Ne-PoLR of ESI/ISFj - Examples?

[Bertrand]

you present yourself as being for understanding but act like a total retard so im confused. im going to assume its part of some idiotic game, not unlike some of the stuff described in this very thread, and move on

since you saw fit to interject your initial comment Im guessing the aforementioned stuff described, is what really "touched a nerve"

in any case, touching a nerve is not necessarily a bad thing, so once again you continue to try and use as a slight against people things that shouldn't even be thought of that way, if you actually cared about people. your response seems to be something like "u mad bro?" after you went out of your way to be stupid. i am in fact kind of mad when people intentionally act stupid only so as to provoke other people. i don't really see the need to hide that in some kind of game over who cares the least. you got me, I care. im sorry you feel the need to follow me around, because a discernible pattern has developed at this point. I hope you find a person who actually likes you in return so you stop bothering me, because its a waste of your time really. you honestly seem unintelligent and unfunny, but im sure there's someone out there who loves it

chief

[Eos]

you present yourself as being for understanding but act like a total retard so im confused. im going to assume its part of some idiotic game you're into and move on

mellon, relax. you are so touchy.

[Eos]

you present yourself as being for understanding but act like a total retard so im confused. im going to assume its part of some idiotic game, not unlike stuff described in this very thread, and move on

since you saw fit to interject your initial comment Im guessing everything prior is what touched a nerve. sorry but you're transparent

in any case, touching a nerve is not a bad thing, so once again you continue to try and use as a slight against people things that shouldn't even be thought of that way if things are to get better. im sorry you don't like the content of this thread and that further you feel the need to follow me around, because a discernable pattern has developed at this point. I hope you find a person who actually likes you in return so you stop bothering me

chief

haha, okay bertrand. Your mind makes up a lot of stuff. Life inside the hologram.

You discredited yourself, but it's okay, everyone eventually ends up doing it so its not a unique case special to you.

[Bertrand]

my whole point is its not discrediting, because there's good reason to be confused. if someone isn't confused they're probably full of shit. if you promote that order you're probably full of shit too.. its just an economy of pride you try to leverage and its all bullshit. its just trying to prop up the snake oil economy. sorry not sorry i tear the veil off your illusory working environment

mellon

[End]

"Think before you do" is pure NeSi. Think and deliberate 99 times and let the one action you take be perfect. You can see how contrary that mode is to NiSe.

Well spoken, I couldn't have put it better myself. As an type myself I'll try and explain how our mind works in this aspect.

I don't got the time to deliberate over and over again. Time is of the essence and indecision is how you end up dying a meaningless death and losing all you hold dear. You don't need a "reason" to act, you must simply act. Now, preferably. Do... Something. Anything but nothing! (you act) Oh, lost an arm. Got about 5 minutes before I pass out due to blood loss then. Can still move though and damn all this adrenaline means I feel no pain! I can use that, so the fucker's over there and that was my bad arm. Good arm still works and has a gun with ammo in it for some reason. Good! Now I shoot that piece of shit in the head and send them to hell! Missed? Good thing I'm already charging towards them. Can't fail to kill em' if I shove this gun into their mouth and then pull the trigger.

In short, a constant procession of actions if the shit hits the fan sans considerations of potential alternatives. Observation, action, observation, action. I am curious, how would this play out if you were a type?

[Eos]

my whole point is its not discrediting, because there's good reason to be confused. if someone isn't confused they're probably full of shit. if you promote that order you're probably full of shit too.. its just an economy of pride you try to leverage and its all bullshit. its just trying to prop up the snake oil economy. sorry not sorry i tear the veil off your illusory working environment

mellon

dude, its okay to get humbled by the process. i say it all the time to newbies: welcome to the journey.

I wasn't being critical, I was laughing WITH you.. I can see you don't find it funny and probs influenced by our past conversations you also misinterpreted. I'm not all that hung up by any of this, if you don't want to talk again then I won't comment on your posts or anything. I'm not overly liked here anyway, but that has never been my goal.

[Bertrand]

im not humbled tho..? you're acting like you're somehow benevolently commiserating when its like you manufacured the "downfall" to begin with. my point is there is none. your false economy relies on preying on the notion that anyone cares or should care what you or anyone like you thinks and the answer is they shouldn't, because you're a retard who talks as if they're an authority but if they were they could just clear things up and not simply wait for people to "get humbled" only to capitalize on it. you're just an idiot with a big mouth.. Im not sure why you can't see that but whatever. I accept your offer to not comment on my posts

[ooo]

after all the shit he's posted about Beta quadra, it's just logical he had to fit in there :}

[ooo]

or, as they say over here, the first hen that sings laid the egg

[Aramas]

I truly would like this operating in the way you think it does, me and my IEE would be rich right now, but no, I don't have any Fe to manipulate ppl emotions and IEEs value more Fi than Fe, so we can't use anything as currency beyond mere work and effort, since we cant manipulate others to make them giving us something for free, so sad.
For the rest, is crazy the notion that religion right now gets societal support lol

I'm not trying to say they're all the same. It's more like, when they go bad, they spew bullshit similarly. Some of them treat it like a game. They're so acquainted with bullshit that they'll pretend to espouse it just to see if they can get you to believe it and act on it. If they can, they'll laugh at you when they're out of sight. When an IEE says, "Would I lie to you?" The answer is yes.

