:Se: and Force

[Creepy-male]

I am thinking its misleading to call about "Force"....

heres what I am thinking.....

Immediately what comes to mind when I hear the word "Force" in the description of is a forceful aggresive person. But I think this is a misleading notion, I think people who draw this connection and label types as the "forceful/aggresive" types are missing the nature of this idea.

Basically are considered to be skilled with the use of force, which doesn't mean they are always forceful/aggresive, sometimes they are actually less forceful/aggresive when they realize the situation is delicate. This is typically refered to as "tact"; knowing when a situation requires alot of force and when a situation require a delicate touch.

So in other words types are about "Tact" not "Force"... and this has its connection in dictomies also.

Consider the word "Tact". It comes from Tactile, meaning a sense or perception of touch. When someone is considered to be tactful they are endowed with a heighened sensitivty to touch which allows them to provide just the right "touch" to the situation. This correlates with the sensing dictomy because sensing types are highly engrossed into the sensations, sights, sounds.... the TOUCH of life.

So essentially I am thinking that and the use of force is about being tactfully and highly aware of the circumstances and demands of a situation and applying just the right touch to handle and adapt to the current situation at hand. It is not however about being highly aggresive and forceful.

I think "over-forcing" could actually be a result of defficiency in , although once again this is misleading if you think of = Force.

I think types weak in may lack a clear conception of how much force is required for a situation and they may apply too much force. This is like being untactful or clumsy, applying too much force and breaking something, or applying too little force and be ineffective. This lack of "tact" is a lack of .

So in short
I think and the use of force is about being a "Tactful" person and not about being an "Aggresive" person.

Consider the SLE or LSI... both work with Ti to be efficient and knowing just the right touch.

SLE's typically will look out and analyze a situation (Ti) and then use that to develop a good sense of tact (Se). This is generally why SLE's can be effective wheelers and dealers, because they know the system and how to work it effectively and tactifully. This is why SLE's are smooth, because of this tact they possess.

LSI's however do the reverse; they will develop a certain sense of tactful efficiency (Se) and then use that to develop a solid logical system (Ti). This is generally why LSI's and orderly and efficient, because they put their tact to the forge of their systematic analysis and thinking and they naturally develop efficient systems.

You can probably play around with this for all types and where falls on Model A for them.

[Jarno]

I like your explanation!

I once read that Ni is about time, but also about knowing when not to bother with time. That fits nicely with your Se description.

I'm curious what other people have to say about your post.

[mu4]

I think you're mixing up a bit with and , but these elements are related.

perceives "static" strength and weakness, status, etc. Not potential strength or future development, but the current state.

SLE will have 8th function and SEE will have 8th function and these are the strong functions informs the neccessary actions one need to take in order to achieve one's goals.

People with the strongest will also have either the strongest or .

These types are ESE, SEE, SLE, LSE

What evaluates and wants to build up one's status and strength, expansion of one's power. How it applies situationally goes to more dynamic function.

[717495]

Yes I was thinking of Se for a big portion as wanting to be in a state of having physical power, which presumably goes along with desiring an ability to change things.

[Jarno]

I think you're mixing up a bit with and , but these elements are related.

perceives "static" strength and weakness, status, etc. Not potential strength or future development, but the current state.

SLE will have 8th function and SEE will have 8th function and these are the strong functions informs the neccessary actions one need to take in order to achieve one's goals.

People with the strongest will also have either the strongest or .

These types are ESE, SEE, SLE, LSE

What evaluates and wants to build up one's status and strength, expansion of one's power. How it applies situationally goes to more dynamic function.

where did you get all this information, it's sounds great.

[ArchonAlarion]

*smashes head into jagged rock*

How do you not bother with time? wttffffffff

forever pop-psychology...

[717495]

Yeah, that too. Thanks for clarifying. Being in a state of having physical power basically aligns with being in control. There is the other part, that Se types are sensitive to the physical stimuli around them. This talent is generally what spawns such a natural tendency for control, from what I've noticed.

