Demonstrating function Se (?)

[anou]

.

[Morcheeba]

The demonstrative function is strong but unconscious, so you are not aware of using it or feel it is something necessary to strive for. It has to be strong to help your dual (it would be their polr function).

Are you sure those are SLE's and LSE's? The negativity sounds more to me, and I don't know many SLE's that are good at cheering people up, unless you are talking about the subtypes.

[anou]

.

[Morcheeba]

Sorry, my english isn`t the best. I seem to express not clearly what I mean.
If "cheering up" means something like helping someone to overcome sad feelings or worries, that`s not what I wanted to say (I don`t know any SLEs well enough to know if they are good at that or not).
What I mean is, that these "probably" SLEs (not 100% sure) influence atmosphere in a group, playing a kind of "dominant role" by joking and even causing trouble sometimes. Don`t you think SLEs would do that? It`s not that they are like that all the time, I just used this fact to show the diffrence between them and these (probably) LSEs...

Yes, SLE's would be more inclined to have a playful attitude in a group situation; they would dominate a group in a sort of territorial way. They wouldn't be that great with consoling someone in need, seeing as is their HA and is polr.

I thought SLEs are more inclined to jokes and merryness than LSEs, but according to your statement SLEs seem to be rather serious..
Maybe I misunderstood?

SLE's would be described in that way since they are merry types as far as Reinin dichotomies go. LSE's are serious types, so they won't be inclined to join in a jovial atmosphere.

[silverchris9]

What is described in that "bossiness" thread as "leaking Se" is actually a pretty good description. Now that my stepmother is a confirmed LSE, and I know that it isn't just me being a whiny I-hate-my-step-parent-so-she's-my-conflictor teenager, I can officially say that I do have experience with LSEs. So:

LSEs in a bad mood generally aren't particularly vocal about it, in my experience. LSEs usually only do mock-emotional expression that is almost making fun of Fe, in a way, not consciously, but in a way. I believe I understand what you mean about "potential of aggression," but I find that is more something that IEIs perceive than that is actually there. I totally know what you mean: LSEs often look surly, and they will by no means hesitate to confront you and be in your face if you do something that violates their Te expectations/principles.

For instance, there's a guy who works in the cafeteria at my school that I'm pretty sure is LSE. One time, while trying to scoop some pasta into the awkwardly shaped to go containers they have there, I dropped some pasta on the counter. And of course, the dude got all in my face about it, and to me it felt really aggressive and attacking, and I just let him go off and did my best to just ignore it and move on, which only pissed him off more, and it was just a bad experience all around. But to him, it wasn't aggressive at all, it was just addressing a problem, and in doing so he "leaked" Se: he had an expectation that I would submit to his will, and rather than consciously applying volitional pressure, which SLEs do much more subtly and effectively, he just sort of spilled volitional pressure all over the place, and it felt very overwhelming and irritating to me. So in this sense, they do have a high potential for "aggression." But to them, it won't be aggression. To an LSE, aggression is more like trying to get your way in something, or trying to force your will on someone. LSEs don't feel like they're forcing their will on anybody: they're just enforcing the (Te) rules, and doing so by the means most efficient in correcting the offending behavior. It's not a consciously aggressive or coercive thing.

Now, what you said about SLEs is dead on, if I understand you properly. SLEs are NOT usually very naturally good at "raising people's mood" in the sense of making people feel better when they're sad and such. Again, they can develop that skill, and if they've been forced to develop that skill from an early age for some reason, they might fool you, but generally that's not one of the things they're naturally strong in. BUT, if they're in a good mood, they will usually try to raise the emotional energy in the environment. In my experience, SLEs are not by any means above doing stupid, ridiculous, or immature things to get people to sort of "wake up" emotionally, and especially to interact with them emotionally (this is, again, if they're in a good mood themselves). This can be seen as an expression of their Fe mobilizing or "hidden agenda" function. Much like an IEI using Ti, this sometimes works extraordinarily well, and sometimes doesn't.

The thing is, when an SLE is in a bad mood, like the wikisocion description says, they'll back out of a group so as to avoid spreading their bad mood, and act really serious and sombre and even "leave me alone"-ish. Not so with an LSE--they're just not as conscious of spreading their bad mood, and will attempt to smother their emotional expression, rather than remove themselves.

