kinda overly lofty descriptions of LIE

[nanashi]

I used to be gung-ho about schoolwork and was more just getting work done on my own even if I was 'in a group' sometimes during the class, so it just made sense that I was steering because no one was as invested emotionally nor as read-up on the subject, but years later I have noticed that even though I'm not getting perfect grades, people in my courses' small groups are still deferring to me to do executive and organizing work. There's even a sweet lady in one course who's clearly not a last minute, mad-dash kind of worker like I am....she NEEDS to start early and prompts me to meet(which is helpful but freaks me out because I incorrectly assume there's a deadline that night I misread when, really, it's a month from then, and she's just early), and even though she is intiating work sessions, she somehow isn't doing the heading-it-up work: there's this vacuum for EJing in our group. It feels nice to have a skillset people want me to use and encourage me toward.

I just keep finding myself leading all the meetings, setting the pace, moving through slides and talking about what needs to be finished, flow/transitions, talking diplomatically about how we can give a person who hasn't had time to work much yet some assignments, etc. I'm also asking for input and preferences and ideas constantly each meeting.

I thought it sounded foreign in all the LIE descriptions when it talks about us 'leading.' It sounds so weird when you're the person because you just feel normal you, not some singled out person, and I like to look at it like a combination of those two viewpoints: Te types are leading in ONE way, while other types lead in other, less executive, less historically praised, but remarkably valuable, ways.

And now I see what those LIE articles were getting at. Our brains do just naturally start to prepare in a strategic and 'rallying/organizing the compatriots' kinda way.


TL;DR: please share your own thoughts about the articles putting us on pedestals...... or about you personally relating (or not) to your own type (all types welcome) descriptions.

[Adam Strange]

My first exposure to ENTJ descriptions was through Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me, where the ENTJ is described as a Field Marshal, always itching to get his fingers on a command and then rallying the troops. I thought it fit me a little bit because I do feel comfortable leading men, but that description was over-the-top.

Then, when I started visiting other forums and reading what they said about ENTJs (Are They Really as Awesome as They Seem?), I thought, this is bullshit and started looking for more human descriptions. I found them first in the YouTube videos of EJ Arendee (most of which have been deleted by him) and they gave a much more balanced view of ENTJ's, much more based on the theory with amazing insights thrown in. So, too, did the videos of Michael Pierce seem better balanced, although he seemed to be too much of a fan, also.

The best description I ever found was on this site and was Stratiyevkaya's description of ENTj's. It was spot-on and hit every point and missed none, and the fact that she seems to have had incredibly bad luck with some specific LIE Duals did not change the fact that she reported accurately on them in general.

It was actually that article that caused me to join this forum, along with the fact that the people here seemed noticeably smarter than the people in the other forums I visited.

[nanashi]

My first exposure to ENTJ descriptions was through Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me, where the ENTJ is described as a Field Marshal, always itching to get his fingers on a command and then rallying the troops. I thought it fit me a little bit because I do feel comfortable leading men, but that description was over-the-top.

Then, when I started visiting other forums and reading what they said about ENTJs (Are They Really as Awesome as They Seem?), I thought, this is bullshit and started looking for more human descriptions. I found them first in the YouTube videos of EJ Arendee (most of which have been deleted by him) and they gave a much more balanced view of ENTJ's, much more based on the theory with amazing insights thrown in. So, too, did the videos of Michael Pierce seem better balanced, although he seemed to be too much of a fan, also.

The best description I ever found was on this site and was Stratiyevkaya's description of ENTj's. It was spot-on and hit every point and missed none, and the fact that she seems to have had incredibly bad luck with some specific LIE Duals did not change the fact that she reported accurately on them in general.

It was actually that article that caused me to join this forum, along with the fact that the people here seemed noticeably smarter than the people in the other forums I visited.

Thank you, Adam

[eiemo]

My first exposure to ENTJ descriptions was through Keirsey's book, Please Understand Me, where the ENTJ is described as a Field Marshal, always itching to get his fingers on a command and then rallying the troops. I thought it fit me a little bit because I do feel comfortable leading men, but that description was over-the-top.

