Differences between LSE-ESTj and LSI-ISTj

[UDP]

You've said "responsibility' and "duty and honor" quite a bit - what specifically are you referring to? What is your definition of these?

[Gilly]

I restate that dee is once again completely off the mark.

Joy, "know it all" is obviously derogatory.

[Joy]

You've said "responsibility' and "duty and honor" quite a bit - what specifically are you referring to? What is your definition of these?

The meaning of an LSE's life is pretty much to see that himself and his loved ones are well taken care of. He works so much because the overtime is going to get his kid that new bike he wants, or so his family can live in a nicer house or drive a nicer car. Providing for his loved ones is most of what he considers his responsibility to be. The rest is about getting the job done.

Recently I heard a speaker describe the midwest work ethic, and in her explanation she said that she once asked a group of midwesterners why they're so much more responsible than the people she'd worked with from other parts of the country. One guy responded "if you don't milk the cows, they die". That is an example of the type of responsibility you'll see in an LSE. It's practical and down to earth (though of course it's not always related to farming ). The work needs to be done, and it won't do itself. Stuff may break or pile up or his coworkers are counting on him because they can't finish the job without him.

I'll describe "duty and honor" in an LSI in a bit.

Joy, "know it all" is obviously derogatory.

Maybe. My intention wasn't to insult anyone though. I was trying to explain the difference between the two types. An LSI will be quite knowledgeable about anything he has an interest in, and you can't tell him he's wrong about anything related to it. He'll speak down to you and confidently rattle on about how he believes things are.

LSE's aren't like that though... they see having (and, even more so, endlessly discussing) such a detailed understanding of a subject as useless and a waste of time (unless they need to know it in order to work). They'd rather be working or relaxing or playing. They'd rather keep things simple, and LSI's like to make things complicated (or at least sound complicated), perhaps more complicated than they need to be in order to do the job.

I guess what I'm saying is that while LSI's like to be/sound somewhat intellectual, LSE's just want to get the job done.

Granted, these are gross oversimplifications, but they're not meant to describe each type individually or be all encompassing descriptions of each type. They're purposely exaggerated to make it easier to understand the differences.

[Gilly]

Unfortunately your intentions have no impact on the way people read what you've written.

You're obviously not giving a favorable interpretation here. LSIs like to sound intellectual? How do you know what they want? Are you one? Stick with "be." An LSI isn't going to "speak down" to anyone or "sound" any particular way unless he's insecure. Shit, you speak down to people all the time, Joy; stop pinning it on type. They wouldn't say they "like to make things complicated," either. Try to speak from the perspective of the type your describing. Be more objective; I know you can.

[Jonathan]

LSE: wants a normal, comfortable, average, peaceful life
LSI: wants a life of successfulness, achieving large goals

LSE: wants to take care of people
LSI: wants to command people

LSE: concerned with responsibility
LSI: concerned with duty and honor

LSE: values kindness
LSI: values friendliness

LSE: wants he and his partner to support each other
LSI: wants he and his partner to encourage each other

LSE: earthy
LSI: authoritative

LSE: hates talking about the long term future
LSI: loves talking about the long term future

LSE: do it all
LSI: know it all

LSE: needs a playful partner to help him relax
LSI: needs a spirited partner to give him direction

While this is functionally-derived, I think it may be misleading. LSEs are often described as workaholics. Many are managers in large corporations. So, I don't think it's right to say that they aren't interested in success or achieving big goals. "Wants a normal, comfortable, average, peaceful life" doesn't seem to fit with Ej temperament. I think you're putting too much emphasis here on Si quadra values and making them out to seem like acc-Si. LSEs I know work hard and are often good in business, but when at home they want to relax.

LSE: wants to take care of people
LSI: wants to command people"

This is also misleading. While LSI's leadership style may seem more commanding, they aren't necessarily more people-oriented than LSEs; I don't think they would be more inclined to want a job where they have to work with a lot of people and attend a lot of meetings than LSEs. On the contrary, LSIs would be more likely to want to work by themselves than LSEs. I know that some people would want to completely discount that aspect of things, but it's true. (Note: The fact that LSIs are more likely to have a "commanding" leadership style may create a challenge for them in certain environments that require a more "inclusive" management style. In my experience, LSIs often gain a supervisory position by proving their ability to run things efficiently.)

