# Thread: Se vs Si ?

1. ## Se vs Si ?

If you were to help someone differentiate between Se and Si, how would you go about it?

2. Si: the physical state (of self and others), and how events affect it; physical needs, comfort, and stability
Se: the outward physical traits of objects; value (monetary or power), strength, shape, and readiness to mobilize

3. Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff

4. Originally Posted by discojoe
Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff
holy cow, no kidding!!!
this is a damned good summary!

i remember the first week of wellbutrin when i tried it....
it was suddenly an Se world...
look at all the pretty toys i can play with!!!
it's like the world was full of objects to be moved around whenever/however i wanted
i don't normally pay attention to all those objects, but suddenly cars, trees, people, animals, lawn mowers sitting by the side of the road, and even rocks took on a whole new meaning!!!

5. Originally Posted by discojoe
Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff
LOVE it

My first thought was that I didn't see how anyone could confuse these two things. LOL They feel more different than any other two related functions . . . dunno if "related functions" is a good way to put it but i'm hoping everyone here knows what I mean.

6. Originally Posted by Slacker Mom
Originally Posted by discojoe
Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff
LOVE it

My first thought was that I didn't see how anyone could confuse these two things. LOL They feel more different than any other two related functions . . . dunno if "related functions" is a good way to put it but i'm hoping everyone here knows what I mean.
Yes, it is usually the easiest dichotomy for me to see.

7. Originally Posted by anndelise
Originally Posted by discojoe
Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff
holy cow, no kidding!!!
this is a damned good summary!

i remember the first week of wellbutrin when i tried it....
it was suddenly an Se world...
look at all the pretty toys i can play with!!!
it's like the world was full of objects to be moved around whenever/however i wanted
i don't normally pay attention to all those objects, but suddenly cars, trees, people, animals, lawn mowers sitting by the side of the road, and even rocks took on a whole new meaning!!!
Your pharmacist slip you some ecstacy? j/k, i tried a few antidepressants and it's overstimulation to the max...for me at least.

8. Originally Posted by jessica129
Originally Posted by anndelise
Originally Posted by discojoe
Se = Pushin stuff

Si = Touchin stuff
holy cow, no kidding!!!
this is a damned good summary!

i remember the first week of wellbutrin when i tried it....
it was suddenly an Se world...
look at all the pretty toys i can play with!!!
it's like the world was full of objects to be moved around whenever/however i wanted
i don't normally pay attention to all those objects, but suddenly cars, trees, people, animals, lawn mowers sitting by the side of the road, and even rocks took on a whole new meaning!!!
Your pharmacist slip you some ecstacy? j/k, i tried a few antidepressants and it's overstimulation to the max...for me at least.
apparently, not everyone gets an initial high off of it...I guess I got lucky.
unfortunately, no matter how we tried to alter it, I never felt that way again.
I quite it after a month or so because it wasn't offering any positive benefits...especially considering the negative reactions.
Bummer really, cuz in that one week i was able to do a lot

9. I've hardly tried legal drugs... funny enough all those brain pills scare the shit out of me

10. I had a paracetamol once - I took it in two halves, a day apart, just in case of complications.

11. Si: "that apple has a nice color, tastes good, has a good texture".
Se: "with a slap of my hand I can get that apple on the table flying right out of the window".

Si: dynamic irrational introverted sensations - you react to your every-changing internal perceptions
Se: static irrational extroverted perceptions - you perceive the static state of an object and immediately want to alter it

Si: "wow, she's beautiful".
Se: "I can easily kick your ass".

Si: "let's camp on that spot near the lake, it's gorgeous"
Se: "it's too close to where those other people have set up their tent".

12. Originally Posted by Expat
Si: dynamic irrational introverted sensations - you react to your every-changing internal perceptions
Se: static irrational extroverted perceptions - you perceive the static state of an object and immediately want to alter it
Ni is also dynamic, irrational and introverted; Ne is also static, irrational and extroverted.

13. Originally Posted by Stormy
Originally Posted by Expat
Si: dynamic irrational introverted sensations - you react to your every-changing internal perceptions
Se: static irrational extroverted perceptions - you perceive the static state of an object and immediately want to alter it
Ni is also dynamic, irrational and introverted; Ne is also static, irrational and extroverted.
Uhh - yes. And your point is? Se and Si is also sensing, Ne and Ni is intuition -- did you want me to point out the obvious too?

14. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
Originally Posted by Expat
Si: dynamic irrational introverted sensations - you react to your every-changing internal perceptions
Se: static irrational extroverted perceptions - you perceive the static state of an object and immediately want to alter it
Ni is also dynamic, irrational and introverted; Ne is also static, irrational and extroverted.
How do you differentiate them?

