Se and status

[Jonathan]

I saw a statement on the wiki and thought I should question it. I wonder if anyone else has a comment:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...#Se_and_status

[anndelise]

I saw a statement on the wiki and thought I should question it. I wonder if anyone else has a comment:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...#Se_and_status

I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt...perhaps bigger than a grain, heh....

Supposedly, Se = volition/will, mobilization
In dealing with people, it's along the lines of
making decisions and/or mobilizing people/things.

What kind of person has the best ability to make decisions?
or have those decisions followed through on?
or mobilize people?
or mobilize things?

The best kind of person to do so would be someone who has power (political power, financial power, social power, physical power, sexual power, etc), and as such, a certain status for that particular intent/situation.

edited to add: this isn't to say that people with Se base nor Se creative are interested in making decisions for others, etc. For example, Se base would recognize that people have their own volitions/will, and their own ability to mobilize themselves, etc. If those people choose to act on something the Se person said, then that is the person's own volition/will, not the Se forcing them to do something.

[Jonathan]

I agree. But the quote I mentioned was suggesting that what Se types desire is based on what they believe it does for their status....i.e., that they want something not because they want it, but because then other people will say "Wow...I bet that must have cost a fortune. I bet so-and-so must be really rich/important/etc to have something like that"...

...in other words, it's basically implying that Se types, and possible Se quadra types in general, are all pretty shallow and that their goals are really pointless, based on status and wanting what they "should want" according to others, rather than wanting something based on their own needs and desires.

I suppose that's why Si quadra types are called "reasonable" according to the Reinin dichotomies. The opposite of "reasonable" is "unreasonable," but they decided to use the more politically correct term "resolute."

Probably the fallacy in that whole line of thinking is that it assumes that the source of one's desires and goals is all from Se or Si, and that these are mutually exclusive based on quadra.

[liveandletlive]

for me although things to me do seem to have more value if so and so has them or if they cost more, that doesn't mean that ill want them. unfortunately, i just happen to like expensive things... *sigh* being born with such good taste is truly a burden

[anndelise]

"Unlike Si which focuses solely on the internal tangible desires of a person and makes a judgment on what is correct to desire based on that information. Se spends more time comparing the internal tangible desires of the people around them and makes a judgment on what is correct to desire based on that information. This then leads to an interest in status."

For starters, I'd have to ask: How did Si go from being "relationships in space" or "sensations"
to "internal tangible desires" and "judging what is correct to desire"?
Ok, so obviously it doesn't make any sense to me.

If Se is about volition, will, mobilization... then yeah, this includes consciously making a choice/decision. But it (Se) says nothing about what that decision/choice is based on. A decision could be based on timing, logic, relations, ethics, emotion, desires of those around them, what they want to produce, what their intent is, etc.
Nor does it (Se) say what the decision/choice will be. (Attempting to gain status is a choice/goal, but status is not volition.)

Se alone says nothing about the intent, only that it includes intent as part of its makeup.
Yes, there could be an intent to gain monetary, social, political, etc status.
Yes, there could be a conscious decision to gain that status.
And yes, to try to get status, one would have to provide whatever it is that the people/organizations who'll give the status need/want. (else why would they give status?)

(and while part of me says that ANY type could desire some kind of status (for a variety of reasons), another part suggests that this places status as being the goal, which sounds a lot like a hidden agenda to me)

[liveandletlive]

that sounds about right.

wanting what everyone else wants isn't necessarily the same as wanting (whatever it is) because everyone else wants it. this overlap may simply be the consequence of one's personal standards (whether inborn or nurtured) overlapping with perhaps, some more timeless standard. (which could vary... i think it varies by quadra, but more on that later.)

moreover, if someone wants what others want -- then what they want is a scarce resource. you will have to monitor others' wants -- not to adapt your own wants to theirs -- but in order to, youself, effectively compete over the scarce resource. whether to gain an advantage or defend your own.

definitely. in fact i definitely define myself by my wants- which i guess makes sense. if everyone (or even just someone else i know) likes something or wants something i no longer want it. however, i do like setting the trend for something to be wanted by all by first getting and flaunting something. it makes me feel as if my opinion/judgment is valued

[Joy]

I think Se + Ti may sort of be about status in part because Se + Ti is very aware of hierarchy.

