A dumb question

[Jimbean]

How does an ENTp value Si when that person has scores to settle (so to speak)?

It seems like to me that Si is associated with laziness and low standards in the long term. I have been an ENTp with scores to settle for as long as I can remember, and I don’t think I value Si so much. Do any of you have any experience with this?

[Gilly]

That's one negative manifestation of Si, sure. It definitely doesn't mean that Si quadra types don't have goals or ambitions. Try not to think in black-and-white terms when it comes to valuing functions.

[Jimbean]

Yes, I know, that was a bit crude of me to put it that way.

But, as far as ISFps go, I have yet to meet one that is ambitious. Don't get me wrong, they can be cool in their own way

::edited for grammar::

[Gilly]

Well, laziness is clearly part of your perception of Si, so perhaps you're subconsciously counting the ambitious SEIs out as other types? Something to think about.

[Jimbean]

Well, laziness is clearly part of your perception of Si, so perhaps you're subconsciously counting the ambitious SEIs out as other types? Something to think about.

I have already taken that into consideration. I usually type the person first before I get a chance to judge them.

[FDG]

The only property of Si that allows it to be defined as "lazing about" is that it does not care about externally accepted societal standards of success (Se). This allows, indeed, Si quadra members to eventually lead a life of complete nonachievment without feeling regret. This doesn't mean that it has to be so, though: being Si an introverted function, it's always personalized.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

The only property of Si that allows it to be defined as "lazing about" is that it does not care about externally accepted societal standards of success (Se).

Wouldn't that be more Fe? Accepted societal standards?

Standards of behaviour, yes, of success - it's Se. This doesn't meant that Se types all want to be whealthy. But to give a concrete example: you will rarely meet a gamma philosophy major.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

The only property of Si that allows it to be defined as "lazing about" is that it does not care about externally accepted societal standards of success (Se).

Wouldn't that be more Fe? Accepted societal standards?

Standards of behaviour, yes, of success - it's Se. This doesn't meant that Se types all want to be whealthy. But to give a concrete example: you will rarely meet a gamma philosophy major.

Wouldn't a Se type just push to achieve whatever their own objective was - without much thought as to whether it was societally accepted or not? Why does it have to be an accepted societal standard of success?

ù

It's not that it has to be an accepted standard of success - it's just like that because it's Se. There is no causality involved. Basically Se is about impacting the external world (as opposed to Ne being about possibilities). Only things that are able to impact the external world become social standars. So, Se success and social standard of success can only be coincident, because Ne (which would be the alternative) doesn't have the means to do so.

I don't think Se people think about the objective being socially accepted. It's just that if it falls in the domain of interest of a Se person, then it's in the domain of socially accepted because all that doesn't directly impact the external world is Ne, and if it doesn't impact the external world, it cannot become a social standard.

(i have thus reached the conclusion both from the positive and negative side)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

What if that person's objective is vengeance? And they go and wipe out a bunch of people who deserved it, thus acheiving success, but certainly not societally accepted success.

Eheheh, good objection. I think then I used the wrong word for what I had in mind. Yes, it's not accepted at all, but it's considered among the "normal" set. It's generally plausible for a person to have vengeance as objective, I think? Whereas having as objective the development of a new branch of physics is not thought about as "normal", do you agree?

But I admit your objection was good so I'll have to review my concept.

[Gilly]

It's not that Si doesn't care about "success;" it's just that it's definition of success is different. Si success is leading a comfortable lifestyle; what that means to the individual is entirely subjective, as is evident by the obviously varying goals of Si-quadra types. Se success is about obtaining power and influence; this, too, has lots of different potential meanings, for the same reasons as above.

Counter-stereotype examples:

Si "comfort" could be making millions just so that one doesn't have to worry about money and can do whatever one wants.

Se "influence" could be working any job, disregarding pay, that allows the individual time to hold an important role of influence, like being the head of a Rotary Club, mayor of a small town, etc.

Overall, it really has nothing to do with what the concrete goals of the individual are. What matters is the motivation behind those goals, and how that person interprets his/her own motives.

[Gilly]

Well, laziness is clearly part of your perception of Si, so perhaps you're subconsciously counting the ambitious SEIs out as other types? Something to think about.

I have already taken that into consideration. I usually type the person first before I get a chance to judge them.

Well, let me assure you, there are ambitious SEIs out there

[Jimbean]

What if that person's objective is vengeance? And they go and wipe out a bunch of people who deserved it, thus acheiving success, but certainly not societally accepted success.

By the way, when I talk of scores to settle, I am not talking about that

For reference, I am talking about getting ahead while back home there are people that do not think you are capable of such a think. Not to mention it is fun to do!

[FDG]

It's not that Si doesn't care about "success;" it's just that it's definition of success is different. Si success is leading a comfortable lifestyle; what that means to the individual is entirely subjective, as is evident by the obviously varying goals of Si-quadra types. Se success is about obtaining power and influence; this, too, has lots of different potential meanings, for the same reasons as above.

Counter-stereotype examples:

Si "comfort" could be making millions just so that one doesn't have to worry about money and can do whatever one wants.

Se "influence" could be working any job, disregarding pay, that allows the individual time to hold an important role of influence, like being the head of a Rotary Club, mayor of a small town, etc.