15. Originally Posted by Stormy
How do you differentiate them?
Who's "them"? Ne and Ni as opposed to Se and Si?

16. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
How do you differentiate them?
Who's "them"? Ne and Ni as opposed to Se and Si?
Ni from Si and Ne from Se.

17. There is the "bodies and fields" definition.

I prefer to say that Si and Se are "closer" to the immediate senses, to the present reality, than Ne and Ni, which are a bit more "detached".

One way of putting it is to say that Si and Se are external and Ne and Ni are internal.

18. Originally Posted by Expat
I prefer to say that Si and Se are "closer" to the immediate senses, to the present reality, than Ne and Ni, which are a bit more "detached".

One way of putting it is to say that Si and Se are external and Ne and Ni are internal.
Is Thinking, being an External Function, then also 'closer' to the immediate senses, and Feeling more 'detached'?

19. Originally Posted by Stormy
Is Thinking, being an External Function, then also 'closer' to the immediate senses, and Feeling more 'detached'?
Perhaps so, in a way. Doesn't it seem easier to conceive of a Thinking machine than of a Feeling machine? Feeling and Intuition are more "personal" than Sensing and Thinking, then. An ISTj robot seems easier to construct than an ENFp one.

20. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
Is Thinking, being an External Function, then also 'closer' to the immediate senses, and Feeling more 'detached'?
Perhaps so, in a way. Doesn't it seem easier to conceive of a Thinking machine than of a Feeling machine? Feeling and Intuition are more "personal" than Sensing and Thinking, then. An ISTj robot seems easier to construct than an ENFp one.

I've been conceiving Sensing and Thinking as 'physical', recently, and Intuition and Feeling as 'mental', although the terms are very hard to pin down exactly...something approaching dual-aspect metaphysical theories or panpsychism, possibly. It gets even more complicated when Static/Dynamic distinctions are made, of course, not least because what is Static under one attitude is Dynamic under the other.

21. Originally Posted by Stormy
It gets even more complicated when Static/Dynamic distinctions are made, of course, not least because what is Static under one attitude is Dynamic under the other.
Yes, but because you also have the rational/irrational bit.

and -- static but "pushing" for change --> extrovertion
and - static and "welcoming" stasis ---> introversion

and -- dynamic and "controlling" change --> extroversion
and -- dynamic and "welcoming" change ---> introversion

22. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
It gets even more complicated when Static/Dynamic distinctions are made, of course, not least because what is Static under one attitude is Dynamic under the other.
Yes, but because you also have the rational/irrational bit.

and -- static but "pushing" for change --> extrovertion
and - static and "welcoming" stasis ---> introversion

and -- dynamic and "controlling" change --> extroversion
and -- dynamic and "welcoming" change ---> introversion
ooh good way to put it

23. Originally Posted by Expat
Yes, but because you also have the rational/irrational bit.

and -- static but "pushing" for change --> extrovertion
and - static and "welcoming" stasis ---> introversion

and -- dynamic and "controlling" change --> extroversion
and -- dynamic and "welcoming" change ---> introversion
How can both 'welcoming' stasis and 'welcoming' change correspond to Introversion?

24. Originally Posted by Stormy
Originally Posted by Expat
Yes, but because you also have the rational/irrational bit.

and -- static but "pushing" for change --> extrovertion
and - static and "welcoming" stasis ---> introversion

and -- dynamic and "controlling" change --> extroversion
and -- dynamic and "welcoming" change ---> introversion
How can both 'welcoming' stasis and 'welcoming' change correspond to Introversion?
perceiving judging, easy

25. Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Stormy
How can both 'welcoming' stasis and 'welcoming' change correspond to Introversion?
perceiving judging, easy
I assume you mean perceiving corresponds to 'welcoming change', and judging corresponds to 'welcoming stasis', but in any case they're orthogonal to Introversion/Extraversion.

26. Originally Posted by Stormy
Originally Posted by FDG
Originally Posted by Stormy
How can both 'welcoming' stasis and 'welcoming' change correspond to Introversion?
perceiving judging, easy
I assume you mean perceiving corresponds to 'welcoming change', and judging corresponds to 'welcoming stasis', but in any case they're orthogonal to Introversion/Extraversion.
Now I get what you mean. Yes there's the potential for a logical contradiction there

27. Originally Posted by Stormy
I assume you mean perceiving corresponds to 'welcoming change', and judging corresponds to 'welcoming stasis', but in any case they're orthogonal to Introversion/Extraversion.
No.

