Problems with Se description
The most abstract description of Se is "external statics of objects". This has no connection with force, will, mobilization, energy form what I can see. What is more baffling is that it is a static function.
"External statics of objects" is only to do with appearance and shape of an object.
It seems that the modern description of Se cannot find its routes in "external statics of objects".
What describes modern Se is something dynamic rather than static.
That would seem to be weakly connected with the modern Se description.
I also think that Si is a static function, not dynamic.
The modern Si description is to do with external appearance of things.
Se is known as "F" for Force, or also volitional sensorics.
Moden definition of Se - a mobilized state full of vitality and energy or implied strength; the desire to make strong, bold, and powerful movements
This seems to be dynamic to me
Si is known as sensational sensorics, which to me is a static quality
"External" as its used here doesn't mean "outer". "Outward", perhaps. The internal vs. external thing is something I'm still making sense of.
I agree.Originally Posted by Elzo
I see it as manifested vs not manifested.
interesting
(But how is Se dynamic?And if the external statics of objects isn't Se, what is it? Keep in mind that if Se is dynamic, then Ni must be static... which is impossible.)
Omar Gaither (born March 18, 1984 in Charlotte, North Carolina) is a linebacker for the National Football League. He currently plays for the Philadelphia Eagles. He played college football at the University of Tennessee from 2002-2005. He was drafted by the Philadelphia Eagles in the 5th round of the 2006 NFL Draft. He wears the number 96 instead of his college number, 44. Due to the struggles and injury of starter Matt McCoy, Gaither got his first NFL start at WLB on December 4, 2006 on a Monday Night Football win against the Carolina Panthers. Gaither played high school football at Myers Park High School.
Gaither received significant playing time later in the 2006 season and has been named the starter in 2007. This happened due to the release of Jeremiah Trotter from the Eagles.
The description of Se in socionics is accurate in many ways, but as Herzy (Ukko) pointed out, there is much to be understood that is too often not understood.
The description of Se in MBTT differs heavily from that of socionics. There is no emphasis on organisation (movement) of bodies, power distribution, will power etc. - it simply concerns an accumulation of experience gained via the five senses. It is heavily underrated as a function.
Re: Problems with Se description
First of all, that's not an issue with the definition of Se, but with that model of "definitions" of IM element. These aren't really primary definitions, but rather more like coordinates for each IM element. They're useful to the extent that they refer to various dichotomies one can draw. But the absolute worst thing you can do is read into the English names and ignore the mathematical patterns they're referring to.The most abstract description of Se is "external statics of objects". This has no connection with force, will, mobilization, energy form what I can see. What is more baffling is that it is a static function.
"External statics of objects" is only to do with appearance and shape of an object.
It seems that the modern description of Se cannot find its routes in "external statics of objects".
What describes modern Se is something dynamic rather than static.
"External" simply means S & T. It's an arbitrary grouping for convenience.
"Statics" means Ep or Ij.
"Objects" means extraverted.
If you're trying for a descriptive reason for why Se should be "Statics," it's because it perceives an ongoing reality outside oneself, as opposed to a changing reality representing one's subjective and momentary reactions to sensations. But I wouldn't take the word itself too far.
Re: Problems with Se description
Think about it. It's an object. You can do anything you want to with it because that is all it is...an object. You can move it, push it, pull it, turn it on, turn it off, destroy it, improve it, whatever. People can be considered objects as well. You can move them, push them, pull them, turn them on, turn them off, destroy them, improve them, whatever. They may protest, but they have the ability to push back, to pull back, to avoid destruction, even to seek their own destruction.The most abstract description of Se is "external statics of objects". This has no connection with force, will, mobilization, energy form what I can see. What is more baffling is that it is a static function.
"External statics of objects" is only to do with appearance and shape of an object.
It seems that the modern description of Se cannot find its routes in "external statics of objects".
What describes modern Se is something dynamic rather than static.
I believe that this is where the examples of "force, will, mobilization, energy" come from. As a direct result of viewing these objects and/or people as objects that can be manipulated at will. Yes the objects can resist. But their resistance doesn't necessarily alter the viewpoint of being seen as an object.
I've written in this forum a few months ago about my first week on wellbutrin. It was amazing. It put me into total Se mode. (Still with the Fi, though) My view of my environment was completely changed for that one week. I was surrounded by things calling out to me to play with them. It didn't matter if it was a car, a tree, or a person walking down the street. They were there, they existed, and thus they were subject to my will if I chose to attempt to impose it. There's obviously consequences for various actions/attempts, but that's the same as the consequences of slamming your fist into a metal wall....the metal will resist, bend a little maybe....and the fist will hurt like hell eventually. Treating people as objects results in similar consequences, they may resist....they may even bend a little. Future consequences don't matter in that state. Much like a kid poking at an ant's nest with a stick is focused on the moment, on the ants, on the stick, and virtually oblivious to the possible consequences. That mode encouraged experimentation. To check the object's limits. To check if it could be molded to the way I wanted it.
Heheheh, but it only lasted a week. But that one week was very insightful to me regarding Se.
(and no, i didn't hurt anybody during the week, and it was all too new to actually utilize, particularly since I didn't come with years of learning in that mode)
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
@ Ann
I'd just like to point out that Fe and Te are meant to be dynamic functions.
yeah, i know.
what does that have to do with what I wrote?
I was describing what it was like to view the concrete aka real objects around me and the subsequent mentality that comes with that. Fe doesn't deal with concrete/real objects. Neither does Te (Te being an "abstract" function"). Yes, Te deals with explicit objects such as Se, however since it's abstract it's more of a concept (such as events) than an actual object.
There's a difference between a body and a person (personhood)
There's a difference between a body and its actions (behavior)
Se only perceives the body. Se's companion ego function and/or its Hidden Agenda could affect what, if anything, it does with that body.
IEE 649 sx/sp cp
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote