Extroverted Sensing

[hellothere]

okay so I kind of understand why for example, , "internal dynamics of objects", is related to "internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content".

But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me

[marooned]

okay so I kind of understand why for example, , "internal dynamics of objects", is related to "internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content".

What I don't understand about this idea of is that it mainly refers to *emotions* in people, or animals etc. It can also refer to personifying inanimate objects and perceiving this sort of emotional information from them. Okay, it doesn't have to strictly be emotion... other internal states you mentioned work as well. The problem is that with, say, an inanimate object... you wouldn't actually be picking up on its own internal states would you? I mean you're just projecting your own concept of human/animal internal states onto it it seems? Actually, scratch that, I often get an abstract sense of how my computer is "feeling" that doesn't necessarily involve me projecting human characteristics onto it, but trying to see it from the point of view of my computer, a non-human, non-"conscious" entity. Okay, maybe I'm clear on this.

But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

I was wondering the exact same thing. is supposedly aware of desire, power structures, has to do with motive/will/motivation, territory, possession, blah, blah, blah... Are these all somehow external objects??? Somehow this must arise out of the external object statics thing (like be a byproduct of it or transcendent quality of it).

Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me.

I thought Niffweed did a good job of explaining this when he said

Te information is not "this ball weighs 30 kg and has a radius of 5 m." that information could be considered Te, but it's a very poor example because its just a factoid and is not important.

Te is much more easily considered under the guise of efficiency. a short example in the sort of way that you're looking for might be more along the lines of "this ball weighs 30 kg. it was produced by Michael & Sons. Co., which makes very cheap, quality balls. if one throws the ball at a window, for example, it is likely to break the window. however, a ball produced by the competing ball manufacturer BallCo. is generally made out of copper rather than aluminum, making it far less effective as a tool for breaking windows."

seems to be information about the "objects" themselves (which is facts in a way).

seems to be more about what the objects are doing or can be used for... I also think it perceives events in terms of what the objects were doing when... out of this arises a sort of logic about the most efficent ways to use or apply the objects (fact-based logic).

But, I am *really* curious about how external statics of objects has to do with all of these things like motivation and will power that are often associated with . I feel like I can almost get my finger on something about it, but not quite...

[hellothere]

I thought Niffweed did a good job of explaining this when he said


seems to be information about the "objects" themselves (which is facts in a way).

seems to be more about what the objects are doing or can be used for... I also think it perceives events in terms of what the objects were doing when... out of this arises a sort of logic about the most efficent ways to use or apply the objects (fact-based logic).

Yeah, niffweed's explanation of to me is consistent with "external dynamics of objects". But "facts", in general use of the term, strike me as more about the 'statics' of an object (also about the 'dynamics', but more often about the 'statics'). If anything, it seems to me that "facts" should be associated with BOTH Te and Se.

[Joy]

I dislike the word "fact".

Part of the way Te in the ego block manifests itself is through gathering useful information. Te types have a large focus on effectiveness and (more so with Te dominants I think) efficiency, and this generally means gathering as much, and only as much, data as is necessary.

[marooned]

^yeah, I've been using the word "fact" for the sake of convenience, trying to find a word to get at what I see as being sort of...

But yeah, I think both your and Hellothere's remarks about how using "fact" in regards to is rather "off" are quite valid points.

[Joy]

Yeah. Utilization of information is only part of what Te is about. One of the easiest ways to understand Te, imo, is to compare it to Fe. Fe is about the internal dynamics of objects, that is, what's going on beneath the surface of a person, thing, situation, etc. (Though obviously we can't use one information element by itself, so there are other functions that we also use while processing the same person, things, situation, etc.)

The most common example is being aware of changes taking place in the emotional atmosphere of a situation. If you compare that to Te, external dynamics of objects, you can get an idea of what Te is. While Fe is seeing what's beneath the surface, Te is seeing what's readily apparent. Fe sees that the woman is upset. Te sees that she's stomping out of the room.

[hellothere]

Yeah. Utilization of information is only part of what Te is about. One of the easiest ways to understand Te, imo, is to compare it to Fe. Fe is about the internal dynamics of objects, that is, what's going on beneath the surface of a person, thing, situation, etc. (Though obviously we can't use one information element by itself, so there are other functions that we also use while processing the same person, things, situation, etc.)

The most common example is being aware of changes taking place in the emotional atmosphere of a situation. If you compare that to Te, external dynamics of objects, you can get an idea of what Te is. While Fe is seeing what's beneath the surface, Te is seeing what's readily apparent. Fe sees that the woman is upset. Te sees that she's stomping out of the room.

Then how can you use Fe without using Te? Seeing what is beneath the surface requires you to see what is on the surface first - through the woman's behaviour you infer that she is upset

[Joy]

Then how can you use Fe without using Te? Seeing what is beneath the surface requires you to see what is on the surface first - through the woman's behaviour you infer that she is upset

Like I said, obviously we can't use one information element by itself, so there are other functions that we also use while processing the same person, things, situation, etc.

Without Se, you can't see that's it's a woman. Without Ti, you can't understand what a woman is (in contrast to a man or a girl or a female giraffe). Without Ni, you may not be able to piece together the events that led to her anger. Without Fi, you can't understand that her relationship with her boyfriend just ended. Perhaps without Ne you may not realize that she may be too drunk to drive, even though you didn't see her have more than one? Without Si... hmm... you may not realize that she left without her coat and will be very cold? And so on.

[hellothere]

Like I said, obviously we can't use one information element by itself, so there are other functions that we also use while processing the same person, things, situation, etc.

Without Se, you can't see that's it's a woman. Without Ti, you can't understand what a woman is (in contrast to a man or a girl or a female giraffe). Without Ni, you may not be able to piece together the events that led to her anger. Without Fi, you can't understand that her relationship with her boyfriend just ended. Perhaps without Ne you may not realize that she may be too drunk to drive, even though you didn't see her have more than one? Without Si... hmm... you may not realize that she left without her coat and will be very cold? And so on.

but I didn't think you could use and together

[Joy]

But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

Well, you don't have to. There does tend to be a focus on strength in the manifestation of Se in the ego block though. I think it's because strength is one of the things Se sees, so it stands out to them. Se is one of the centers through which reality is primarily processed.

[Joy]

but I didn't think you could use and together

You can't have both Te and Fe in your ego block, but we all use all of our functions. I'd even go as far as to say that we all use all of our functions pretty much all of the time we're processing information.

[marooned]

it does seem like things like and might be inversely related though... sort of like as use of one goes up, use of the other goes down... maybe neither is actually ever "off" entirely, but could be just "low."

Maybe it's like with the woman getting upset example... the brain itself pulls in a whole bunch of information on that... but then it has to organize it (the brain distrorts/organizes all incoming data).

A leading person when thinking back on the encounter might remember what the woman was saying, how her voice kept getting louder, have some sort of logical assessment of this, and remember that she then stormed out of the room.

An leading person might remember the emotional atmosphere getting increasingly "stormy" and have a perception of the womans emotions becoming stronger and stronger, as she became increasingly upset, and finally it all burst and she stormed out of the room.

The same sort of data (roughly) went into both people's brains, but their brains *processed* it differently in terms of what the brain thought was important and not important, and what sort of information it needed to come to its own "unique" comprehension of the situaiton.

Edit: or the *perception* on the incoming data differed with each person... I mean there's a lot of ways to percieve that data, and the brain has to pretty much just go with one of them, unless you want to go insane.

[hellothere]

A leading person when thinking back on the encounter might remember what the woman was saying, how her voice kept getting louder, have some sort of logical assessment of this, and remember that she then stormed out of the room.

An leading person might remember the emotional atmosphere getting increasingly "stormy" and have a perception of the womans emotions becoming stronger and stronger, as she became increasingly upset, and finally it all burst and she stormed out of the room.

The same sort of data (roughly) went into both people's brains, but their brains *processed* it differently in terms of what the brain thought was important and not important, and what sort of information it needed to come to its own "unique" comprehension of the situaiton.

