Se & Te

[Ezra]

Se is about experiencing everything directly and taking in information via the five senses, and Te is about accumulation of information and 'a need to know things'.

What is the difference between Se and Te, and how does each manifest itself as dominant function?

[marooned]

I have no idea... I thought was about taking in information via the 5 senses?

[Joy]

Se is about experiencing everything directly and taking in information via the five senses, and Te is about accumulation of information and 'a need to know things'.

No and no.

[Ezra]

Se is about experiencing everything directly and taking in information via the five senses, and Te is about accumulation of information and 'a need to know things'.

No and no.

Maybe you could explain it instead of simply denying it.

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. He also evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.

Don't know your own dominant function? Come on, Joy, you're smarter than that.

But please explain to me Se.

[Ezra]

Se description on Wikisocion describes me PERFECTLY FFR. However, the way in which MBTT describes Se is in no way like me. I am clearly Te in MBTT. My question is which is the correct description of Jung's functions - socionics or MBTT?

[Joy]

goddammit

[Ezra]

Or not. What do you think Joy? Does MBTT have it wrong or do they simply have a different interpretation of the functions, which is equal to socionics'? How is socionics' view superior to MBTT's?

[Joy]

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. He also evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.

Don't know your own dominant function? Come on, Joy, you're smarter than that.

See incoming PM.

Se is about experiencing everything directly and taking in information via the five senses, and Te is about accumulation of information and 'a need to know things'.

No and no.

Maybe you could explain it instead of simply denying it.

But please explain to me Se.

I'm not sober enough at present. Or I lack the motivation to do so. Or both.

[Elro]

Or not. What do you think Joy? Does MBTT have it wrong or do they simply have a different interpretation of the functions, which is equal to socionics'? How is socionics' view superior to MBTT's?

They're both different theories. Which theory is better at this point is sort of a judgment call. (I'd say Socionics by far - it's superior because it seems to predict much more, and more accurately, than MBTI. But I guess some would argue with me.) Which interpretation is better depends on which system you want to use. If you want to use MBTI, use MBTI functions. If you want to use Socionics, use Socionics functions. If you want to go Jungian, use Jungian functions (you know, from the source). (From what I understand, MBTI functions != Socionics functions != Jungian functions, and I'm probably even misusing the word "functions" here. ) Don't use MBTI functions with Socionics types though - it just doesn't work. If you did you would be describing a nonstandard type... If you just say, "I'm LSE" and leave out the "(using MBTI functions)" then it implies you're LSE by Model A, which is not necessarily the same. It's a matter of communication problems. Furthermore, although I'm less certain about this part, I think each system is sort of built around the functions (or vice-versa), so they wouldn't be cross-compatible.

[Joy]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

[Creepy-bg]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

wouldn't it be more accurate an analogy to say that Jung is like Judaism, and MBTT and Socionics are like Christianity and Islam?

[UDP]

He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.

Absolutely

[Logos]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

wouldn't it be more accurate an analogy to say that Jung is like Judaism, and MBTT and Socionics are like Christianity and Islam?

No, I think what she is trying to say is that MBTT practitioners are persecuted and Socionists are terrorists. But yeah, her original analogy was pretty shoddy. :wink:

[Joy]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

wouldn't it be more accurate an analogy to say that Jung is like Judaism, and MBTT and Socionics are like Christianity and Islam?

Jung's theory would be like... pre-Abraham Judaism/Islam (not sure what to call it). Christianity would be like... crosstype theory or something along those lines.

[Logos]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

wouldn't it be more accurate an analogy to say that Jung is like Judaism, and MBTT and Socionics are like Christianity and Islam?

Jung's theory would be like... pre-Abraham Judaism/Islam (not sure what to call it). Christianity would be like... crosstype theory or something along those lines.

The analogy still fails.

[Joy]

why's that?

[Logos]

why's that?

The analogy fails because of your lack of understanding of what you are trying to compare. The first analogy was spurious and the second one was ridiculous. And quite frankly, the was weak in your analogy.

[Ezra]

MBTT and Socionics are like Judaism and Islam.

wouldn't it be more accurate an analogy to say that Jung is like Judaism, and MBTT and Socionics are like Christianity and Islam?

No, because Jung doesn't get a hail of shit from socionics or MBTT.

Think of Jung as God, MBTT as Moses, Keirsey as Mohammed, and socionics as Jesus.

[Joy]

Ugh.

In the beginning was Jung's theory. It evolved in two different directions. These three theories should be seen separately. Attempts at reconciling them are useless. It does not matter that they use the some of the same terminology, they are talking about different things.

