SLE or ILE?

[Lesri]

I had some revelation about SLEs these days, and my entire perception of this type is drastically changing. But, I fear I'm taking wrong paths.

It happened cause a friend of mine, who Me and other friends always typed ENTp, it's presenting too much different characteristics from the stereotype. I analyzed a lot of ENTps during these years and I've come to the conclusion he may be SLE.
But I need some help, because I may be wrong: the way SLEs are potraied online is a little different. It is like they are all muscular giga chads or pu$$y destroyers, but I'm starting to see different kind of SLEs in my life.

So, what do you think? There's a big difference between sle-ti and sle-se?

I will now list all the main differences between all ENTps I know and him.

ENTps:
- ENTps always says to me: "I'm not in hurry. I will understand what I like with time. I want to chill and try some ideas, even if it is not remunerative". Ni ignoring?
- They like a lot to watch new TV series, play new videogames and, in general, they like to seek for the novel and innovative in everything. They hardly seek for "old" things or the past in general. Ne lead and Ni ignoring again.
- Very talkative, but a little intrusive. Some of them speak in a specific way to make people not misunderstand them, but ends up creating misunderstanding. This is a result of Fi ignoring configurated with Ne lead, etc.
In general, they look way more feral than SLEs, because they find it hard to control their Role function.
But...
- They are very genuine people at the end of the ride, but with a too simple perception of values and ethics, which makes them hard to take responsabilities (at least those who I know). It is like their hidden goal as a person is to become similiar to an ESFj (Idk how to explain it), and provide a good enviorment for others.

Instead, the guy I'm unsure about thinks this way:
- He doesn't believe in innovative things and has no interest in TV series and novel things in general. He thinks it is a waste of time. He can't just "waste" is time, it would make him feel bad. ~ Not ignoring Ni.
- He has very deep interest in the past. He studies a lot history and likes to write essays about traditions of little towns, or studying ancient languages. He looks Ni suggestive to me. The way he speaks about the importance of time and past is very deep and serious for a so extravert person.
- Despite these interests, he is the soul of our group. He is very talkative but not intrusive, and he can be the most skilled entartainer for everyone. He is weird but super adaptable at any kind of weirdness required, while with adults he looks super serious. He is a master of Se, I think... and it looks going to much in his role Ne.
- He has a better control over rage, and is able to keep a quiet behaviour with people, but...
- He is a less genuine person. Sometimes fakes to be a "mentor", looking similiar to ENFJs, but he himself seems to lie and hide some negative thought, or the mask falls and he make it clear of being controlling of people, and their Se intentions becomes more clear.

The strange think is finding a SLE with so much culture. Don't get me wrong, it is not that SLEs are stupid, but I never thought they could be so much interested in studies of literatures etc. Am I mistyping him again?

[lookin4waifu]

Why do you think this person in question is an Se master?

They sound like they could be any Ni valuer.

[Lesri]

Because:
- He is a logic type more and we all agree he is Ti creative;
- He is not detatched, but overly immersed in the present moment and he is skilled a lot.
- He doesn't value Fi at all and clashes Fi lead in our group. He always uses a more Fe approach which comes as artificial or filtered by logic.


I discarted LIE because he doesn't seem Fi suggestive, nor Te lead. He doesn't believe in external methods or those who are considered "efficient". He is more a person who wants to build his logical structure. Still it is the more probable alternative (maybe?)

He has not LSI characteristics and clashes some of them.

If you have some opinion about this let me know! Is there a different interpretation of what I said that points out to other types?

[Rusal]

I had some revelation about SLEs these days, and my entire perception of this type is drastically changing. But, I fear I'm taking wrong paths.

It happened cause a friend of mine, who Me and other friends always typed ENTp, it's presenting too much different characteristics from the stereotype.
But I need some help, because I may be wrong: the way SLEs are potraied online is a little different. It is like they are all muscular giga chads or pu$$y destroyers, but I'm starting to see

So, what do you think? There's a big difference between sle-ti and sle-se?