[strrrng]

Supposedly, Se = volition/will, mobilization
In dealing with people, it's along the lines of
making decisions and/or mobilizing people/things.

that is not Se. It is simply a general manifestation that sometimes occurs.

I agree. But the quote I mentioned was suggesting that what Se types desire is based on what they believe it does for their status....i.e., that they want something not because they want it, but because then other people will say "Wow...I bet that must have cost a fortune. I bet so-and-so must be really rich/important/etc to have something like that"...

...in other words, it's basically implying that Se types, and possible Se quadra types in general, are all pretty shallow and that their goals are really pointless, based on status and wanting what they "should want" according to others, rather than wanting something based on their own needs and desires.

that is completely absurd.


....Se is not volitional sensing (sorry, Rick) and Si is not bodily sensations. To understand what they are, look at their aspects: ESO (Se) and EDF (Si). Is health an external dynamic of a field? Is willpower an external static of an object? NO.

[Joy]

....Se is not volitional sensing (sorry, Rick) and Si is not bodily sensations. To understand what they are, look at their aspects: ESO (Se) and EDF (Si). Is health an external dynamic of a field? Is willpower an external static of an object? NO.

It may help communication if we defined when we're talking about information aspects, information elements, and functions. (A focus on will and strength and power is indeed a very, very common manifestation of having Se in one's ego block.)

[strrrng]

It may help communication if we defined when we're talking about information aspects, information elements, and functions. (A focus on will and strength and power is indeed a very, very common manifestation of having Se in one's ego block.)

what we're talking about when we discuss IM's is information metabolism, not traits. I have a huge focus on strength and power. It isn't as focused as, say, an Se-ESTp, who truly does pierce into reality with their Se, but it is still very much there. And are we to notion that alphas and deltas lack willpower? Any type can be willful; Se merely seems more willful because it is focused on objective, unchanging properties of objects, creating a sort of "definite" way of seeing things, especially when paired with Ti.

[leckysupport]

I agree. But the quote I mentioned was suggesting that what Se types desire is based on what they believe it does for their status....i.e., that they want something not because they want it, but because then other people will say "Wow...I bet that must have cost a fortune. I bet so-and-so must be really rich/important/etc to have something like that"...

I purposely tried to avoid implying that when I wrote that about Se. What I was trying to say is that Se watches everyone around them going after what they want. Then Se decides what is best for themselves out of watching everyone else. Nobody else decides for them, they are not just doing what everybody else does, they are making the own decision based on their own experience and knowledge of how everybody else operates. The Se type decides what makes one person better than another in terms of status.

Basing your decisions on what you do on what everyone else does is not necessarily 'doing what other people think you should do' in an emotionally depend way that you're implying. It is just watching people and making a decision.

[anndelise]

....Se is not volitional sensing (sorry, Rick) and Si is not bodily sensations. To understand what they are, look at their aspects: ESO (Se) and EDF (Si). Is health an external dynamic of a field? Is willpower an external static of an object? NO.

Regarding Se, the ESO and volition/will go hand in hand, ime.

I've written once before about a brief time when I was on the prescription drug Wellbutrin. For the first week, my whole mindset and mentality were completely changed. Normally I don't pay attention to the things around me when I'm walking/driving. I leave it up to the back of my brain to keep track of where I am in location to other things, so that my mind can play with more interesting things, like ideas and running scenarious through my mind. But for that first week, it was completely different. I focused and SAW the objects in my environment. I LOOKED at trees, and cars, and such. I was IN my environment, wholly. And all those wonderful things, all around me were there to be done with as *I* chose.

I'd feel urges to steal a bike..not because i wanted the bike, but because I could. Or smash a window, not because I was feeling violent nor wanted to break anything, but because I could. I could do any damned thing I wanted to. There was no thoughts to consequences either.