[Aramas]

ah yes, they're trying to seed their alternative values, interestingly enough right in the heart of a place centered on collective value. it makes sense as soon as it reached critical mass the collective would abandon it wholesale as having become a farce. I think its also because no one saw fit to wipe out the corruption, or simply could not manage it, so they simply let them have it, which is a shame. but I believe there is something valid under that rot, its just the story of the anti christ having his heyday, but there will be a return of the king so to speak. of course we might have to suffer an apocalypse, whatever that looks like, first

its like they don't realize worshiping mammon in that way is totally pointless and amounts to bugaboo whatever spin they put on it. its like you're not smarter for getting one over on people that way, its just a special kind of stupid

I'm not quite sure I'm getting this post of yours. The first sentence is the only one that makes sense to me. Yeah, they're always trying to seed those alternative values when they do that kind of stuff. They set themselves up as outsiders fighting the long war against whatever.

[Lord Pixel]

Yes. Si valuers, if they do drugs, are more likely to do them as things in themselves. The Se type, when they do them, are often trying to achieve Ni. Read Diary of a Drug Fiend to understand the journey to Ni as it took place in Crowley's life. (The book is veiled nonfiction.)

Remember that every journey is different, so don't take the book too seriously or try to build your own life around it. It's just an example.

It's easy to understand the logic. When the environment is dis-equilibrated, attention is drawn to the environment and the mind becomes quiescent and unitary. When the environment becomes equilibrated (Si), the signal from it becomes quiescent and that awakens the mind and in turn disequilibrates and splits it in multiple forms. (Ne)

Unity of one is the panoply of the other.

Parallel sensation (Se) produces serialized intuition (Ni). Serialized sensation (Si) produces parallel intuition (Ne).

I can kind of see that, when I smoked weed yea my mind went all over the place, and I guess that's what others would call inspiration, getting all these ideas from the drug perhaps. If that's what you are saying.

This makes alot of sense though with the Se trying to achieve Ni. My SLE friend used to talk about it and it would really grate on my Si, like I felt the sensation of my stomach turning when he would talk about his fascination with psychedelics and tie it to deeper meanings. He was fascinated with Joe Rogan and his DMT trips. Joe Rogan went on a DMT trip and said he was transported into another dimension and saw the earth as a whole organism where spots on it looked cancerous and it looked diseased, and how love and relationships is just a trick to get us to reproduce. My SLE friend seemed to want to experience that same state of mind. And it seems very Ni.

[Hope]

I'm not trying to say they're all the same. It's more like, when they go bad, they spew bullshit similarly. Some of them treat it like a game. They're so acquainted with bullshit that they'll pretend to espouse it just to see if they can get you to believe it and act on it. If they can, they'll laugh at you when they're out of sight. When an IEE says, "Would I lie to you?" The answer is yes.

What I was trying to say is that portraying IEE as an emotional manipulative leader using religion or politics to convince masses to get money is not very reasonable according elements (Fi>Fe,Si>Se). In quadral complex Delta moves in small groups that change frequently, and works in the stance of transcendent self development more than a focus in society in general.

Then, saying that Huxley is potentially manipulative/liar more than any other ethical type is not accurate according Augusta:

"Logical promises can be trusted more than the promises of ethics. Because the first by all means try to keep his word, and if something can not say in advance, "not to deceive people." Ethics is not so important not to deceive people, as not to spoil relations with him, so he often promises to not be able to run, and something from it as from a "good man" others expect. He does not feel like a liar, but a careful diplomat."

[ooo]

fk Augusta tbh, socionics was established by Sol + Bertrand and all their happy arsekissers, submit or stop trying

[Lord Pixel]

Well spoken, I couldn't have put it better myself. As an type myself I'll try and explain how our mind works in this aspect.

I don't got the time to deliberate over and over again. Time is of the essence and indecision is how you end up dying a meaningless death and losing all you hold dear. You don't need a "reason" to act, you must simply act. Now, preferably. Do... Something. Anything but nothing! (you act) Oh, lost an arm. Got about 5 minutes before I pass out due to blood loss then. Can still move though and damn all this adrenaline means I feel no pain! I can use that, so the fucker's over there and that was my bad arm. Good arm still works and has a gun with ammo in it for some reason. Good! Now I shoot that piece of shit in the head and send them to hell! Missed? Good thing I'm already charging towards them. Can't fail to kill em' if I shove this gun into their mouth and then pull the trigger.

In short, a constant procession of actions if the shit hits the fan sans considerations of potential alternatives. Observation, action, observation, action. I am curious, how would this play out if you were a type?

If it was Ne Si, consideration of alternative probably would say, I want to kill the guy but I'm bleeding out I need to tie up my arm. And if I want to kill the guy and he's running away why not shoot him in the leg since that might slow him down then I can catch him easier and shoot him in the head.

[Adam Strange]

fk Augusta tbh, socionics was established by Sol + Bertrand and all their happy arsekissers, submit or stop trying

@ooo, I stopped watching network news or reading Bertrand’s posts long ago, and I’m much happier for it.

[ooo]

me too tbh : )

but it's pretty impossible to escape since there's no ignore button over here and they're literally answering in every thread worth reading, catalyzing half of the discussions.

it's like a poison since all of their shit gets supported by most of the 16types population, so that everyone gets contaminated in the end... Jung and Augusta may you rest in peace~

[Hope]

There is a list for ignore ppl in your profile, actually. Their comments get hide from your sight.