Regarding SLEs and seriousness, SLEs are extremely serious and focused when the time comes to work. But no type better exemplifies the "work hard, play hard" idea than the SLE. SLEs work extremely hard but then can act downright childish when they decide that it's playtime. One of my best friends is SLE and when things were too boring, he'd write his name on other people's stuff just to get a rise out of them. It was pretty hilarious, but occasionally really annoying. Another example is an SLE I know who is a music director/composer. 97% of the time when you see him, he's being funny, weird, energetic, whatever. But one time I was auditioning for him, and he was teaching us some music, he was so focused and serious and no-nonsense that his good friend and co-composer (who is probably IEI) had to sort of lighten him up because he was sort of negatively influencing other people's moods (that's another thing about SLEs--they're usually fairly open/susceptible to emotional influence from those that are really close to them). So, yes, SLEs are serious when it's time to work, but otherwise, they tend to be very playful (perhaps Se-subtypes moreso), in my experience. However, this is more true in group environments and outings that are specifically intended to be fun than in one-on-one interactions.

Now, for demonstrative function in general... I have sort of long-winded thoughts on that subject and will hopefully be posting about that and a few other topics soon.

[Skeptic]

The demonstrative and ignoring functions are described as being 'weak' because they are not used as much; the individual that has these functions in that block is actually very good at them, so in that way they are strong. They aren't used because the individual prefers to use the functions in their ego block.

The demonstrative is used to privately assess the creative function. I can't see many using their demonstrative publicly, if you feel that an LSE is giving off a lot of Se than it would be a good idea to reconsider their type. For example, in public, an LSE would use Si in the case described above (silverchris's post) because they would consider it a more effective way of explaining their Te than using their demonstrative.

I'm certain you do not 'leak' your demonstrative. One has a firm grasp of these functions and does not accidentally drop demonstrative bombs on people; consequently, I cannot see an LSE (or any type) discarding their creative in favor of their demonstrative to problem solve or direct a group. If you feel you are in conflict with a person it may have nothing to do with them using their Se whatever number it is in their combination of functions (in this case 8), but rather may have to do with a miscommunication.

In short, LSEs use Si, especially in public. If they're using Se a ton, it's because they're not LSE.

[silverchris9]

The demonstrative is used to privately assess the creative function. I can't see many using their demonstrative publicly, if you feel that an LSE is giving off a lot of Se than it would be a good idea to reconsider their type. For example, in public, an LSE would use Si in the case described above (silverchris's post) because they would consider it a more effective way of explaining their Te than using their demonstrative.

I'm certain you do not 'leak' your demonstrative. One has a firm grasp of these functions and does not accidentally drop demonstrative bombs on people; consequently, I cannot see an LSE (or any type) discarding their creative in favor of their demonstrative to problem solve or direct a group. If you feel you are in conflict with a person it may have nothing to do with them using their Se whatever number it is in their combination of functions (in this case 8), but rather may have to do with a miscommunication.

I have to disagree; I think the "leaking" metaphor is quite apt. I find that the demonstrative function is not used consciously or verbally (as a means of communicating information) very often at all. But it is used unconsciously all the time. IEIs unconsciously ensure that those around them have positive sentiments towards them, and unconsciously build emotional bonds. This can be described as "using" Fi (or at least as related to Fi) even though it is primarily accomplished via Fe. An IEI, however, would not consciously or verbally dwell on people's sentiments towards each other or emotional bonds between people except in private.

Similarly, in the case of the LSE, I think it is valid to say that LSEs unconsciously ensure that their demands are followed. They would not consciously or verbally talk about how they need to make a certain person do a certain thing, but if someone is out of line, they will make sure that person gets back in line, not as an "expression" of Se, but just because they feel it is perfectly natural and normal to do so. An SLE on the other hand, would be consciously aware of their act as an act of enforcing their will, not merely as an act of enforcing the rules. Then in private they would dwell on how something is accomplishing their goals, their relationship in a given power structure, etc. Certainly, there is a difference in quality between the volitional pressure exerted by an SLE and the volitional pressure exerted by an LSE, and I am fairly confident that both types exert volitional pressure.