Thankfully I didn't have any previous habitual patterns that encouraged acting on those impulses. In fact, I look back now and am glad that I had set a goal in mind for the use of those pills, and that that goal and my normal habitual response patterns kept me out of trouble.

Now, I'm not saying that Se types are like this, to this extreme. I, after all, didn't have years of experience dealing with that kind of awareness. And Se ego type would have had (or be developing) years of dealing with that kind of awareness and determining what is appropriate/inappropriate from the pov of that awareness/mentality.

But there is no doubt in my mind that what I experienced was the external static object thing and the kind of mentality (volition/will/mobilization) such an awareness can easily engage.

[anndelise]

I purposely tried to avoid implying that when I wrote that about Se. What I was trying to say is that Se watches everyone around them going after what they want. Then Se decides what is best for themselves out of watching everyone else. Nobody else decides for them, they are not just doing what everybody else does, they are making the own decision based on their own experience and knowledge of how everybody else operates. The Se type decides what makes one person better than another in terms of status.

Basing your decisions on what you do on what everyone else does is not necessarily 'doing what other people think you should do' in an emotionally depend way that you're implying. It is just watching people and making a decision.

hmm, interesting. I hadn't gotten this when i read the quote.

a thought of mine: The INFps that i've interacted with have almost always wanted to know what the intent of someone else was, so that they could pursue their own intent in such a way that there would be minimal conflict between the two intents/actions. The INFp's not trying to alter someone else's intent/decisions, nor do they like feeling obligated to alter their own intent/decisions because of someone else's determination of appropriate/inappropriate or someone else's desire.

I can easily see the "watching people and making a decision" aspect of what you wrote above. But the original quote didn't give me that perception at all.

[anndelise]

what we're talking about when we discuss IM's is information metabolism, not traits. I have a huge focus on strength and power. It isn't as focused as, say, an Se-ESTp, who truly does pierce into reality with their Se, but it is still very much there. And are we to notion that alphas and deltas lack willpower? Any type can be willful; Se merely seems more willful because it is focused on objective, unchanging properties of objects, creating a sort of "definite" way of seeing things, especially when paired with Ti.

Having a strong awareness of the ability to make conscious decisions/choices is different from being "willful".
Being aware of your own or other people's will or intents does not mean forcing will/intent onto others, nor trying to get others to comply.
But not everyone is as aware of the decisions they seem to have made, and some even respond or take action BEFORE they've made any kind of CONSCIOUS decision. Some even take action without any kind of goal in conscious mind. They may not become aware of those things until later (a few seconds to a few days/weeks/years). Some may even never become aware of what prompted their action.

Lack of awareness of one's volition/will does not mean one doesn't have volition/will.

[Steve]

Any type can be willful; Se merely seems more willful because it is focused on objective, unchanging properties of objects, creating a sort of "definite" way of seeing things, especially when paired with Ti.

Excellent point. That is how people derive the misleading conceptions of functions - taking the way a function comes across in one particular context (such as how you described Se seeming a certain way) and assume that that quality is the defining aspect of the function itself.

[strrrng]

Having a strong awareness of the ability to make conscious decisions/choices is different from being "willful".
Being aware of your own or other people's will or intents does not mean forcing will/intent onto others, nor trying to get others to comply.
But not everyone is as aware of the decisions they seem to have made, and some even respond or take action BEFORE they've made any kind of CONSCIOUS decision. Some even take action without any kind of goal in conscious mind. They may not become aware of those things until later (a few seconds to a few days/weeks/years). Some may even never become aware of what prompted their action.

Lack of awareness of one's volition/will does not mean one doesn't have volition/will.

don't bother me with vacuous hair-splitting. Se never was/will be volitional sensing...it is a mode of information processing. To say they go hand-in-hand is an unfounded assumption. I use volitional sensing quite a bit, sometimes to extremes. I am very aware of my willpower, strength and conscious decision-making. That does not make me ESxp or ISxj.

[FDG]

don't bother me with vacuous hair-splitting. Se never was/will be volitional sensing...it is a mode of information processing. To say they go hand-in-hand is an unfounded assumption. I use volitional sensing quite a bit, sometimes to extremes. I am very aware of my willpower, strength and conscious decision-making. That does not make me ESxp or ISxj.