[Bertrand]

I'm not quite sure I'm getting this post of yours. The first sentence is the only one that makes sense to me. Yeah, they're always trying to seed those alternative values when they do that kind of stuff. They set themselves up as outsiders fighting the long war against whatever.

im saying there was a tipping point where "religion" got corrupted to the point of standing for its opposite and it was principled for people to abandon it on those grounds. they didn't forsake "God" so to speak so much as a false idol of it. God still lives on in the heart of every decent person, although the symbols have developed. The problem is these sorts of opportunistic imitators have made discernment almost impossible. to see whats true these days can't be reduced to group affiliation in the social sense. principled people exist on both sides, precisely because parasites have tried to avail themselves of the perceived benefits of being on one side or the other. but the truth is something that transcends those labels. it got made about labels because we attached too much significance to the sign over the thing, just like the gay marriage debate primarily got traction precisely because benefits were associated with marriage. there's nothing wrong with gay people seeking equality in the eyes of the law, but the only reason they cared was because marriage became a secular institution. if it was always purely religious it never would have been invaded, like so many other "empty" religious rituals no one is otherwise fighting to appropriate. the second something starts to "work" nut huggers are all over it in order to compete for the benefits, but right up until that point they don't give a rats ass about anything higher. this is why concretely incentivizing pro social or spiritual enlightenment is ultimately counter productive, i.e.: when it goes beyond one's "daily bread"/is infected by greed, because as soon as you do you attract people like flies to honey. being a Christian or whatever becomes one more "job" and we're off to the races with the protestant work ethic where salvation is related to money, and eventually the underlying truth is totally forgotten. in some sense its fine, we need people to squeeze the life out of old institutions but at the same time they actively suppress new developments and that is when it becomes a problem. their scarcity mindset essentially causes them to gobble up anything at its inception after they've finished off the historical achievements of the past, in this way its maximally stultifying.. that this literally cuts them off from the future and that it is at the expense of the rest of humanity is of little consideration to them. at the same time they demand maximum consideration in return. this is why genuine tolerance is a genuine good, but once again a full half of people only tolerate that which is immediately beneficial. this is how people like trump can call all these yokels he obviously hates "his people"-- its a mockery of spiritual love and togetherness. its fake. the problem is not that people overthrow this arrangement with violence so much as it is people are left with no choice but to do so. in essence the "violent" are blamed for being the only solution to the problem and so parents condition their children through, ironically, beatings, when their primitive fear overwhelms them, in order to correct these unacceptable traits. its just a gigantic circle of violence, except some people make things better and some people make things worse. and what each person happens to prefer, and what they call better, is a rubber stamp on what they were already inclined to do anyway. that this drama plays out continually unbeknownst to people is what keeps them trapped in it. its the religious impulse itself that makes one aware of this, not whatever they preach in the megachurch. and certainly not a complete retreat into an animal existence

tl;dr: genuine psychological understanding is needed in order to really overcome the mistakes of the past, and such knowledge exists in some form in Christianity and science. this is principally what Jung stands for. people try to divide the two, and there exist principled reasons to take either side, but its a false dichotomy, propped up by divisive charlatans out for their own benefit. science, at present, is obviously less guilty of this but the seeds are there too. im sorry my big paragraph is unclear but there's a lot going on, that is precisely why there is so much space for scams. when I say return of the king, I mean the real deal

[ooo]

lol I never noticed that before, ty

[The Reality Denialist]

lol at SLE experience. I kind of understand their fascination bit more when some talk with me. I can generate analogues about far off stuff that may be perceived different ways out there.

[Aramas]

What I was trying to say is that portraying IEE as an emotional manipulative leader using religion or politics to convince masses to get money is not very reasonable according elements (Fi>Fe,Si>Se). In quadral complex Delta moves in small groups that change frequently, and works in the stance of transcendent self development more than a focus in society in general.

Then, saying that Huxley is potentially manipulative/liar more than any other ethical type is not accurate according Augusta:

"Logical promises can be trusted more than the promises of ethics. Because the first by all means try to keep his word, and if something can not say in advance, "not to deceive people." Ethics is not so important not to deceive people, as not to spoil relations with him, so he often promises to not be able to run, and something from it as from a "good man" others expect. He does not feel like a liar, but a careful diplomat."

Aushra is wrong. She was a great historical figure who started Socionics, but Socionics has progressed beyond her. Same thing with Jung. They were great for their time, but nobody should be quoting them as if that proves anything.

[Hope]

Aushra is wrong. She was a great historical figure who started Socionics, but Socionics has progressed beyond her. Same thing with Jung. They were great for their time, but nobody should be quoting them as if that proves anything.

lol
If you don't care for theory but prefer inventing your own stuff then is useless any kind of discussion with you because there is zero common ground to even define something. The stuff you were saying is not defined as Huxley traits by any modern socionist. You are defining huxley as something you created not how its defined by socionists.

[Aramas]

lol
If you don't care for theory but prefer inventing your own stuff then is useless any kind of discussion with you because there is zero common ground to even define something. The stuff you were saying is not defined as Huxley traits by any modern socionist. You are defining huxley as something you created not how its defined by socionists.