[redbaron]

that's what I was just going to say. Se is more about control.

[717495]

What more is to the function than being a boulder in a storm then? I'm just wondering how you see the finality of Se. Is it that Se is not pushing objects, but rather it is able to ward objects in the way?

[redbaron]

What more is to the function than being a boulder in a storm then? I'm just wondering how you see the finality of Se.

it's getting things done--providing what is needed for that particular situation. It's extreme competency.

[leckysupport]

perceives "static" strength and weakness, status, etc. Not potential strength or future development, but the current state.

I don't think this is true, IMO assess strengths and weakness no matter the circumstances, including future circumstances. I think that they are probably more likely to be blind-sided by random chance.

[leckysupport]

it's getting things done--providing what is needed for that particular situation. It's extreme competency.

I think this is a sensing thing more than a Se thing.

[717495]

Okay so instead of Se having power over others we say Se has a specific kind of power called independence or self-control, and willpower and competence. It's kind of hard to say any function physically includes others when it has to do with the individual, so that idea isn't even relevant.

[marooned]

I think that recognizing Se is just... recognizing Se. And it may differ by people and times and by where it is in their imaginary Socionics model of the psyche. I see the words as trying to get at the concept and that concept doesn't really come in words to me... So I see it as words are always going to fail to some extent because sometimes they can never be precise enough to "hit the nail on the head" and even if they are it differs so much by person, time, situation, etc. that there will always be a way that they are "misleading" -- it's unavoidable. That said, I mean I do see the point in trying to make sure they're not quite as misleading... But if I read something like "Se is about force and being aggressive" I'll think to myself "what are they trying to get at... these words might not be great, but there's a concept beneath them that is trying to be fleshed out..." It's that concept that I'm interested in, not so much the arrangement of the words around it.

I guess I really see the best way to communicate Socionics concepts as by examples and by observation... This of course may be the most difficult way in terms of actually trying to communicate the example so that it matches what one saw (again, a problem with words).

[redbaron]

that's a really good point, Loki. (I enjoy your posts so much!)

[717495]

Yeah, I'm with you on that Loki. Maybe I'm the one sounding like I'm trying to build an ideal definition, but I don't expect there to be one either. I'm just glad people can express something directive in the first place, because I won't really naturally classify my experiences. If I see it, it's just what it is and an idea of where it comes from and what it will turn into. It has never clearly been a certain color.

[Trevor]

IMO, leading Se is more often used to gain independence from others, than to gain power over others.

As far as I'm concerned: Independence = Power.

[Trevor]

As far as I'm concerned: Control = Power.

[The Exception]

I think types weak in may lack a clear conception of how much force is required for a situation and they may apply too much force. This is like being untactful or clumsy, applying too much force and breaking something, or applying too little force and be ineffective. This lack of "tact" is a lack of .

Sadly, this has been a problem for me throughout my life.

[The Exception]

As far as I'm concerned: Independence = Power.

As far as I'm concerned: Control = Power.

Based on your two statements, then Independence = Control

If A = B and C = B then A = C

[ProcrastinateTomorrow]

I am very greatfull for the definition written. I never really considered myself aggressive or needing to control others.

Tact I can relate to though, No one I know has more than me.

Controlling others give the impression of forcing others to do something they don't want to do.

Tact on the other hand is different. It means that you will be successful in going after what you want as apposed to blowing it half way or before you even begin.

So people who have get what they want because they know how much they need to be doing.

People without tact don't get anything the offend people before the finish their request.

[Creepy-male]

perceives "static" strength and weakness, status, etc. Not potential strength or future development, but the current state.

Sure but my post was on a specific topic and that is why types are not "aggresive/forceful" but rather "tactful".

It has nothing to do with the relationship between current and potential strength. I think obviously is a matter of current rather than potential because current situations are the realm of sensing dictomies and potential situations the realm of intuitive dictomies.