It's interesting though that what the leading person might remember seems less "processed" than what the leading person remembers... which makes sense since Te is external dynamics and Fe is internal dynamics. I guess what I'm trying to get at, is it seems that Te sees what is and remembers that; Fe sees what is (Te?), processes, and then infers what is going on below

[marooned]

What if and both see the same thing, but they each interpret something different from it?

Also what I said might be slanted towards an perception, over-simplifying or glazing over the one.

[Joy]

A leading person when thinking back on the encounter might remember what the woman was saying, how her voice kept getting louder, have some sort of logical assessment of this, and remember that she then stormed out of the room.

An leading person might remember the emotional atmosphere getting increasingly "stormy" and have a perception of the womans emotions becoming stronger and stronger, as she became increasingly upset, and finally it all burst and she stormed out of the room.

The same sort of data (roughly) went into both people's brains, but their brains *processed* it differently in terms of what the brain thought was important and not important, and what sort of information it needed to come to its own "unique" comprehension of the situaiton.

Yes, good explanation. (Volume would be a Se thing. The activity of raising one's voice would be a Te thing.)

[Mediator Kam]

What if and both see the same thing, but they each interpret something different from it?

Great question.

[hellothere]

What if and both see the same thing, but they each interpret something different from it?

Also what I said might be slanted towards an perception, over-simplifying or glazing over the one.

okay then Joy, could you explain it in a way that doesn't make seem like they are not "interpreting" at all? It seems like they are just recalling what they saw (exception is the "logical assessment of this")

[Joy]

What if and both see the same thing, but they each interpret something different from it?

Theoretically, I think we "see" with our irrational functions and "understand/decide" with our rational functions.

Also what I said might be slanted towards an perception, over-simplifying or glazing over the one.

Perhaps, but we were trying to be somewhat minimalistic so it was fitting.

[hellothere]

okay using this:

Input (what is observed through the five senses)
|
|
V
Processing (?)
|
|
V
Output (what is remembered, what is thought of as important, the decision/understanding that is arrived at)

It is easier for me to see how the Fe type's 'output' is different to the 'input', and consequently, that there is some processing going on. But what about for the type? The output seems to be too similar to the input, as if there is no processing going on at all.

[Joy]

okay then Joy, could you explain it in a way that doesn't make seem like they are not "interpreting" at all? It seems like they are just recalling what they saw (exception is the "logical assessment of this")

The Te person may think "oh great, now everyone's gonna be talking about that and I won't get to discuss something I've been wanting to talk to my friend about" (while Fe may thing "oh great, now everyone's tense and the atmosphere is going to be less enjoyable"... or something like that) or "hmmm she was supposed to give some people a ride home, and now they're going to be stranded, so I'll either have to give arrange a ride home for them or let them stay here".

(But again, we can't use one information element by itself, so there are other functions that we also use while processing the same person, things, situation, etc.)

[tcaudilllg]

Se perceives all of those ways that objects can interact with each other without changing each other. For example, if you knock a cue ball into an 8-ball while playing pool, then the cue ball has interacted with the 8-ball without actually changing it: it has imparted its force, and some of its momentum, onto the 8-ball. Momentum, force, impulse, velocity: all of these are Se. Se is the means by which one apprehends the physical world.

[Logos]

Then how can you use Fe without using Te? Seeing what is beneath the surface requires you to see what is on the surface first - through the woman's behaviour you infer that she is upset

Technically they are not, but this is why a -leading type will have a role, because they will weakly be able to pick up an understanding of what is going on in the sphere through their active use of and vice versa. A similar pattern can be seen in almost all the functions ( & , & , & ). Both and types are focused on external dynamics, so it cannot be helped that they pick up a bit of each other's aspects of reality.