I'm not inventing my own stuff. I'm telling other people about my personal experiences with different people of different types and creating a model based on that. That's exactly what Aushra and all the other socionists have done. Simply saying that a model doesn't match reality and needs to be amended based on new observation isn't just an act of definition out of nothing. You're acting as if the theory created by Aushra is more authoritative than the observable phenomenon on which it was based. This is exactly the problem with Socionics: too many people theorizing and not enough observation. That's how you get a useless and inaccurate model of reality.

Maybe you think Socionics isn't actually real. That it doesn't exist except as a model that categorizes superficial behavior. Perhaps that's the problem. I dunno.

You're right that we might not have any ground. People who think that the essence of Socionics is in a theory or model rather than in observation of an inherent observable aspect of human nature will never be able to see Socionics. If you don't have the experiences that allow us to have common ground, then yeah, talking is useless. People who don't hang out around people very much and people who don't understand other people are not going to get Socionics because they don't have a base of observation to work from. That's why they appeal to writers: because they can't do it themselves.

I can understand people saying, "You know, your experience/observation doesn't fit with my own so I'm not gonna accept what you say." That's fine. It's when people say, "You're wrong because this writer disagrees with you." That gets me riled up because it proves they aren't actually doing Socionics.

I was never saying that all IEEs are the same, that they're all hucksters and all bad people.. Yeah, manipulation is something everyone does. @Bertrand and I were just talking about stuff we've seen with some IEEs we've come across. People like to blow shit like that up because they assume we're making categorical statements but we're not.

[silke]

lol
If you don't care for theory but prefer inventing your own stuff then is useless any kind of discussion with you because there is zero common ground to even define something. The stuff you were saying is not defined as Huxley traits by any modern socionist. You are defining huxley as something you created not how its defined by socionists.

Well if actual people corresponded 100% to the profiles written by socionists we would have no trouble typing them. That doesn't happen to be the case, as anyone can see from the Famous People typing threads.

As for IEEs whether they are genuine or deceptive it depends entirely on their person. There's nothing within Model A that sentences them to being disingenuous right off the bat. I did have an IEE housemate who spun multiple lies attempting to get her way through deception, and an IEE housemate who kept natural and genuine. There was a major conflict between these two IEE girls, but eventually the lying IEE was chased away. So essentially it's up to the individual what methods they choose to express their type and whether those methods involve deception of others. It's not a property of the type.

[Hope]

I'm not inventing my own stuff. I'm telling other people about my personal experiences with different people of different types and creating a model based on that. That's exactly what Aushra and all the other socionists have done. Simply saying that a model doesn't match reality and needs to be amended based on new observation isn't just an act of definition out of nothing. You're acting as if the theory created by Aushra is more authoritative than the observable phenomenon on which it was based. This is exactly the problem with Socionics: too many people theorizing and not enough observation. That's how you get a useless and inaccurate model of reality.

Maybe you think Socionics isn't actually real. That it doesn't exist except as a model that categorizes superficial behavior. Perhaps that's the problem. I dunno.

You are inventing since your observations doesnt match those from others ( neither socionists theorists from all ages).

I think socionics is real, because I've observed it and my observations match most theory, that's why I concluded it was real (otherwise, I would be believing in something I call socionics but its not socionics anymore but my own stuff). Its you the one who treats it in a superficial way, associating traits you dislike with ppl from the opposite quadra, just because you think you are beta now (previously you were self typing IEE), so that doesnt help the credibility of your observations either.

[Hope]

Well if actual people corresponded 100% to the profiles written by socionists we would have no trouble typing them. That doesn't happen to be the case, as anyone can see from the Famous People typing threads.

As for IEEs whether they are genuine or deceptive it depends entirely on their person. There's nothing within Model A that sentences them to being disingenuous right off the bat. I did have an IEE housemate who spun multiple lies attempting to get her way through deception, and an IEE housemate who kept natural and genuine. There was a major conflict between these two IEE girls, but eventually the lying IEE was chased away. So essentially it's up to the individual what methods they choose to express their type and whether those methods involve deception of others. It's not a property of the type.

Ppl have problems typing famous ppl because they don't even know them personally, then bunch don't even read theory neither descriptions but attach stuff to certain types without even considering if their observations match those from others or theory.

Finally the case of IEE being deceptive or not was not the topic, but Aramas attaching certain traits to them (like social manipulation through religion or politics to get support and money) that doesnt match my experience, the experience from famous socionists, not even basic theory.

[ooo]

there are many valid points here, we can't stick to theory as if the Bible, and we really need to develop our own understanding of how socionics rules and exceptions work, by studying the various theories out there and applying them to our own world; probably this will mean that, in the end, two people will have different definitions for the very same functions, and supposing that they're prepared, both definitions could be right because they'll be built around what terms and particularities fit better to the understanding of the people using them... this is "natural", it applies everywhere, and it's even one of the main focus of the original Jungian typing work, there's no ultimate "right approach", just approaches that fit better to how I see the world...

now my problem, being the cranky ass I am around here, is that if someone starts to sell me that "Ne is idiotioc" (because I'm Ni), "Ni looks dumb" (because I'm Ni polr), "T types don't smile" (because paralysis), "F can't think" (only I can do that!), well, then I prefer reading Jung and Augusta, with all of their bad outdated stereotypes, because at least they weren't supporting such nonsense.. and because the system we're using revolves around ideas that they themselves have outlined, so, obviously, they knew a bit better.