Conversations around here revolve around making a point. So examples of types getting passed around are going to be individuals that are hard to go unnoticed. One is kinda hoping whoever is reading understands that more real, everyday people might present some variation and be more...normal.

SLE-Se: more actively influencing their environment e.g.: In a meeting with a higher-up and the rest of the crew it somehow ends up being them the ones that reach out for the document and read the bullet points with the business plan for the following year. That kind of people. They are constantly 'taking things away' from people meaning the chance to speak, the chance to organize their environment, to introduce some order (they do it first), to move things around and assign roles. An it looks good on them because it's in their nature and done with good intentions and not like a fight for power or anything like that.

SLE-Ti: more retracted and silent. SLE-Se is expansive; SLE-Ti looks more defensive. Instead of vomiting their Se on everything they gaze upon they seem more inclined to stay more quiet and erect a wall. Hence they're they're the subtype of the 'threatening look' when you trespass a line. But the same look also looks fragile, as if they've been caught unawares. More sudden and out of nowhere change of topics (they seek to direct the conversation) made in a maybe ungraceful and quite abrupt way.

Ti sub: can be more mysterious and cool
Se sub: warmer

And then there's everything in between I guess plus some more eccentric accentuations.

[Rusal]

He has not LSI characteristics and clashes some of them.

Can you name in what ways they clash?

[Lesri]

I have known a lot of very different ILEs and your first list for the most part to me just sounds like a smattering of characteristics you collected from a couple ILEs happening to be in common, rather than a true, flexible understanding of the type. I think what you need to do is not type by comparison with other people you know, but rather by identifying functional validation .
If you are into enneagram you can also try to find his enneagram type. There is some significant superficial variation between ILE 5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8 etc

Thanks for your reply.

What I do it's reading function and sites and compare it with reality: if reality matches theory and also what I already formed in my Logic structure, I make blocks of people who I take for real exemples (because I already tested the relevance of theory about them).

Personally, it seems ILE are this way even in theory. I read a lot of discussions on this forum too and the major part underlined the same things.

Also, I've a ILE brother and had an ILE best friend, and they looked identical in every aspect. Not saying ALL ILEs are exactly the same, but there are some bases.
So, ILEs that makes their ideas remunerative and doesn't waste time exist, but it's their pacing with distincs them.

About enneagram, I studied it for two years but stopped because it is too scattered. Considering too much possibilities of evolutions and degradations of the same type leaves the theory opened for too much interpretation. Also, I don't believe in the usage of different types methods to define someone.

Typing methods are born to make stereotype, but the more we add different types method to One analysis, the more we try to go near to define the individual himself. It seems a little contraddictory to me.

It's good to see variation, but I want to keep one theory at time as a base

[Lesri]

Do you know your own self-type? This can help test things out. E.g. as an IEI i can always clearly tell if someone values Fe by seeing how they respond to mine. Or if they value Ni by seeing how much they bring mine out

I really don't know. I try to understand how people around me function but I can't understand how my structure is seen from an external point of view. I know what my triggers are, but I can't interpret it.
I think being Fe-Se-Ni-Ti valuer (idk the order).

[lookin4waifu]

Because:
- He is a logic type more and we all agree he is Ti creative;
- He is not detatched, but overly immersed in the present moment and he is skilled a lot.
- He doesn't value Fi at all and clashes Fi lead in our group. He always uses a more Fe approach which comes as artificial or filtered by logic.


I discarted LIE because he doesn't seem Fi suggestive, nor Te lead. He doesn't believe in external methods or those who are considered "efficient". He is more a person who wants to build his logical structure. Still it is the more probable alternative (maybe?)

He has not LSI characteristics and clashes some of them.

If you have some opinion about this let me know! Is there a different interpretation of what I said that points out to other types?

Ok well the only way to know is to try it out over time and see if it works out. Knowing your own type and the types of others around helps as others have pointed out.

[Lesri]

Can you name in what ways they clash?

