SLI Type Description

SLI in a nutshell

The SLI is an experience-oriented type that welcomes adventure and new impressions while maintaining sensory balance and internal integrity. The SLI strives to maximize enjoyment, ease, and utility while preserving autonomy from strong emotional stimuli.

Typical characteristics

as a leading function means that the SLI learns about the world primarily through direct personal experience rather than through contemplation, analysis, or talking about things with people. "An experience is worth a thousand words" might describe the SLI's attitude towards learning. SLIs strive to have direct experiences with things they are interested in rather than being content with simply learning of their existence as, say, types often are. As an introtim, the SLI is less interested in the objective facts of external reality than in their impact on the individual. Ultimately, the SLI is most interested in building a world where he and those close to him can be comfortable and have their needs met.

The SLI easily and naturally provides for his own physiological needs and usually has a need to take care of others as well: pets, close friends and family, houseplants... SLIs typically empathize with those whose physical needs have not been met and usually are quick to respond to genuine signs of helplessness and neediness in others, as long as the person who needs assistance is not hyper or melodramatic. SLIs tend to have a strong maternal (parental) instinct and tend to be attentive parents and leaders with a lenient management style. They are against forcing anyone to do anything and look for ways of motivating people by offering satisfaction of their individual needs and desires.

SLIs are attentive to the day-to-day behavior patterns, lifestyles, and tastes and preferences of those around them, as well as what and how they eat, how they dress, how they respond to different stimuli, and many other details of their physical existence. Only when they have directly experienced these aspects of a person do they feel that they truly know them. Contrast this to ethical extratims who can come to know people well through emotional interaction (conversation) in a matter of hours. The SLI's mechanism is slow, but thorough; SLIs are limited in how many people they can know well, but they learn about them "inside out."

SLIs tend to feel distant from all people whom they do not physically interact with on a day-to-day basis. As soon as they begin to interact with a person on a near-daily basis, that person begins to occupy their consciousness and affect their inner life. In contrast, many other types are able to effectively ignore people around them and keep distant others in their thoughts. SLIs easily forget about those who are not near them and thus rarely take the initiative in digging up old contacts. The inherent potential of these distant and myriad contacts is most often lost, and the SLI is left to cultivate the opportunities directly around him, believing that if something distant and external is really important, it will find him itself. This is due to as a suggestive function.

Despite their often emotionless and indifferent exterior, SLIs are fun-loving and adventurous. They feel most comfortable interacting with people informally in situations with some physical or hands-on component, such as watching at something together, building something, walking around, touching things, or otherwise involving their senses and body. The more formal and purely verbal interaction is, the less involved they feel and the more unsure they are of how to behave.

All SLIs share an affinity for simplicity -- a reduction of all that is extraneous, superfluous, unused, unneeded. Since their inner world is most affected by their day-to-day living habits and the objects and people they interact with on a daily basis, complexities in these areas make clear thought and feeling difficult. SLIs are resistant to fashions and ideas that increase complexity and demonstrate independence and a lack of stereotyped thinking in their lifestyle choices and personal habits. It is almost impossible to get an SLI to do something that is more complicated than what he is already doing. The same holds true on a mental level; SLIs admire people who are able to reduce phenomena to their essential characteristics, thus making it easier and easier to think about things.

SLIs easily lose their clarity of thought when people direct anger and negative emotions at them, and discord in their personal relationships makes them feel depressed and helpless. They prefer an atmosphere of polite good will or at least businesslike emotional neutrality and tire of strong emotions such as anxiety, worry, or bad feelings between people, but also euphoria and overenthusiasm.

SLIs tend to be "down to earth" and "laid back" and become excited only by positive sensory experience or when others approach them with playful, good-natured humor and "positive energy." Otherwise, SLIs can become uncommonly stubborn if people use too much emotion, abstract reasoning, haste, or pressure when dealing with them. To get through to an SLI, give him personal sensory experience (), a dispassioned account of the facts (), fascinating prospects (), or a warm and sensitive attitude ().

Socionic Types and Professional Inclinations

Here I want to talk about career patterns I have observed among types. My sample sizes are too small to draw far-reaching conclusions, but my observations so far make sense from the standpoint of Model A.

A large percentage of people do basically random jobs that any type with the same basic skill set could do, so I will ignore those and pay attention only to the patterns and especially professional positions where people of the type seem to be particularly engaged.

