.
.
.
Last edited by theticalanti; 06-16-2016 at 03:40 AM.
There are varying cases, yes. At one point, I told others that I considered myself to be a bit of both optimistic and pessimistic; and truthfully, that's just part of reality - 'realistic'.
In the situation you mentioned, I would relate more to both the optimistic negativist and the pessimistic positivist. But my responses would depend entirely upon the situation and the circumstances involved. Is there a deadline that I need to meet in purchasing the car? A more negative approach would be taken when noticing a three-week deadline, and knowing that there was no way I could save up $4,000 in that time. A more positive approach, however, would be taken if a three-month deadline was given - it would be more realistic to save up the funds by then. Truth is, I am always aware that things will work out for the best. However, this doesn't stop me from being frantic when life steps in the way and delays progress.
There are also things to take into consideration with the dichotomy, though. If a person is severely depressed or stressed due to events beyond their control, they probably will come across as more negative to others. This doesn't necessarily mean that's how they have always been.
Result/Process is key to understanding this... it determines how positivism and negativism are distributed over Static and Dynamic and the conscious/unconscious blocks... if the person is a Negativist in Statics (Result) s/he is automatically a Positivist in Dynamics... etc etc vice versa.
You say that but I'm still a pessimistic negativist.
Anyway, if we're talking about this dichotomy I haven't seen much of Gulenko's characteristics of the positivist-negativist dichotomy in the real world with real types even though the cognitive styles are right-ish anyway.
andSocial Level
Negativism generates tension in intragroup relations, leading on one hand to an increase in psychological distance between members, but on the other hand activating its internal momentum to say "Move!". Positivism by contrast contracts psychological distance and encourages internal group cohesion, but can also bring complacency, carelessness, and 'vapidity' of existence.
andPsychological Level
For Positivists, human nature is inherently good, so they are more likely to be trusting. This does not mean that they consciously consider themselves to be good, just that they conduct themselves as if others were. Negativists even under favorable conditions are inclined to expect the worst. Their degree of trust in others is therefore is much lower.
Physical level
Clinical psychologists studying nonverbal cues classify gestures indicative of critical attitudes. Such gestures are typically 'closed'—for instance, a hand at the mouth. From a Socionics standpoint then, closed demeanor is better explained by Negativism, not Introversion.
Warm Regards,
Clowns & Entropy
I have a fair amount of experience with LSEs, and overall those particular people are among the most optimistic I've known. To me it looks like, "I see what's wrong here, and I'm going to fix it." But ofc I don't know what's going on internally for them.Originally Posted by William
Yeah. I'm definitely a pessimist, in spite of being a positivist type.
And I share the experience of knowing shit tonst of super optimistic LSEs. LSEs in general come off as very confident and positive to me. They're always busy with something and have a lot of trust in their ability to handle things. Meanwhile I sit in a corner feeling ashamed of being so negative and miserable in comparison.
Positivists sum up what there is, negativists sum up what is missing.
Optimists focus on the good aspects, pessimists on the bad.
A positivist pessimist would focus on the bad things we have. Hot dogs are too expensive here
A Postiivist optimist would focus on the good things we have. At least we can eat if we want to.
A negativist pessimist would focus on the good things we're missing. Why don't we have cheaper food here.
negativist optimist would focus on the bad things we're missing. There's nobody selling overpriced hamburgers.
@lecter has touched on another facet a little - assuming that the Reinin dichotomies are reliable. But even not thinking about the Reinin dichotomies, it is clear that someone who is primarily a short-term positivist can be a long-term negativist and that someone who is a positivist in relation to people may be a negativist in other areas. Someone may be upbeat about the people around them but be overwhelmingly negative about the future of humanity etc.
Result/Process is mostly about what forms of optimism and negativism a person values... but also about what forms of it they will apply in situations outside of the narrowest comfort zone.
My experience with LSEs is that they love to berate, shout at people that don´t follow exaclty what they say, list their faults down to every possible detail, nitpick everything (usually I´m one of those people, oftentimes the one, unless other LIEs are there). Maybe they´re nice if you follow exactly what they want you to, or if you manipulate them a bit. Idk.Yeah. I'm definitely a pessimist, in spite of being a positivist type.
