In a Socionics Mood

[silverchris9]

I'm in the mood to do theory. Who's up for serious theory atm?

Like, what the hell is Se? My operational definition is "the function that treats information as though it were sense perception," hence the standard decisiveness and forcefulness associated with Se. But it has to be deeper than that; that's just a stereotype. It's external statics of objects. So it's the most concrete function (well, actually, Te might be the most concrete function, it depends on whether you see the world as essentially static or essentially dynamic, and therefore which is the mental conception and which is reality. I tend to go with reality as fundamentally static and the experience of change as requiring abstraction---that is, the idea that one object is in some way the same even as it undergoes change; two experiences, though they are separated in time, can be of the same object. I see that Platonically, as meaning that one perceives that the two objects, although they have differed slightly; if they have undergone any change in the intervening period, which, at the molecular/atomic level, they absolutely have; as the same object, and therefore the two objects, separated in time, are related to the same abstraction or form, the same mental conception of the object in question. Now there's an area where you could legitimately do socionics-related research on how humans fundamentally perceive reality).

Anyway, Se is, if not the most concrete function, one of the two most concrete functions. What does this imply about Se? Does it matter? And then what about the idea of seeking experience? How do you derive Jung's idea of Se as the type that constantly seeks further sensory experience (in a very E7ish way) from the aspectonics of "external statics of objects"?

This may relate to a metaphor I've been using lately, which is the idea that a function "wants" to treat the world like it's preferred form of information, and wants to maximize the aspects of life that are like that form of information. The best example is Fe: the nature of alpha and beta social environments begins with Fe and builds to more and more Fe, in the sense that you keep the internal dynamic in motion. Fe-egos in a social environment like that are always keeping the energy changing: as soon as everyone settles down from one joke, you have to rush in with another. If you tell a story, it has to build, it has to start in one place and take you to a different place emotionally. Even the theater games I play with my very alpha theater troupe are all about keeping the emotional dynamic going (with an Si twist): you start REALLY BIG AND LOUD and then get really small and quiet, and then you get REALLY BIG AND LOUD again, and so on and so forth. It's all about the dynamic. Each function seeks to maximize itself.

Similarly, Se must in some way want to focus on more and more external static properties of objects. And what are the static properties? Well, the way it feels in the moment, the way it smells in the moment, the way in tastes in the moment. Beta STs, it seems, also find the Fe emotional atmosphere in some way part of the "fact" of the moment (analogous to the way that Te takes certain Fi judgments as established "facts"): the energy of the moment is an external fact, not a sensation of my own body.

This elucidates the basic difference between Se and Si, using another sort of general rule about the functions I like to use. I say the difference between two functions is in where they "want" things, in how they want to program their associations. So Ne-valuers want their mystery as far outside themselves as possible, and eliminate interior mystery as soon as possible. Ni-valuers want their mystery as far inside themselves as possible (one is reminded of Hamlet: "you would pluck out the heart of my mystery"), and eliminate exterior mystery with a quick, "Oh, what's going to happen is x, y and z. Can we move on?" Similarly, Se-valuers want all their sensations as far outside themselves as possible. Hence the desire for constantly new sensations, as a sensation one has experienced before is in some way part of you, or at least, is more part of you than a new exotic sense experience. Perhaps this is one of the main benefits of Ni for Se-egos: by changing the frame of reference (an internal change), they allow the external world to appear new again. And vice versa, by changing the Ni-ego's external world, they change the internal world, insofar as the Ni-ego has to generate a new conceptual framework for this new experience in order to discover more things about it (and tinkering with how one is to understand something, and what one experience brings to bear on another, is one of Ni-egos' favorite activities). On the other hand, Si-valuers want all their sensations as far inside themselves as possible. So they want an internally consistent system of motion that happens inside their bodies, a contained system that engenders positive physical feelings, feelings of contentment and comfort. A closed system, if you will, perfectly in balance. This is analogous to the way that Ni seeks a mental constant (i.e., extrinsic or Platonic form) to underlie change. Similarly, Si seeks a system that is not itself changed (no exterior impact) as the system changes insofar as it goes through its internal processes. A constant "way of being" that produces comfort. In other words, homeostasis. Ne brings balance by preventing stagnation, by ensuring that the system can see new possibilities for increasing comfort. Without Ne, Si-egos therefore have a tendency to stick with what they know, with what works for them, preferring a system that definitely produces comfort to that period of uncertainty between systems (internal Ni uncertainty, insofar as the uncertainty is to that which is at their core, their homeostatic balance). Ne patiently shows that making changes, incorporating new aspects, adding some things and taking away others, can produce even better results, an improved homeostasis if you well.