Aramas I enjoyed reading your analysis but unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of the points you make, in terms of drug consumption, in terms of Se types being the most scattered, in terms of the two dyads completely excluding each other's feedback etc,,,

my idea is that we're more well rounded beings than what socionics suggest, we're not just attracted to matching types, and we can have stronger DS or Polr than what is suggested by dimensionality or official theory, ok, but despite all of these considerations, when it comes to typing someone we can't rely on some silly personal stereotypes, they just do more bad than good.

[Bertrand]

Aushra is wrong. She was a great historical figure who started Socionics, but Socionics has progressed beyond her. Same thing with Jung. They were great for their time, but nobody should be quoting them as if that proves anything.

I do think they're not all wrong, and can be used for historical context, but I think your point is they are not God either, i.e.: the last word on everything. I don't think even they would want to be treated as such. They both knew how much more needed to be done in any case. Just look at Jung's introduction to Erich Neumann's work

jung.jpg

people don't realize what an adventure it is, they get caught up in perception of being right and lose track of actually searching for whats right. its a journey and people should not be discouraged for admitting they don't know something or doubling back along the way. there is a spirit to the pursuit itself that is noble and it gets trampled on when people concern themselves with only "being right" and "consistent" in the most static, obtuse and anti-intellectual way. people should embark on the journey with wonder in their hearts and instead there's just a bunch of cynicism and stale, worn out, corrupt orthodoxy at every turn. its just cowardice at bottom

[Aramas]

there are many valid points here, we can't stick to theory as if the Bible, and we really need to develop our own understanding of how socionics rules and exceptions work, by studying the various theories out there and applying them to our own world; probably this will mean that, in the end, two people will have different definitions for the very same functions, and supposing that they're prepared, both definitions could be right because they'll be built around what terms and particularities fit better to the understanding of the people using them... this is "natural", it applies everywhere, and it's even one of the main focus of the original Jungian typing work, there's no ultimate "right approach", just approaches that fit better to how I see the world...

now my problem, being the cranky ass I am around here, is that if someone starts to sell me that "Ne is idiotioc" (because I'm Ni), "Ni looks dumb" (because I'm Ni polr), "T types don't smile" (because paralysis), "F can't think" (only I can do that!), well, then I prefer reading Jung and Augusta, with all of their bad outdated stereotypes, because at least they weren't supporting such nonsense.. and because the system we're using revolves around ideas that they themselves have outlined, so, obviously, they knew a bit better.

Aramas I enjoyed reading your analysis but unfortunately I can't agree with a lot of the points you make, in terms of drug consumption, in terms of Se types being the most scattered, in terms of the two dyads completely excluding each other's feedback etc,,,

my idea is that we're more well rounded beings than what socionics suggest, we're not just attracted to matching types, and we can have stronger DS or Polr than what is suggested by dimensionality or official theory, ok, but despite all of these considerations, when it comes to typing someone we can't rely on some silly personal stereotypes, they just do more bad than good.

Sounds like a Delta perspective to me. Lol. Nice hint of rhetoric in there too. ;)

[End]

Ya did the unreadable text brick again @Bertrand. Make those words easier on the eyes so that more people will actually read all of you and thus get influenced by you in the way you hoped for. Ya probably hate my guts for grinding you for this but I really am trying to help ya out.

Format matters, just like chords and steps matter in a musical song. You got the lyrics and they're good, but ya gotta put em' together (or in your case, space them out) in the right way. The timing and tone, the cadence of the song, get that for your own sake as well as everyone else's. You do want to effectively communicate your ideas right?

[Lord Pixel]

This is absolutely right.

In my experience, Ne types tend to enjoy the consideration of alternatives. They often like to say, "Well, think about this. What about that? What about this other thing over here? I'm not really sure. Maybe this other thing over here. What about that perspective? I don't know."

Se creatives really want to have a single-pointedness of mind. They don't seem to enjoy so much consideration about alternatives. The problem they acquire, though, if they pursue this single-pointedness of mind too severely, is that they might not realize that the option they chose was wrong. The opposite problem happens when they do nothing but consider alternatives and are never able to achieve that one-minded character that enables them to function effectively.

Probably one of the best song lyrics I've ever heard that demonstrates Se is this: "I live my life in one straight line, the future ahead and the past behind."

Both Se and Ne types can seem similar because they end up doing similar things, trying out various experiences, and so on. But Ne types tend to consider various options and get stuck on the consideration. Se types try something and say, yeah that failed, and yeah that failed too. Oh. Now on to this other thing over here. Ne is kinda like the people who never left home because they could never make up their mind. Negative Se shows itself in trying a lot of stuff out but ending up failing at it all because they never paused for a moment to think about the path they were taking before they took it. They just look at life in retrospect and say, "Gee, I made the wrong damn choice, over and over again." Their lives are more like moving trainwrecks in negative contexts.

There's a lot more I could say about this. I might edit this post in the future.

Both Ne and Se try stuff out. Ne doesn't want to settle, though. And Se wants to find a single path too quickly and settle immediately. Lots of wrong choices are made on the path to success, but that's where the haphazard character of Pe comes from. Ne is more likely to ignore a good option, while Se is more likely to doggedly pursue a bad one.

