get it.

The reason for my ranting on this duality is probably an old and tired one ( M EII, F LSE gender roles), but one I still struggle to reconcile as much as I enjoy and believe socionics and IR theory. My belief in it is what makes it harder to reconcile with, I recognize duality, I've witnessed it with my eyes and heart, but it leaves me with the feeling of an uncomfortable and intolerable future.

And as a man, even though I am EII with infantile romance style, the idea of being essentially dominated by a woman is not appealing to me. And I imagine Te can be dominating. Especially in times where Te-dom tries to tell you what to do (without respectable explanation)but you can't tell Te-dom what to do, and considering that ethically that completely lacks any fairness and it's something I cannot tolerate for any amount of time. So imagining that in a relationship that is considered ideal just sounds like one big fat Nope! to me.

And perhaps my statement sounds chauvinistic, because it seems to imply that men should only be able to dominate women and not the other way around. But consider this. A man being dominant in the relationship, provided the man is not abusive or a prison ward, is seen a protector and a leader, and that is his role. A dominant woman in the relationship the man is always, and if not always 9/10 seen as weak, and probably has no idea how to assert himself. The one more physically capable should protect, the one more physically capable should be the one out front making sure the coast is clear. To take a man, and put him in a situation to not utilize what biology has given him, is to take away the burden of responsibility he has been given biologically. "With great power comes great responsibility." It also stymies his potential as a man, he could provide protection and leadership, but he is being protected and lead by a woman, who is less physically capable. You would not use a horse to pull a ton of coal if you had a bull. Biology has given men purpose, purpose that is not realized when men are protected and lead by women in a relationship. In a mass crisis situation all this playing pretend that gender roles don't exist would wipe away in a flash, life puts things in order so that it can protect itself, and in a crisis, women and child first, because life is utilizing the purpose of men's strength, and nobody would argue about their roles.
Men's strength is for protecting women, and if not soley, women are a benefiter of this strength when in a relationship dynamic of the former much moreso than the latter if it's even a factor between dominant women and weak men. And the biggest protection from men for women are weapons and other men. And I am an EII man but I also am in favor of traditional gender roles where "a man is the man 60% of the time." God knew what he was doing.

Oh no they are not dominating. The control is for functionality not to control you necessarily

[Beautiful sky]

Please, ask your husband to get a better hobby. Loud motorcycles are non-conducive to a peaceful and pleasant environment/society.

? His motorcycle is not loud lol

[Aylen]

tbh, in socionics 'dominance' is already taken by Se. Si is 'caregiving'.

I can see how a Te can be a bit stuck in their own ways, but from that to "dominance" there's a long long way.

I am going to try to separate functions from behaviors for a moment.

Si is the LSE's creative function as it is the ESE's. Both have 4D Se if you believe there is function strength like that. Both types are highly capable of being dominant (able to use their will, power and influence) people if they choose to. Se is the creative function of LSI and ESI. I would say they tend to dictate more than dominate though. If you are comparing based on the creative function.

Remember erotic style is more related to how people act in romantic relationships. Caregiving is an erotic style primarily. Si can be selfish in a way that any introverted base function can seem selfish to those observing it in others.

SLE can be capable caregivers, as in taking care of those they care about and who need it. Even sacrificing their own personal life to take care of a sick parent, for example, for 8 years until the parent died. I know an SLE who did this in his early 20s. 8 years is not too shabby. I am not sure if I could last that long without a lot of outside support.

Those whose fit the concept of LSE best can act or be dominant (Te types often self type E 8s) due to their demonstrative Se along with base Te. Especially if they have a very traditional view of what the role of the partner should be or they are in management positions.

The strong Te and Se which is important to their worldview is why they are quasi with SLE. Just as there is a fine line between EII and IEI behaviors > cognition there is the same fine line with LSE and SLE behaviors in a more general sense. They don't appear to have any issues with asserting their will even if it is in a "caregiving" way at times in order to support the creative function.

Caregiving can take many forms when it comes to those they love or just care about. Not all of them pleasant. Like all demon functions it is more likely to be used in private on those they are closest to. To me Se looks less sophisticated coming from an LSE or ESE. Seems overdone, sometimes victimy (dictionary sense), more reactive and less inspiring.

Just to mix it up a bit there is a hypothesis that the infantile partner can be the more dominant in the relationship with their secondary romance style.