Dynamic perceives change, Static perceives stasis
Rational dislikes "uncontrolled" change, Irrational wants change

Static + Irrational --> change must be caused ---> extroversion
Static + Rational ---> there is no uncontrolled change, no need for action ---> introversion
Dynamic + irrational ---> change is happening already ---> introversion
Dynamic + rational --> change is happening and must be controlled ---> extroversion

28. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
I assume you mean perceiving corresponds to 'welcoming change', and judging corresponds to 'welcoming stasis', but in any case they're orthogonal to Introversion/Extraversion.
No.

Dynamic perceives change, Static perceives stasis
Rational dislikes "uncontrolled" change, Irrational wants change

Static + Irrational --> change must be caused ---> extroversion
Static + Rational ---> there is no uncontrolled change, no need for action ---> introversion
Dynamic + irrational ---> change is happening already ---> introversion
Dynamic + rational --> change is happening and must be controlled ---> extroversion
what he means is, that if you have

Fi Se let's say

Se pushes for change in your model, right? well in the case of creative, it doesn't, it pushes for stasis

29. Originally Posted by Carla
Examining an object:
Ne: "I wonder what this does ... I wonder what it'll do if I do this to it ... it's very strange ..."
Se: "Watch me do this ... and this ... and this ... fucking hell, I broke it ... throw ... smash ..."

I think Ne is more about what something means, or what it potentially means in relation to other things, though.

30. Originally Posted by Expat
Dynamic perceives change, Static perceives stasis
Rational dislikes "uncontrolled" change, Irrational wants change

Static + Irrational --> change must be caused ---> extroversion
Static + Rational ---> there is no uncontrolled change, no need for action ---> introversion
Dynamic + irrational ---> change is happening already ---> introversion
Dynamic + rational --> change is happening and must be controlled ---> extroversion
My point is how can 'change must be caused' and 'change is happening and must be controlled' both equate to the same attitude (Extroversion), and likewise for Introversion.

31. Originally Posted by FDG
what he means is, that if you have

Fi Se let's say

Se pushes for change in your model, right? well in the case of creative, it doesn't, it pushes for stasis
I don't even want to think about bringing Positions into it, actually.
-

32. Originally Posted by Stormy
My point is how can 'change must be caused' and 'change is happening and must be controlled' both equate to the same attitude (Extroversion), and likewise for Introversion.
Because of rationality or irrationality. Extroversion is a need to take action, Introversion is the absence of this need.

33. Originally Posted by Expat
Originally Posted by Stormy
My point is how can 'change must be caused' and 'change is happening and must be controlled' both equate to the same attitude (Extroversion), and likewise for Introversion.
Because of rationality or irrationality. Extroversion is a need to take action, Introversion is the absence of this need.
I see; Extroversion concerns opposing whatever is considered to be dominant (stasis or change).

34. Originally Posted by Stormy

I see; Extroversion is about opposing whatever it considers to be dominant (stasis or change).
Yes; where in the case of and is not necessarily about opposing the change, but steering it into the direction you want. and is about kicking a sitting bull to get it running; and is about holding the bull by the horns to either make it stop or control its speed and direction.

35. Originally Posted by Expat
Yes; where in the case of and is not necessarily about opposing the change, but steering it into the direction you want. and is about kicking a sitting bull to get it running; and is about holding the bull by the horns to either make it stop or control its speed and direction.
Thank you. In an incredibly round-about way, if is about 'kicking a sitting bull to get it running', what is - noticing how a running bull affects other bulls?

36. Si/Ni rides the bull once it's moving, and steers it to make sure it doesn't run into a wall/other bulls/other shit.

37. Originally Posted by Gilly
Si/Ni rides the bull once it's moving, and steers it to make sure it doesn't run into a wall/other bulls/other shit.
Si is enjoying the ride itself, Ni is enjoying how the ride is proceeding - until it gets into an undesired direction, but then we are stepping into rationality.

38. PeJi: Gets the bulls moving, but knows when it's necessary to let them sit.
JiPe: Lets the bulls sit, but knows when it's necessary to get them moving.

JePi: Stops and corrals the bulls, but knows when to just ride and steer.
PiJe: Steers the bulls while they move, but knows when to pull up.

Alternately, imagine a car. Ji is at rest/idling, Pe is firing up the engine and accelerating, Pi is steering while it's moving, and Je is the brakes.

39. Originally Posted by Gilly
Pi is steering while it's moving.
That is the only bit I am unsure about -- Ni and Si are about perceptions; if you steer it in any way, you are already stepping into rationality. Please note that I am talking about the function, not person; of course an IP will also steer it.

40. But it's still in a moving state; rationality comes into play when it's stopped, either by the static state of being stopped, or the dynamic state of actively stopping.

Page 1 of 2 12 Last

#### Posting Permissions

• You may not post new threads
• You may not post replies
• You may not post attachments
• You may not edit your posts
•