A common thread is that people tend to become leaders of organizations whose overt purpose closely matches their leading function, for instance:

• types -- controlling material assets and resources
• -- information hubs, directing development of potential
• -- engaging in social and entertainment networks
• -- managing and increasing production output
• -- guiding imaginative creative and spiritual endeavors
• -- overseeing systems of knowledge and governance
• -- providing well-being and balance
• -- educating and enculturating

ILE
ILEs like to be doing things that are new and innovative that many people don't know (or care) about. Here they are different from IEEs, who are also concerned about doing something that people care about that will win them social recognition. ILEs are more interested in formal recognition (organizational recognition, positions of "importance," degrees, and professional awards, for instance). I have known ILEs who were heads of research institutes, NGOs, language teaching schools, and consulting companies. Many more held various positions in all kinds of organizations where they had a great deal of independence. The common feature of all engaged ILEs seems to be that they are working on some far-reaching personal project that has yet to come to full fruition. ILEs don't like to manage tangible assets, so they generally avoid accumulating them, preferring instead to stock up on intellectual property, unique skills and knowledge, intellectual influence, and strategic positions. The potential to make money is more important than actually having money.

SEI
If we ignore "unengaged" SEIs who are in random jobs, we see that SEIs tend to gravitate to artistic pursuits in the most general sense of the word -- visual arts, culinary arts, design, the healing arts, humor, etc. Even in your typical stale office environment, they tend to find niches for this "artistic" expression, even if it is as mundane as e-mailing funny pictures and stories to other office workers. The common trait of all engaged SEIs seems to be that they have found ways to impact and steer people's interaction through their creative activities. Whereas types are more concerned with impacting people's lives (an "internal" sort of steering), SEIs and other types seem to focus more on enlivening people and generating stimulating interaction. They may hope to impact people as well, but the road to this is through overt emotional communication among people -- bringing people's sentiments and emotions out in the open. Compared to ILEs SEIs seem much less interested in the strategic position or formal recognition and must have a more intimate connection with the people they serve.

ESE
ESEs are more expansive than SEIs and are more motivated to bring their messages to the masses and be known among a wider group of people, even if that means spending a lot less quality time per person (SEIs tend to invest more in a smaller number of people, because their leading makes them identify more with their day-to-day life activities; if you're not a part of that day-to-day life, then they connect less with you). ESEs can connect rapidly with people who express the same sentiments as they. The professional activity of engaged ESEs very often boils down to going around expressing sentiments and continually connecting with others who feel similarly. Their passion can be attached to nearly any field, but it always seems to be something that can have a direct impact on people's emotional life or well-being. ESEs especially like to start new social endeavors. I have known ESEs who led social networks, ESE entertainers, and many who were excellent communicators and linguists. Engaged ESEs seem to be somewhat less focused on their actual professional activity and knowledge and more on conveying the impact and passion of that activity and knowledge to others.

LII
Compared to ILEs, LIIs are less expansive, and their interests and personal projects tend to be a lot more closely aligned with their main field of activity. Or rather, they tend to choose professions that are right where their interests and convictions lie. Whereas ILEs can explain discrepancies between their long-term interests and their work ("because I'm learning something new"), LIIs would see this as a terrible mistake (key decisions should be made with , not ). So they tend to identify strongly with their chosen field of activity and the views they espouse within it and feel distraught and rudderless if they have not yet found their correct professional "alliance" (unless they are in their teens, of course). I have known engaged LII organizational managers as well as analysts, scientists (mostly theoreticians), humanities professors and thinkers, and people of arts. In each case they have possessed some system of knowledge and have tried to instill their views through their organizational position.

EIE
EIEs, like ESEs, simply must have work with a high social component to feel engaged. I have known EIEs in recruiting, PR, politics, art-related fields (again, in the loose sense of the word), and teaching the humanities and arts, among others. Compared to ESEs, EIEs seem to have a greater sense of their status in society and have a greater need to align themselves professional in a way that will raise their status and bring them closer to centers of power and decision-making. This means exercising a lot of foresight, developing a long-term plan, and choosing their alliances carefully. EIEs in their profession have a need to rub shoulders with those who wield power and influence; ESEs are often content being a favorite of kids, a friend to everyone they meet, and building a reputation as an exciting and stimulating person, even if their fame exceeds that of a more calculating or long-term oriented EIE. EIEs often "work" for their alliance -- whether material or cultural -- by being a mouthpiece of its cultural values and instilling these values in others.