So, yes, one does not actively use one's demonstrative function in public. SEEs do not actively go about raising the emotional atmosphere of a given setting. They do so unconsciously. They "leak" Fe, insofar as they accomplish the usual results of Fe without consciously attempting to do so. Or take the "overbearing ESE mom" stereotype. She doesn't consciously force her children to do anything. But she considers it perfectly normal and natural to "express her opinions" with Fe, with the result of forcing her children back into line. She doesn't apply volitional pressure consciously or verbally, as a stereotypical SLE dad might: "I'm the father--expression of authority of position--and you will do as I say! (application of explicit and verbal volitional pressure)."

Also--and I'm asking largely out of curiosity--how do you analyze the second function in terms of the eighth, especially in regards to Se and Si? I think I agree that the eighth function does exactly that, but I'm unsure of how it would play out in a pair of functions besides my own second and eighth functions.

[The Greeter]

But to him, it wasn't aggressive at all, it was just addressing a problem, and in doing so he "leaked" Se: he had an expectation that I would submit to his will, and rather than consciously applying volitional pressure, which SLEs do much more subtly and effectively[...]

May I ask how you think a SLE would apply volitional pressure in this situation?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I guess to me this is pretty simple, I'm being really vague here but it's like a matter of Directing vs. Conquering.

LSEs love to tell other people what to do, personal meaning is annoying to them, Ni is their polr. So they are really busy go getters that are human doers, they don't just like to stop and think about things. Of course, this is an IEIs natural way of being. They direct, they don't conquer.

SLEs don't like to tell other people what to do so much, they just like to do shit themselves. They need other people to be as IEI like as possible in order for this to happen. They conquer, they don't direct.

I do think an annoyed stressed out SLE can behave like an LSE (and vice-versa) but it's not natural for them, and it shows signs of stress.

[The Greeter]

I guess to me this is pretty simple, I'm being really vague here but it's like a matter of Directing vs. Conquering.

LSEs love to tell other people what to do, personal meaning is annoying to them, Ni is their polr. So they are really busy go getters that are human doers, they don't just like to stop and think about things. Of course, this is an IEIs natural way of being. They direct, they don't conquer.

I humbly beg to differ. LSEs may not be receptive to your kind of input (well, according to Socionics, they will not be) but I find that every type, including Ni-PoLRs, look for meaning in their life. There must be a reason why LSEs are busy go getters, why they keep on pushing themselves, seemingly unstoppable--there is some force that drives them but they may just not be able to articulate it as eloquently as an IEI, and I don't think we should hold it against them.

[tcaudilllg]

"This is a fight for me and me alone" sums it up for the ESTJ experience.

Also consider how personally GW took the whole Iraq thing.

Delta STs are scrappers. You fuck with them, they fuck with your face.

Se-Id types share a certain affinity for "customized" looks. They dress unconventionally, and try to express their personality through their appearance. Determinative Se-Id types are always thinking about how to better refine their efforts to this end. They also like building muscle, at least to the point where they think they have matters of their own self-defense under control. Self-defense is a priority for them, and they are always thinking of ways to safeguard both themselves and those they love.

One shall stand, and one shall fall.
-- Optimus Prime (LSE)

[Skeptic]

I have to disagree; I think the "leaking" metaphor is quite apt. I find that the demonstrative function is not used consciously or verbally (as a means of communicating information) very often at all. But it is used unconsciously all the time. IEIs unconsciously ensure that those around them have positive sentiments towards them, and unconsciously build emotional bonds. This can be described as "using" Fi (or at least as related to Fi) even though it is primarily accomplished via Fe. An IEI, however, would not consciously or verbally dwell on people's sentiments towards each other or emotional bonds between people except in private.