Se types really would prefer to spend their lives living in one straight line, metaphorically speaking. But those mistakes they make in trying to achieve that goal force them to consider Ne and possibly Ni. Se types really need to learn to stop and think for a moment about what they are doing. Ne needs to learn how to give up other potentially good alternatives for one that might just work.

Se types are blind to how their state of mind affects their chosen course of action. That's why they get a reputation for hardcore druggies: they're always looking for the right state of mind that can be found through Ni. Perhaps success for them doesn't lie in considering Ne but learning how to adjust their mental states according to their needs. Big occultist, Aleister Crowley, engaged in rigorous exploration of many altered states of mind using drugs and Indian practices of meditation. He's a good example because he lived quite a colorful life.

A lot of Se is about obtaining pleasure or a sense of fulfillment. Their problem (one of them) is that they can be doing the right thing for them, but not realize it because they aren't in the right state of mind to be able to get the sense of pleasure or fulfillment from their choice. They end up pursuing a lot of other alternatives, each as unfulfilling as the last, not realizing that the problem is just inside their heads. Or they could be doing the wrong thing for them, but an exalted state of mind leads them to believe that they are doing the right thing. Probably the thing Se needs most in layman's terms is equanimity. Reinin calls it "internal harmony," and that might be right, but I like that word. The power of this equanimity is that all mental states exist in equilibrium with each other and cancel out any potential for a misleading state leading to an incorrect internal feeling from acting on impulse.

LIEs and EIEs have extraordinarily dogged and unmatched focus because they can't be distracted by their own mental states. Want proof? Try to interrupt them sometime. They remain focused on what they're doing, completely unimpeded. They have the Ni necessary to ensure the right mental state and the energy needed to complete actions. They typically choose correctly from the beginning and blaze through life. When they do something, their success comes from the fact that they always have the equanimity needed to ensure that a trial succeeds. Their problem comes about when they miss external, peripheral environmental cues that cannot interfere with their extraordinary internal focus. It's the little ancillary things to whatever task they are focused on that fuck with them. That's their Si polr.

Ne advice doesn't work for Se egos because impulsive trial and error is necessary for them -- contrary to what I said above. They have to learn how to enter the right state of mind to ensure that the response they feel from whatever course of action they take is the right one. That's Ni powering Se. Ne is about conscious consideration. With Ni and Se, there is simply "right mental state" and "action". There is no deliberation. Ne wastes energy for Se egos for this reason. They can't determine a correct path through conscious consideration of alternatives. The more time they spend thinking about alternatives, the less time they can actually try them out.

There are therefore two reasons Se egos fail:
1) Wrong mental state
2) Trying to Ne, usually due to advice from Ne types.

"Think before you do" is pure NeSi. Think and deliberate 99 times and let the one action you take be perfect. You can see how contrary that mode is to NiSe.

This goes both ways though. This picture is a good example of the difference between the 2. The tradeoff of strengths and weaknesses.

Path-to-Success.jpg

The first perspective is more of an Ne-Si perspective. Like you said putting everything in place to get it right the first time. The Second is more of an Se-Ni perspective, trying an approach failing then trying again until it works.

The first approach needs all that Ne deliberation so that they can get it right the first time. The Second approach needs all that Se perseverance so that they do not give up after a failure. The First approach may be smoother but they only have one shot. the second approach may be more resilient but it takes much longer. Those are the trade offs for their strengths.

I can see how Se fails when given "Stop and think "advice. And Ne fails when given the "Just do it" "advice. Without time to stop and deliberate and think of all the ways something can go and place everything in place, Ne thinks they are going down the failure path because they have no reason to think they are gonna succeed if they haven't thought it through yet and collected evidence one why they would succeed. So someone pushing an Ne to Se is irritating, pressuring, and asking them to essentially be irresponsible because they are being asked to act without thinking out the consequences of their actions first. Especially someone with 1D Se this does not work well with and will cause major irritation. Advice like "Just take a leap of faith." "Be confident" all that reads to me as BS, because I need to look before I leap, and I need evidence to be confident, or else I'm leaping expecting to die, and I am faking confidence. I need to see the road to success, that's the only way I can even dare to take the road, otherwise to me their isn't a road yet. Not see success and then try and get their aimlessly. I got one shot, better make it count.

Also Se sometimes likes to tell you "Push harder, try harder." And Ne doesn't need that advice as well, because Ne is like "If I'm doing the WRONG thing trying harder or pushing harder won't help, if I was doing this the RIGHT way I wouldn't even need to push harder."

Two reasons Ne egos fail:
1) Haven't thought things through
2) Trying to Se, usually due to advice from Se types.