RSV3

My original post was not to discuss the general theory of erotic attitudes, which has already been well developed within the socionics community. But apparently I need to briefly describe the concept of erotic attitudes. Erotic attitudes describe how types manifest themselves sexually within a relationship. Infantiles match best with caregivers and victims match best with aggressors. Erotic attitude is determined based on the perceiving function of the ego block (i.e., extroverted intuition (Ne), introverted intuition (Ni), extroverted sensing (Se), or introverted sensing (Si)). As is observable from the large circle, a type's dual is directly across the circle.

The theory of subtype is very simple: that a person will prefer one of its ego functions over the other. For example, an INTj may have either a Ti subtype or an Ne subtype. I am theorizing that subtype is not discrete (but rather continuous) and the strength of subtype preference will vary from person to person.

To answer and comment and some of the recent posts:

(1) While in an aggressor-victim relationship the aggressor is considered "dominant," in an infantile-caregiver relationship the terms "dominant" and "submissive" are less applicable. However I would posit that the infantile partner is the more dominant as indicated by my entire theory (i.e., that a person exhibits a combination of infantile-aggressor behavior or victim-caregiver behavior based on the relative subtype expression).

(2) There is no doubt that infantile-aggressor, victim-caregiver, victim-victim, etc. relationships exist, but these relationships tend to run less smoothly than infantile-caregiver and victim-aggressor relationships do.

(3) Someone with a very strong subtype preference will begin to resemble their neighboring type: for example, an ENFj with a very strong Fe subtype would begin to resemble an ESFj (if the ESFj also had a very strong Fe subtype). The reasoning behind this is that the Fe subtype would partially suppress the other ego function's expression. Alternatively if the ENFj had a very strong Ni subtype, then the ENFj would begin to resemble an ENTj (if the ENTj also had a very strong Ni subtype).

On a completely separate note, I'm happy that after 6+ months, my original post finally received some responses.

Here are some descriptions of the erotic attitudes (don’t remember where I found them.)

Careful
- See other people in a caring but maybe arrogant way as if
they are some kind of "parent figure" and everyone else
needs their attention and help
- Interact as if they they are in control but not in aggressive way. This
type always acts in a caring way and expect the partner to accept
this care without rebellion
- Has an openly "patronizing" subtype and a subtype that applies
"care" indirectly
- Hates signs of aggression in themself
- Has "I know what is best for you" attitude

Aggressor
- Sometimes is openly arrogant and aggressive and expects complete
mental submittal from others
- Sometimes has a very victim like look and uses indirect means to
control the partner. In the "heart" is as aggressive and control
oriented as the openly aggressive version. Can turn openly
aggressive if the "victim" refuses to submit to indirect
control.
- Hates signs of weakness in themself
- Has "I am in control" attitude

Victim
- Can project either a submissive or arrogant view of themselves
- The openly submissive version never questions the partners
control but expects the partner to "show the way" in all aspects
of the relationship or interaction
- The arrogant version looks aggressive and always challenges people
but the true meaning of this behavior is to find an aggressor who
is stronger than the victim themself. This type can never be "tamed"
but the partner has to "apply force" at all times to keep the
arrogant victim under control
- Hates signs of weakness in others
- Has "I want you to control me (if you can)" attitude

Infantile
- Can be openly childlike/dreamer/detached or more formal looking with an "inner child"
- Has lots of needs and can be selfish (like a child) and expects
the partner to totally adapt to this behavior
- Can be openly needy for loving and care
- On the other hand can be openly rebellious against care and
need a lot of "right kind of" attention
- Doesn't want the partner to directly control but instead set loose
"boundaries" and safe guards within which it is safe to play and have fun
- Hates signs of aggression or indifference in others
- Has "I want you to be my friend and guardian angel" attitude

So what happens when the LSE does not have a partner that doesn't just accept his "care" and "I know best" attitude without rebellion? Some just lose it... They think they know what's best and that is final and confirmed. That can come off as dominant. I believe that if the LSE is dominant it is because the EII allows it at least according to how the theory is written. It is expected the EII will just lay down, let them tell them what is best for them. It is all smooth until the EII, or whoever, questions it. I don't find this to be the case with SLE. Maybe they just don't mind rebellion from their partner so much. They even enjoy it a bit. Since it adds some spice and keeps them on their toes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Romance-Styles

Edit: I am not promoting the secondary romance style ftr. I just find it does blur the lines more.

[Lord Pixel]

So what happens when the LSE does not have a partner that doesn't just accept his "care" and "I know best" attitude without rebellion? Some just lose it... They think they know what's best and that is final and confirmed. That can come off as dominant. I believe that if the LSE is dominant it is because the EII allows it at least according to how the theory is written. It is expected the EII will just lay down, let them tell them what is best for them. It is all smooth until the EII, or whoever, questions it. I don't find this to be the case with SLE. Maybe they just don't mind rebellion from their partner so much. They even enjoy it a bit. Since it adds some spice and keeps them on their toes.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Romance-Styles

Edit: I am not promoting the secondary romance style ftr. I just find it does blur the lines more.