I don't know man, but every time you spout something like this, you make me laugh a bit, whereas when Herzy does it (not that she does it often, mind you), she's always realistic. So, there.

[strrrng]

I don't know man, but every time you spout something like this, you make me laugh a bit, whereas when Herzy does it (not that she does it often, mind you), she's always realistic. So, there.

I seem unrealistic because I am Ni base, causing me to sometimes be vague. I would gladly expound if I felt it worthwhile. So, laugh on, I still have a more accurate understanding of the functions than anyone who has posted on this thread.

[FDG]

I seem unrealistic because I am Ni base, causing me to sometimes be vague. I would gladly expound if I felt it worthwhile. So, laugh on, I still have a more accurate understanding of the functions than anyone who has posted on this thread.

I think I have a better understanding than you, honestly. Objectively speaking, I rock, and you suck.

[strrrng]

I think I have a better understanding than you, honestly. Objectively speaking, I rock, and you suck.

objectively? hmm...

[FDG]

objectively? hmm...

Objective= FDG said it.

[Logos]

I seem unrealistic because I am Ni base, causing me to sometimes be vague. I would gladly expound if I felt it worthwhile. So, laugh on, I still have a more accurate understanding of the functions than anyone who has posted on this thread.

I'm not a fan of using functions as excuses. Functions are descriptive and not prescriptive (i.e. causative) of behavior.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I'm not a fan of using functions as excuses. Functions are descriptive and not prescriptive (i.e. causative) of behavior.

Thats a fair point. What do you think about for instance, someone being vague, if/when they don't realise that they're being vague?

[strrrng]

I'm not a fan of using functions as excuses. Functions are descriptive and not prescriptive (i.e. causative) of behavior.

I wasn't making an excuse...it's not like I was sorry for something. I simply came across a certain way. I have witnessed many times in the past how my Ni understanding of something (images, abstractions) will not lend itself easy to articulation. If you disagree with this premise, you must not understand the nature of Ni.

Thats a fair point. What do you think about for instance, someone being vague, if/when they don't realise that they're being vague?

many times that is the case with me

i've observed that sometimes people seem to use vagueness as a means to cover their ass.

well, that wasn't the case here. If you read the thread, you'll see that I had no reason to "cover my ass."

[Logos]

I wasn't making an excuse...it's not like I was sorry for something. I simply came across a certain way. I have witnessed many times in the past how my Ni understanding of something (images, abstractions) will not lend itself easy to articulation. If you disagree with this premise, you must not understand the nature of Ni.

You're a fool.

[Jonathan]

For starters, I'd have to ask: How did Si go from being "relationships in space" or "sensations"
to "internal tangible desires" and "judging what is correct to desire"?
Ok, so obviously it doesn't make any sense to me.

If Se is about volition, will, mobilization... then yeah, this includes consciously making a choice/decision. But it (Se) says nothing about what that decision/choice is based on. A decision could be based on timing, logic, relations, ethics, emotion, desires of those around them, what they want to produce, what their intent is, etc.
Nor does it (Se) say what the decision/choice will be. (Attempting to gain status is a choice/goal, but status is not volition.)

[FONT=Calibri]Se alone says nothing about the intent....

Right, you and other caught onto another thing that bothered me about that passage, namely that it describes Si and Se as if they were rational functions (making judgments about things) rather than irrational functions.

[strrrng]

You're a fool.

how quaint - a banal insult . I'd be fully willing to discuss the nature of Ni with you, but it would probably be more of a tutorial than anything else. I'd like to see a contradiction of my argument that you quoted...maybe even ask other Ni-dominants if they tend to think in abstract images and whatnot and if that makes it hard to articulate their thoughts. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

the point he originally leveraged that stuff against was what FDG said about "unrealisticness" which wasn't a very extensive point imo.

so if strrrng wants to ramble about his Ni's short-comings, who cares? and actually what he says about those shortcomings doesn't strike me as inaccurate.

thank you. FDG doesn't know what the fuck he's talking about anyway.