Also, the theme of "taking care of people" is more associated when Si is paired with Fe.

Both LSIs and LSEs may be described as "earthy" when compared to any N types.

EIEs and EIIs could both be seen as "playful," although that may not be the first characteristic to come to mind in either case.

LSE: do it all
LSI: know it all

This is almost the opposite....LSEs are often described as people who seem to need to know everything. LSIs are probably more inclined to do things themselves (vs. delegating) than LSEs.

[Mediator Kam]

The three LSI's I have met are definitely more "earthy" and serious than the one SLE I have met.

LSI's seem to keep their mind on more tangible, "real" ideas and concepts, while the lone SLE enjoys the company of friends, looking for that . Not to say he doesn't have his more serious moments.

I consider this weird because it doesn't appear that LSI's actively seek , even though it is their 5th function, while LSE's actively seek good times.

[Gilly]

LSEs are often described as people who seem to need to know everything.

I've got to disagree with this one. I've lived with one my whole life and she teases my EII father for being a know-it-all ALL the time. She has no desire to project any kind of image of intelligence. Competence, efficiency, and effectiveness, yes; intelligence, no.

LSIs are probably more inclined to do things themselves (vs. delegating) than LSEs.

From living with an LSE, this is absolutely true. LSEs LOVE to delegate, tell people what to do, take control to make sure everything gets done in plenty of time, whereas LSIs tend to do things themselves so that they are "done right."

[Jonathan]

I've got to disagree with this one. I've lived with one my whole life and she teases my EII father for being a know-it-all ALL the time. She has no desire to project any kind of image of intelligence. Competence, efficiency, and effectiveness, yes; intelligence, no.

That could be. A number of Socionics descriptions/sites tend to describe them as wanting to know everything. In real life, you may be right though.

From living with an LSE, this is absolutely true. LSEs LOVE to delegate, tell people what to do, take control to make sure everything gets done (whereas LSIs tend to do things themselves so that they are "done right").[/QUOTE]

Well said.

[Jonathan]

I've got to disagree with this one. I've lived with one my whole life and she teases my EII father for being a know-it-all ALL the time. She has no desire to project any kind of image of intelligence. Competence, efficiency, and effectiveness, yes; intelligence, no.

That could be. A number of Socionics descriptions/sites tend to describe them as wanting to know everything. In real life, you may be right though.

From living with an LSE, this is absolutely true. LSEs LOVE to delegate, tell people what to do, take control to make sure everything gets done (whereas LSIs tend to do things themselves so that they are "done right").

Well said.

[Minde]

Unfortunately your intentions have no impact on the way people read what you've written.

On the contrary, intentions hold a great deal of weight for me.

Unless I'm not numbered among "people"...

[Joy]

Unfortunately your intentions have no impact on the way people read what you've written.

You're obviously not giving a favorable interpretation here. LSIs like to sound intellectual? How do you know what they want? Are you one? Stick with "be." An LSI isn't going to "speak down" to anyone or "sound" any particular way unless he's insecure. Shit, you speak down to people all the time, Joy; stop pinning it on type. They wouldn't say they "like to make things complicated," either. Try to speak from the perspective of the type your describing. Be more objective; I know you can.

I was actually trying not to appear to favor LSI's over LSE's when I wrote the description of LSE's, seeing as how I tend to prefer LSI's over LSE's irl.

And again, these are gross oversimplifications, but they're not meant to describe each type individually or be all encompassing descriptions of each type (meaning that not all of the traits listed will apply to every LSI/LSE). They're purposely exaggerated to make it easier to understand the differences. I shouldn't have to add that I was not saying that the traits described apply only to the types I matched them with. These traits can apply to many other types, including LSI's/LSE's (and myself).

I do, however, think that most LSI's "speak down to" those who challenge them on a subject which they like to think of themselves as something of an authority on. They try to assert that they're correct by establishing dominance, not necessarily over the person, but regarding the subject. Yes, insecure people take this to an extreme, but it can be done without going overboard.

