EII+LSE

Values of the EII and LSE dyad (rationals, peripheral, descending, aristocrats, compliant, prudent, process)

Jointly accepted statements:

  1. My prolonged sense of guilt often gets in my way.
  2. When making decisions, I always involuntarily consider whether they might harm the interests of humanity, society, and other people.
  3. I easily respond to requests to do housework.
  4. I am hardworking and enjoy being loaded with tasks assigned to me.
  5. I would never get any tattoos—I'm very sensitive to any external interference with my body.
  6. I always see things through to the end, even if I’ve lost interest in the task.
  7. I always feel responsible for other people.
  8. My almost constant seriousness is one of my strengths.
  9. I would easily agree to rather monotonous work that puts many people to sleep.
  10. I tend to favor moderate over radical solutions.
  11. I always address people formally ("vy" form).
  12. I worry all the time.
  13. I’ve often sacrificed personal interests for the common good on my own initiative.
  14. I have a clear set of the most important moral rules, which I always remember and unfailingly follow.
  15. It’s more important to me to avoid negative emotions than to gain positive ones.
  16. I love children very much.
  17. My mood heavily depends on daily successes or troubles.
  18. I have always fought and will continue to fight against immorality.
  19. I believe that if I have a successful business career, I must try to materially support my relatives as well—find something for them that will bring material well-being.
  20. My life is dedicated to the collective good.
  21. I have a strong need to care for and protect close loved ones (perhaps more so than others).
  22. I almost always feel the pain of a close relative as my own.
  23. I often think about possible troubles.

Jointly rejected statements:

  1. I live by the principle: I owe nothing to anyone, and no one owes me anything.
  2. I support the death penalty.
  3. What irritates me most in other people is: YES) indifference NO) shamelessness and lack of conscience.
  4. Sometimes I enjoy mocking certain people.
  5. My loved ones have sometimes reproached me for being pretentious and self-centered.
  6. In my practice, I don’t want to hear anything about gradual accumulation of quantity and quality—I believe in decisive shifts, heroic leaps, and turning points.
  7. If something frustrates me and doesn’t work out, I can just drop it and say: “To hell with it!”
  8. In the mirror, I usually see a look in my eyes with a squint, slyness, and mischief.
  9. As a politician, I would seek to increase funding for the state's security forces.
  10. I constantly need fresh, new experiences: old or previously seen things quickly bore me and lose all appeal.
  11. I’m usually indifferent to everything and don’t worry about anything.

Among the 12 socionic functions, the values of the EII and LSE dyad best "fit" the combination of an excess of Fi and a deficiency of Ni. Among socionics types, besides EII (75%) and LSE (67%), those showing above-average sympathy for these values are ESI (60%), ESE (56%), and LII (53%), while these values are more alien and unattractive to all decisive irrationals, especially SEE, as well as to ILE (37–43% agreement).

The identified core meaning of the EII and LSE dyad’s values is a sense of responsibility for those around them, consideration of the specifics, attachments, and interests shaped by others’ personal pasts when making their own decisions; social "rightness" and seriousness - a willingness to be restrained and hardworking in maintaining the established balance of interests in society.

With the LIE + ESI dyad, they share diligence and heightened conscientiousness - a sense of personal, nearly universal responsibility for the consequences of their actions and self-esteem tied to the evaluation of those consequences. The difference between serious rationals here is that the Gamma dyad feels responsible only for themselves and assumes others are adults and will figure things out on their own, while the Delta dyad prefers to operate within and according to the rules of a unified system of mutual care and support.

With the second Delta dyad, IEE + SLI, they share a dislike of any social upheaval and a willingness to temper their desires in order to maintain the least traumatic balance of interests for all involved. The two Delta dyads differ primarily in that the rationals (compliant, process...) are far more prone to anxiety and concern over the consequences of their actions and about every little detail that enters their awareness.

With the ILE + SEI dyad, they share a kind of overall moral correctness and "preoccupation" with a touch of naïveté—a rejection of theft and deceit (even for "noble" goals), respect for others’ weaknesses (without trying to detect manipulation), and a willingness to care for others without even considering the possibility that they might be deliberately exploited. The differences are also substantial and partly linked to one dyad’s leaning toward intuition and the other’s toward sensing. The clearest and most striking contrast is the generally cheerful and playful communication style of Alpha irrationals versus the consistently serious tone of Delta rationals.

With the Beta dyad LSI + EIE, EII + LSE share a general conservative outlook, willingness to submit to known, generally accepted rules, and a dislike of surprises. The differences lie in the Delta types’ rejection of militaristic aspirations, their aversion to any kind of global heroic pathos, and their focus on the domestic sphere—willing to live with the concerns of their immediate circle, family, and children.

Least in common, predictably, is found with the SEE + ILI dyad—due to the fundamental divergence between Gamma irrationals and Delta rationals regarding their sense of responsibility toward others. The only thing that somewhat unites these two serious, prudent, right-wing dyads is a typically sober calculation of their own and others’ interests, a detailed balance in specifics, and reliance on this understanding in their actions. However, this calculation is used for diametrically opposite purposes—SEE and ILI use it to find the best way to exploit a person or situation, whereas LSE and EII use it to find a mutually agreeable and respectful form of cooperation for all involved.