Se

[Beautiful sky]

Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa View Post
I called you an idiot because one you take guesses that don't coincide with anything that I'm thinking of such as you assuming that i view you as my inferior and that is why I call you an idiot. You may be judging by how others judge you by some hierarchy which I do not. I judge you based on your comprehention of what I'm writing and two that you often don't show that you comprehend when I say or others say that I'm EII and why.
Name calling is bullying behavior.

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Work-L...Workplace.html

... yelling or name calling, snide comments, publicly picking on mistakes and belittling the opinions of others...these are all intentionally aggressive acts aimed at controlling another person or diminishing their social value. These acts expose the perpetuator as a person with a low empathy ethic because they are unable to recognize how their aggressiveness impacts others.
Before now, I have not responded to the little jabs and insults that you have aimed at me and others on this forum because I frankly did not want to face the emotional outbursts that I have seen you direct at others. But I could not be silent on the subject of your empathy, when I have experienced otherwise from you, with no provocation.

I apologize for the delayed response. I have been out of town and have trouble posting from my phone. Since you have called me evasive, I wanted you to know that no disrespect was intended. I also apologize for upsetting you with this subject.

Do you think that maybe some of my sudden reactions have to do with Se. I know from what Se is that they are much more aware of impact of their own words, of choosing battles, of perceived will and hence they can mobilize. I do appreciate that you wrote this too me, but you must understand that they is the very same thing that separates me from Beta NF and the very same thing that I often have contentions over with them.

[Ananke]

Maritsa is EII.

[Beautiful sky]

Sure, why not.



Well, I type you as EIE, like I have been saying for years now. You create threads to suit a specific purpose / agenda like this. The EIIs I know tend to fade away into the background when conflict arises - they use their Fi to distance themselves from others. They usually don't make a big stink about it, but prefer to stay in the background, laid-back Delta style. You, on the other hand, tend to charge head-first into conflict, creating threads like this and quoting your offender.

What's clearer to me is your Ti-seeking. You create threads like this asking about definitions so that you can manipulate the system of socionics itself to serve your purpose & agenda. Would you really care about the definition of Se if not for Iris's post? I'd doubt it. You're asking about the Ti-system for the purpose of how it relates to your public image / portrayal - very EIE imho.

And like I've said before through the years, there's nothing wrong with being EIE. You can still be EIE and be a 'humanist'. You seem to have a lot of pressure on you to act a certain way, much of it self-imposed; and you care deeply about people. That's awesome. Many EIEs have done good in the world. You don't need to be an EII in socionics to be a good person. You can be EIE and still be loved and appreciated.

I created this thread to address her on this and to clear things up.

[Beautiful sky]

I know.

I think I'm Se pole hence why I react disproportionately to external stimulants. I am even uncomfortable around textures and other external properties of objects if I were EIE I would be stimulated by it and pleasant around it. I'm not.

[Beautiful sky]

Let's look at how the Socionics Institute defines Se & Si:

Se: Strength, power, will, effect, desires, tactics, appearance, weight, form, colour, beauty, territory, realization, to defend, to reach

Si: Comfort, coziness, health, delight, quality, practice, state of health, harmony, “here and now”, aesthetics, convenience, pleasant, nuances

So when you talk about comfort in the physical realm, textures, etc., that sounds like "aesthetics", pleasantness, etc. Not really anything to do with strength, willpower, etc. I think you're referring to Si as opposed to Se.

In all honesty, though, I think the argument that EIEs are 'stimulated' by what you refer to as 'external properties' is a bit ridiculous.

Ij temperament to react…so there's inconsistency. hum.

[Iris]

Name calling is bullying behavior.

http://www.evancarmichael.com/Work-L...Workplace.html

" ... yelling or name calling, snide comments, publicly picking on mistakes and belittling the opinions of others...these are all intentionally aggressive acts aimed at controlling another person or diminishing their social value. These acts expose the perpetuator as a person with a low empathy ethic because they are unable to recognize how their aggressiveness impacts others."