LSEs are often described as workaholics. Many are managers in large corporations. So, I don't think it's right to say that they aren't interested in success or achieving big goals. "Wants a normal, comfortable, average, peaceful life" doesn't seem to fit with Ej temperament. I think you're putting too much emphasis here on Si quadra values and making them out to seem like acc-Si. LSEs I know work hard and are often good in business, but when at home they want to relax.

I thought this is what I was saying?

While LSI's leadership style may seem more commanding, they aren't necessarily more people-oriented than LSEs

I don't understand why you'd think I'm saying that LSI's are people-oriented (or even "more people-oriented than LSE's")?

I don't think they would be more inclined to want a job where they have to work with a lot of people and attend a lot of meetings than LSEs.

I don't know that LSE's are like that, either. I think LSE's are a rather anti-meeting type, generally speaking. Not that LSI's particularly enjoy meetings. It probably depends, in both cases, on the meeting and what it's about.

Also, the theme of "taking care of people" is more associated when Si is paired with Fe.

LSE's are very much about taking care of their loved ones. They just do it in a more practical, less "feel good" way than Si + Fe types. They'll advance in their careers, take side jobs, and work over time for the purpose of providing a good (read: comfortable and stress free) life for their families. They'll also do things like fix someone's car to take care of them. They're more stoic about taking care of people than Fe types are.

Both LSIs and LSEs may be described as "earthy" when compared to any N types.

Yeah. But I was comparing them to each other, not intuitive types.

EIEs and EIIs could both be seen as "playful," although that may not be the first characteristic to come to mind in either case.

Of course. As I've already said, I was merely contrasting the two dual pairs (with somewhat of a focus on Ne vs. Ni, in this case). I don't understand exactly how LSE's benefit from the Ne of EII's, so I could be way off. I was just going off what I've seen a few EII's do and how I imagine the LSE's I've known responding to it.

[Joy]

LSEs are often described as people who seem to need to know everything.

I haven't known any LSE's who cared to know more than they needed to, at least from what I saw.

LSIs are probably more inclined to do things themselves (vs. delegating) than LSEs.

The "do it all" was more describing their tendency to work a lot and to do things for people they're taking care of. When it comes to work though, an LSE cares more about getting the job done efficiently than about doing things himself. If delegating tasks is the best way to get the job done, then that's what he'll do.

[Joy]

I'll give "honor and duty" a shot (based on what little I understand of the concepts):

Honor and duty are largely about following a code of conduct established for a group, whether it's a society, a family, military, a sport (such as martial arts), etc. These "rules" are there for the purpose of protecting the people within that group, and everyone in it is expected to follow the "rules" for the good of the whole. One may disgrace himself (or his family or unit or whatever) by not abiding by the code of conduct. In not abiding by it, he's in effect saying that he does not care to maintain his standing/place in the group and no longer deserves respect as a member of that group. And if he's not going to do his part for (or his "duty" to) the group, he no longer deserves to enjoy the benefits of being a member of the group. If he excels in following the code of conduct, he brings honor to himself (or his family or unit or whatever) and is rightfully proud of (or at peace with?) himself for it. He may even earn a higher position in the group if he works hard at being loyal to his duties.

I don't know if LSI's consciously think of "duty and honor" in these terms, or if they think of them at all. Some may think of the greater good, some may think of their pride. Not sure what else. (Perhaps someone can enlighten me.)

[Gilly]

On the contrary, intentions hold a great deal of weight for me.

Unless I'm not numbered among "people"...

What I'm saying is that it still comes across as derogatory, no matter how she intended it to be read. I value her intentions, and it helps to know them, but it doesn't remedy the situation or the chance that it will be misinterpreted.

[Gilly]

And Joy, I know you're oversimplifying, but you need to do so in a more objective-sounding manner. Maybe it doesn't sound derogatory to everyone, but I think even the fact that I'm saying something, well, says something (or should).

[Ezra]

I'm in total agreement with Joy (save about LSIs being know-it-alls; that is derogatory). There are massive misconceptions about LSEs based on the retards who think that they are ESTJs in MBTT. Wrong. They're closer to ESFJs. ESTJs are closest to LSIs in MBTT. However, the hard work ethic of the ESTJ transfers nicely to LSE.