The LSI is a little arrogant and plans sh1t things from behind the scenes. This other guy doesn't like him because of his arrogance, but I have the impression they both search to influence people around them in different ways to get something, and so they compete. But I'm not enough sure about it. This maybe-SLE guy just said to me that LSI is arrogant and frustrated.

[lookin4waifu]

I have known a lot of very different ILEs and your first list for the most part to me just sounds like a smattering of characteristics you collected from a couple ILEs happening to be in common, rather than a true, flexible understanding of the type. I think what you need to do is not type by comparison with other people you know, but rather by identifying functional validation .
If you are into enneagram you can also try to find his enneagram type. There is some significant superficial variation between ILE 5 vs 6 vs 7 vs 8 etc.

And how do you “identify functional validation”?

[Lesri]

Ok well the only way to know is to try it out over time and see if it works out. Knowing your own type and the types of others around helps as others have pointed out.

I don't know my type, but near this guys I always feel revived.

He brought me in a lot of different contexts with very different people. The last time we started speaking about philosophy and concepts with some guys (they looked IEI) who were extremely serious. It seemed a scene from "The Dreamers", that film with Eva Green. Same vibe.

He is super adaptable but has an hard time with hight Fi valuers, an EII in particular, while tries to please too much an ESE girl. He is a lot enraged because the EII ended with that ESE (his crush), and he has the merits because made them know each other and the EII still keeps psychological distance and hates this guy because he is extravert. It's a mutual hate for different reasons

[Lesri]

Ah. It sounds like you see using more systems to analyze a personality as making the analysis more restrictive. I see it in an opposite manner: adding different angles enables the analysis to become more nuanced and flexible.

From what I understand, I think you may lack a foundation in Socionics if you aren't yet able to type yourself. I don't write this in a mean-spirited manner! I would just like to emphasize to focus your energy on typing yourself the most out of anyone else, because only once you are able see functional dynamics in yourself, will you be able to identify them in others without being led astray by superficial aspects. That may the most efficient route to confidently figuring out the type of this person, even if it seems rather indirect.

What I'm trying to say is that I see people putting so much extra layers of different typing methods that, in the end, they create a very fragile definition that could very easily be wrong and misunderstood with another type. It's not that: more methods = more precise.
It could bring to an over complicate idea on someone that in the ends says nothing about the type.
And, no one can say your way being right and mine wrong, because we all have different opinions about it with the same relevance and we can just exchange them. A lot of people think it is wrong to mix more typing methods for exemple, it's not just me.

About my type: every topic I write here about others has the goal to define who others are to better know how much I'am similiar and dissimiliar to them.
I tried to type myself for years but without the same success I have with others, and that's not because I don't understand theory, but because I feel scattered in the vision I have of myself, having different relations with the same sociotypes and feeling being different and evolved every period.

I think it is wrong to assume that a person doesn't know socionics if can't type himself. A person could be good understanding others but have more difficulty in watching himself with labels, which imo would point to having some function instead of others, not just "lacking studies".
I have typed tons of people out there and actually helped them with good results with my insights and precise predictions. Understand people is what I do to understand myself.

I even started creating a typing method from MBTI, because I thought something about this theory was wrong. After creating it I discovered the existence of a theory that explained (obviously a lot better, because I do other kind of studies in my life) in a very similiar way my same conclusions and insights, and that was socionics. And it's for this reason I'm Here! Typing is a thing I do from when I'm memory.

This said, being sure about your type doesn't make you keep an objective truth. I met tons of people who claimed to be a type while it is obvious they aren't, and other who changed type after weeks or months/years. So, this doesn't make you good or bad at socionics, but from this thing you can understand how much they are decisive or undecisive in something, which could be their abstract or empriical conclusions, which point to some function instead of others too.

I noticed that what you lack is the comprehension that not every person has the same perception of his proper inner state, that of others, or a more objective look at theirselves. There are people better at reading others but more scattered with themselves, and there are more people sure about who they are but not able to understand others well. Your claims annihilate these difference and just takes it very wrong in my opinion, while you should consider that this difference actually points to some preference of functions (valued and unvalued) too.