[Khamelion]

ANYHOW


Se?

[Blaze]

this is actually a great question. it is harder to differentiate between these two functions when they are in the lead position in actual practice. because both are looking at external facts/properties/reality.

the Se focus or information gleaned from said facts/data/reality is more on power aspects and capabilities of real objects. the focus is on specific objects.

the Te focus or information gleaned from said facts/data/reality is more on what the implications or meaning of such facts are. the focus is more finely tuned and specific on all the facts not just those pertaining to objects.

so for personality diagnosis, to differentiate on which is leading, one could follow up with the creative function...is it Ti or Ni or Si or Fi? IMO it's kind of hard to differentiate Se and Te as stand-alones.

[Expat]

Se is about experiencing everything directly and taking in information via the five senses, and Te is about accumulation of information and 'a need to know things'.

No and no.

Maybe you could explain it instead of simply denying it.

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. He also evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.

Don't know your own dominant function? Come on, Joy, you're smarter than that.

But please explain to me Se.

Ezra, under which logic do you take a whole paragraph and say that the whole of Te can be explained by the very first sentence in it? The phrase "The individual has a need to accumulate factual information", followed by other phrases, does not mean "Te is about accumulating information".

[Joy]

thank you, Expat

[Joy]

As far as differences between Se and Te, Se is static and Te is dynamic. Se sees what something is, Te sees what something's doing (or what's happening... though this, depending on interpretation, could be seen as Te + Ni/Si).

As Information aspects:

• Se: the outward/apparent/explicit characteristics in and of themselves in people/things in and of themselves. He's strong, she's ready to act, that car is expensive, that book is old, that ball is yellow, etc.
• Te: the outward/apparent/explicit movements in and of themselves in people/things in and of themselves. He's lifting a box, she's leaving, that car is pulling away, that book is falling, that ball is being inflated, etc.

As Information Elements:

• IxSjs and ESxps use their Se to impose their will, motivate people to do things, recognize which items have the properties they're looking for. Se accomplishes things through sheer force of will (and through utilization of people and things according to their properties/abilities/energy).
• ExTjs and IxTps use their Te to manage processes. Te accomplishes things through efficiency (rather than strength).

These can look similar because both are organizing as a means to accomplish something... but Se types organize people/things to do what they want done, and Te types organize what's being done by people/things.


Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

I'll have to think about this some more.

[FDG]

Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

The first one sounds more like Ti honestly.

[Joy]

Weird.........

I just sent this PM to someone:

Te: the outward/apparent/explicit movements in and of themselves in people/things in and of themselves. He's lifting a box, she's leaving, that car is pulling away, that book is falling, that ball is being inflated, etc.

Part of your understanding of Te sounds like my understanding of Si.

I'm not sure what to say... I guess I can't imagine how this would be Si... Perhaps this points to you being SLI? (I think sometimes people, myself especially, have trouble separating their first two functions.)

Si would be about how each of those activities is affecting (or going to affect or has affected) one's inner physical state.

Si: That book is falling on my foot and it's going to hurt, throwing the ball feels good, shifting my weight forward will mean I won't fall and hurt myself, the music that's playing is making me uncomfortable because it's too loud, etc.

That's a crappy explanation, but I'm having a hard time coming up with something better atm.

[Joy]

Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

The first one sounds more like Ti honestly.

Similar to what I said in my PM to someone, I can't imagine how that could be Ti. Ti is about the apparent connections between the objects and the traits of those objects. For example, Se would understand that something is heavy, and Ti would understand how it's weight compares to the weight of other objects. It would understand the system used to measure weight: grams, ounces, etc. (For anyone who's interested in how Se differs from Si in regards to a heavy object, Si would be about how it would feel to lift that object.)

I don't know how to explain it any better than to compare Se + Ti to Se + Fi. While Ti is about the apparent connections, Fi is about connections that aren't apparent. The connections Fi sees are within the object/person, or under the surface. Fi is primarily about likes and dislikes, in a way. Attraction, repulsion, need, desire. So instead of using apparent connections when they motivate people to do what they want, a Fi type will use a person's desires, they're likes and dislikes, their relationships, etc.

Or something like that. (I'm still working on my understanding of these things from this perspective.)