Gilly: nice to see you've settled on the king of all types my bruthah.

[Gilly]

It's the only one to be, as far as I'm concerned.

[Joy]

And Joy, I know you're oversimplifying, but you need to do so in a more objective-sounding manner. Maybe it doesn't sound derogatory to everyone, but I think even the fact that I'm saying something, well, says something (or should).

I see your point, and I'll try to keep it in mind... but in all honesty, while I wasn't trying to sound negative, I didn't really care if it did, either. I never suggested that what I said was anything other than my perspective (though believe it or not I did try not to sound too negative about either type). It was just a lame play on words that's apparently offensive.

(That said, I have observed that a lot of Ti dominants can come across as know it alls to some people when they're talking about a subject that interests them, and the Ne PoLR doesn't help LSI's much in that regard. )

Gilly: nice to see you've settled on

lol

[Minde]

What I'm saying is that it still comes across as derogatory, no matter how she intended it to be read. I value her intentions, and it helps to know them, but it doesn't remedy the situation or the chance that it will be misinterpreted.

And I was saying be careful of generalities.

Not everybody cares as much as you seem to about how things "come across." Personally, I didn't find what Joy said offensive or even really derogatory. There's lots worse that could and has been said.

[UDP]

From living with an LSE, this is absolutely true. LSEs LOVE to delegate, tell people what to do, take control to make sure everything gets done in plenty of time, whereas LSIs tend to do things themselves so that they are "done right."

Are you serious about this?

[Jonathan]

I'm in total agreement with Joy (save about LSIs being know-it-alls; that is derogatory). There are massive misconceptions about LSEs based on the retards who think that they are ESTJs in MBTT. Wrong. They're closer to ESFJs. ESTJs are closest to LSIs in MBTT. However, the hard work ethic of the ESTJ transfers nicely to LSE.

Gilly: nice to see you've settled on the king of all types my bruthah.

That's a rather strong statement...the people who don't agree with you are retards?

No one here has brought up MBTT in this thread up until know. But I don't see why an LSI couldn't also happen to be an ESTJ in MBTI.

[Mediator Kam]

But I don't see why an LSI couldn't also happen to be an ESTJ in MBTI.

It's possible, but I doubt it. LSI come off to me as quiet/more concerned with "serious business" than an ESTj.

[munenori2]

Can someone please explain to me how "know-it-all" is derogatory?

Because no one does. Or can. Or will.

Oh, but for the illusions of arrogance we'd all be a little less pissy.

[munenori2]

But surely people take that for granted? (I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion)

It still doesn't make sense.

I'm sort of drunk, so I'm probably taking everything you say completely out of context, but what I was basically boiling down to was that if you think you know it all, then you know far less than you think. You know, the whole Socrates point thang.

There's nothing wrong with seeking out info and becoming an expert, but if it's overblown it's far past being a virtue to being a vice. All in moderation, or so they say.

[munenori2]

But why is the term itself derogatory? I understand that it is but considering that no reasonably human being would infer anything but that it is impossible to "know everything" it just seems like a kind of stupid thing to say, and assuming that reasonable human beings would also realise that other reasonable human beings would come to similar conclusions (I hope that this is the case?) it doesn't make any sense as an insult because obviously "all" does not actually mean all, so you're basically saying that they know a lot and so what if they do?

I would hope so too, but (my) real life experience seems to point towards some people presuming that they know far more than they really do. Mostly, I'm guessing we're looking at things in a different semantic light, with me focusing on the excess and you being the more generous person. So turn that into something more positive. For me, lol.

[UDP]

Can someone please explain to me how "know-it-all" is derogatory?

Are you joking, or serious, Salawa. I can't tell.
Perhaps you think "pedantic" is also a compliment.
(for the record, #2)


n.

1. One who pays undue attention to book learning and formal rules.
2. One who exhibits one's learning or scholarship ostentatiously.
3. Obsolete. A schoolmaster.

