# I'm having difficult trying to tell apart LSI and SLI. Help me out?



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

I can't tell the difference, they look the same, they are both good with tools, they both have a weird sense of humor. I guess the only sensible difference I have noticed is that LSI will be more credulous of crazy theories, maybe about aliens and alikes, since they have Ni as valuing function. How do you tell them apart?


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

People who practise are good with tools. It has nothing to do with type. You should take this to the MBTI section if you want silly stereotypes like that.

There are a ton of differences because they share no valued functions. LSIs think in groups and are happy to group/categorise/label people. SLIs prefer to avoid dehumanizing people this way. SLIs prefer to express themselves whenever and however they please, regardless of expectation. LSIs need an appropriate emotional atmosphere to express themselves.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> People who practise are good with tools. It has nothing to do with type. You should take this to the MBTI section if you want silly stereotypes like that.


Ok, I didn't mean to stereotype, it's just that this is how I know how to describe types, by what they are naturally inclined to.




Fried Eggz said:


> LSIs think in groups and are happy to group/categorise/label people. SLIs prefer to avoid dehumanizing people this way


I see, well it's not dehumanizing, I think it's sort of categorizing to make a distinction and understand it separately, right? But that was helpful difference, thanks.



Fried Eggz said:


> SLIs prefer to express themselves whenever and however they please, regardless of expectation. LSIs need an appropriate emotional atmosphere to express themselves.


Hmm, I didn't know that. You think maybe it's because of LSI suggestive Fe? Also could you show real examples of LSI and SLI so I can analyze? Thanks in advance


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Felipe said:


> ... they look the same /..


These types don't really look the same if you pay close attention to details. They are called quasi-identicals for a reason that if you take a general superficial glance at them--they appear the same or very similar!--the solution is to look deeper and try to be more discerning and pay attention to fine detail. You'll have trouble differentiating q.i. types if you're generalizing too broadly and skimming too much on the surface.

These are from the photo archives of SLIs and LSIs from Filatova's book.

The LSI look stricter, sharper, their eyes are looking forward with a piercing look. There is a logical coldness to this look. A few look like soldiers or troopers, the third guy on first row could be a sniper. Face shape looks more angular, similar to a square or a rectangle, with sharp edges, sharper heavier jawlines. Some have tightly compressed lips that convey certainty, stubbornness, resoluteness (rational "linear-assertive" "decisive" type). 

The SLI look softer, more comfortable and cozy, there is certainly no piercing look instead there is a look of skepticism similar to ILI when they are looking forward (like the first girl on second row). Face shape is more smooth, oval, round, with less angularity and more oblique features. Most easy-going look that is softer on the eyes. Eyes are directed outside as if with a question "what do you need? what is needed from me? is this factually so?" (irrational "receptive-adaptive" "caregiver" type). Facial expressions leave hints of skepticism and boredom, obviously not a "fiery" nature, you can expect someone like this to have difficulty with motivation (IP type).


LSI (Ti-Se)









SLI (Si-Te)


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Felipe said:


> Ok, I didn't mean to stereotype, it's just that this is how I know how to describe types, by what they are naturally inclined to.


Why would they be naturally inclined to tools? You are still stereotyping.



Felipe said:


> I see, well it's not dehumanizing


Few people ever fit perfectly into any group or label. Taking away their individuality is dehumanization. Like when you dehumanize SLIs/LSIs by labelling them as being inclined to tools.



Felipe said:


> You think maybe it's because of LSI suggestive Fe?


Yes, that's Fe. All Feelers know how to appropriately express themselves. Extroverted Thinkers know the social norms of it. Fe suggestive don't know when to express themselves, so others have to provide. Fe PoLR don't know or care.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> Few people ever fit perfectly into any group or label. Taking away their individuality is dehumanization. Like when you dehumanize SLIs/LSIs by labelling them as being inclined to tools.


But you said LSIs like to put things into categories and SLIs don't like because it dehumanize. But now you come and say "taking away thier individuality is dehumanization" So what is the difference between your concept of dehumanization (you being LSI) and an SLI concept of dehumanization?



Fried Eggz said:


> Why would they be naturally inclined to tools? You are still stereotyping.


They are naturally inclined to sense and thinking. Sense = body. Thinking = away from people, therefore tools came to mind, tools came to mind for other reasons too but that is not important now. 