LSI
LSIs generally strive for organizational influence (except perhaps those whose maternal role takes first seat) and decision-making powers. They know they have what it takes to make organizational decisions and keep track of all parts of the organization. Psychologically engaged LSIs seem to be within or at the head of organizations with a clear structure whose purpose is not so much production as administration and management. Even if their profession is arts, humanities, or science related, they emphasize and deal with the organizational aspect of it as they become more and more successful. I have met many LSIs who were heads of all sorts of organizations which wielded real authority (as opposed to, say, NGOs), probably because the LSIs cared most; their level of self-identification with their position and organization is high. I have seen LSIs as heads of administrative organizations, government bodies, universities, etc. In these positions LSIs strive to increase their organizations' clout and status.

SLE
...to be continued (yeah, you've heard that one before)

The Man Who Can Move Anything

Wally Wallington is a man who can singlehandedly move very heavy objects - not with the aid of machinery or even brute strength,but rather using simple mechanical means.

Here is a 6-minute video showing him moving many-ton stones using techniques that he believes may have been used to build Stonehenge.

First, some non-socionic insights on the nature of invention.

What this man has done might not seem too incredible. Anyone might have come up with this if they had just thought about it long enough. In fact, most inventors would agree that "ingenious ideas" come simply after thinking about things long enough.

Some ideas come through reflection and concentrated thought. Others come only through activity and application. It may be a common Myers-Briggs stereotype that intuitive types are more inventive, but socionics basically accepts that people of all types can be equally inventive, but they tend to display it in different ways. More generally, people demonstrate inventiveness and competency in areas related to their strong functions and conservatism (and often incompetency) in their weak areas.

So, now on to the man's socionic type.

As I have said, we can't type the man based on his inventiveness alone or even on the field of his inventiveness. What he has shown in practice, someone else might have been able to describe in theory. However, the process by which he arrived at his invention suggests sensing. He had to have the persistence and patience to spend long hours doing essentially physical activities and obtain enjoyment from them. Everything in this video suggests that the day-to-day process of turning stones, building scaffolding, and shifting weights around in clever ways is an enjoyable "flow" experience for him. Since these things engage physical receptors and involve direct physical contact with objects, we can associate this with sensing.

If he were intuitive, we would expect him to have spent just enough time on practical applications to get the general idea and realize that this was possible. He would very likely have spent a greater proportion of his time, for example, on looking for information in books on ancient construction techniques.

The other dichotomy that is easy to observe is logic. Wallington is not at all emotionally expressive, but speaks in a plain, matter-of-fact style about what he is doing and the characteristics of the blocks. When the huge stone falls into place, his enthusiasm is incredibly restrained: an expressionless "looks good" is all he says about it while everyone claps.

Now, which "vertness" of these elements dominates? or ? or ?

Since he is concerned with the logic of objects themselves - and not systems or interrelations between objects - we can suppose that this is . This is supported by the fact that it is clearly that Wallington "suppresses" - not . He keeps a lid on all displays of emotion and excitement.

Next, it seems that Wallington's focus is on rather than . He is not out there to "conquer" or "subdue" the stones, but rather to enjoy himself. Erecting things is clearly a pastime that he is happy to enjoy in solitude. His general air is one of relaxation and not mobilization.

Now we are down to two options - LSE and SLI. Both are very credible, but SLI seems more likely due to his relaxedness and air of simplicity and down-to-earthness. However, these are also common characteristics of LSEs, so I can't rule that out until I read more about him.

Type Messages

I introduced the topic of "type messages" in April and worked on the concept a bit more in this article, hoping to flesh out the messages into type descriptions. Months passed, and I have returned to them again as part of my new type test.

The idea of a "type message" is to formulate in a few short words the principal contribution of each type to the world around him/her. Here are my current formulations:

ILE - Searching for the unknown and spreading knowledge.
SEI - Deriving enjoyment from all your activities and interactions.
ESE - Turning life into an enjoyable, beautiful experience.
LII - Structuring reality and creating correct systems of thought.
EIE - Riveting attention and energy to meaningful causes.
LSI - Establishing and overseeing correct structures and systems.
SLE - Challenging the current order and expanding influence.
IEI - Creating meaning in the events of life around you.
SEE - Acquiring social territory and influencing people.
ILI - Recognizing underlying processes and deriving benefit from them.
LIE - Achieving beneficial efficiency in all areas of life.
ESI - Recognizing and balancing people's needs and expectations.
LSE - Managing worthwhile, productive, and wholesome activities.
EII - Being exemplary and instilling ideal values.
IEE - Expanding your horizons and helping people develop.
SLI - Balanced, harmonious living and temperance.

Of course, none of these are perfect - as no short, crisp descriptions can be - but they capture something essential about each type.