And I share the experience of knowing shit tonst of super optimistic LSEs. LSEs in general come off as very confident and positive to me. They're always busy with something and have a lot of trust in their ability to handle things. Meanwhile I sit in a corner feeling ashamed of being so negative and miserable in comparison.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
my interpretation of Result/Process' effect on optimism/pessimism:
Result:
- feel like actions should be contributive; even imperfect contributions are valued; not a massive quality requirement on actions, anything that helps is valueable
- feel like results (passive things in general) are to be judged harshly, rejected by default; nothing is ever good enough; if anything is claimed as a favorite, it is done reluctantly
Process
- feel like actions should be correct; the first principle is to do no harm, from there on, do only what you know works well; people's actions are a likely target of criticism; no one ever does things perfectly right and the Process type is there to remind you of it
- feel like results (passive objects and states) are to be judged on their mertits; everything is interesting and worthwhile in some respect; everything is by default appreciated
People keep talking about this kind of LSEs, but I've met maybe one in my whole life. Generally LSEs seem to be pretty much the opposite - very laid back and have faith in things working themselves out (thus, no need for shouting or obsessive controlling). They're not doormats by any means, but also not at all dominating socially. Very open for alternative ideas and discussion. I'm way more bossy and leader-like than any Si-LSE I've met, and I'm a Se polr paranoid pussy wimp.
I know one Te-LSE who I guess could be seen as bossy or berating if you didn't know her (she'll use sentences like "the bottom line is..." etc with a raised voice), but she is very much aware of her temperament "issues" and will probably laugh and apologise if you point it out for her. Also quick to admit she might be wrong and more than keen to consider alternative possibilities.
it may very well be just like you say in a social setting, but IME at work (or in sports) they quickly become the way I've described...although I have to say I'm often their favorite target so there's something in me that provokes that reaction I guess.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I've always found my Te-LSE dad pretty mild.
Last edited by suedehead; 08-03-2014 at 07:41 PM.
Yea, I've never played team sports or worked with one so I wouldn't know. I still have a hard time imagining my few closest friends (who are Si-LSEs) being like that in any environment. One of them is a captain of an american football-team and plays quarter back which sort of requires him to act like a leader. I don't have first-hand experience of what he's like in their practice/games, but he's talked to me about how weird it feels for him to have to give people orders when his personality is generally more socially introverted and adaptive. He also got some diploma for being an exceptionally deliberative and mature player or something. Haven't sensed any annoyance from his teammates or coaches either, quite the opposite to be honest. This is of course only one individual, but his behaviour consolidates my schema of LSEs better than the idea of LSEs as rigid besserwissers, so descriptions like yours confuse me.
My father (LSE-Te) used to yell at people at restaurants when they would mess up his order or something wasn't to his liking. I never quite understood that. When he was nearing retirement his company wanted him to retire, but he didn't want to, so he threatened to take them to court and instead they let him work another two years. I couldn't understand why somebody would want to be that way with people; people must have hated him. Another time he hit the breaks on a guy on the highway because he was tail-gating, trying to get even or something I guess. Then he would let the guy pass and drive up and honk his horn and cut him off. Well this guy followed us about 10 miles and wanted to kill my father. So my father kept driving and eventually the guy got tired and left. But holy shit, who does that?
But at home or when he was relaxed, he was nice and fine and all that. Though somewhat pompous and narcissistic in how he thought about himself.
I had a First Sergeant LSE-Te that enjoyed berating people and putting them on the stop. One day a soldier got so nervous from this, he starting tremoring and he looked like he was going to cry. It was the most awkward thing I've ever experienced in the army. One day, she screamed as loud as she could at someone for coming out of a building with an incomplete uniform, despite the fact that the fire alarm was going off. I don't know what she was thinking, but eventually the commander had to get rid of her. But when she did recreational activities out of uniform and brought her children, suddenly she was nice and fine. I don't know, it was fucking weird. Anyway, I think I get what you're saying.
edit: on second thought, this might be more a problem for LSE-Te then LSE-Si. I don't know.