But like I said I didn't mean to stereotype, I had to say it again because you didn't get it the first time.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Felipe said:


> But you said LSIs like to put things into categories and SLIs don't like because it dehumanize. But now you come and say "taking away thier individuality is dehumanization" So what is the difference between your concept of dehumanization (you being LSI) and an SLI concept of dehumanization?


It's a concept. I wasn't expecting you to take it as an absolute. SLIs reject grouping people together. Putting labels on people or categorising them is not an interest, despite them having Ti as a major strength.

When dealing with other people, I think primarily in groups, categories and labels. I'm aware that I naturally dehumanize people, so I try to limit myself; not just for moral reasons but because going too far into Ti would leave me completely out of touch with reality.



Felipe said:


> They are naturally inclined to sense and thinking. Sense = body. Thinking = away from people, therefore tools came to mind, tools came to mind for other reasons too but that is not important now.
> 
> But like I said I didn't mean to stereotype, I had to say it again because you didn't get it the first time.


I stated it again because you stereotyped again. If you don't intend to use stereotypes, then don't use them.


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

Fried Eggz said:


> I stated it again because you stereotyped again. If you don't intend to use stereotypes, then don't use them.


No problem. But if I use it again, it was an accident again. I mean, I think in a stereotypical way, what can I do?:tongue:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Felipe said:


> I can't tell the difference, they look the same, they are both good with tools, they both have a weird sense of humor. I guess the only sensible difference I have noticed is that LSI will be more credulous of crazy theories, maybe about aliens and alikes, since they have Ni as valuing function. How do you tell them apart?


The difference is in valued IEs, obviously.
For example SLIs don't value Fe, so they don't care about emotional atmosphere. They may play along out of politeness, but they don't take it seriously and don't pay attention whether the atmosphere is good or crap. It's all the same to them. SLIs wouldn't mind if the emotional charge would be absent from the situation entirely. In contrast, LSIs do value Fe and have much better response to emotional tones. They'd like if others charge the atmosphere, set the unambiguous emotional expression. If others don't do that LSIs may get unsure as to the stance of the situation and the way people treat them. It may seem to an LSI that others are hiding emotions or are insincere, or something along those lines. SLIs don't conceptualize it that way.

Or, another example, Ti vs Te difference. LSIs, as conscious Ti valuers, are more driven toward systems and abstract logic, SLIs in comparison may seem fuzzy or imprecise, because their Ti, despite being strong, is situated in unconscious Id block and is more of a gut feeling. Plus, again, Ti is devalued and Te is valued so they are more likely to focus on efficiency, practicality, how well something would work out, how optimize it, how to make it work, rather than develop cohesive structures or classifications and dwell on strict logicality.

There are plenty other differences, of course.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

To_august said:


> The difference is in valued IEs, obviously.
> For example SLIs don't value Fe, so they don't care about emotional atmosphere. They may play along out of politeness, but they don't take it seriously and don't pay attention whether the atmosphere is good or crap. It's all the same to them. SLIs wouldn't mind if the emotional charge would be absent from the situation entirely. In contrast, LSIs do value Fe and have much better response to emotional tones. They'd like if others charge the atmosphere, set the unambiguous emotional expression. If others don't do that LSIs may get unsure as to the stance of the situation and the way people treat them. It may seem to an LSI that others are hiding emotions or are insincere, or something along those lines. SLIs don't conceptualize it that way.


Could you describe more how an SLI does conceptualize it, given the situation you describe? Do SLI not conceptualize people as hiding emotions or being insincere?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Could you describe more how an SLI does conceptualize it, given the situation you describe? Do SLI not conceptualize people as hiding emotions or being insincere?


Not in relation to Fe, no. They may see Fe as an exaggeration that doesn't seem genuine or necessary, or doesn't make sense though, I think, which goes back to their poor capacity to process Fe and accept it the way Fe valuer would. 