Similarly, in the case of the LSE, I think it is valid to say that LSEs unconsciously ensure that their demands are followed. They would not consciously or verbally talk about how they need to make a certain person do a certain thing, but if someone is out of line, they will make sure that person gets back in line, not as an "expression" of Se, but just because they feel it is perfectly natural and normal to do so. An SLE on the other hand, would be consciously aware of their act as an act of enforcing their will, not merely as an act of enforcing the rules. Then in private they would dwell on how something is accomplishing their goals, their relationship in a given power structure, etc. Certainly, there is a difference in quality between the volitional pressure exerted by an SLE and the volitional pressure exerted by an LSE, and I am fairly confident that both types exert volitional pressure.

So, yes, one does not actively use one's demonstrative function in public. SEEs do not actively go about raising the emotional atmosphere of a given setting. They do so unconsciously. They "leak" Fe, insofar as they accomplish the usual results of Fe without consciously attempting to do so. Or take the "overbearing ESE mom" stereotype. She doesn't consciously force her children to do anything. But she considers it perfectly normal and natural to "express her opinions" with Fe, with the result of forcing her children back into line. She doesn't apply volitional pressure consciously or verbally, as a stereotypical SLE dad might: "I'm the father--expression of authority of position--and you will do as I say! (application of explicit and verbal volitional pressure)."

Also--and I'm asking largely out of curiosity--how do you analyze the second function in terms of the eighth, especially in regards to Se and Si? I think I agree that the eighth function does exactly that, but I'm unsure of how it would play out in a pair of functions besides my own second and eighth functions.

The 4 functions are divided up into introverted/extroverted categories because even though the same end is achieved (the use of logic, ethics, intuition, sensing), the method used to get there has two completely opposite parts.

It is for that reason that I don't think it possible to use both introverted sensing and extroverted sensing. If you are using one, you are by default and definition not using the other. It is 'turned off', in a way. By using one you imply the other, but do not leak it or give it off.

In an attempt to oversimplify my point, let's say that extroverted sensing is defined as 'moving north' and introverted sensing, being the opposite, is defined as 'moving south', and sensors are people who are on a mobile trolley that is on a north/south track. Introverted sensors prefer to go south and extroverted sensors prefer to go north, but it is clear that they could go either way should they choose to do so. However, whichever direction they move, they cannot be going both north and south, because introverted/extroverted sensing is defined in either north or south movement.

It is true that functions work in unison based on what is valued to produce a sort of combined result. However, I don't think it's possible to be using both Ne + Ni by using one conciously and the other unconciously because they are total opposites. It is not reasonable to say that ESIs leak introverted sensing to achieve their goals; they may as well be ESEs.

[silverchris9]

May I ask how you think a SLE would apply volitional pressure in this situation?

Great question. I have a variety of hypotheses on the subject.

1) Maybe very similarly: it's a possibility that the differences are really subtle, but they just feel different; that is, maybe our response to our conflictor has less to do with what the conflictor does and more to do with how the conflictor feels. Of course, I realize this idea invalidates my use of this as an example.

2) Maybe they just wouldn't care. I mean, honestly, there's no absolute difference between whether I drop a little bit of pasta or not--they make a certain amount and a certain amount will be thrown away regardless, right? Granted, this is something that may be far more related to upbringing, personal opinions, and all that jazz, than type, but I think a correlation to Te (maximizing outputs from given inputs) can be drawn.

3) They might be more casual about it, more of a "hey, you did x, don't do that," sans reasoning. Which I *think* I'd respond better to, although I can't be sure. Certainly, I'd imagine an SLE would take silence as a sign of assent and submission rather than as a sign of... whatever that dude took it as that frustrated him. But I could be wrong there too.

Thoughts?

[tcaudilllg]

An SLE will always try to rely on their ego EM functions to compel action. They may withhold something that is needed from the forced, or threaten them with inundation. They might even choose to do nothing at all, or to block oppressive force from being used against the person whom they expect to act. To SLE, there are any number of ways to compel force, but... there is never force enough.

[The Greeter]

Thoughts?

Firstly, let us assume that what you described above is actually what an LSE would behave like in this situation (which itself is disputeable, but for the sake of this particular argument, I won't contest it).

1) Maybe very similarly: it's a possibility that the differences are really subtle, but they just feel different; that is, maybe our response to our conflictor has less to do with what the conflictor does and more to do with how the conflictor feels. Of course, I realize this idea invalidates my use of this as an example.