[hellothere]

Technically they are not, but this is why a -leading type will have a role, because they will weakly be able to pick up an understanding of what is going on in the sphere through their active use of and vice versa.

but, from the way it has been described, the relationship between and seems to be asymmetrical, in that you need to see what is on the surface before you can infer what is beneath the surface, but you don't need to see what is beneath the surface before you can see what is on the surface.

edit: and I thought Fe was focused on internal dynamics, not external dynamics

[hellothere]

Se perceives all of those ways that objects can interact with each other without changing each other. For example, if you knock a cue ball into an 8-ball while playing pool, then the cue ball has interacted with the 8-ball without actually changing it: it has imparted its force, and some of its momentum, onto the 8-ball. Momentum, force, impulse, velocity: all of these are Se. Se is the means by which one apprehends the physical world.

could you relate this back to "external statics of objects"? Some of that strikes me as relating to dynamics and/or fields (which is a probably a reflection of my misunderstanding)

[Logos]

but, from the way it has been described, the relationship between and seems to be asymmetrical, in that you need to see what is on the surface before you can infer what is beneath the surface, but you don't need to see what is beneath the surface before you can see what is on the surface.

Somewhat, since is focused on the body language, verbal cues, and emotional content it does not always pick up, focus on, or remember the overall picture of actions. But with , it is focused on the picture of actions, and through it will pick up a weak vibe of the atmosphere. And while sees the , that does not necessarily mean that it readily processes as easily.

edit: and I thought Fe was focused on internal dynamics, not external dynamics

Then just change that bit about "external dynamics" to "dynamics of objects."

[marooned]

In response to what Tcauldillg (sp, sorry) said, perhaps...

seems to lead to a perception of the utility of objects, what can be done with them, and the most effective/efficient/productive ways of using them *because* it perceives the external dynamics of them. It knows what they do and therefore what can be done with them.

(by analogy) may perceive the strength/weakness of objects, how far you can push them, how much pressure you can apply to them, etc. and have them still retain their "static" form. It knows about this because it knows the static external properties of the objects. Motivation for instance can be seen as a form of "pushing," i.e. in what way do you need to push this object to get it to do what you want it to do, while still allowing it to maintain its form?

But then, what does have to do with an awareness of what one *wants* in terms of the external statics of objects?

[hellothere]

seems to lead to a perception of the utility of objects, what can be done with them, and the most effective/efficient/productive ways of using them *because* it perceives the external dynamics of them. It knows what they do and therefore what can be done with them.

(by analogy) may perceive the strength/weakness of objects, how far you can push them, how much pressure you can apply to them, etc. and have them still retain their "static" form. It knows about this because it knows the static external properties of the objects. Motivation for instance can be seen as a form of "pushing," i.e. in what way do you need to push this object to get it to do what you want it to do, while still allowing it to maintain its form?

ah it is finally starting to make sense now!

[FDG]

okay so I kind of understand why for example, , "internal dynamics of objects", is related to "internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content".

But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me

You don't, you're perfectly right and to the point. Read Jung's description of (or Herzy's self-description for the matter, which is perfectly equivalent) for a better glimpse to what Se-dominance is like. Nowadays it has been skewed towards power and aggression, but those are just forms that can be taken by Se just as much as they can be taken by Te. If you want to make a person do something there are many means available and aggression is only one of them. However, Se people don't necessarily want to make other people do things, it's just that this behavior is the most relevant in terms of human interactions.

But then, what does have to do with an awareness of what one *wants* in terms of the external statics of objects?

Well, quoting from Jung:

Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete. [p. 459]

There is no ulterior motive due to extraverted sensing. When something is seen and heard, everything is done. The motivation you're (naturally) looking for is provided by the equivalently simmetrical function , which not by chance is your dominant.

On the differences between Te and Fe: Te transforms a not-well-defined function into a well-defined function (Si), Fe transforms a well-defined function into a not-well-defined one. This is part of the reason why they cannot work together: Fe takes in strict information and transforms it into comprehensive and open-ended information, Te takes into comprehensive and open-ended information and transforms it into strict information. This is why Fe types are sometimes accused of "clouding issues" by Te types, and Te types are criticized as being "rude" by Fe types. In this sense both versions are completely right.

[Joy]

Se perceives all of those ways that objects can interact with each other without changing each other. For example, if you knock a cue ball into an 8-ball while playing pool, then the cue ball has interacted with the 8-ball without actually changing it: it has imparted its force, and some of its momentum, onto the 8-ball. Momentum, force, impulse, velocity: all of these are Se. Se is the means by which one apprehends the physical world.