[Logos]

how quaint - a banal insult . I'd be fully willing to discuss the nature of Ni with you, but it would probably be more of a tutorial than anything else. I'd like to see a contradiction of my argument that you quoted...maybe even ask other Ni-dominants if they tend to think in abstract images and whatnot and if that makes it hard to articulate their thoughts. Otherwise, shut the fuck up.

If you do not understand why I called you a fool then you are an even bigger fool that I once thought you were.

[Logos]

why not explain to everyone (if not only to prove yourself, but perhaps as a matter of charity -- if we are so foolish. i say "we" because i don't get you here either.) or are you preoccupied with writing more signature poetry?

Okay. Are you trying to be cute here? I can be cute too. I'll even write it in crayon for you too to show you how cute I can be.

1 & 2) I wasn't making an excuse...it's not like I was sorry for something. I simply came across a certain way. I have witnessed many times in the past how my Ni understanding of something (images, abstractions) will not lend itself easy to articulation. 2 & 3) If you disagree with this premise, you must not understand the nature of Ni.

1) You do not have to be sorry for something to make excuses.2) It misses the point of what I was originally saying. 3) The neither the nature of Ni or Strrrng's understanding thereof was being called into question.4) Strrrng is making a ridiculous Phaedrusian argument that if I do not agree with him, then the problem cannot be with his understanding but with mine.

[Logos]

*shrug* i just filter that sort of thing out automatically and concentrate on what's relevant to my own argument. if someone wants to digress into incoherence -- well i'm much less interested in correcting them, as it is besides defending my own point. maybe you're a bit foolish for bothering to parse all that. (that said, i'm feeling a bit guilty for making this post right now.)

and your color scheme is terrible. i suggest next time running it past your dual first.

You asked, and I answered.

[Steve]

1) You do not have to be sorry for something to make excuses.2) It misses the point of what I was originally saying. 3) The neither the nature of Ni or Strrrng's understanding thereof was being called into question.4) Strrrng is making a ridiculous Phaedrusian argument that if I do not agree with him, then the problem cannot be with his understanding but with mine.

It may look like strrrng is pulling a phaedrusian tactic, but strrrng's right. Try talking with him or other Ni people about various things, or even how they perceive you or something in reality, and have them describe it. You may find that they perceive things in ways that are different than what you're used to. Most of the people on this forum are not Ni, nor Ni valuing, however some who falsely claim to be make it easy for others to form a distorted perception of what Ni is. in truth, most people on here don't really know what Ni is because they haven't experienced it or haven't run into properly-typed Ni people, shared insights/conversations with them, or gotten to know them.

For those of you who think I'm talking out of my ass and using circular logic, try talking with strrrng, glamourama, esper, hm, who else - Ashton, Sarah, Zeia, Krae (despite some people's doubts, get to talk with all of these people and you'll see a commonality), and you'll see that there's a way they look at reality that's distinctly different from the way you may be used to seeing it (As mostly an Alpha/Delta forum) - I sure did. For me it was N, but not the type of N I'm used to. When I talk with strrrng, what frequently happens is that he'll be describing something he's perceiving and I get this whole sense of this evolving dynamic image - but I can't add onto it directly - I usually find an aspect of it or find like a common link to what he's describing and expand on that (Ne expanding outward). And then when I bring something up and I'm running with an idea with Ne, something will trigger something in him and he'll start describing this idea stream that's coming to him and I sense this kind of unity with it that my Ne branching out didn't have. Ne is like more visible but not as unified, while Ni seems much less visible and removed but of utmost unification.

With the reverse, whenever I'm telling him about some Si experience and describing a bunch of aspects in the environment that played into my experience, he finds it sometimes overwhelming because of the details that wrap together for me. He on the other hand prefers, as an Se valuing person, to experience something externally boom boom boom, move on, and not dwell on the sensory details as a holistic feeling gradually emerges with them over time.

[FDG]

*shrug* it's not obscuring the primary argument.

the point he originally leveraged that stuff against was what FDG said about "unrealisticness" which wasn't a very extensive point imo.