Before now, I have not responded to the little jabs and insults that you have aimed at me and others on this forum because I frankly did not want to face the emotional outbursts that I have seen you direct at others. But I could not be silent on the subject of your empathy, when I have experienced otherwise from you, with no provocation.

I apologize for the delayed response. I have been out of town and have trouble posting from my phone. Since you have called me evasive, I wanted you to know that no disrespect was intended. I also apologize for upsetting you with this subject.

@Maritsa What about the above post is considered Se?

To me it looks like:

1. information - a definition of bullying and aggression (Te,)
2. a statement regarding my fear of conflict vs the need to speak the truth (Fi,)
3. an apology (Fe.)

@William Regarding your EIE typing of Maritsa, do you think there are similarities between Martisa's posts and mine? She seems to value Si from reading her many posts, which would make Beta unlikely. She also seems to be a tenacious debater as well, another quality that I lack. I don't have the energy to come up with all of the points that I see in her posts. Nor do I have near the number of posts each day. But maybe there is a similarity that I am not seeing. I would also be interested in your definition of Se. Thanks for taking an interest in this thread.

[Beautiful sky]

@Maritsa What about the above post is considered Se?

To me it looks like:

1. information - a definition of bullying and aggression (Te,)
2. a statement regarding my fear of conflict vs the need to speak the truth (Fi,)
3. an apology (Fe.)

@William Regarding your EIE typing of Maritsa, do you think there are similarities between Martisa's posts and mine? She seems to value Si from reading her many posts, which would make Beta unlikely. She also seems to be a tenacious debater as well, another quality that I lack. I don't have the energy to come up with all of the points that I see in her posts. Nor do I have near the number of posts each day. But maybe there is a similarity that I am not seeing. I would also be interested in your definition of Se. Thanks for taking an interest in this thread.

I'm considering it as Se pole being prickly and defensive when people don't understand me and LII too. Reactive and not very aware of how to deliver messages softly and directly and even to measure the amount of information coming in. This is why I often observe Se egos kind of bow out of confrontation or remain observant looking and withdrawn. I think Ij temperament even LSI are very reactionary so it may not have anything to do with Se but just temperament. I'm thinking writing sorry.

[Iris]

Thank you for responding, although my question about the content of my post and its alleged Se content remains unanswered.

As I have attempted to understand from your post:

I'm considering it as Se pole being prickly and defensive when people don't understand me and LII too.

Your post appears to say that Se Polrs react in a prickly and defensive way when people don't understand them. However, in my understanding of socionics, Se Polrs might react in a prickly and defensive way against the use of Aggression (Se), not logic that they disagree with or lack of understanding (Ti.)

This is why I often observe Se egos kind of bow out of confrontation or remain observant looking and withdrawn.

That does not align with my understanding of Se egos, which is based in part on this quote from Wikisocion:

"He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.

So I think we will probably have to agree to disagree on those definitions.


And not to stray from my original point: Name-calling is aggression. Pure and simple.

I don't think you will find many people who will agree that name-calling is empathic behavior, and is not in keeping with the Wikisocion EII description,

"They are very empathetic people and find it very easy to feel with others. This makes them very sensitive to the moods of people, and they treat them the way they want to be treated, that is, with respect."

I hope you understand that I mean no disrespect to you if I disagree with you. I believe we are never going to be able to agree on some things, and will conclude my posting with you on that note.

[Myst]

I'm considering it as Se pole being prickly and defensive when people don't understand me and LII too. Reactive and not very aware of how to deliver messages softly and directly and even to measure the amount of information coming in. This is why I often observe Se egos kind of bow out of confrontation or remain observant looking and withdrawn. I think Ij temperament even LSI are very reactionary so it may not have anything to do with Se but just temperament. I'm thinking writing sorry.

Well I know you see me as an LSI > SLE so that gotta explain why I don't back down from confrontation ?

Your Se/Si definitions seem a bit mixed up from what I've seen from you so far.

[Radio]

william strikes again!


dun dun dunnnn