I've known some LSEs who were theoretically Negativists, but actually had a very refreshing and cheerful optimistic personality. Ironically in one case it was the EII dual they were with who was more brooding and pessimistic (sx/sp as well). The LSE was quite endearing - she used to say she would get depressed if she didn't constantly do something (at least arranging stuff around the house, if not real work).
Allright, this matches my experience, amped up by the fact that I respond to their aggression with aggression - so everything gets worse. As I said - it's not just their problem, it's my problem aswell. I guess two Te-doms with different creative funct don't go well together.
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I'm not talking about rules of a sport, say not making fouls, playing fair, etc. that's a given. I'm talking about following a way of doing things during the match as a player., say, I go out of position to cover another player cause a teammate was attacking. LSE teammate shouts at me "WHY ARE YOU OUT OF POSITION??? CANT YOU PLAY SOCCER??". I reply something like "Fuck your mother and your family, who are you for giving me orders?". LSE is enraged, fight ensues. This is a fairly typical occurrence with the people I type "LSE", whenever we have to work together at something, esp. if they're E8.
(For the record, I can't really see you, William, acting like this)
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
I am an optimistic positivist? I think. This morning a friend asked me to imagine my dream life, and even though I live in my imagination quite frequently, this question made me realize that my beliefs are:
Re new car.[11:56:03 AM] Aylen: i don't have one
[11:56:19 AM] Aylen: i am happy to see how things go from where i am
[11:56:31 AM] Aylen: i have earned my scars and i am ok with them
[11:56:56 AM] Aylen: i am an optimist living in the best of all possible worlds
Thank god I have credit. I will buy the car now and know I will have the money to pay for it because the money always shows up when needed.
Thankfully irl my car is paid off but even if it wasn't I would budget myself to pay for it. I know how. I try not to let my negative self talk me out of what I want to do so I find ways to overrule my negative side.
“My typology is . . . not in any sense to stick labels on people at first sight. It is not a physiognomy and not an anthropological system, but a critical psychology dealing with the organization and delimitation of psychic processes that can be shown to be typical.” —C.G. Jung
If this were true, why would they be Ni-polr?
The post in this thread is so Fe ego, that it hurts: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...personality?p=
http://www.sociotype.com/socionics/i...on_elements/Fe
The person is obviously focused on processing "Internal dynamics of objects" in real life and probably often has to repress "honesty in communication" for the sake of social niceties and getting along well with many people (albeit rather on a surface level).
In general from the little I´ve noticed ... it´s not really heavy-weight factual info that fills posts and comments, rather subjective judgments about people and their interaction and sometimes attempts at influencing their emotional state, not exactly their reasoning.
My 2 cents.
^ I agree on Fe ego
I don't know, because of their strong Te? To be honest, I find it very difficult to see the Ni-polr in more intelligent LSEs. They aren't very focused on thinking about long-term developments of abstract things ("How will my life/society turn out in 10 years?"), but it doesn't seem like this bothers them much - it's just not a major interest for them. With concrete tasks, (the type you often have to deal with at work/sports teams), LSEs are among the most confident/laid back people ime. They can be very creative with Te and usually trust their abilities to fix what gets broken, so there's no reason for them to panic. To me ESEs (and EIEs maybe?) have always been the stereotypical berating/neurotic type. I've seen it as a EJ+weak Te (maybe weak Ni too?)-issue.