I sort of got carried away there.

Anyway, these are my ideas of late. Let's do some socionics. Doesn't necessarily need to be about any of that stuff above, but some of that rambling could be a place to start.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Se is directly and purely and calmly, stating what a physical object or situation really is. It's hard to really separate Se/Ni as they are so connected. INFp's Fe will 'Flair the Se' up some though.

Se is Te like in they are both 'matter of fact' like that, so they can't get their duals to stop doubting and second guessing something based on their intellect. How they differ is, as Ashton already stated sort of- Te/Fi is more naturally idealistic. But, they are idealistically defined. Te/Fi is 'Gooey' in the sense that it's very idealistic, Se/Ni is 'Gooey' in the sense that it's very raw. Te/Fi is 'Sharp' in the sense that it's Defined well, Se/Ni is 'Sharp' in the sense that it's physically relateable.

Se/Ni: Realistically raw.
Te/Fi: Idealistically defined.

Ah fuck it. That's my best shot today. I have a headache.

[anndelise]

Regarding Se:
For myself, I tend to view Se as the information about the qualities of concrete objects (objects that we can pick up or manipulate in other ways).

How do we find out information about the concrete objects that are in our world? By doing things to them. We get into a car with gadgets we've never seen before, and we start flipping switches and pushing/pulling knobs and buttons. The action that happens after that lets us know some of the qualities of that car. We'll experiment with how fast the car goes when we press the gas pedal, or how how the car handles when we have to suddenly apply the brakes.

We build up our understanding of the object, though, not by just one information element, but by a combo; in this case
conscious Se + conscious Ti
or conscious Se + conscious Fi
or conscious Se + subconscious Ni
or even subconscious Se + conscious Ni (but here the object isn't the primary focus; though the external behavior may be similar)


I think Se gets its "force" definition because to get the information about the object, you are having to manipulate it, which is generally done manually or mechanically. Part of the qualities of an object is what it does, so you have to get it to DO whatever it DOES.

Add in that a person can be treated as an object as well. So you want to find out the concrete qualities of a person? Get the person to DO something. One way is by a variety of 'rough housing'....here we get friendly (or not so friendly) pushing around, friendly (or not so friendly) punches, etc. The recipient of such behaviors may think the Se info processing is bullying, while the Se person may be thinking "hey, this guy's a good guy, a friend".

I think that this is also how Se gets its "power" definition. Power is used as an example of an object's quality. But how do you determine something's power? By getting it to DO things.


Now, lest people confuse "getting an object to DO something" as being "dynamic", please remember that the qualities being looked for are qualities that are relatively consistent for that object.

Such that "lots of physical strength" is a relatively consistent quality of "large muscular men"; or, as pinocchio/piper once suggested...'lots of rings on the hands' suggests someone who has money and power...such that if an Se person has experienced the association of 'rings on hands' and 'object having money/power', then they will likely view that as a quality of 'rings on hands'. However, if they haven't experienced that, then there won't be that association.

Does Se focus on the changing qualities of an object? Those qualities that are here one moment, and gone the next? And how would one know when the quality is available...or not available at any given time? They would have to utilize an Xi element to help with that. So yes, Se egos can do that...but that doesn't mean 'dynamic Se'.


Oh and one more thing about Se (which applies to the other elements as well). We're talking about information. Information, and how we process it, can influence our behavior, yes. But processing the information does not necessarily mean that the commonly attributed external behavior will show up.
(iow, we can discover Se information by means other than violence, aggression, or strong forcefulness.)

[krieger]

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

[anndelise]

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

how did those preconceptions come into being?
iow, how did the person obtain those preconceptions?

[squark]

I'm in the mood to do theory. Who's up for serious theory atm?