Aggressor
- Sometimes is openly arrogant and aggressive and expects complete
mental submittal from others
- Sometimes has a very victim like look and uses indirect means to
control the partner. In the "heart" is as aggressive and control
oriented as the openly aggressive version. Can turn openly
aggressive if the "victim" refuses to submit to indirect
control.
- Hates signs of weakness in themself
- Has "I am in control" attitude

This sounds like the same you say for LSE. Actually amplified because Se is valued.

[Aylen]

This sounds like the same you say for LSE. Actually amplified because Se is valued.

Quasi-identicals.

The dynamic doesn't seem as weird to me in an SLE.

Probably due to this little bit:

- Hates signs of weakness in themself

- Hates signs of weakness in others

It also just occurred to me that the LSE would rather control the physical aspects and the SLE the mental aspects due to the creative functions. I will have to think about that more.

Conquerors: SLE (ESTp) LSI (ISTj)

These are assertive types who do not flinch at their own sexuality. They will express their own desire without reservation. They are won over by direct shows of submission (only after feeling that they have earned it). He will be insulted if his romantic interest gives him his title without question, and bored if the fight is too easily won. He, like the Pseudo-Aggressor and the Challenger, is questing to find his equal. Someone he can play his almost sadistic games with without "breaking."


Challengers/Trophies: EIE (ENFj) IEI (INFp)

These are the types who unconsciously throw a "gauntlet" down for their opponents. They know on an almost subliminal level exactly who they are looking for, and anyone who does not fit the bill will be subjected to a rather flakey, hot-cold game of courting tag. As a result, they may appear (both to others and to themselves) rather amorphous and can take on qualities of the other romantic attitudes, depending on the situation and who they are "challenging."


They may, for example, give the victim half his aggressor, the psuedo-aggressor a little victim, the caregiver a bit of his child, etc. They react best, however, to those who do not "break" as a result of their games, but grant them a level of autonomy. Healthy examples of this type will have a sense of self-esteem, and may think of themselves as the "prize" that will be given only to the rightful owner.

[Beautiful sky]

This sounds like the same you say for LSE. Actually amplified because Se is valued.

If you have any doubts come live with us and see how caring and independent my husband is

[Aylen]

If you have any doubts come live with us and see how caring and independent my husband is

This is a sign of a healthy relationship regardless of types. I am happy for you. <3

[Beautiful sky]

This is a sign of a healthy relationship regardless of types. I am happy for you. <3

[The Reality Denialist]

As it is usually said Se in ego prefers to have shadow leader qualities (marshal). It is the LSE who is the director.

[Aylen]

As it is usually said Se in ego prefers to have shadow leader qualities (marshal). It is the LSE who is the director.

"Usually, LSE sees when someone cannot do a task, then he takes it over and does it himself, meanwhile in detail showing and explaining how it needs to be done. (LSE in contrast to SLE does not teach others "how to live" - he teaches them "how to do" and accomplish various tasks and matters.)"

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Stratiyevskaya

[Minde]

And the thing is I get the reason for it being compulsory. Dominant functions can be like an addiction each type has, so I get it.

The reason for my ranting on this duality is probably an old and tired one ( M EII, F LSE gender roles), but one I still struggle to reconcile as much as I enjoy and believe socionics and IR theory. My belief in it is what makes it harder to reconcile with, I recognize duality, I've witnessed it with my eyes and heart, but it leaves me with the feeling of an uncomfortable and intolerable future.

I don't think duality is "supposed to be" uncomfortable and intolerable. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship like that, either.

And as a man, even though I am EII with infantile romance style, the idea of being essentially dominated by a woman is not appealing to me. And I imagine Te can be dominating. Especially in times where Te-dom tries to tell you what to do (without respectable explanation)but you can't tell Te-dom what to do, and considering that ethically that completely lacks any fairness and it's something I cannot tolerate for any amount of time. So imagining that in a relationship that is considered ideal just sounds like one big fat Nope! to me.

Did you happen to read my earlier post in this thread about the various LSEs I've known? All of them have taken input and advice from me, sometimes to the point of drastic changes in their lives.