[Ezra]

as a base (1st) function (LIE and LSE)

The individual has a need to accumulate factual information, also from external sources such as books, second-hand information, etc, on matters of personal interest or of professional activity. This also gives him confidence in being well-informed on the same matters, which enables him to enter arguments related to them with confidence in his knowledge, which may come across as arrogance to others. He also evaluates external reality - work activities, world events, finances, procedures, personal relationships, conversations - from the point of view of factual accuracy and "making sense" and efficiency. He is inclined to be proactive in increasing the efficiency and reasonableness of the external world, and his sense of self-worth is connected to being involved and productive in activities seen as useful, profitable, or that increase one's knowledge base. To give out information that he knows not to be factually accurate is disturbing and avoided as much as possible.

Ezra, under which logic do you take a whole paragraph and say that the whole of Te can be explained by the very first sentence in it? The phrase "The individual has a need to accumulate factual information", followed by other phrases, does not mean "Te is about accumulating information".

The next two sentences make up half the paragraph, and describe what is to be done with said information, once accumulated. As is the last sentence.

Apologies, though, because the penultimate sentence concerns productivity, not information accumulation as such. It does, however, talk briefly about activities that lead to an increase of one's knowledge base.

[Joy]

Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

Ezra, what do you think of this?

[Expat]

The next two sentences make up half the paragraph, and describe what is to be done with said information, once accumulated. As is the last sentence.

But the text is meant to be read as a whole. I honestly don't understand the logic of thinking that you understand the whole point just by reducing it to parts of it.

Apologies, though, because the penultimate sentence concerns productivity, not information accumulation as such. It does, however, talk briefly about activities that lead to an increase of one's knowledge base.

It's not really about "increasing", although my use of the word "accumulating" implies that. "Accumulating" is more a consequence rather than the drive. Te is about seeing knowledge, or the factual awareness of things and of the world, or its logical understanding, as dynamic rather than static. So you "accumulate" knowledge because you're always cross-checking it against external reality. Just because something was true yesterday, or worked yesterday, does not meant that it's going to be true or work today - things change, or at least they may change. So Te confirms that your knowledge, or understanding of things, is correct by checking whether (1) it is effective in practice and (2) whether it is confirmed by other, supposedly objective, sources.

Productivity and efficiency are "merely" confirmations that your understanding, or knowledge, of how something works or should be done is correctly up-to-date.

Now, whether you are going to be proactive in increasing efficiency, or if you're happier to be aware of how things are more efficient (which means, again, confirmed by the ever-changing reality) - that is a difference between base Te and creative Te, for instance.

[Ezra]

Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

Ezra, what do you think of this?

I don't use people. To be honest, I don't really need anyone to achieve my goals. And I think Te in the way you have portrayed it is extremely diplomatic, especially for the LSE. It's a polite way of demanding the former.

[Ezra]

Just because something was true yesterday, or worked yesterday, does not meant that it's going to be true or work today - things change, or at least they may change. So Te confirms that your knowledge, or understanding of things, is correct by checking whether (1) it is effective in practice and (2) whether it is confirmed by other, supposedly objective, sources.

So you're telling me a Te leading would seriously doubt the fact that it was true yesterday that Princess Diana is dead, but it doesn't mean that that is true today?

[Joy]

Perhaps in practice it would be something like...

• Se: "This is what I want. These are the people/things I'll to use to do it."
• Te: "This is what you/we/whoever wants. Here is the best way to accomplish the desired end result."

Ezra, what do you think of this?

I don't use people.

I didn't mean misuse... We call use people for something.

To be honest, I don't really need anyone to achieve my goals.

Then how do you do it?

And I think Te in the way you have portrayed it is extremely diplomatic, especially for the LSE. It's a polite way of demanding the former.

No... the former is stating that the goal originates from that person. The second is stating that it doesn't matter where the goal comes from. A Te type will try to figure out what you/a person/a group is trying to accomplish and then make a suggestion as to the most efficient way to do it.

This is not to say that Te types don't have their own goals, it's just meant to differentiate between Se and Te.

To sum it up, Se focuses on strength/force/power/will. Te focuses on efficiency/effectiveness.

(btw, it's possible that this is more applicable to Se/Te dominants that creatives.)

[Joy]

Just because something was true yesterday, or worked yesterday, does not meant that it's going to be true or work today - things change, or at least they may change. So Te confirms that your knowledge, or understanding of things, is correct by checking whether (1) it is effective in practice and (2) whether it is confirmed by other, supposedly objective, sources.

So you're telling me a Te leading would seriously doubt the fact that it was true yesterday that Princess Diana is dead, but it doesn't mean that that is true today?

How is a person's death related to something working? Historic events don't change.