I don't think I was meaning to refer to potential strength at all, I was thinking more along the lines of the example of how an type may manifest their behavior in reality. Consider an type negotiating; their perception of strength wouldn't imply that they just overwhelm their opposition because they are stronger and make ultimatums; their perception of strength enables them with a tact to approach the situation knowing when they've pushed too hard in negoitated and when they've pushed too weak. That has nothing to do with potential strength... because I am consider a negoitation that is happening face to face rather than a planned out negoiation. types would negoitate more likely by considering what each side has to gain and lose, aka the potential strength of the negoiation.

I do like the idea of potential strength though, it seems natural would be concerned with this is is current strength, but I haven't examined the nature of in full.

What evaluates and wants to build up one's status and strength, expansion of one's power. How it applies situationally goes to more dynamic function.

Sure but I don't think thats all does... I think its a clear perception of strength. Further you can still apply the idea of tact, because an will still attempt to build up to that state through the most tactful means nessicary by employing effective tactics to aqquire that strength and power. I think Sensing dictomies generally don't pre-plan their ascension to power, thats more of a thing.

[Rocket]

Lets not get too carried away. In socionics terms tact is closest to not . That why ESFP and ENFP (-creative) are considered amongst the diplomatic or "tactful" of types. The same could not be said of ESTP and ENTP (each for different reasons).

Its true in their quest for independence/control ESTP can exhibit tactful behaviours where considered beneficial, after its only natural for the ESTP to use to determine what behaviours will help them accumulate power and what behaviours can lose it for them. Given todays predominant value system that promotes cooperation and peaceful cooperation, tactful behaviour is an asset in the accumulation of power.

However i cannot help the feeling that all else being equal the ESTP will prefer coercion as the most efficient means of accumulating power while the ESFP will prefer diplomacy and tact.

[silverchris9]

Ah...! All the symbols in this thread are giving me a headache. I hate translating from symbol to word in my brain.

Anyway... analogy time: force is to Se as time is to Ni. When people who don't understand Ni have to come up with a readily observable trait of Ni-egos, they always point to that stupid time thing, while I believe most of the Ni egos on this board don't consider themselves to be at all overly concerned with time or even making predictions. It's more about the knowing than the predictions. Similarly, when people who don't understand Se (myself firmly included) have to come up with a readily observable trait of Se-egos, they tend to talk about force. But based on some of the things said in this thread, it seems that Se too is about the knowing more than the force. Also, the best definition of power that I can think of is freedom (that is, power is the ability to achieve that which is desired, or maybe even just "the good"). So in that sense, Se-egos are "powerful".

As to whether or not this involves tact... well, certainly Se is about using the only the amount of force necessary (this is seems much more Te-id than Fi anything, although I understand that HaveLucid means a very specific thing by the word 'tact' which is not necessarily related to Fi), it presumably would also drive an individual who relies on it as a primary means of perceiving the world (i.e., an Se-ego) to accumulate enough "force" to be able to apply whatever level of force is necessary in a given situation. What I mean is, Se egos certainly use no more force than is necessary, but they also are generally able to provide as much force as is necessary.

(Of course, when you understand the world in detail, and all others are pawns, it's easy to be tempted...)

More evidence for my theory that SLEs and IEIs are the same type. I think about people "psychologically" in the exact same way. People don't know how few buttons you have to press to screw up most people. But I would probably be too wuss to actually carry anything out (thank goodness).

[Creepy-male]

Lets not get too carried away. In socionics terms tact is closest to not . That why ESFP and ENFP (-creative) are considered amongst the diplomatic or "tactful" of types. The same could not be said of ESTP and ENTP (each for different reasons).

Its true in their quest for independence/control ESTP can exhibit tactful behaviours where considered beneficial, after its only natural for the ESTP to use to determine what behaviours will help them accumulate power and what behaviours can lose it for them. Given todays predominant value system that promotes cooperation and peaceful cooperation, tactful behaviour is an asset in the accumulation of power.

However i cannot help the feeling that all else being equal the ESTP will prefer coercion as the most efficient means of accumulating power while the ESFP will prefer diplomacy and tact.