I know you didn't said this to make me feel stupid, it's just that to me you are lacking something in your typing that is very important to understand if someone values or not an approach and function, as much you think I'm lacking something else, maybe.

[Lesri]

@Lesri I don't get it. Isn't to understand Socionics to understand people? Isn't to understand people to understand yourself? Vice versa? How can one fully exist without the other?

It is, but there are different starting point for each person/type. It doesn't happen at equal levels for everyone.

An exemple: a type as the EII is better at knowing himself, his likes and dislikes, but strive to understand others too. He considers more his subjective response to things, and watch the object through his filters. With time, if he builds a more intense relation with people he may learn a lot more about them in detail, but still he will need to met a lot of different people to understand how much different types are, and that's hard because a lot of them are loners or just for small groups of people. Errors or over evaluations could be a lot common. I see this a lot in ESIs, because they are full of prejudices and fears that blinds them a little in regard to others.

I know 1 LII and 3 EII interested in socionics. Both types are Se Polr and in fact all of them get the impression that every person who has enough confidence to tell an opinion countrary to theirs it's a SLE, despite it's obvious they are not because of both functions expression and relations with others (duals etc.), and that's because they over-feel other's strenght and confidence in telling or doing things (despite being things that everyone could do or say, not just Se valuers). They will learn for sure with time to expand their field of perception, but it is slower.

An Fe lead (exemple) could be better at getting the impressions about others because they make a difference between all the objects, but maybe going in to detail is harder, plus its hard to understand himself because he finds it harder to evaluate how his relation to others are (both the ignored and polr are introvert functions, for exemple). Where an EII keeps a similiar character with almost everyone, an extravert is more adaptable, and his relationships could be interpreted differently. Being more "scattered" it's harder to see yourself as the object: you better watch and analyze objects (extraversion), but the "subjective" evaluation about them (how you relate to these things) will be harder to understand and put in a structure like socionics etc.

For this reason, knowing myself is more a goal that happens later, while for others could be the opposite. My question on this forum it's just because it happened I'm a little undecisive about someone (kinda rare).

Sorry for the long reply and if I sounded rude before, it wasn't my intention.

[Lesri]

@Lesri You are surely an IEI. Type 9 Social.
Trust me, takes one to know one =)
(just that I'm a 4, not a 9)

Thanks for sharing your opinion about it! I will study more in depth this type =D

Is it common for them to be a little rude and imposing in giving advice? Are they distrustful of emotions because of logic (at a certain degree)?
I feel a lot constructivist because rewatch, re-play and re-listen the same things even after 15 years and every year.
IEIs in general seems more opened to novel things and they have a certain "artist rage" when showing Se, while my Se seems more strong but controlled. Also, people says I'm more logical rather than a feeler, and some of them fear to argue with me because I shoot facts.

My love interests were all Ni lead or EIE, but we clashed because of different goal of our life (mine being more pragmatical and theirs being more "artistic" [IEI/EIE], or because she was too much distant as a person [ILI]).
Still, I fall in love with their mysterious aura and because they seem to actualize their ideal self in the present moment, looking as... cursed souls, but being nice when you know them better.

I didn't thought about this type for these reasons, but maybe I'm different from the stereotype

[Metaphor]

Seems SLE-Ti.

[Lesri]

@Lesri

"Is it common for them to be a little rude and imposing in giving advice? "
Honestly, yes. Ni is terribly uncertain.... until it isn't. Once it's certain, it takes some serious Se barrage to penetrate.
Especially IEIs. We are 4D Ni/Fi. The one thing we are sure about is (interpersonal) advice. IEIs are just as aggressive as SLEs, only in the NF realm. So yes, imposing wouldn't be an incorrect description.

"Are they distrustful of emotions because of logic (at a certain degree)?"
I'm not sure how accurately I can answer this as a 4. My flaw is to unconsciously identify with my emotions as indicative of reality. I can say that I used to be ashamed of my emotions, causing me to try to erase them.