Then, when I started visiting other forums and reading what they said about ENTJs (Are They Really as Awesome as They Seem?), I thought, this is bullshit and started looking for more human descriptions. I found them first in the YouTube videos of EJ Arendee (most of which have been deleted by him) and they gave a much more balanced view of ENTJ's, much more based on the theory with amazing insights thrown in. So, too, did the videos of Michael Pierce seem better balanced, although he seemed to be too much of a fan, also.

The best description I ever found was on this site and was Stratiyevkaya's description of ENTj's. It was spot-on and hit every point and missed none, and the fact that she seems to have had incredibly bad luck with some specific LIE Duals did not change the fact that she reported accurately on them in general.

It was actually that article that caused me to join this forum, along with the fact that the people here seemed noticeably smarter than the people in the other forums I visited.

I would say that Keirsey’s description of an ENTJ fits SLE, not LIE. So many ENTJ descriptions are describing SLEs.

[Adam Strange]

I would say that Keirsey’s description of an ENTJ fits SLE, not LIE. So many ENTJ descriptions are describing SLEs.

Yes, both the MBTI descriptions of types and the Keirsey descriptions lack clear definitions, in my opinion. They depend too much on anecdotes and hearsay.

For example, when I first started looking into finding a more permanent SO than my SLI ex-wife, I spent some time reading accounts of which types are supposed to do best together. One MBTI site asserted that the best match for ENTJ's (LIE's) was the MBTI type ISTP (LSI). Well, I've had two long-term relationships with LSI's, and they both had exactly the same ups and downs, and they both failed for the same reasons. (Increasing laziness, inability to work together towards a business goal.)

What I imagine caused those MBTI people to advocate for LIE-LSI was that they saw only the initial stages of the relationship, where the distance is easily closed and the participants find that they are sexually compatible and just have a great time together going on vacations or simply doing nothing together.

What they didn't see is that a few months down the road, both types are getting tired of being on a permanent vacation just to get along, and they are starting to clash in the Ti/Te and Fi/Fe areas.

Socionics might not be perfect, but it has better descriptions of interpersonal relationships than any of the other systems I've seen so far. I feel that when it is applied to two healthy individuals, and account is taken of the people's enneagram types (although these tend to align well between Socionics duals) and their instinctual stacks, then you have about 85% of what is needed to predict compatibility.

The last 15% has to do with life goals coinciding, having similar backgrounds and social status, and similar intelligence and health levels. Many of these, though, can start out with great differences and if the two people start living their lives together, some of these social factors will converge.

For example, my best friend in HS was an ESI whose father owned a bank. My family had very little and I had jobs through HS to earn extra money. He was physically gangly and I played sports. This didn't affect our friendship in the slightest, though. We weren't interacting on the money plane. We were supporting each other in our long-term goals. Now, he's a long distance bike rider and I have enough money to pay my bills. So it all blends, and eventually evens out.

[Sol]

The main problem is in bad understanding of the theory. To what predisposes your wrong opinion about own type as LIE, as you have F type.

[The Reality Denialist]

Keirsey is heretic BS as is solcionics. LSE is frontal leader, SLE is the shadow leader, LIE is the wannabe leader and other types lick their (metaphorical) balls and do not give a damn.

[Adam Strange]

Keirsey is heretic BS as is solcionics. LSE is frontal leader, SLE is the shadow leader, LIE is the wannabe leader and other types lick their (metaphorical) balls and do not give a damn.

I would say that in their rush to get ahead, LSE leaders run straight into that brick wall that's just standing there. Repeatedly. Because they can't see past their toes.

SLE leaders run straight into a fight and win and then look around for another fight. Because they can't see that a fight might only be part of a bigger picture.

LIE leaders only step into a leadership role if no one else is doing it. Then, they assemble a team to accomplish the task, and when the task is done, they disassemble the team.

The rest of the socion is better adjusted than these three types and don't want to do this kind of thing.

[eiemo]

I would say that in their rush to get ahead, LSE leaders run straight into that brick wall that's just standing there. Repeatedly. Because they can't see past their toes.

SLE leaders run straight into a fight and win and then look around for another fight. Because they can't see that a fight might only be part of a bigger picture.

LIE leaders only step into a leadership role if no one else is doing it. Then, they assemble a team to accomplish the task, and when the task is done, they disassemble the team.

The rest of the socion is better adjusted than these three types and don't want to do this kind of thing.

