So, a lot of times Se has this reputation as the "get shit done" function. The "make the choice on the fly, make it happen when it needs to happen, execute under pressure" kind of function. So I want to talk about how people who don't value Se get things done, especially in critical situations and/or high-pressure situations, but also just in real life.
To be clear, the question I'm asking isn't "how do you poor Se-nonvaluers get out of bed in the morning and ever make a decision?" but rather "In the situations that I expect to apply/use/see/experience Se to 'get things done' how do Se-nonvaluers understand the situation and how might we see that in behavior?"
Obviously, this is socionics so talk about behavior is valuable and interesting, but talk about perception, how types tend to perceive situations, is probably more valuable. And then more valuable than either is work that helps us see the perceptions in the actions, or the relationship between how someone processes information (in socionics terms) and how they act. (Sorry for the condescending explanation, just the quickest way to explain my theoretical commitments/how I'm approaching things). Also feel free to turn it around and talk in terms of how Se-valuers see things and how that affects their actions. Anyway, Here are some general, loose ideas to get the discussion started:
Does it have something to do with avoiding the super high-pressure scenario in the first place? I mean that not in the sense of aversion but more like, perhaps Se-nonvaluers would ascribe to statements like, "If you handle situations correctly on a regular basis, you rarely have to deal with a big crisis." Sort of like the effectiveness analogue of "if you're slow and steady, you won't have to sprint to win the race."
Are Se-nonvaluers likely to have the same "pace" of work as Se-valuers but without the same energy of urgency or "fast tempo" (I'm thinking in short-term, crisis situations, like a few hours or less; obviously, the pace of work varies wildly from individual to individual and circumstance to circumstance).
Is it possible that there's a genuine type-related advantage here; that is, given equal levels of skill and experience in a given situation, the Se-valuer will tend to perform better than the Se-nonvaluer in a short, intense situation (and enjoy the situation more). If so, where might this arise from?
Is there a difference in what Se-valuers and Se-nonvaluers might think of when they think of a "crisis situation." (Alternatively, am I just personally using the word unclearly/idiosyncratically)
Getting away from crises, what are some differences in how Se-valuers and Se-nonvaluers approach achieving short-term goals (baking a cake, or something of equivalent length), medium-term goals (say, producing/project managing an event at work over the course of a couple months), and long-term goals (I want to be a movie star, or more achievable but equally long-range goals)?