LSI+EIE

Values of the LSI and EIE dyad (rationals, central, ascending, aristocrats, stubborn, carefree, process)

Jointly accepted statements:
(to be fair, and as is clear from the attached table, I must note that most of these statements are particularly fervently upheld by LSIs, whereas EIEs, even when distinctly central, as befits dynamics and ethics, most often merely go along with their duals)

1. I hate weaklings.
2. The triumph of the strong over the weak is a normal and quite acceptable basis of life.
3. Usurping power at the first opportunity is rather normal and natural than not.
4. Fearing war or calling for friendship with other powers is already a path to defeatism and betrayal.
5. I love rigid structures that allow no changes within their framework.
6. People should receive strictly rationed information depending on their role and status in society.
7. Members of different social groups should remain members of those groups, without mixing among themselves.
8. I respect works of art more when they have stood the test of time.
9. In the morning, I always have clear thoughts about what I’ll be doing in the evening.
10. Military valor is one of the most important human virtues.
11. A victorious war is better than a bad peace.
12. I plan and “schedule” my life for years ahead (or did so in my youth).
13. The interests of my compatriots are always an order of magnitude more important to me than the fate and interests of any other people.
14. I would enjoy working as a judge.
15. If I were a ruler, I would definitely try to conceal and classify the arrival of an alien spacecraft on Earth from the public.
16. I believe that seniority-based ranks and classes awarded to civil servants are necessary and useful.
17. The people with their collective self-consciousness are above any individuality.
18. I believe that the interests of the individual are nothing compared to the interests of kin and tribe.
19. I am usually more zealous than my colleagues about terminological accuracy—if something is named a certain way, it must fully correspond to that name.
20. I always feel like a part of a larger human whole—a nation, a state, a collective.
21. I often use words like “no,” “never,” “under no circumstances,” “not a chance,” in my speech.
22. It’s true that I don’t like being touched during conversations—even by friends.
23. You can offend or even insult me by breaking etiquette rules.

Jointly rejected statements:

1. If we divide all people into two large groups—one consisting of more evil and suspicious people, and the second of more kind and contented ones, satisfied with life—I belong more to the second group, the kind-hearted.
2. At any given moment, I decide what to do based on the situation—not planning in advance.
3. I like surprises.
4. I enjoy being in an environment where no one depends on anyone, where there are no “elders” or “authorities.”
5. Relationships between people should be built primarily horizontally, not vertically.
6. Any manifestations of inequality between people irritate me.
7. I try to and usually can behave as an equal with anyone—regardless of the position they hold relative to me.
8. Liberty, equality, and fraternity are sacred concepts to me.
9. I go with the flow of life, living in its pleasant surprises without planning ahead.
10. As a politician, I would emphasize abolishing all kinds of unnecessary prohibitions and restrictions.
11. I easily and quickly switch from one task to another, from one action or movement to another.
12. I am much less ambitious than others regarding government, social, and professional ranks and titles.
13. When mastering new work techniques, I quickly and easily adapt my movement sequences.
14. I know how to cook for myself and enjoy doing it.
15. My face has no sharp angles or coarse, protruding features—everything is pleasant and rounded.
16. It’s true that I don’t want to know anything that ruins my mood.
17. I can multitask well.

So, what stands out most when analyzing the values of this dyad?
First and foremost - a low overall agreement across the socion with most of the statements about the highlighted traits (40%). For comparison, all dyads outside the second quadra have a socion-wide agreement level with their values of 50% to 56%. In this case, only three types - LSI, EIE, and SLE - show agreement with the values of rational Beta above average (70%, 59%, and 52%, respectively).

Secondly (which, as it turns out, explains the first), rational Beta essentially absorbs most of the traits associated with the socionic trait of aristocracy. The reason is the inherently inseparable secondary links between the aristocracy-democracy dichotomy and other dichotomies - primarily, for the aristocratic pole, links with rationality, centrality, and, to some extent, cheerfulness and process. Thus, aristocratic hierarchy is virtually impossible without a complex control system over society (rationality + process) and without violence as a necessary component against dissenters (decisiveness + cheerfulness).

As a result, while the traits of the democratic pole and its associated functions (Qi and De) are roughly evenly distributed across the dyads of the first and third quadras, about two-thirds of the traits related to aristocratic functions (Qe and Di) gravitate toward the LSI+EIE dyad. Since the meanings associated with Qe and Di are the least supported in modern society (due to their rigid hierarchy), the thought patterns and values of this dyad are also the least appealing to the average person.

Let us now try to identify the core values of this “ultra-aristocratic” dyad. To do so, we exclude traits where LSI significantly surpasses EIE (and most other types except sometimes SLE), and focus on those where LSI and EIE are on par. LSI and EIE both significantly emphasize:

• An inability and unwillingness to switch tasks and juggle diverse activities; ideally wanting one fixed role in the social mechanism.
• Ambition - a desire to occupy an important, respected, and leadership role in the social hierarchy, distanced from the needs of ordinary people and protected from encroachments by "merchants" or upstarts.
• A positive attitude toward social inequality and strict stratification - as essential to a strong, more viable society in a hostile world.
• Love and respect for everything associated with antiquity and power (if something has survived through the ages without losing value, it must possess unique strength), often generating a personal desire to "attach" to and serve that strength.

In this set of four traits, each subsequent one is largely determined by the previous.
Thus, if statist ideology originates within this dyad (and it does), then the trigger for its emergence in LSI and EIE is their inability and unwillingness to adapt to changes in the external (social) environment. Attachment to the past and resistance to change (viewed as destructive) produces a type that seeks to preserve its familiar social system. For such preservation, LSI builds a bureaucratic structure to suppress spontaneous alternatives, while EIE fills it with heroic (supra-personal) ideology, making it more resilient in times of crisis.

As a result, the synthesis of bureaucratic golem and ideological egregor creates what we now call the state - a supra-personal inert structure whose initiators, defenders, and beneficiaries are representatives of rational Beta. The fact that rational Beta values are not widely supported by other quadras only means that statism offers little to the rest of the socion while taking much away. However, no other dyads can do much in an already statized society because rational Beta has one major advantage - it is literally oriented toward preserving the existing global order and has achieved the highest level of professional police and propaganda functions possible for the current stage of societal development. Moreover, once formed, this order is unified, and all rational Beta types act as a united front to defend it, while other dyads act individually - some due to irrational disorganization, others due to apolitical indifference, and some due to democratic resistance to hierarchy, even temporarily and for a common good.

Therefore, the LSI+EIE dyad most often becomes the core of such a society, and unless the state holding it together is destroyed by another state or degraded by an external ideology, this society will remain frozen in its structure and forced to live within it by its rules.

Briefly comparing similarities and differences between the LSI+EIE dyad and those discussed earlier:
As expected, LSI and EIE fundamentally disagree with types from both irrational peripheral dyads due to being strong proponents of total social control over the individual. Somewhat surprisingly, they also differ from the ESI+LIE dyad - although the latter supports strict control, they prefer it to be in the hands of individuals (not supra-personal organs), and economic rather than ideological or force-based.

With ILE and SEI, however, LSI and EIE share the desire to grasp the fate of the world, perceive the global intent of history, and find their place in it - though their conclusions differ radically.

With IEI+SLE, LSI+EIE share a love for mental transformations and a weak sense of guilt - mainly due to their common trait of stubbornness, which lends them a multi-layered worldview and the ability to justify any action if needed.

With ESI+LIE, LSI+EIE share even more: the ability to mobilize for long-term work without breaks or distractions, set hard deadlines, and meet them without burnout or breakdowns.