From descriptions I've read, there appears to be a contradiction in terms here: Se-dominants are irrationals, and yet the definition of Se seems to fit the rational definition far better. ESTps and ESFps seem to be quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders. I'm using these definitions: Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion
Extroverted sensing - WikisocionRationals
(Also called shizotymes in early socionics literature)
1.Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
2.Are more often rigid and stubborn.
3.Do not like to change their decisions.
4.Tend to finish what they started.
5.Usually have stiff movements.
6.Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
7.Low stress tolerance.
(Also called cyclotymes in early socionics literature)
1.Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
2.Are more often flexible and tolerant.
3.Change their decisions frequently.
4.Tend to start new things without finishing them.
5.Usually have gentle movements.
6.Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
7.High stress tolerance.
I figure based on the contradiction, one must be wrong. Can anyone please discern this, or explain this to me?Extroverted sensing () is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.
includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.
Types that value are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value . There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing ()-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.