I just asked my husband, "Do you consider yourself bossy?" (Now one thing I really like about him is he, like most Te people, actually answers my questions, seriously and thoroughly. So I knew I’d get a helpful answer.) He thought for a moment, then said, "Yes, sometimes." He then made sure we shared the same definition of "bossy," which is telling people what to do because you want them to do something / controlling for the sake of controlling. He said, "I've done it less and less over the years as I've matured" and "I think people see me as bossy more often than I actually am."

He then asked me if I see myself as bossy, and I said, "Yes, sometimes. Just ask my little sister, lol." I was the eldest of 4 and often took it upon myself to inform the others of the various rules as well as help keep everyone clean, alive, and good. Some of those habits have trickled into my adulthood.

I've read in a few different places that both EIIs and LSEs take on "teacher" roles, depending on the situations and needs. LSEs tend to be more teacher-like in the practical realms, and EIIs tend to do so in the relational and spiritual realms.

For example, in Filatova's description, an EII "strives to teach and cultivate moral refinement and spirituality in others." This description of the EII-LSE duality by Stratiyevskaya is a bit negatively slanted, but it observes the "controlling" nature of an EII. It's an extra-quadra interpretation of how an EII most definitely wields influence over others. And LSEs are particularly suited to receive it well, to the satisfaction and well-being of both partners (provided things like overall health and good character are present as well).

And perhaps my statement sounds chauvinistic, because it seems to imply that men should only be able to dominate women and not the other way around. But consider this. A man being dominant in the relationship, provided the man is not abusive or a prison ward, is seen a protector and a leader, and that is his role. A dominant woman in the relationship the man is always, and if not always 9/10 seen as weak, and probably has no idea how to assert himself. The one more physically capable should protect, the one more physically capable should be the one out front making sure the coast is clear. To take a man, and put him in a situation to not utilize what biology has given him, is to take away the burden of responsibility he has been given biologically. "With great power comes great responsibility." It also stymies his potential as a man, he could provide protection and leadership, but he is being protected and lead by a woman, who is less physically capable. You would not use a horse to pull a ton of coal if you had a bull. Biology has given men purpose, purpose that is not realized when men are protected and lead by women in a relationship. In a mass crisis situation all this playing pretend that gender roles don't exist would wipe away in a flash, life puts things in order so that it can protect itself, and in a crisis, women and child first, because life is utilizing the purpose of men's strength, and nobody would argue about their roles.
Men's strength is for protecting women, and if not soley, women are a benefiter of this strength when in a relationship dynamic of the former much moreso than the latter if it's even a factor between dominant women and weak men. And the biggest protection from men for women are weapons and other men. And I am an EII man but I also am in favor of traditional gender roles where "a man is the man 60% of the time." God knew what he was doing.

I don't think those ideas are contrary to an EII-LSE relationship, regardless of gender. It might take more finessing due to western culture, but I see it as doable.

I think Te-types like to know how to put stuff together. Once you know that, they start calling you an engineer.

Personally, I have X-ray vision when it comes to machinery. I first got interested in machines when I saw a lathe at a friend's house, and thought how much more efficient a lathe would be compared to a saw and a file. I immediately realized that a machine could multiply my labor output by several multiples, so I had to have one. (I actually remember thinking that.) It's that Te-efficiency.

But there's also the Te-process question of, How does that work? What makes all the things go 'round and 'round?

I don't think Si or Se is mechanical stuff. Si-doms can be interested in mechanical stuff, especially if they are Te-creative, and Se-types typically are interested in machinery because it makes them more powerful and more needed. I haven't met any SLE or SEE machine designers yet.

In high school, my husband set a record for a load bearing bridge contest. Everyone got the same amount and type of materials and the one that could hold the most weight won. His held several times the weight of all the others', and his record wasn't broken for over a decade. He said that he came up with the idea for the design himself and actually didn't expect it to hold as much as it did, though he did think he had a fair chance of winning. Also, his favorite childhood toy was legos, and he was building solid structures at ~2 years old. He ended up 2.5 majoring in electrical engineering, history, and accounting in college, got an engineering job straight out of college, and then quit a few years later because the advancement trajectory took him away from his family and where he wanted to build a life.

When it comes to packing, I pick out what I want* and then let him put it together. It's an underutilization of his skills, but I still find it very useful lol.



* I also consult with him on what would be most practical and what I can probably leave behind.

[Lord Pixel]

Quasi-identicals.

The dynamic doesn't seem as weird to me in an SLE.

Probably due to this little bit:

- Hates signs of weakness in themself

- Hates signs of weakness in others

Why does that make it seem less weird? Can you elaborate on that?