If people around them don't openly demonstrate emotions it flies over SLIs head, because, as I mentioned, they don't take Fe seriously. It doesn't matter if emotional tones are present or absent, so there's nothing suspicious or anything that could set off the alarm is going on, since Fe is simply off SLI's radar. Part of that Fe weakness can be covered by IEE dual who has strong but devalued Fe, I think, and who may provide appropriate emotional tone avoiding expressive emphasis plus give occasional moral spanking with Fi if necessary. Insincerity is, probably, conceptualized in a pretty simplistic way and is built around Te-Fi tropes coupled with "perks" of weak Ne. Through making bonds with people, building trust, loyalty, so over time they can decide on people whom they find sincere or insincere.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

Interesting. The "insincere" issue I always thought was related to valuing Fi. Perhaps this is a holdover from my MBTI days.

Food for thought.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Lord Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Interesting. The "insincere" issue I always thought was related to valuing Fi. Perhaps this is a holdover from my MBTI days.
> 
> Food for thought.


Attribution of traits to specific types exclusively is common in MBTI, but I don't believe this is the right way to go about type. The infamous Fi=authenticity is pretty common in MBTI, and the reverse is true for Socionics, but both are just stereotypes, aiming at generating certain kind of an archetype to describe the gist of what the type is about. I don't think such approach has much credibility when it comes to people though. It works fine if you want to type fictional characters or countries, but people are far more varied. I see types in pretty technical way, that is a set of unambiguously defined and separated IEs arranged according to Model. Any type may care for "insincerity". The way they go about it certainly can be influenced by person's type, but it's more of a personal thing at the end of the day. Going by stereotypes, Fi valuers are fake rigid moralists and Fe valuers are shallow drama queens. But we don't think stereotypes are any good, do we?


----------



## Felipe (Feb 25, 2016)

To_august said:


> The difference is in valued IEs, obviously.
> For example SLIs don't value Fe, so they don't care about emotional atmosphere. They may play along out of politeness, but they don't take it seriously and don't pay attention whether the atmosphere is good or crap. It's all the same to them. SLIs wouldn't mind if the emotional charge would be absent from the situation entirely. In contrast, LSIs do value Fe and have much better response to emotional tones. They'd like if others charge the atmosphere, set the unambiguous emotional expression. If others don't do that LSIs may get unsure as to the stance of the situation and the way people treat them. It may seem to an LSI that others are hiding emotions or are insincere, or something along those lines. SLIs don't conceptualize it that way.
> 
> Or, another example, Ti vs Te difference. LSIs, as conscious Ti valuers, are more driven toward systems and abstract logic, SLIs in comparison may seem fuzzy or imprecise, because their Ti, despite being strong, is situated in unconscious Id block and is more of a gut feeling. Plus, again, Ti is devalued and Te is valued so they are more likely to focus on efficiency, practicality, how well something would work out, how optimize it, how to make it work, rather than develop cohesive structures or classifications and dwell on strict logicality.
> ...


That was very helpful, thanks!


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I've definitely noticed that people at least on the forum have a lot of difficulty telling Quasi-ID types apart. It's hard to be 100% sure, but I suspect being part of the same Club (both "ST" types) has something to do with it. 

Both SLI and LSI are strong in Si, Se, Ti, and Te. All 4 of these functions are in some way baked into the way these types go about their everyday life and decisions. But when you talk to an SLI and really boil down the content of what they talk about, it's usually fact checking/seeking, advice giving, and describing what they see. LSI are much more likely to ask to ask someone "what do you mean when you say X" or if their understanding is correct (after repeating/explaining it), or what results under specific scenarios. 

The Sensing aspect is different too. I think LSI are on the whole more directly forceful than SLI are (though subtype makes this more and less obvious). When an LSI asks a question or tells someone what to do, what they ask doesn't leave room for free interpretation and they will immediately try to clarify information they find vague. While I've seen both types be described as "pushy" in instructing other people what to do to break bad habits or live a less chaotic lifestyle, with with SLI it's more of a way of conveying knowledge than it is directly pressuring to do something (and also limited to the extent that the SLI has knowledge to disseminate). SLI's can be very, very stubborn when pressured, but more in a self-referential way to preferences in their own environment. 

A lot of this can change with subtype. LSI-Ti are a lot more concerned about precision, and try to stabilize situations in a stoic dissociated way whereas the Se subtype is more hasty and in your face when they think they're right. SLI-Si show a lot more individuality and are usually very moderate, measured, sensitive to their physical environment, and almost kind of quirky. SLI-Te are more likely to give orders, like to tell people what to do, be suspicious, and have economic and material imperatives.


----------