You're talking about something static (yeah, I know people are going to argue with this... events are not static... an event in and of itself on a list of recorded past events is static), Expat is talking about something dynamic.

[Ezra]

Then how do you do it?

I use myself.

No... the former is stating that the goal originates from that person. The second is stating that it doesn't matter where the goal comes from.

But they both want a goal achieved. There's no difference.

A Te type will try to figure out what you/a person/a group is trying to accomplish and then make a suggestion as to the most efficient way to do it.

Like they do in the army. They love Te in there.

To sum it up, Se focuses on strength/force/power/will. Te focuses on efficiency/effectiveness.

But strength/force/power/will is not always the most effective or efficient way of achieving one's goals. It's this kind of thinking that makes me doubt I can be Se leading.

[Ezra]

How is a person's death related to something working? Historic events don't change.

You're talking about something static (yeah, I know people are going to argue with this... events are not static... an event in and of itself on a list of recorded past events is static), Expat is talking about something dynamic.

Right okay, I can understand that if you bring static/dynamic into it.

[Joy]

Then how do you do it?

I use myself.

You just stay in an empty room the whole time and accomplish your goals?

No... the former is stating that the goal originates from that person. The second is stating that it doesn't matter where the goal comes from.

But they both want a goal achieved. There's no difference.

Yes. There is. I don't understand how you don't see the difference, and I don't know how else to explain it...

Wait, maybe I do.

Person A is walks into an office knowing what he wants. He uses his understanding of Fi/Ti to use people, objects, and/or systems to accomplish his objective. He inspires others to use their own strength or power.

Person B walks into an office and sees some people working on something. He asks what they're trying to accomplish. (At this point they may tell him what they're doing, to which he responds by once again asking what their end goal is, what they're trying to accomplish.) They tell him, and he suggests the most efficient/effective way to accomplish that goal.

A Te type will try to figure out what you/a person/a group is trying to accomplish and then make a suggestion as to the most efficient way to do it.

Like they do in the army. They love Te in there.

uh... I guess that could be one possibility... out of an endless amount of other possible applications of Te.

What percentage of the military do you think is comprised of Gamma NT volunteers?

To sum it up, Se focuses on strength/force/power/will. Te focuses on efficiency/effectiveness.

But strength/force/power/will is not always the most effective or efficient way of achieving one's goals. It's this kind of thinking that makes me doubt I can be Se leading.

We all use all of our functions, and a Se type will use Fi/Ti with Se most of the time. It's not like the ONLY thing Se types know how to do is push.

[Expat]

So you're telling me a Te leading would seriously doubt the fact that it was true yesterday that Princess Diana is dead, but it doesn't mean that that is true today?

I was talking about Te as a function, I wasn't talking about any type.

As I say over and over again - because people don't get it - anyone who used only one function would belong in a lunatic asylum (a point Jung already made, by the way).

My entry in the wiki described how Te is relevant to Te-leading types, how they use it and how it's visible in them. That is not the same as saying what Te as a function is.

Now, it seemed to me, we are talking about Te and Se as functions, so my previous explanation referred to Te as a function.

But the two things are different, and it's confusing to mix them up. When I say "Te" I mean the function; when I mean any type, I also mention that.

[Expat]

@Ezra

You keep trying to reduce a type to one single function, as if, if anyone uses Te, they're necessarily a Te type. That seems to be your reasoning. That will never work.

[Ezra]

You just stay in an empty room the whole time and accomplish your goals?

Point taken.

Yes. There is. I don't understand how you don't see the difference, and I don't know how else to explain it...

Wait, maybe I do.

Person A is walks into an office knowing what he wants. He uses his understanding of Fi/Ti to use people, objects, and/or systems to accomplish his objective. He inspires others to use their own strength or power.

Person B walks into an office and sees some people working on something. He asks what they're trying to accomplish. (At this point they may tell him what they're doing, to which he responds by once again asking what their end goal is, what they're trying to accomplish.) They tell him, and he suggests the most efficient/effective way to accomplish that goal.

That's just rhetoric. The objective - achieving the goal - is the same.

What percentage of the military do you think is comprised of Gamma NT volunteers?

A small amount. I was thinking mainly of LSEs. Especially after this selection weekend I just went on. Basically, most of the command tasks were about achieving a goal as a team in the most effective way. Textbook Te.

We all use all of our functions, and a Se type will use Fi/Ti with Se most of the time. It's not like the ONLY thing Se types know how to do is push.

Correct. That doesn't mean that I use Fi/Ti with Se most of the time.