I disagree with your description, and I think the root of it is in your definitions of static and dynamic. I think I'm going to start a thread about static and dynamic soon.

[FDG]

Se perceives all of those ways that objects can interact with each other without changing each other. For example, if you knock a cue ball into an 8-ball while playing pool, then the cue ball has interacted with the 8-ball without actually changing it: it has imparted its force, and some of its momentum, onto the 8-ball. Momentum, force, impulse, velocity: all of these are Se. Se is the means by which one apprehends the physical world.

No, this is not right. To make a physical analogy, Se would be geometry and Te would be more akin to what you are describing. Equilibrium analysis is Se domain, Homeostasis and steady-state is Te domain. So if you place a ball onto a table Se will tell you the forces acting on the ball, but it will tend to be more clueless than Te if asked to evaluate what would happen if the ball were to be struck by an human hand. Remember that Se bridges gaps between introverted judging function so it needs a static system to start from, especially in its EP form given that process types go from creative to base function.

[FDG]

okay using this:

Input (what is observed through the five senses)
|
|
V
Processing (?)
|
|
V
Output (what is remembered, what is thought of as important, the decision/understanding that is arrived at)

It is easier for me to see how the Fe type's 'output' is different to the 'input', and consequently, that there is some processing going on. But what about for the type? The output seems to be too similar to the input, as if there is no processing going on at all.

I think you are on the right path, read my previous post on how Fe transits form well-defined to not-well-defined (Si->Fe->Ni) and Te transits in the opposite way (Ni->Te->Si) to understand the differences in input-processing-output.

[marooned]

Well, quoting from Jung:

"Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete." [p. 459]

There is no ulterior motive due to extraverted sensing. When something is seen and heard, everything is done. The motivation you're (naturally) looking for is provided by the equivalently simmetrical function , which not by chance is your dominant.

Okay, so the point is that is focused on "tangible reality" and on these external objects. Because that's where its focus lies, it (or the Se-person) naturally just interacts with these "external objects." So it's like having a "constant motive" at work.

On the other hand, is turned away from "tangible reality" and spends a lot of time in reflection. So for (or the Ni-person) to start acting to any large extent out in the external "sensory" realm, they need to push themselves out in a way (they require motivation).

In this way, would require motivation to spend time in reflection (always wanting to act instead)?

Is motive/motivation a sort of channel between "tangible reality" and the internal state of reflection?

I don't know why Jung made the distinction that it doesn't involve "commanding purpose."

[tcaudilllg]

No, this is not right. To make a physical analogy, Se would be geometry and Te would be more akin to what you are describing. Equilibrium analysis is Se domain, Homeostasis and steady-state is Te domain. So if you place a ball onto a table Se will tell you the forces acting on the ball, but it will tend to be more clueless than Te if asked to evaluate what would happen if the ball were to be struck by an human hand. Remember that Se bridges gaps between introverted judging function so it needs a static system to start from, especially in its EP form given that process types go from creative to base function.

Yes, it is. Te performed the work between the cue ball and the 8-ball. The work itself changed the object's parameters of interaction with the external world: inertia, impulse, force, etc. THESE are Se. Its vector in space and relation to space, these are Se also. Se perceives magnitude, quantity: things that we know to attribute unto objects, but that we know are only apparent in relation to other objects, because the objects themselves do not change along with the static attributes. (yes, it's static, but only in comparison to dynamics: Ni (time) ALLOWS Se to change; Se does not change by itself.)

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[tcaudilllg]

You could look at it as Ni provides the path and direction. And there's a reason why Ni is tied to time, as in the proper time to act - time, direction, path/vision all make sense in that framework. NiFe - which is the better vision to enact, NiTe - which is the more beneficial choice to make. (Play with, correct, switch around these ideas as you wish, just ideas I'm throwing out while taking a break from studying).

That's sound reasoning. Very sound. If you think about it, what is spatial translation other than a path of work through space?

[hellothere]

I think you are on the right path, read my previous post on how Fe transits form well-defined to not-well-defined (Si->Fe->Ni) and Te transits in the opposite way (Ni->Te->Si) to understand the differences in input-processing-output.