"I feel a lot constructivist because rewatch, re-play and re-listen the same things even after 15 years and every year."
Maybe you're an obsessive weirdoooo
Nah. I'm definitely like this. It could just as much be a pattern as it could be a coincidence, though, so I wouldn't think too hard about it.
Reinins are something to pay attention to once you've typed yourself, IMO. They're too subtle to be useful for typing people IMO..

"IEIs in general seems more opened to novel things and they have a certain "artist rage" when showing Se, while my Se seems more strong but controlled. "
I have no idea what you mean by artist rage. I also think this is a pretty broad blanket statement.

"people says I'm more logical rather than a feeler, and some of them fear to argue with me because I shoot facts."
I don't know how old you are, but I must say that you remind me a lot of my younger self. I had this stage when I largely tamped down on Fe in favor of Ti. My Ti base friend described me as too logical when approaching emotional things. Socionics was actually what made me realize that my feelery qualities weren't a weakness, but a strength.

9's tend to be extremely mistyped. You strike me as a gut type, as well with this undercurrent of desiring harmony. I mean "harmony" in the Enneagrammatic sense.
You like to think things through in a very logical manner. You may be inclined to view yourself as primarily logical, but you're a feeler. Ti "hidden agenda". You ask so many questions. That's wonderful. They aren't even often questions that are necessary to the topic at hand, it's just that you would like to know. You have an insatiable thirst for things to make sense to you. The difference is that you seek this from outside, not from within because you are still not quite a Ti ego type.
You are quite verbose and quasi-rambley. It's like you are skirting around a few single points you're trying to make, yet can't quite explicitly directly hit at them. This is why you dualize with a SeTi type. You will love how they suddenly make everything make sense, how they bluntly hit so crystal clear with their observations. I can spot the Se suggestive by your reaction to when I confidently, yet rather bluntly, told you what type I thought you were, after jerkishly ignoring your previous reply that you clearly put a lot of thought into (sorry). It wasn't even neutral, you got kind of happy =) Cue the Ti HA stepping in, questions, questions, you ask me for more information so that YOU can mull through it and come to a decision on your own. Clearly Ti isn't 1D. You still expect some logical autonomy: Don't tell me what to think. Just guide me.

Also, I think deep down you know he's SLE, you just want someone to make you sure about it =) Very IEI!

Thanks for your reply! I will read more about this type. You made very good points about it.
I'm 24 btw.

[FrozenLord]

I wrote such a long and nice (IEI friendly) answer but it got lost after accidentally closing the tab and now I’m too lazy to rewrite everything. But long story short, @Lesri seems very ILE to me. I can relate to 100% of what he said and his perception/thought process. Just be aware that your type has a tendency to organise chaos in an aristocratic way, and you will automatically try categorising people against systems in a very biased Ni-Ti way. And by trying to affirm things at the same time you’re avoiding 1D Te, you might miss a lot of information and possibly alienate others with such certainty.


Let me know if you disagree, I’m open to discussing it ��

[Lesri]

I wrote such a long and nice (IEI friendly) answer but it got lost after accidentally closing the tab and now I’m too lazy to rewrite everything. But long story short, @Lesri seems very ILE to me. I can relate to 100% of what he said and his perception/thought process. Just be aware that your type has a tendency to organise chaos in an aristocratic way, and you will automatically try categorising people against systems in a very biased Ni-Ti way. And by trying to affirm things at the same time you’re avoiding 1D Te, you might miss a lot of information and possibly alienate others with such certainty.


Let me know if you disagree, I’m open to discussing it ��

Thanks for your reply! That makes sense too.
I have a need to categorise everything I perceive or make connections between things.
Even If I see a place, I have to connect it to something I already saw, and I do the same with people.
I like how you explained it: "organise chaos". I wrote something similiar in my diaries.

I'm thinking to open a new thread where to speak about my type again, with some information about me. You all are welcome to join the discussion =)