[Bertrand]

lets not confuse Ne with thinking

"I mean really just think about it" is just as often a Ni Ti statement. thinking is rational judgement, and intuition abstract perception

slowing down is a time component, Ne doesn't necessarily slow down to "think".. it often works offensively to slow other people down by barraging them with possibilities, but the person subjecting the other person to them is moving super fast and just throwing stuff out there. if they really thought about it they might realize how dumb such tactics often are, because it wastes people's time and puts the burden on others to think for them. this often is a form of selfishness masquerading as open mindedness and a concern for truth or wellbeing of others

[Lord Pixel]

lets not confuse Ne with thinking

"I mean really just think about it" is just as often a Ni Ti statement. thinking is rational judgement, and intuition abstract perception

slowing down is a time component, Ne doesn't necessarily slow down to "think".. it often works offensively to slow other people down by barraging them with possibilities, but the person subjecting the other person to them is moving super fast and just throwing stuff out there. if they really thought about it they might realize how dumb such tactics often are, because it wastes people's time and puts the burden on others to think for them. this often is a form of selfishness masquerading as open mindedness and a concern for truth or wellbeing of others

I'm talking about considering the possibilities. If I do this X Y Z could happen. Aramas just said Se doesn't do this, and that seems to be the difference. Ne tries to tell Se to consider X Y Z, Se doesn't work that way. Se tries to tell Ne to do X to make Z happen, but Ne is like how do you know that will happen what if Y happens, and Ne has to make sure Z will happen before they do X.

[Bertrand]

Se doesn't do that so much as Ti or Te, in other words, that xyz can''t happen is usually built into the rational component. sort of like what if pigs could fly.. so this whole idea of what is possible and what is thinking are interrelated but its confused to blend them when it comes down to judgement v perception, Ne views things as possible that may very well be, in fact, impossible on the level of rationality; and "thinking" reinforces, not changes, that, in Ne polr types--that's the whole point. transforming Ne into a form of judgement undercuts the validity of xSI in a pernicious way

[Lord Pixel]

Se doesn't do that so much as Ti or Te, in other words, that xyz can''t happen is usually built into the rational component. sort of like what if pigs could fly.. so this whole idea of what is possible and what is thinking are interrelated but its confused to blend them when it comes down to judgement v perception, Ne views things as possible that may very well be, in fact, impossible on the level of rationality; and "thinking" reinforces, not changes, that, in Ne polr types--that's the whole point. transforming Ne into a form of judgement undercuts the validity of xSI in a pernicious way

I don't know about impossible all the time. Ne will push the possibilities though, play against odds if you will, place consideration in very slight chances, which I will admit can be annoying if priority is placed on very very very very very slight chances tot he point of being impossible. But that's because Ne wants everything that's on the table, if it's possible, even slightly possible it might be considered. So if I want a job, I could apply for it, which is what an Se user would tell me, I could talk to people I know at the company if I know any, if I don't I could try and find some contact on the internet, or make something to get the companies attention. But I think Se would stop at just telling me to apply, and Ne coupled with Si would consider that applying hasn't always been 100% effective and Ne and probably Te would seek out another maybe even more effective solution. I will say that what I said is more of a case of Te or even Ti asserting Se action. And when Se-Ni says XYZ can't happen, that is just prompting Ne to figure out a way it can, unless it truly is impossible like pigs can't fly, unless you put a jet pack on them lol, but in everyday conversations heinous topics like that aren't the norm when talking about something serious. Ne searches for alternatives, if you are trying to kill alternatives then you are essentially working against the Ne process. The more you narrow and say this can't happen the more Ne looks for what can happen. I'm sorry if I'm preaching to the choir here.

[Bertrand]

everything is very slightly possible if you take rationality off the table, couching it in terms of it being valid albeit unlikely is misleading, because everything is allowed in if you're willing to entertain heads in jars and so forth, which is what this sort of Ne amounts to (i.e: it is a lie to suggest likeliness is a controlling factor). it shouldn't be dignified with any sort of capacity as a rational judgement, which is what you're trying to attach to it by giving it odds or presupposing it could in fact be the case but a case presupposes limitations that shapes it and with pure Ne there are none. in other words, you're acting if there's an up or down in assessing it that way and it conforms to laws, when in fact it does not. your entire point seems to rely on "yeah but I wouldn't do that" which basically says "I know whats genuinely real and if that explodes some other person's rational world so be it"-- at least be honest. when you do that you believing that about yourself doesn't make it true, and Se proceeds to make that known in a way that is undeniable. if Se + rationality were not possible whatever their response is should not be possible, in essence Se proves to Ne types what exactly is real and what exactly is possible in a way that is not speculative. so the warning is to Ne types if they want to speculate about certain thing they run very real risks because although nothing is real to them and its all fun and games its not always fun and games for the people who have to put up with it. this sort of intellectual debate over the honor of Ne is just a subset of that kind of maneuvering that eventually will run its course as soon as someone really puts their foot down

[Lord Pixel]

everything is very slightly possible if you take rationality off the table, couching it in terms of it being valid albeit unlikely is misleading, because everything is allowed in if you're willing to entertain heads in jars and so forth, which is what this sort of Ne amounts to (i.e: it is a lie to suggest likeliness is a controlling factor). it shouldn't be dignified with any sort of capacity as a rational judgement, which is what you're trying to attach to it by giving it odds or presupposing it could in fact be the case but a case presupposes limitations that shapes it and with pure Ne there are none. in other words, you're acting if there's an up or down in assessing it that way and it conforms to laws, when in fact it does not. your entire point seems to rely on "yeah but I wouldn't do that" which basically says "I know whats genuinely real and if that explodes some other person's rational world so be it"-- at least be honest. when you do that you believing that about yourself doesn't make it true, and Se proceeds to make that known in a way that is undeniable. if Se + rationality were not possible whatever their response is should not be possible, in essence Se proves to Ne types what exactly is real and what exactly is possible in a way that is not speculative. so the warning is to Ne types if they want to speculate about certain thing they run very real risks because although nothing is real to them and its all fun and games its not always fun and games for the people who have to put up with it. this sort of intellectual debate over the honor of Ne is just a subset of that kind of maneuvering that eventually will run its course as soon as someone really puts their foot down