[Minde]

@Aylen I love how thoughtful and detailed your input is. I also like how you intuitively tie things together.

[The Reality Denialist]

"Usually, LSE sees when someone cannot do a task, then he takes it over and does it himself, meanwhile in detail showing and explaining how it needs to be done. (LSE in contrast to SLE does not teach others "how to live" - he teaches them "how to do" and accomplish various tasks and matters.)"

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...Stratiyevskaya

Yes, lol, I have similar aspects in myself (benefit). This is not about the concrete way of doing things but rather nitpicking symbols and logic behind it so it does not throw away the procedural meaning.

[Lord Pixel]

@Aylen I love how thoughtful and detailed your input is. I also like how you intuitively tie things together.

Yea I know she used to type SEE but I get IEE from her.

[Aylen]

Why does that make it seem less weird? Can you elaborate on that?

Just that it makes sense that SLE do not like signs of weakness in themselves and that IEI do not like signs of weakness in others. It makes the dynamic seem less weird to me and compatible. IEI do tend to tolerate their own weaknesses better than they tolerate the weaknesses of others (romantically) and vice versa for the SLE in a romantic sense. I think the LSE/EII is also compatible according to the following.



This is the LSE/EII

Pseudo-Caregivers/Students: IEE (ENFp) EII (INFj)

These are types who exhibit paternal/maternal tendencies towards others in their everyday lives and may thus carry over these notions and temperaments into their romantic life. These types habitually attempt to give their partner what he/she "needs" (or what they believe they need). As a result, they may become drained by lack of attendance to their own needs and desires. In a partner, they are searching for a combination of strength and gentleness.

Teachers: LSE (ESTj) SLI (ISTp)

If I were to describe this type's approach to love, it would be "serious." He approaches his love interest almost with the intention to "teach." This can quite possibly rub the object of his affection in the wrong way, possibly interpreted as condescension. Like the childlike type, he may tend to live "outside sexuality" and may have to intellectualize it in order to be comfortable. He is looking for a worthy pupil.

[Lord Pixel]

Just that it makes sense that SLE do not like signs of weakness in themselves and that IEI do not like signs of weakness in others. It makes the dynamic seem less weird to me and compatible. IEI do tend to tolerate their own weaknesses better than they tolerate the weaknesses of others (romantically) and vice versa for the SLE in a romantic sense.

Ok yea makes sense.

[Aylen]

Yea I know she used to type SEE but I get IEE from her.

Me? I have never typed either.

*I did have SLE in my TIM for a few months. I have never put my self type in it except for enneagram.

[Lord Pixel]

Me? I have never typed either.

Your thing on the side used to say SEEr did it not?

[Minde]

Me? I have never typed either.

IEI

Your tendency to gather info and logically present it while retaining an intuitive grasp on who you're talking to, while perhaps not highlighted in type descriptions or stereotypes, is IME typical of quite a few other IEIs on here over the years. It's pretty great.

[Aylen]

Your thing on the side used to say SEEr did it not?

oh! lol

That was just some fun me and some other forum member had by all putting SEER in our TIM as in like prophets. It was for fun. Before that we all put ILI. You can't always trust the TIM since some people do it for affect. It is fun to see how some people will treat you different by what you put there though. Mostly new members. Older members pretty much know when someone is playing around. Sorry for any confusion.

[DirectorAbbie]

In high school, my husband set a record for a load bearing bridge contest.

Me too! They had to be made from toothpicks and glued at the tips with elmer's glue. Other people had elaborate curved bridges and such. Mostly using square toothpicks. But I had my older brother do the math and he figured the round ones to be 1.5x as strong, so I made sure to use those. Also I knew that triangles are the strongest shape, so I made mine entirely from triangles.
Mine did twice as good as second place before breaking in half. I still have half.
The sad part is that I went first, and I took so long adding weight that the camera people didn't get a chance to photograph anyone else.

[Minde]

Me too! They had to be made from toothpicks and glued at the tips with elmer's glue. Other people had elaborate curved bridges and such. Mostly using square toothpicks. But I had my older brother do the math and he figured the round ones to be 1.5x as strong, so I made sure to use those. Also I knew that triangles are the strongest shape, so I made mine entirely from triangles.
Mine did twice as good as second place before breaking in half. I still have half.
The sad part is that I went first, and I took so long adding weight that the camera people didn't get a chance to photograph anyone else.

My husband was the last one to go, I think, or near the last. So they didn't get a shot of when it broke. Though he said a piece of it went flying high over into a second-story balcony. He still has his pieces, too. Would you like me to try to find a photograph of it (before it broke)?