Like, what the hell is Se? My operational definition is "the function that treats information as though it were sense perception," hence the standard decisiveness and forcefulness associated with Se. But it has to be deeper than that; that's just a stereotype. It's external statics of objects. So it's the most concrete function (well, actually, Te might be the most concrete function, it depends on whether you see the world as essentially static or essentially dynamic, and therefore which is the mental conception and which is reality. I tend to go with reality as fundamentally static and the experience of change as requiring abstraction---that is, the idea that one object is in some way the same even as it undergoes change; two experiences, though they are separated in time, can be of the same object. I see that Platonically, as meaning that one perceives that the two objects, although they have differed slightly; if they have undergone any change in the intervening period, which, at the molecular/atomic level, they absolutely have; as the same object, and therefore the two objects, separated in time, are related to the same abstraction or form, the same mental conception of the object in question. Now there's an area where you could legitimately do socionics-related research on how humans fundamentally perceive reality).

Anyway, Se is, if not the most concrete function, one of the two most concrete functions. What does this imply about Se? Does it matter? And then what about the idea of seeking experience? How do you derive Jung's idea of Se as the type that constantly seeks further sensory experience (in a very E7ish way) from the aspectonics of "external statics of objects"?

Jung's types are an attempt at "pure" types, meaning without anything else coming in to influence. So his Se type, is a person as if all they view the world through, is Se. External statics of objects is very simply just what is. What you can observe. This is the form, appearance, action, gestures and motion. Yes, motion and actions too. Statics, and the state of something is not unable to see movement, especially given that movement is just a series of positions. Dynamics = cause and effect. Statics = what is. A movement can be just what is, without worrying about the cause of it.

So, a "pure" Se is going to be involved in what is, and getting the most out of it. Sensory experience is how a person interacts with the outside world. You can't INTERACT with the tangible outside world without involving your senses. So, Se is interacting with what is.

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

It's very straightforward then how external statics of objects (the tangible world around us) creates the man Jung describes as Se.

The sensing is not something taken within the man, or coming from within him. In other words, it's not Si. It's interaction with the world outside of the man.

[Azeroffs]

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

This sounds like the Ni-super-id side of Se. The strength of Se is in it's hyper-realism. Seeing physical properties of things exactly as is with relatively little interpretation or bias allowing decisive quickness and certainty. They have problems with making inferences with that information and can be overly assuming, which is what you seem to be pointing out.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

Makes no sense. And you're taking us too literally. We're mocking those things, but we're aware of what we're doing, and we're seeing how much of it is true. Despite political correctness, a lot of stereotypes are accurate.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

So his Se type, is a person as if all they view the world through, is Se. External statics of objects is very simply just what is. What you can observe. This is the form, appearance, action, gestures and motion.

THANK YOU. You understand. Rawly and elementally, that's what it BOILS down to. Btw Te is motion not Se. =p

[Azeroffs]

His description sounded more like a typical INTj talking shit on their PoLR, as opposed to actually knowing anything about it.

Possibly, but it wasn't entirely incorrect. Maybe just made out to be worse than what it is. Se types do tend to be presumptuous.

[silverchris9]

Regarding Se:
For myself, I tend to view Se as the information about the qualities of concrete objects (objects that we can pick up or manipulate in other ways).

Hm. I like this. It fits with the idea of Ne as information about the internal qualities of objects (which is another--Aristotelian--way of asking what they are).

How do we find out information about the concrete objects that are in our world? By doing things to them. We get into a car with gadgets we've never seen before, and we start flipping switches and pushing/pulling knobs and buttons. The action that happens after that lets us know some of the qualities of that car. We'll experiment with how fast the car goes when we press the gas pedal, or how how the car handles when we have to suddenly apply the brakes.