I don't get how that could be taken seriously, honestly. I was clearly joking.

[Logos]

It may look like strrrng is pulling a phaedrusian tactic, but strrrng's right. Try talking with him or other Ni people about various things, or even how they perceive you or something in reality, and have them describe it. You may find that they perceive things in ways that are different than what you're used to. Most of the people on this forum are not Ni, nor Ni valuing, however some who falsely claim to be make it easy for others to form a distorted perception of what Ni is. in truth, most people on here don't really know what Ni is because they haven't experienced it or haven't run into properly-typed Ni people, shared insights/conversations with them, and gotten to know them.

For those of you who think I'm talking out of my ass and using circular logic, try talking with strrrng, glamourama, esper, hm, who else - Ashton, Sarah, Zeia, Krae (despite some people's doubts, get to talk with all of these people and you'll see a commonality), and you'll see that there's a way they look at reality that's distinctly different from the way you may be used to seeing it (As mostly an Alpha/Delta forum) - I sure did. For me it was N, but not the type of N I'm used to. When I talk with strrrng, what frequently happens is that he'll be describing something he's perceiving and I get this whole sense of this evolving dynamic image - but I can't add onto it directly - I usually find an aspect of it or find like a common link to what he's describing and expand on that (Ne expanding outward). And then when I bring something up and I'm running with an idea with Ne, something will trigger something in him and he'll start describing this idea stream that's coming to him and I sense this kind of unity with it that my Ne branching out didn't have. Ne is like more visible but not as unified, while Ni seems much less visible and removed but of utmost unification.

With the reverse, whenever I'm telling him about some Si experience and describing a bunch of aspects in the environment that played into my experience, he finds it sometimes overwhelming because of the details that wrap together for me. He on the other hand prefers, as an Se valuing person, to experience something externally boom boom boom, move on, and not dwell on the sensory details as a holistic feeling gradually emerges with them over time.

See premise #3 (in orange) above.

[Logos]

no i mean how you bothered parsing it in the first place. to make the initial "fool" evaluation of yours, you had to parse it then too, at least to yourself.

And? Your point is what exactly?

myself, as i read the same thing of his: i didn't go that far. i just figured "not relevant; and not interesting, either; not getting any more evaluation."

La dee da, well aren't you special Sheriff Uppity High Horse?

be different if you had an illuminating point to make with the correction. instead we got a three-word insult that mostly served to confuse -- no way for anyone to tell if it were just the Crayola points (before coloring them) you thought were off, or if there was something else (say maybe something my own ideas were aligned with.)

any cuteness aside, that's ultimately what i thought was wrong there.

No more was necessary.

[Logos]

necessary to do what? all you got where confused replies. the point is you accomplished, at least initially, little more than the very thing you criticized.

Were the replies necessary? The point was that he was a fool and that was all I said. No more elaboration was necessary because the rest would have been a waste of time. But I have elaborated as you seem to enjoy drawing this out.

i was trying to illustrate something there actually. (remember the Ti function descriptions you might have read)

No.

[liveandletlive]

does anyone else find it ironic that everyone's getting all in a thread about ?

[FDG]

which makes it more pointless to criticize strrrng's response to it.

I can do what I want, uh. I don't need to always make a point.

[Logos]

why is anyone to care that you called him a fool though? it was just a liability - as you perk other people's cares whose arguments may [or may not] run in parallel to what you see as wrong.

That is what I am wondering.

the high quadra - am i right or what??

No.

[Logos]

do you read the next sentence?? there were cares - but they could only end in tears.

I did. And? Did you not read his incredibly irrelevant post of reply to mine?

that wasn't the point. (i was referring to the Logos reply.) and as i pointed out -- i skip past pointless posts, as many as you want. unless they step on my own points.

And what points did I step on of yours?

[FDG]

that wasn't the point. (i was referring to the Logos reply.) and as i pointed out -- i skip past pointless posts, as many as you want. unless they step on my own points.

So, you were agreeing with strrrng, and I was disagreeing with him, which transitively means that I was disagreeing with you? Is this what you mean?