LSE or LSI

LSE: aren't usually meticulous about cross checking for accuracy; care more about efficiency and getting as much things done as possible (a side effect of expansive energy); factors important aspects of the problem into a solution very fast and organizes/structures things.

LSE are quite capable of looking at the things they have to do and prioritize, doing the most important thing first, but unlike the LSI, LSE, with their Extraverted Feeling role function, can stop to consider other people's feelings, are less impulsive, work with an easier, more methodical pace, having more preference towards Si rather than Se. Hence, the LSE isn't likely to drive the energy of their workers "overboard" focusing more on comfort and convenience of work. LSE are also more willing to take up and do things one at a time as opposed to 20 things at a time like the LSI.

LSE, with their weak orientation to dynamic introverted intuition, keep their eyes on the time.

LSI: check for logical accuracy presented by internal mistrust of what people show them or what they see; care more about priority over efficiency, as long as the most important thing is done now ; gathers a lot of information, follows this process of inquiry: doubts arise about an issue, seeks clarity through inquiry to understand and clarify the topic, formulates steps to act, repeats these steps in instructions to others. LSI always verify what people tell them if it doesn't sound right to them. LSI cross check documents to catch or eliminate discrepancies and look at what matches. Doesn't always take things at face value. Keeps information close to themselves. I often observe the type in an "analysis paralysis" mode.

LSI are busy conveying their understanding, category, or structure of the issues to others and in the process, they may interrupt others to repeat themselves or to make sure that what they are trying to say is getting through to the others; unlike LSE, LSI keep themselves busy; with the great expansive energy of Se, they are constantly focusing on details and mobilizing for tasks; these tasks usually circle around in their heads and they act on them impulsively, without thinking of the bigger consequences of things. They have an ability to not forget their errands, they can do as many things at a time, are abrupt and forward with others without really considering people's feeling objectively.

LSI, with their weak orientation to static extraverted intuition, miss out on how events can develop, potentially, focusing on the immediate detailed tasks at hand.

If I gave an LSE and LSI an example: I want to construct a test, there are common types and uncommon types, there are more of one than the other, I could study either one type or two to compare; how would you structure my study? Because an LSE can factor in all variables at once and because they are good at structuring WORK, they can give you the beginning model and help you set the pace of work. 

The common LSE response for structuring my test is:

1. The most common type will give you more data. Study the most common type first.

2. Study more than one common type, two at a time, because you'll have something to compare data to.

3.  Gather enough data, not too much so as you won't get gridlocking in information without taking time to interpret it.

LSI:

(In less of an organized fashion says):

Sort people by type or quadra, by sample size, study one at a time, spend an average amount of time (prefering Ni -prioritizing and time valuing) on each; to compare, you'll need two types, some things may be off; generally observe each type and after that go into more specifics of each type. 

Evidence for Socionics

According to the study by Anthony C. Little and David I. Perrett published by the British Psychological Society in 2007 (http://www.alittlelab.stir.ac.uk/pubs/Little_07_personality_composites.pdf), there is evidence for a measurable correlation between physical characteristics and personality traits. In other words, physical traits can predict, with some accuracy, personality characteristics of the individuals that displays them, and these personality characteristics are found with a measurable degree of consistency within individuals who bear these physical traits.

Americans seem more reluctant in general to accept socionics, particularly in its European-originated VI-centric iteration. This would seem, at least partly, to be based on the culturally instilled centrality of the individual to American society; a society so inherently predicated on the power and primacy of the individual personality and will would naturally be inclined to suspicion of a personality science that professed the ability to easily quantify persons into relatively inflexible finite groups.  

Socionics is not MBTI

Socionics is not an adjunct to the MBTI, nor are its findings synonymous, even though both systems result in 16 separate personality type designations. 

The following research on the MBTI will show you that this test is an unreliable measure of personality type:

http://www.indiana.edu/~jobtalk/Articles/develop/mbti.pdf

MBTI measures personality with a written test consisting of yes or no questions, in which the test taker answers according to their agreement or disagreement with the declarative statement meant to indicate the personality. The problem with this test is that it relies upon numerous questions that are no way indicative of personality.


An example of one of these questions "You are usually the first to react to a sudden event:
the telephone ringing or unexpected question"  (http://www.humanmetrics.com/cgi-win/JTypes2.asp) is used to relate with extraversion. A person may be in an especially "excited" and in an energetic mood in a given moment which would cause them to react faster; that is not a measure of extraverted typical attitude, as indicated by Carl Jung's Psychological Types; not everybody's behavior is the same at any given moment and Carl Jung was very specific in mentioning that in his work. 


In addition, the MBTI separates personality types in a way that results in types which are inconsistent with the actual differentiation of human psychological patterns. Human psychological patterns are not divided along the lines of eight dichotomies of E/I, S/N, T/F, and J/P. Socionics measures the dichotomies together; they are measured in tandem, as they should be, for instance, Extraverted Thinking (Te). 


Furthermore, Socionics has a Visual Identification component, which identifies types not by the test taker's choice of answers, or by the test taker's particular preference for personality orientation, but simply by the configuration of the test subject's physical features. One can only assume that a test taker is answering the questions in a manner consistent with their actual emotions and thoughts, and that those answers are not being adversely affected by unique circumstances influencing the test taker's mood at the time of the test. But, even with all the makeup and hair pieces money can buy, looks fundamentally do not lie. The basic structure of the face and the orientation of the spinal column to the skull, which are key factors in accurate Visual Identification, can not be altered short of expensive and painful surgery.