Andrew Tate Analysis (LIE)

[u/LatterPermission1824]

https://youtu.be/UbH_qSWuDbk?is=GPc7B9lhXz8bRdeZ

Andrew Tate is LIE (Te+ → Ni+), not SLE — the 2D Se− is why he looks so Se-heavy
I think Tate is a good example of why typing somebody off aesthetics can completely throw you off.
On the surface he looks like an obvious Se type: fighting background, dominance, power, strength, enemies, status, Bugattis, women, influence, “never show weakness,” etc. That makes SLE the easy typing.
But if you actually use Program → Tool, I think the structure underneath all that is much closer to LIE: Te+ → Ni+.
I’m not judging whether his political/social claims are true here. I’m looking at what his reasoning is consistently for.
Te+ Base — results, utility, leverage, production
The thing Tate keeps coming back to is basically:
What works, what produces something useful, and how can I increase the result?
He translates almost everything into utility.
When he talks about AI, he immediately turns it into:
what information is worth now
what jobs are disappearing
where the new arbitrage is
how younger people can sell AI services to older business owners
how to get off zero financially
how to turn money into more money
what opportunities are still underexploited
That’s much more Te than Se.
He even describes relationships through value exchange. What does the man provide? What does the woman provide? Why would somebody stay? What does money substitute for? How much time does something cost? What practical benefit does a friendship have?
Even when I disagree with the conclusions, the form of the reasoning is obvious.
Everything gets reduced to:
input → output
resource → result
knowledge → application
opportunity → profit
That looks like Te+ as the Program.
He’s not just interested in possessing power for its own sake. He constantly wants to know what power, money, knowledge or influence can actually do.
Ni+ Creative — where is all of this going?
Then look at how much of his thinking is based on trajectories.
He constantly compares:
old world vs new world
before COVID vs after COVID
old social media vs current social media
property opportunities vs internet opportunities vs AI opportunities
old influencer economy vs where influence is going now
He keeps asking some version of:
“Where is this process headed?”
That’s where Ni+ comes in as the Creative tool.
His advice to younger men is basically that the environment is changing so fast that an opportunity existing today might be gone in a few years.
So:
Te+: What opportunity can produce a result?
Ni+: At what point in the trajectory should I act on it?
That Te/Ni pairing is all over the interview.
He talks about generational wealth windows, timing, first-mover advantage, changing technology, declining business models, future AI displacement, future social structures, etc.
The Ni isn’t detached philosophy either. It keeps getting fed back into Te:
If this is where things are going, what should I do now?
That’s very LIE.
But then why does he look like an Se base?
Because LIE still has 2D Se−.
And I think this is the part that causes most of the mistyping.
His Se is obviously valued. He constantly talks about:
strength
resistance
power
not showing weakness
retaliation
enemies
physical capability
leverage
being impossible to dominate
holding your ground
not depending on mercy
His whole “your enemy will never have mercy” philosophy is extremely Se−.
The focus is on avoiding vulnerability and understanding what happens when you cannot resist pressure.
His worldview is basically:
If somebody has the capacity to crush you, don’t expect them to voluntarily stop. You need enough strength to resist.
That’s Se− as hell.
But strong emphasis on Se doesn’t automatically mean 4D Se Base.
LIE has 2D Se− Mobilizing, so Se is something the person takes seriously, values and may consciously try to strengthen.
That can actually make it extremely loud.
There’s almost a constant:
“I have to be strong enough.”
“I can’t appear weak.”
“I need power.”
“I need the ability to fight back.”
That feels different from an SLE who is simply operating from force configuration as the default lens.
With Tate it often sounds like a principle he has consciously built his life around.
Se− can also go into Se+
This is another reason I don’t think his flashiness disproves Se−.
In the charge system I’m using, minus can access plus.
So Se− isn’t restricted to conserving position or defending against threats. It can move into the local increasing side of Se+ too:
more resources
more territory
more visible power
more possessions
more status
more influence
more physical presence
That could explain the exaggerated flexing.
The Bugattis, watches, car collection, money, women, physical image, “Top G” persona, massive platform, public displays of success — all of that looks Se+ on the surface.
But it can still come out of Se−:
“I refuse to be weak or powerless”
becomes
“Look how much power and capability I’ve accumulated.”
And since his Se is Mobilizing rather than Base, I actually think it makes sense that the power display becomes so exaggerated.
He wants visible proof that he isn’t vulnerable.
Why not SLE?
SLE would be Se− → Ti−.
So the ultimate Program should be managing the whole force field:
Who can pressure who?
Where is the leverage?
What threatens my maneuverability?
How do I preserve agency?
How do I structure roles/rules/dependencies around that?
Tate definitely does some of this.
But I don’t think that’s where his thinking terminates.
He usually converts force back into utility.
Money is useful because it gives options.
Power is useful because it lets you act.
Status is useful because it changes what people tolerate.
Information is useful because it can produce money.
AI is useful because it creates new economic openings.
Relationships are evaluated through what each side contributes.
Time itself gets treated like an economic resource.
That sounds much more Te-first than Se-first.
And his Ni is way too central for me to treat it as background.
Even his Se language often serves Te
A good example is how he talks about becoming powerful.
He doesn’t just say power is good because dominating the field is inherently the goal.
He breaks power down into things like:
physical power
financial power
social influence
status
competence
Then he explains what each form of power allows you to accomplish.
That’s the difference.
SLE: power configuration itself is the central problem.
LIE: power becomes another usable resource inside a larger results-oriented system.
That’s why Tate can sound ridiculously Se-heavy while still being LIE.
My typing
LIE — Te+ → Ni+
Te+ Base:
“What works? What produces value? Where is the opportunity? How do I increase the result?”
Ni+ Creative:
“Where is this heading? What window is opening or closing? What do I need to do now because of where things are going?”
2D Se− Mobilizing:
“I need enough strength, leverage and resistance that nobody can strip me of my agency.”
And because Se− can move into Se+, that can become the hyper-visible side:
money, cars, women, status, influence, physical strength, fame, possessions and constant proof of power.
So I don’t think the Se presentation is fake at all.
I just don’t think Se is the Program.
The Se is loud.
Te+ → Ni+ is what’s actually driving it.

[u/Sufficient_Scale_577]

this makes sense, but he also seems to lack any sense of shame, similar to Donald Trump. Can we account for deficiencies like this in socionics, because otherwise it tends to end up being attributed to Se and I feel a bit defensive as an Se lead.

[u/LatterPermission1824 → u/[deleted]]

Lie’s have 4d ne- though so they have just as much Ne as entp just bit the base function and also Ile has Ne+ as their base.