So Se gets its reputation for force or volition because the Se ego's basic way of interacting with the world is by applying force/volition to it. Hence the beta atmosphere of ribbing, as you said (a term which I am certain has its origins in some form of play-fighting, touching people's ribs), it's a way of manipulating an object (in this case, a person), to see what it can do, to see what it's made of, to see what it's qualities are. But then, we're in danger of making it difficult to differentiate Se from Ne, because Se isn't supposed to be interested in internal characteristics. But I think we solve this problem by saying that Se focuses on the external aspects of internal characteristics, i.e., "what effect can it have in the world?" And again, SLEs find IEIs fascinating because we are a mystery insofar as it is difficult to deduce the effect we are capable of having on the world by most of the means they are accustomed to employing, most of the markers they are used to seeing. At least, I would find a puzzle like that interesting, were I not one myself. So the difference between Ne and Se is, like most in socionics, a difference of emphasis. Much like Ti and Fi can both come to same moral judgment, but will discuss it in different terms and arrive at it by different means, so Ne and Se may come to the same conclusion about what an object, say, a company, is capable of doing, but Se will have arrived at the conclusion via a concrete, active process, whereas Ne will have arrived at the conclusion via an abstract, intuitive process that cannot be clearly explicated, a guess, a hunch, a "feeling," that sort of sudden, intuitive knowledge, that "oh, look, you can do x with this object!" A basket can be a hat, a box can be a fort, etc. These conclusions will usually be considered "unusual" (as will Ni conclusions, but those unusual conclusions will come from a frame/lens shift, an unusual set of abstract associations, rather than, um, however Ne does it), because they deviate from the intended uses and the "normal" uses that a more concrete function like Te or Se might find for the object.

So Se and Ne may both determine that this company is capable of increasing its market share, but an SLE will have experienced (preferably directly by doing it him/herself or by doing something similar and applying the similar experience to the current one) the scenario and thereby made a Ti generalization which is applied to the company; while an ILE will have a Ti list of all its internal qualities, determined by mentally probing the object, asking questions such as "what is it like? how does it work? what processes are integral to it? what resources does it have, and what are the capabilities of those resources?" rather than actually experiencing what it can do (or, again, what something like it can do) first-hand. Se will drive headlong towards the goal that they've set on (in our example, "increasing market share"), manipulating whatever resources need to be manipulated in order to reach this goal confidently, much as one would manipulate a concrete physical object (this goes back to my idea that Se treats all information as though it is sensory information, or at least all objects as though they were sensory objects, although, while most resources indeed have a physical manifestation---even if it's only a patent on the books in an office in Washington, or, better yet, a tiny bit of code on a computer somewhere---really, a patent is more a non-physical, abstract resource---i.e., the right to use a certain technology---than a physical one.) Ne, on the other hand, would continue to generalize: what else can we do with this? We could do more than just increase market share, we could also do x, and y, and z, and l, and q, and alksjdfao... and might come up with such a creative and interesting use for the company that they completely outmaneuver the SLE and end up increasing the market share faster than the SLE as a side-effect of some other creative use they came up with. Or the SLE might win because, well, SLEs usually win.

I think that this is also how Se gets its "power" definition. Power is used as an example of an object's quality. But how do you determine something's power? By getting it to DO things.

This goes back to my idea that power is capability. What is a "power"? It is the capacity to do something specific, as in, I have the power to move my fingers. What is the abstract noun "power"? It is the generalized capacity to have certain kinds of effects, and is usually employed to describe the kinds of effects that people are most interested in, i.e., the power to affect people's livelihoods, the power to cause material change in people's lives (which generally boils down to affecting one of three things: physical state--i.e., life, death, having all one's limbs, being a quadraplegic, etc.,--freedom--i.e., imprisoned, free, in New York City, in Siberia, etc.,--and money). So when we say, Barack Obama is a powerful man, what we mean is that Barack Obama has the power to affect the physical state, freedom, and finances of many people (and using his power over these three, can also lead people to take a variety of actions ostensibly unrelated to physical state, freedom, or finances, such as whether the White House uses red napkins or orange ones--not that the president would ever care about something like that, but that is presumably something that he could change if he so desired, using, ultimately, his power over the finances of the White House staff).