I personally think that this is the most likely case; that is, the SLE will behave in a very similar fashion as the LSE. But where our opinions differ is the response of the conflicting type. I think that you would still feel just as awkward had the person been your dual. After all, it generally is an uncomfortable and an embarassing situation, and to blame your internal reactions to something external and hollow as type is a mistake. Our duals can make us feel bad; let us not forget that.

2) Maybe they just wouldn't care. I mean, honestly, there's no absolute difference between whether I drop a little bit of pasta or not--they make a certain amount and a certain amount will be thrown away regardless, right? Granted, this is something that may be far more related to upbringing, personal opinions, and all that jazz, than type, but I think a correlation to Te (maximizing outputs from given inputs) can be drawn.

Maybe I am misinterpreting your story but it seems the main reason that this individual pressured you to pick up the dropped pasta was for the sake of hygeine and cleanliness rather than wasting food.

3) They might be more casual about it, more of a "hey, you did x, don't do that," sans reasoning. Which I *think* I'd respond better to, although I can't be sure. Certainly, I'd imagine an SLE would take silence as a sign of assent and submission rather than as a sign of... whatever that dude took it as that frustrated him. But I could be wrong there too.

But who wouldn't respond better to someone who says things casually as oppose to a threatening or commanding manner?


The flaw in your argument begins from your very first assumption, as I stated before, that this person was an LSE. This assumption stems from the fact that you had felt uncomfortable during this interaction with said person and concluded that, had this person been a type having a favourable relation to your type, you would not feel this way. Yet, how can you just conclude that this person's behaviour is typical of an LSE if you are uncertain of how an SLE would behave?

Also, consider this: your hypothesis implies that, had the person been an SLE, you would be more inclined to obey his requests. In fact, an SLE can make you do almost anything because of their ability to subtly apply pressure, without making you feel uncomfortable. Then at what point do your thoughts enter? Or feelings? At what point would you think "what this SLE, my dual, is asking me to do--is pressuring me to do, is wrong"? I hardly think you, as a thoughtful indivudal, would suddenly give up a process (thinking or feeling) that very much defines you as soon as your dual enters the picture. But who knows, maybe this is a characteristic of an IEI. I don't know.

The problem that I have seen around this forum is the tendency to mystify Ni and Se. It is not magic and it is not perfect. There will be times that Ni and Se clash, just as Si and Ne may clash, and so on.

[Ave]

I consider my self a bit of an expert on this, so perhaps I can shed light on your confusion. The demonstrative function is like a cesspool of uncoscious information thats TOO strong and causes what i call a hole in the psyché where there is no hidden agneda working at all. This is worse case scenario. A person needs to correct this imbalance by gathering information from their hidden agenda to make it work and lessen the demonstartive function influence. But whenever danger occurs a person doesnt trust their HA so they fall back on the strongest of the uncoscious functions - the demonstrative.

[silverchris9]

I consider my self a bit of an expert on this, so perhaps I can shed light on your confusion. The demonstrative function is like a cesspool of uncoscious information thats TOO strong and causes what i call a hole in the psyché where there is no hidden agneda working at all. This is worse case scenario. A person needs to correct this imbalance by gathering information from their hidden agenda to make it work and lessen the demonstartive function influence. But whenever danger occurs a person doesnt trust their HA so they fall back on the strongest of the uncoscious functions - the demonstrative.

...I kind of agree. IEIs need Ti to let us stop being so concerned with making everybody feel good all the time. Being black and white and categorical in our thinking allows us to place people into groups: "people I have to be nice to," "people I want to be nice to," "people who will take advantage of me being nice to them," or even actions in groups of "actions I will take to make others feel good," "actions I will not take to make others feel good," "actions I will take to make others feel good depending on my mood at the moment," etc.

EDIT: also, SLEs need Fe to let them stop being so concerned with making everything work exactly the way it ought to. Focusing on influencing other's emotional moods allows them a way of achieving their goals that is a little more people-related, perhaps? I'm not as confident on this one.

LSEs need Ne to let them consider possibilities rather than driving forward with their volitional force whenever they see something going wrong Te-wise.