On the differences between Te and Fe: Te transforms a not-well-defined function into a well-defined function (Si), Fe transforms a well-defined function into a not-well-defined one. This is part of the reason why they cannot work together: Fe takes in strict information and transforms it into comprehensive and open-ended information, Te takes into comprehensive and open-ended information and transforms it into strict information. This is why Fe types are sometimes accused of "clouding issues" by Te types, and Te types are criticized as being "rude" by Fe types. In this sense both versions are completely right.

Hey thanks for the help, but I don't understand why Te transforms Ni to Si, and Fe transforms Si to Ni. Why is this? Is it a logical consequence of the definitions of Te, Si, Ni, and Fe as IM aspects?

[tcaudilllg]

@FDG:
Would you agree that in the case of communication between objects, Fe is the act of tranferring the transferred content out of the object -- replicating the object's internal content externally -- and Te is the work of communication itself between them?

[FDG]

Hey thanks for the help, but I don't understand why Te transforms Ni to Si, and Fe transforms Si to Ni. Why is this? Is it a logical consequence of the definitions of Te, Si, Ni, and Fe as IM aspects?

Si is perceptive, well-defined, external and given these qualities, its purpose can only be limited in time. Ni is perceptive, not-well-defined, internal and given these qualities it must be not limited in time otherwise it would become immediately useless. Now with Si you can do something, impact the environment, given that it is a sensing function. Si tells you what you can do with the world. Fe tells you what people find important. Ni tells you how to use those skills to build something longer-lasting than Si. A FeSi finds hirself bouncing in life from one project to the next without a particular path to follow. One day, he-she stops and says "what can I create with my skills?". And this way a FeNi is born.

Now from Ni to Te to Si...as above, Ni has something long-lasting already built in itself. A system that is not realized because there is a lack in ability to do so (Si, absent at the peak of Ni). This is where Te comes handy: if we equate Te with doing one's duty, Ni allows an INTp, ENTj to place hirself in a position which allows him to acquire skills via usage of Te because other people need it (Fi). And what are those skills? Simple, Si, so an ISTp, ESTj is born. Notice how the passage from not-well-defined to well-defined is very evident here.

@FDG:
Would you agree that in the case of communication between objects, Fe is the act of tranferring the transferred content out of the object -- replicating the object's internal content externally -- and Te is the work of communication itself between them?

Yeah, I like it.

Yes, it is. Te performed the work between the cue ball and the 8-ball. The work itself changed the object's parameters of interaction with the external world: inertia, impulse, force, etc. THESE are Se. Its vector in space and relation to space, these are Se also. Se perceives magnitude, quantity: things that we know to attribute unto objects, but that we know are only apparent in relation to other objects, because the objects themselves do not change along with the static attributes. (yes, it's static, but only in comparison to dynamics: Ni (time) ALLOWS Se to change; Se does not change by itself.)

Okay, if you put it this way I agree. Pay attention tough that as I explained above, Te comes from Ni and goes to Si. You might be unintentionally overlapping the definitions of Si, Se in your attempt. Still I find it generally correct.

[FDG]

guys, you are just too confused. nothing transforms anything. it's just functions create-send-destroy-modify-etc./receive packets of information and that's it. it's i think ends where blocks stop, i.e. four. there are four blocks and when you are using a function, you are in that block. i think maybe you are basically like physically in one block and the other function that say in another block just get attached to the flow of the information or something at the transactional moment...

I disagree completely, you're the confused one imho.

[Ezra]

But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me

Te is more concerned with that which is dynamic. It's the what, where, who and how to. It's obviously still external, and still based around objects (human beings), but instead of being interested in the qualities of someone as Se is, Te wants to know who is doing what and where and when they are doing it. Te is not interested in willpower. That's a static characteristic of someone. It's about energy levels, and qualities like level of aggression and how powerful a person is are to do with the energy and will of a person. Te and Se are stood in a bar. Te says "what is that man doing?". Se says "he's really fat isn't he. I bet he couldn't fight for his life".