I am not an LIE, but I do know that I have stepped into leadership roles quite a bit. I like leading others and I feel the need to implement structure to ensure that a project attains the desired outcome.

[Adam Strange]

I am not an LIE, but I do know that I have stepped into leadership roles quite a bit. I like leading others and I feel the need to implement structure to ensure that a project attains the desired outcome.

@StarPath, I actually see the characteristics you described as being complementary to the skills of LIE's, because LIE's (especially e3 type) want to be in the forefront of research and knowledge, but they have a really hard time forcing anyone to do anything. Or remembering anything. LIE's open doors to opportunities and let a person decide whether they want to walk through or not, but they don't force anyone to do anything. Usually.

LIE's are great at setting the direction for a company, and terrible at executing the plans. For that, they need someone who is on the same page and has Se.

After years of thinking about this, I have concluded that the best arrangement for a company is to have the CEO be LIE, and the COO be ESI. I believe that this was the arrangement at Microsoft for many years.

[eiemo]

@StarPath, I actually see the characteristics you described as being complementary to the skills of LIE's, because LIE's (especially e3 type) want to be in the forefront of research and knowledge, but they have a really hard time forcing anyone to do anything. Or remembering anything. LIE's open doors to opportunities and let a person decide whether they want to walk through or not, but they don't force anyone to do anything. Usually.

LIE's are great at setting the direction for a company, and terrible at executing the plans. For that, they need someone who is on the same page and has Se.

After years of thinking about this, I have concluded that the best arrangement for a company is to have the CEO be LIE, and the COO be ESI. I believe that this was the arrangement at Microsoft for many years.

This is the first time that I have heard that an LIE is actually not great at following through on their plans or willing to lead. It is like both the LIE and ENTJ descriptions describe them as "leader types."

I definitely plan things and I am able to remain very singularly-focused when it comes to it. I am quite good at executing my plans. I would say that I am probably more concerned with keeping up with day-to-day tasks in the nearer future to achieve a larger goal as opposed to thinking about the distant future regularly.

I didn't consider myself to be particularly bossy or a leader type until other people have told me that. I would say that setting order and structure to achieve something is pretty instinctive for me.

I think that there is a reason for why xSIs are considered to be the enforcers of the socion - they lead with an introverted judging function, Se helps them enforce the ideology/rules/morals that the xSI recognizes, and Ne PoLR gives them a singular focus and a lack of tolerance for ambiguity.

[nanashi]

The main problem is in bad understanding of the theory. To what predisposes your wrong opinion about own type as LIE, as you have F type.

Adam is inept in ways Te-egos are. No offense, Mr. Strange

[nanashi]

I am not an LIE, but I do know that I have stepped into leadership roles quite a bit. I like leading others and I feel the need to implement structure to ensure that a project attains the desired outcome.

I've read this about ESI in one of the socionics article descriptions. they can be great at coaching, etc

[Adam Strange]

Adam is inept in ways Te-egos are. No offense, Mr. Strange

Truth is truth, Ms. Nanashi.

[nanashi]

Truth is truth, Ms. Nanashi.

[nanashi]

Truth is truth, Ms. Nanashi.

Oh...nvmind, Mr. Strange. I had thought I was affirming your type to Sol. I now think it was him repeating himself about me...a stranger on the internet with role Fe whom he presumes to assert does not have the sociotype she has.

[Lord Pixel]

Yes, both the MBTI descriptions of types and the Keirsey descriptions lack clear definitions, in my opinion. They depend too much on anecdotes and hearsay.

For example, when I first started looking into finding a more permanent SO than my SLI ex-wife, I spent some time reading accounts of which types are supposed to do best together. One MBTI site asserted that the best match for ENTJ's (LIE's) was the MBTI type ISTP (LSI). Well, I've had two long-term relationships with LSI's, and they both had exactly the same ups and downs, and they both failed for the same reasons. (Increasing laziness, inability to work together towards a business goal.)

What I imagine caused those MBTI people to advocate for LIE-LSI was that they saw only the initial stages of the relationship, where the distance is easily closed and the participants find that they are sexually compatible and just have a great time together going on vacations or simply doing nothing together.

What they didn't see is that a few months down the road, both types are getting tired of being on a permanent vacation just to get along, and they are starting to clash in the Ti/Te and Fi/Fe areas.