Overall, it really has nothing to do with what the concrete goals of the individual are. What matters is the motivation behind those goals, and how that person interprets his/her own motives.

But Gilly, let's face it: people that have power do indeed have more impact on society than people that don't; so in essence, given that Se types' aims are more bent towards acquiring power, then Se aims are more likely to influence society in a wider sense in comparison to Si aims.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Gilly]

It's not that Si doesn't care about "success;" it's just that it's definition of success is different. Si success is leading a comfortable lifestyle; what that means to the individual is entirely subjective, as is evident by the obviously varying goals of Si-quadra types. Se success is about obtaining power and influence; this, too, has lots of different potential meanings, for the same reasons as above.

Counter-stereotype examples:

Si "comfort" could be making millions just so that one doesn't have to worry about money and can do whatever one wants.

Se "influence" could be working any job, disregarding pay, that allows the individual time to hold an important role of influence, like being the head of a Rotary Club, mayor of a small town, etc.

Overall, it really has nothing to do with what the concrete goals of the individual are. What matters is the motivation behind those goals, and how that person interprets his/her own motives.

But Gilly, let's face it: people that have power do indeed have more impact on society than people that don't; so in essence, given that Se types' aims are more bent towards acquiring power, then Se aims are more likely to influence society in a wider sense in comparison to Si aims.

True, but having influence over society isn't the goal of all Se types, and actually having influence over society doesn't mean that impacting society was the original aim of the person in power.

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

It's not that Si doesn't care about "success;" it's just that it's definition of success is different. Si success is leading a comfortable lifestyle; what that means to the individual is entirely subjective, as is evident by the obviously varying goals of Si-quadra types. Se success is about obtaining power and influence; this, too, has lots of different potential meanings, for the same reasons as above.

Counter-stereotype examples:

Si "comfort" could be making millions just so that one doesn't have to worry about money and can do whatever one wants.

Se "influence" could be working any job, disregarding pay, that allows the individual time to hold an important role of influence, like being the head of a Rotary Club, mayor of a small town, etc.

Overall, it really has nothing to do with what the concrete goals of the individual are. What matters is the motivation behind those goals, and how that person interprets his/her own motives.

But Gilly, let's face it: people that have power do indeed have more impact on society than people that don't; so in essence, given that Se types' aims are more bent towards acquiring power, then Se aims are more likely to influence society in a wider sense in comparison to Si aims.

True, but having influence over society isn't the goal of all Se types, and actually having influence over society doesn't mean that impacting society was the original aim of the person in power.

I agree it's just a consequence.

[FDG]

Yes, it's not accepted at all, but it's considered among the "normal" set. It's generally plausible for a person to have vengeance as objective, I think? Whereas having as objective the development of a new branch of physics is not thought about as "normal", do you agree?

Hmm, I don't know. I think more people would find developing something in physics as normal than going out and killing people. A physicist would be much more socially accepted, and seen as acheiving success by societal standards, and not someone who took vengeance into their own hands.

You are right about this specific example, but aren't we overfocussing over an event that costitutes a very small fraction of the whole set?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[FDG]

Yes, it's not accepted at all, but it's considered among the "normal" set. It's generally plausible for a person to have vengeance as objective, I think? Whereas having as objective the development of a new branch of physics is not thought about as "normal", do you agree?

Hmm, I don't know. I think more people would find developing something in physics as normal than going out and killing people. A physicist would be much more socially accepted, and seen as acheiving success by societal standards, and not someone who took vengeance into their own hands.

You are right about this specific example, but aren't we overfocussing over an event that costitutes a very small fraction of the whole set?

I'm not so sure that it is a very small fraction. Many physicists, philosophers, mathematicians, artists, actors, etc. are considered by general society as being very successful. Many people practically worship actors and actresses and think they're the ideal of success. Or think of Bill Gates and how successful Microsoft is, diplomats, recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize, politicians. There's such a wide variety of type and professions as being thought to be sucessful by society's standards that I don't think it can really mean anything at all.

And what do actors have to do with the original point, sorry?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Exodus]

Although scientists are generally respected, the average person doesn't aspire to become one. If an accomplishment involves doing something unusual, creating something new, then it is driven by Ne. But if it involves influencing or manipulating something that already exists, and for a clear-cut purpose, then it's Se.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

]But Gilly, let's face it: people that have power do indeed have more impact on society than people that don't; so in essence, given that Se types' aims are more bent towards acquiring power, then Se aims are more likely to influence society in a wider sense in comparison to Si aims.

Ehh to a certain extent. However, if I am a bottom you first need to ask permission if you want to fuck me, so to speak. In a successful society, those in power are put in there by others because they are best fit for the job, not just 'FUCK YEAH MAN I WANT TO BE ON THE TOP SO IM GONNA BE ON THE FUCKING TOP YOU BITCH. *spit on face and proceed to throat fuck* If they're not put there for reasons that aren't democratic or honest, then it does more harm than good for everybody. This is why people want to live in developing nations not Kukugusdukibalh of the tribesmen dictating over everybody.

It also takes two to tango, if I don't want to be fucked per se, I just don't go to where there's any tops. If you fuck up all your bottoms, the person on top isn't going to be very happy either now is he? You'll just have some really passive INFj write a long book about how horrible you are and people will de-throne you.

Also my sex jokes are just obviously for analogy. If anybody gets offended by them, please go screw yourselves!