People don't always know they are blowing up someone's rationale by simply point out alternatives. Ne by itself sure it can go crazy into pretend land, that's why Ne needs Si to provide concrete data so Ne's what ifs are based on something real. I agree Se does provide what's real and only the real, but what's in front of you isn't the only thing that exists and that's what Ne is trying to find, the things that don't exist. They can work against each other that way yea. And your perspective sounds like it comes from a place of "I really hate Ne because ____." Which I think is probably a common attitude towards one's own PoLR but I don't hate Ne and I don't agree with it being this horrible thing you present it as, like you emphasize the crap side of it, perhaps because it is your PoLR. Se undeniable reality to me is helpful and useful, and also can be boringly restricting and lacking imagination which is essentially the whole point of Se, to get rid of all imagination and speculation, it's not Se's job to do that it's Ne's job, and it's not so much as honoring Ne as it is valuing Ne. Yea someone could put their Se foot down and say "Wake up Kid, this is the real world!" Until Se runs out of ideas and needs Ne to come up with a different approach. Or Se falls flat on it's face because essentially they would have never thought of that weird Ne way of doing something.

[Bertrand]

first of all, its hard to imagine a person not knowing they're blowing up another persons rationale within the context of a disagreement, because thats what a disagreement is

the main thing is they tend to think "they're helping" mainly because they have no concept of up or down to begin with so help becomes nothing but a pretense to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. this is the great scam, they don't know what's what and are trying to pass it off as something of substance, when the only reason they can do so in the first place is because theyre either ignorant or stupid. they pre-define themselves as in the right and assume whatever flows from that must be valid. thats the entire problem, of course from that angle it appears like they're helping, because theyve reserved for themselves the sole power to define the whole world. Ne is nothing but an amorphous mess in this way, because it demands the person sign over their own right to define their own parameters governing reality on nothing more than someone elses own misplaced self confidence. the upshot to this is these people are actually completely incapable of effecting this transfer without another person's consent, so its of no moment that Ne person is arrogant because person B can always simply dissociate and no difference is made. the truth is they are right in some sense, which is they are helpless, but only people looking for pets see that as something worth paying for the privilege of looking after. meanwhile these are the same people who hate taxes and whatever else because its not really about caring for someone and letting them do whatever, its about controlling another concrete human being who makes them feel smart and powerful by being helpless around them. its just a meaningless exchange of weaknesss, which requires up and down go away to effect a codependent relationship between people otherwise incapable of sustaining a relationship. in essence they've decided to depart into their own world together, which is fine, but lets not confuse this for something noble or correct. it fobs off the responsibility for everything real on everyone else, but at the same time they create the backdrop needed to contextualize meaning for everyone else by providing the example of how not to be. its like setting cattle out to pasture, but then they always seem surprised when every once in awhile one gets eaten. its like, and here I thought they knew everything because they presented themselves as such

[Lord Pixel]

first of all, its hard to imagine a person not knowing they're blowing up another persons rationale within the context of a disagreement, because thats what a disagreement is

the main thing is they tend to think "they're helping" mainly because they have no concept of up or down to begin with so help becomes nothing but a pretense to do whatever they wanted to do in the first place. this is the great scam, they don't know what's what and are trying to pass it off as something of substance, when the only reason they can do so in the first place is because theyre either ignorant or stupid. they pre-define themselves as in the right and assume whatever flows from that must be valid. that's the entire problem, of course from that angle it appears like they're helping, because theyve reserved for themselves the sole power to define the whole world. Ne is nothing but an amorphous mess in this way, because it demands the person sign over their own right to define their own parameters governing reality on nothing more than someone elses own misplaced self confidence. the upshot to this is these people are actually completely incapable of effecting this transfer without another person's consent, so its of no moment that Ne person is arrogant because person B can always simply dissociate and no difference is made. the truth is they are right in some sense, which is they are helpless, but only people looking for pets see that as something worth paying for the privilege of looking after. meanwhile these are the same people who hate taxes and whatever else because its not really about caring for someone and letting them do whatever, its about controlling another concrete human being who makes them feel smart and powerful by being helpless around them. its just a meaningless exchange of weaknesss, which requires up and down go away to effect a codependent relationship between people otherwise incapable of sustaining a relationship. in essence they've decided to depart into their own world together, which is fine, but lets not confuse this for something noble or correct. it fobs off the responsibility for everything real on everyone else, but at the same time they create the backdrop needed to contextualize meaning for everyone else by providing the example of how not to be. its like setting cattle out to pasture, but then they always seem surprised when every once in awhile one gets eaten. its like, and here I thought they knew everything because they presented themselves as such

If someone is just pointing out alternatives, how does that mean they are intentionally blowing up someone' rationale.

Idk, but you got a perspective that hates Ne, I don't know what kind of help your talking about, other than just point out an alternative. All this other stuff just sounds like you hate a whole type and think it shouldn't exist.