Socionics might not be perfect, but it has better descriptions of interpersonal relationships than any of the other systems I've seen so far. I feel that when it is applied to two healthy individuals, and account is taken of the people's enneagram types (although these tend to align well between Socionics duals) and their instinctual stacks, then you have about 85% of what is needed to predict compatibility.

The last 15% has to do with life goals coinciding, having similar backgrounds and social status, and similar intelligence and health levels. Many of these, though, can start out with great differences and if the two people start living their lives together, some of these social factors will converge.

For example, my best friend in HS was an ESI whose father owned a bank. My family had very little and I had jobs through HS to earn extra money. He was physically gangly and I played sports. This didn't affect our friendship in the slightest, though. We weren't interacting on the money plane. We were supporting each other in our long-term goals. Now, he's a long distance bike rider and I have enough money to pay my bills. So it all blends, and eventually evens out.

yo....that's is a real good way to put it.

[Alomoes]

If you want to summarize me in a nutshell, I am basically waiting for some kind of meaningful command. Seafood is a start, but yeah.

You might want to consider the inherent fail-abilities of people in the matter. I hear too little talk of how people make sure they are correct, and a lot of talk on how things are x.

In the case above, it sounds like people who aren't LSI are hanging out with people who aren't LIE. This creates a situation that I have expected. Group sees some kind of empirical evidence, and then doesn't fit the formula to it. As such the formula remains broken. It's likely that LSI is actually the lookalike of LSI. Formula fixed. Other option is LIE is EIE. And so it continues, but my point is made.

[Tallmo]

Jung has a pretty critical descrption of Te. If you want something more negative sounding.

[Rebelondeck]

The descriptions are likely bad translations from Russian text. Executive data processing should be LIE-like but you have to have intelligence, education and confidence to go along with it; otherwise, some LIEs will find themselves living in cardboard boxes. I wrote the following one, which isn't as flattering:

https://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...ription-by-I-O

a.k.a. I/O

[Lolita]

Your description of them is a derpy love starved nerd who’s good at making money. With that sort of description, if they don’t pay anyone’s bills (their gfs, wives, kids, etc.) then their asses gonna get dropped off on the curb. Like Jeffrey.

https://youtu.be/xcbmV_cXaGQ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Alomoes]

Yeah, I work seafood. They like the drive. I suck at everything else. Si polr man. Leave out a frozen good to defrost. Oh. That's where that is. Oh. Where's the pen? I need to write something down. Don't throw out the KLT. "It probably has another day life probably."

I'm also good at discounts. People will yank whatever if it has a 50% discount. So I discount things on the last day. If I was manager, I'd put out stuff that would go bad on the last day for 50% discount. Currently, I only discount things that are put out.

But yeah, I'm solving those problems by keeping a journal. Currently, it's light stuff. How much shrimp do we have; When does everything expire? But it's gonna be real useful.

Btw, I read some of Jung, I agree. Extroverted thinking is basically looking at information. Introverted thinking is basically thinking things through. They go together. Hence I'm good at both, but better at one. Thinking things through is not my specialty. That's jung, don't bother me on how it's not socionics.

[nanashi]

If you want to summarize me in a nutshell, I am basically waiting for some kind of meaningful command. Seafood is a start, but yeah.

You might want to consider the inherent fail-abilities of people in the matter. I hear too little talk of how people make sure they are correct, and a lot of talk on how things are x.

In the case above, it sounds like people who aren't LSI are hanging out with people who aren't LIE. This creates a situation that I have expected. Group sees some kind of empirical evidence, and then doesn't fit the formula to it. As such the formula remains broken. It's likely that LSI is actually the lookalike of LSI. Formula fixed. Other option is LIE is EIE. And so it continues, but my point is made.

meaningful command. Sounds like Fi 'raison d'faire' that LIE seek.


I've spend countless hours evaluating my type. I'm not searching. I'm certain I'm LIE. I don't need assistance typing myself in socionics. I could use ideas on enneagram, though.

This thread is more talking about type descriptions written by the casual enthusiast who sort of deals in stereotypes versus some of the more complete profiles.

[Alomoes]

No kidding. I know the formulas and such basically show I'm LIE, but as long as there is a chance, press d to doubt. Why? Because I need to have conclusive answers and reasoning in order for people to listen to them.