But why is the term itself derogatory? I understand that it is but considering that no reasonably human being would infer anything but that it is impossible to "know everything" it just seems like a kind of stupid thing to say, and assuming that reasonable human beings would also realise that other reasonable human beings would come to similar conclusions (I hope that this is the case?) it doesn't make any sense as an insult because obviously "all" does not actually mean all, so you're basically saying that they know a lot and so what if they do?

You're missing the boat entirely.
"know-it-all" is someone who thinks they know everything about everything. Whether or not they do is irrelevant. What matters most is that they think they do. Or they just happen to have an answer to everything, regardless of whether that answer is really accurate. The core of the "know it all" as a derogatory term is that it is an act, a facade, and someone is being fake to put on a certain image.

A common example is when people drop facts or bits of trivia very often, to present the image of intelligence. It is one thing when information is useful, but when you're doing it to look good in front of some group of people, you can just look like you are stuck up, or trying too hard.

Are you unfamiliar with the term - not big in Australia?
Or are you just questioning in general?

Well, maybe you are right because I often seem to overestimate the intelligence of others. I'm too optimistic, heh.

Consider how such an optimism may be self serving.

[Gilly]

But surely people take that for granted? (I don't see how you could come to any other conclusion)

It still doesn't make sense.

It's used sarcastically. That simple.

[Gilly]

I see your point, and I'll try to keep it in mind... but in all honesty, while I wasn't trying to sound negative, I didn't really care if it did, either. I never suggested that what I said was anything other than my perspective (though believe it or not I did try not to sound too negative about either type). It was just a lame play on words that's apparently offensive.

Actually...

I was actually trying not to appear to favor LSI's over LSE's when I wrote the description of LSE's, seeing as how I tend to prefer LSI's over LSE's irl.

...So, clearly, it's not just your unadulterated subjective perspective. And, as you say, it's not very objective, either, so you're really just messing around. And regardless, why would you present a subjective interpretation of a type when someone else is trying to grasp it for themselves? Are we discussing a theory, or your personal opinion on people's personalities?

It's not offensive. I'm just worried that it might lead people to jump to silly conclusions like "Oh, this person's a know-it-all; must be LSI instead of LSE," so I think it should be avoided. Personally, I used to be somewhat prone to this kind of stereotyping, so I'd like to see the causes minimized; I really don't see what so hard to understand about that.

[Joy]

I'm just worried that it might lead people to jump to silly conclusions like "Oh, this person's a know-it-all; must be LSI instead of LSE," so I think it should be avoided.

If there are people out there who would automatically assume that any know it all is LSI because of what I said in this thread, there's nothing I can do to save them. Even if I wrote in this forum as though I were writing a school text book or scientific article or encyclopedia, they'd still be making foolish assumptions like that. Their assumptions would just be based on something else that someone said, my own "objective" writings included. After all, there's nothing that can be said about any type that's true 100% of the time, and there is no quality that's exclusive to one type 100% of the time. Anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot who never had any hope of truly understanding socionics to begin with. And it's not my responsibility to make sure that everything I say and do can't be somehow misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misused by said idiots.

I've already said multiple times that the comments I've made in this thread should not be taken to mean that ALL LSE's/LSI's are like this or ONLY LSE's/LSI's are like this. I don't see why we're still discussing this. It shouldn't even need to be said to begin with.

[Ezra]

lol

Joy, haha, I don't think you can talk.

[Ezra]

That's a rather strong statement...the people who don't agree with you are retards?

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Phaedruses, who believe that ABCD = ABCd.

[Joy]

Joy, haha, I don't think you can talk.

Why's that? I've been settled on a type since I began to understand Socionics, which was about a year and a half ago.

[Ezra]

Why's that? I've been settled on a type since I began to understand Socionics, which was about a year and a half ago.

It took you over a year to begin to understand socionics?

[Joy]

Re-work the math.

[Gilly]

If there are people out there who would automatically assume that any know it all is LSI because of what I said in this thread, there's nothing I can do to save them. Even if I wrote in this forum as though I were writing a school text book or scientific article or encyclopedia, they'd still be making foolish assumptions like that.

How is this being any less presumptuous?

The fact of the matter is, you don't have to be a retard to fall into that kind of trap. I used to. And you know what? Now, I don't make those kinds of assumptions any more. So your assumptions about people being lost causes are just plain wrong and that's all there is to it.