An example:
My ESE-Fe sister drives me nuts with her controlling behaviour. She makes to-do-lists of absolutely everything (also for other people), wants to double-check the smallest things ("better send my diplomas to the new school as registered letters even though they're just invaluable copies and not in a hurry"), is very unwilling to change her plans and schedules if something new comes up ("I'd want to come to your party but I've got maths homework scheduled for that evening"
My LSE friends are more like "So you forgot your packed lunch and our tailpipe's broken? No probs, I know a nice restaurant we can buy food from, and then I'll show you how to build a tailpipe out of soda cans & duck tape in less time than it takes for you to say "cat"! "
This could just be a inter-type relation thing and long term inter-type relation thing. With family, there is generally a breakdown of trust somewhere along the way which results in festering long term conflict. This is why family get-togethers are PITA.I don't know, because of their strong Te? To be honest, I find it very difficult to see the Ni-polr in more intelligent LSEs. They aren't very focused on thinking about long-term developments of abstract things ("How will my life/society turn out in 10 years?"), but it doesn't seem like this bothers them much - it's just not a major interest for them. With concrete tasks, (the type you often have to deal with at work/sports teams), LSEs are among the most confident/laid back people ime. They can be very creative with Te and usually trust their abilities to fix what gets broken, so there's no reason for them to panic. To me ESEs (and EIEs maybe?) have always been the stereotypical berating/neurotic type. I've seen it as a EJ+weak Te (maybe weak Ni too?)-issue.
An example:
My ESE-Fe sister drives me nuts with her controlling behaviour. She makes to-do-lists of absolutely everything (also for other people), wants to double-check the smallest things ("better send my diplomas to the new school as registered letters even though they're just invaluable copies and not in a hurry
My LSE friends are more like "So you forgot your packed lunch and our tailpipe's broken? No probs, I know a nice restaurant we can buy food from, and then I'll show you how to build a tailpipe out of soda cans & duck tape in less time than it takes for you to say "cat"! "
The problem of logical types dealing with each other is as ego functions, there will be some competition. When a logical type deal with a compatible ethical type, there is a deference that will eventually occur, this results in less conflict. Two ethical types and two logical types will naturally conflict to a certain extent unless their thinking is in alignment. When you perceive as confident and laid back is maybe just compatibility, many LSE's are exactly as they're describe berating, very micromanaging and very intolerable. When a weak ethical type is forced into a role where they have to use their super-ego functions, they are more conscientious of criticism and often times this uncertainty leads to more extreme behavior and sometimes conflict. In many ways the example that you've used about LSE would offend another individual. It's patronizing and leaves no room for decision making on the other individual, and can also be perceived as arrogant. The subjectivity of inter-type relations and how each and every type can interpret the same interaction very differently is very nuanced, a pleasant interaction for one type could be the depth of hell for another individual.
Her excuses for not coming to your party is probably more related to her not wanting to come to your party, there's likely a individual she's trying to avoid and/or you that she's trying to avoid. Also Choleric temperament has two sides, one is the uber chaotic totally irresponsibly side and the other side is the uber micromanaging perfectionism side. Two individuals of the same type could act in very different fashion, except both will be extreme about it. This is just a characteristic of choleric temperament.
It's also quite clear that you don't value her and have some anti-pathy towards her and she is going to know this. Alpha's as a quadra have a trait which is very distinct, they are open publicly and very accepting of people in a social/productive fashion, but privately, they refuse to deal with people they don't like. It seems she wants to avoid you at a fun level and engage you only at a productive level.
Kindred is a very bad relationship once people get past the initial Base function engagement. Base is inert and Creative is contact, which means the contact communication is going to be bad. When they start working together all sort of conflict and disagreement can arise.
Socially/at work LSE's can be quite laid back but they react to stress really badly and can become really abusive. I think it's not a social/work thing, but that is influenced by other factors like instinct and mimicry. There are individuals who are laid back at work but at home become very controlling.
IMO, individuals can go thru shifts too.
http://starmagazine.com/2014/07/21/g...house-divided/
http://www.boston.com/sports/blogs/o...h_birthda.html
Like the recent stories about Gisele, from what everyone says, at the beginning of her and Brady's relationship, she was not as controlling, but as time went on she became more controlling and intolerable. This is a relationship I'm watching closely because her behavior is very LSE-ish and imo they can be more laid back, but their controlling nature can come to the forefront some times and they need to take a major loss in order to learn how to be less controlling.
Wait, is this Type Me (@William) 3.0?
About LSE's, i've met plenty "optimistic/cheery" ones. They can be pushy, usually unintentionally though. Nothing much to add here i guess.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
I think we need a bullshit-button