Basically I don't know who you are refering to with this, but all I am saying about tact is rather simple.

Se types are not "powerful,aggresive,dominant,overbearing,force ful" personality types
Se types are tactful types

and now I realize that maybe I wasn't be quite specific enough about what I meant by "tact", but to clarify; I wasn't talking about social tact.... i.e. knowing where you stand with the company your in or knowing proper manners/customs etc all in the pursuit of making the other people feel comfortable with you. This I view as a centered tact... and is completely not what I am talking about, not even a little bit. The tact I am refering to, is the tactful use of force. Knowing how hard to push in a negoiation or when to lay off because your pushing too hard. This leads me to conceive the Se types as tactful and skilled with their use of "force"... where other types which struggle with Se are likely to be clumsy and overforce things or underdo things that require great force and effort. So in a sense a person being needlessly hostile/aggresive/forceful may actually be a type with little proficiency in Se.

[Creepy-male]

As to whether or not this involves tact... well, certainly Se is about using the only the amount of force necessary (this is seems much more Te-id than Fi anything, although I understand that HaveLucid means a very specific thing by the word 'tact' which is not necessarily related to Fi), it presumably would also drive an individual who relies on it as a primary means of perceiving the world (i.e., an Se-ego) to accumulate enough "force" to be able to apply whatever level of force is necessary in a given situation. What I mean is, Se egos certainly use no more force than is necessary, but they also are generally able to provide as much force as is necessary.

Well I think you can't get caught up with confusing the tactfullness I am talking about with efficiency..... I think when that tact is combined with the efficient systematic thinking of you get SLE and LSI.... the LSI especially comes off as efficient because of this, they channel that "tact" to create systems after laborious analysis. SLE's however are more just about that natural percpetion of than about systemizing things to be efficient. SLE's I think are smooth people of action that know the "right tool" for the job and are good with people because of it, not in a feeling way, but in a way of "dealing" with them.. and that smoothness is a manifestation of their natural eye for efficient action, but since the is creative, its not a highly concious or rigid manner of analysis like LII and LSIs have.

[redbaron]

Well I think you can't get caught up with confusing the tactfullness I am talking about with efficiency..... I think when that tact is combined with the efficient systematic thinking of you get SLE and LSI.... the LSI especially comes off as efficient because of this, they channel that "tact" to create systems after laborious analysis. SLE's however are more just about that natural percpetion of than about systemizing things to be efficient. SLE's I think are smooth people of action that know the "right tool" for the job and are good with people because of it, not in a feeling way, but in a way of "dealing" with them.. and that smoothness is a manifestation of their natural eye for efficient action, but since the is creative, its not a highly concious or rigid manner of analysis like LII and LSIs have.

yes!

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Diplomacy isn't really tact though, you can be very tactful and not be all that diplomatic I don't see that as similarities. You all make a good point though, unnecessary aggression is more socially harmful and hurtful than it is productive, you catch more flies with honey than with shit- as the saying goes. But I think we said the point enough already and we GET IT so Idk what else to say. ;p

[Creepy-male]

Diplomacy isn't really tact though, you can be very tactful and not be all that diplomatic I don't see that as similarities. You all make a good point though, unnecessary aggression is more socially harmful and hurtful than it is productive, you catch more flies with honey than with shit- as the saying goes. But I think we said the point enough already and we GET IT so Idk what else to say. ;p

Yep yep, diplomacy isn't really tact. Diplomacy is more of an ethics thing, but negoiating in a more "wheeling and dealing" type sense I think is what I was going for.

if I could personally assign the ability for diplomacy to a function it would be ... not to say Fe types would be bad at diplomacy though, afterall, Fi is in the id block and is strong but unconcious.

And yep, lol I've nailed in the point alot but I am trying to correlate "behavioral traits" with functions, so I can develop a clear sense of how functions manifest themselves in people. I don't want to get too far of this track though, but feel free to say whatever, I won't jump in and interrupt unless you directly debate me.