Thus the hidden agenda function in general can function as an alternative to a way of being that a type is very good at, but doesn't *like*. Thus the trap of IEIs being too nice, and SLEs being too dry, and LSEs being too harsh, and ILIs being too critical about whether or not something is logical (as opposed to whether or not something is correct or factual, which is a more Te thing...?), etc., etc.

[thePirate]

I have to disagree; I think the "leaking" metaphor is quite apt. I find that the demonstrative function is not used consciously or verbally (as a means of communicating information) very often at all. But it is used unconsciously all the time. IEIs unconsciously ensure that those around them have positive sentiments towards them, and unconsciously build emotional bonds. This can be described as "using" Fi (or at least as related to Fi) even though it is primarily accomplished via Fe. An IEI, however, would not consciously or verbally dwell on people's sentiments towards each other or emotional bonds between people except in private.

Similarly, in the case of the LSE, I think it is valid to say that LSEs unconsciously ensure that their demands are followed. They would not consciously or verbally talk about how they need to make a certain person do a certain thing, but if someone is out of line, they will make sure that person gets back in line, not as an "expression" of Se, but just because they feel it is perfectly natural and normal to do so. An SLE on the other hand, would be consciously aware of their act as an act of enforcing their will, not merely as an act of enforcing the rules. Then in private they would dwell on how something is accomplishing their goals, their relationship in a given power structure, etc. Certainly, there is a difference in quality between the volitional pressure exerted by an SLE and the volitional pressure exerted by an LSE, and I am fairly confident that both types exert volitional pressure.

So, yes, one does not actively use one's demonstrative function in public. SEEs do not actively go about raising the emotional atmosphere of a given setting. They do so unconsciously. They "leak" Fe, insofar as they accomplish the usual results of Fe without consciously attempting to do so. Or take the "overbearing ESE mom" stereotype. She doesn't consciously force her children to do anything. But she considers it perfectly normal and natural to "express her opinions" with Fe, with the result of forcing her children back into line. She doesn't apply volitional pressure consciously or verbally, as a stereotypical SLE dad might: "I'm the father--expression of authority of position--and you will do as I say! (application of explicit and verbal volitional pressure)."

Also--and I'm asking largely out of curiosity--how do you analyze the second function in terms of the eighth, especially in regards to Se and Si? I think I agree that the eighth function does exactly that, but I'm unsure of how it would play out in a pair of functions besides my own second and eighth functions.

dude, I was looking for or going to start a thread on this, but this post hit it. actually, I still will after this. skeptic, your post is flawed. you can argue that the role and base are north and south but certainly not all the introvert and extrovert functions, in the creative/demonstrative they operate as two sides of the same coin and can(often) are used in conjunction.

futhermore I agree with typhons analysis of the hidden agenda and demonstrative.

[Marie84]

Thus the hidden agenda function in general can function as an alternative to a way of being that a type is very good at, but doesn't *like*. Thus the trap of IEIs being too nice, and SLEs being too dry, and LSEs being too harsh, and ILIs being too critical about whether or not something is logical (as opposed to whether or not something is correct or factual, which is a more Te thing...?), etc., etc.

I think you meant this to be the other way around?

[silverchris9]

I think you meant this to be the other way around?

I was referring to the demonstrative and the hidden agenda as alternatives. SLEs can be overly dry but prefer to be more life-of-the-party; thus Fe serves as a substitute for Te. LSEs can be overly harsh, but prefer to consider others' circumstances and be a little gentler; thus Ne serves as a substitute for Se.

Yes, in general interaction, you would be much more likely to argue that an LSE is dry and an SLE is harsh, but given that both types have both Te and Se as strong functions, if what Typhon says is true, and the demonstrative is "too strong" or floods consciousness with "too much information," then both types have the potential to be both harsh and dry. LSEs don't mind being somewhat dry (or being perceived that way by other types), but don't like being harsh. SLEs don't mind being somewhat harsh (or being perceived that way by other types), but they hate being dry and boring. It really makes sense to me when I think about it for SLEs, and how they like to be "fun" rather than boring, but often acknowledge their propensity to be boring (without Fe).