Their assumptions would just be based on something else that someone said, my own "objective" writings included. After all, there's nothing that can be said about any type that's true 100% of the time, and there is no quality that's exclusive to one type 100% of the time. Anyone who doesn't understand that is an idiot who never had any hope of truly understanding socionics to begin with.

More unfounded assumptions with absolutely no solid backing whatsoever.

And it's not my responsibility to make sure that everything I say and do can't be somehow misinterpreted, misconstrued, or misused by said idiots.

You're right. You are not your brother's keeper, and I can't make you do anything you don't want to do. Duh. But I can suggest that it might be a little more worldly of you to do so, and you might consider doing something outside of your own range of interest.

Blame it on my Delta parents

I've already said multiple times that the comments I've made in this thread should not be taken to mean that ALL LSE's/LSI's are like this or ONLY LSE's/LSI's are like this. I don't see why we're still discussing this. It shouldn't even need to be said to begin with.

The problem isn't what your intentions are, it's how they MIGHT be taken, and if you cared anything about helping other people understand, you might open your eyes and begin to see that.

I really don't think I'm asking so much and you're getting VERY defensive about this, Joy. Take a chill pill and try to have a little more intellectual integrity next time.

[Joy]

Intellectual integrity? How very Ti valuing of you.

But seriously, I already said that your comment was noted, and I've defined the context of my post many times. What exactly are looking for here?

[Ezra]

Re-work the math.

You joined in Sept 2005. It is now Dec 2007. A year and a half ago it was June 2006. Okay, not a year, but nearly a year. Three months off. So it took you nine months to begin to understand socionics. It took me less than two.

[Joy]

Very. I had to overcome a lot of incorrect general consensuses while learning about Socionics. And at first when I posted about what I was learning from reading about Socionics, there were more than a few people who argued and told me I was flat out wrong. (That's actually part of the reason I made the comment about general consensus not necessarily being correct.) And the people who did know what they were talking about knew a lot more about Jung's functions than information elements. This is partially because there was very little English Socionics information out there that at the time (at least that I knew of), and most of what was there was poorly translated. Most people here were still caught up in MBTT and to some extent Oldham's types (probably because of the correlations Jimmy put up with the Socionics type descriptions).

[Ezra]

LSEs really are a world apart from ESTJs.

[Jonathan]

I'm thinking more along the lines of the Phaedruses, who believe that ABCD = ABCd.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.
Phaedrus is an ardent foe of the "J/P switch" for introverts but sometimes goes beyond what most people here can accept by advocating reading non-Socionics descriptions for understanding Socionics.

As to the differences, since this was brought up, what do you see as difference between MBTI-ESTJ and LSE?

For reference, here's the official MBTI description of ESTJ (http://www.capt.org/mbti-assessment/...scriptions.htm):

For ESTJs the driving force in their lives is their need to analyze and bring into logical order the outer world of events, people, and things. ESTJs like to organize anything that comes into their domain, and they will work energetically to complete tasks so they can quickly move from one to the next. Sensing orients their thinking to current facts and realities, and thus gives their thinking a pragmatic quality. ESTJs take their responsibilities seriously and believe others should do so as well.

Clearly, this is very general, and I could see how these statements might seem similar to both LSI and LSE. There's nothing here that gives the flavor of , for example. But is there anything incompatible with LSE?

I happen to have a copy of an old MBTI Manual here at the moment. It has a longer description. Glancing over it, it's clear that the theoretical bases are different from Socionics; most of the descriptions are just an elaboration of the MBTI dichotomies and their consequences. The main "descriptive" feature here is that it says that ESTJs "use their thinking to run as much of the world as may be theirs to run" (which it also says of ENTJs). On another page it says ESTJs may "make good administrators."

It is probably statements like the one about running "as much of the world as may be theirs to run" that makes Socionists think of . But in my view, the official descriptions are so general that it's not clear that's what it's talking about. In practice, the one problem I see in considering "ESTJs" is that more intellectual sensing types may come out "N" in the MBTI, and less social extraverts may come out "I." But as to what's said about ESTJ, I don't know....what seems so far off from LSE there?