The difference between Se and Ne, then, can be seen in the difference between the words "power" and "capability." A capability has no direction. It just is. It is merely information. You are not expected to do anything with it. It branches out. It has permutations. One capability, say, the ability to move one's fingers, implies several other capabilities, say, the ability to type on a socionics forum (assuming several other capabilities, including the capability to access a computer). Power, on the other hand, has a direction. Even if it is not being used at the moment, there is the assumption that power will eventually be used to do something. Power is towards something, like energy. Even if energy just spins in circles, it's still moving in a direction. Power is information as well, in one sense, and betas and gammas love to measure the power of others, be it as crude as Dragon Ball Z ("It's over 9000!!!!!!"), or as refined as a gentleman testing someone's social "power" based on how that person's social actions strike them (as of low breeding or high, for instance, which could be, for gammas, an indirect measure of power). But power has a crucial dimension beyond information. When you think of power, you don't think of inactive information, but of active wielding, active application of force upon others. You think of kings pronouncing banishments. You think of CEOs breaking companies by inducing massive sell-offs of stock, or taking over companies by massive purchases of stock. Power is Se, capability is Ne.

Of course, you have to focus on the similarities too: power and capability are, as I said in the beginning, the same thing. Of course if you have the capability to crush another company, you can, by definition, crush that company. If you have the capability to fire an employee, you can, by definition, fire that employee. The difference is in emphasis. Power implies being put to a specific use. Capability is more free-form, more mental, more explorative.


Now, lest people confuse "getting an object to DO something" as being "dynamic", please remember that the qualities being looked for are qualities that are relatively consistent for that object.

Such that "lots of physical strength" is a relatively consistent quality of "large muscular men"; or, as pinocchio/piper once suggested...'lots of rings on the hands' suggests someone who has money and power...such that if an Se person has experienced the association of 'rings on hands' and 'object having money/power', then they will likely view that as a quality of 'rings on hands'. However, if they haven't experienced that, then there won't be that association.

Does Se focus on the changing qualities of an object? Those qualities that are here one moment, and gone the next? And how would one know when the quality is available...or not available at any given time? They would have to utilize an Xi element to help with that. So yes, Se egos can do that...but that doesn't mean 'dynamic Se'.[/QUOTE]

Well, I like the idea of static functions as "snapshots." So while an Se-ego might be able to use help from an Ni-ego as far as alerting them when a new snapshot of the qualities of an object needs to be taken, or even anticipating what that new snapshot will be (eliminating the need to update one's conception of the object because the Ni-ego updates it for you), they can always "take a new snapshot" of the object. They would, however, presumably hold the assumption of the capabilities of the object constant or static until such time as they reassessed the object's potential, and an object with constantly changing potential would probably be seen as unreliable or flaky, and therefore not to be used, an irritation to deal with.

Oh and one more thing about Se (which applies to the other elements as well). We're talking about information. Information, and how we process it, can influence our behavior, yes. But processing the information does not necessarily mean that the commonly attributed external behavior will show up.
(iow, we can discover Se information by means other than violence, aggression, or strong forcefulness.)

Heartily agreed.

[anndelise]

Hm. I like this. It fits with the idea of Ne as information about the internal qualities of objects (which is another--Aristotelian--way of asking what they are).


So Se gets its reputation for force or volition because the Se ego's basic way of interacting with the world is by applying force/volition to it. Hence the beta atmosphere of ribbing, as you said (a term which I am certain has its origins in some form of play-fighting, touching people's ribs), it's a way of manipulating an object (in this case, a person), to see what it can do, to see what it's made of, to see what it's qualities are. But then, we're in danger of making it difficult to differentiate Se from Ne, because Se isn't supposed to be interested in internal characteristics. But I think we solve this problem by saying that Se focuses on the external aspects of internal characteristics, i.e., "what effect can it have in the world?" And again, SLEs find IEIs fascinating because we are a mystery insofar as it is difficult to deduce the effect we are capable of having on the world by most of the means they are accustomed to employing, most of the markers they are used to seeing. At least, I would find a puzzle like that interesting, were I not one myself. So the difference between Ne and Se is, like most in socionics, a difference of emphasis. Much like Ti and Fi can both come to same moral judgment, but will discuss it in different terms and arrive at it by different means, so Ne and Se may come to the same conclusion about what an object, say, a company, is capable of doing, but Se will have arrived at the conclusion via a concrete, active process, whereas Ne will have arrived at the conclusion via an abstract, intuitive process that cannot be clearly explicated, a guess, a hunch, a "feeling," that sort of sudden, intuitive knowledge, that "oh, look, you can do x with this object!" A basket can be a hat, a box can be a fort, etc. These conclusions will usually be considered "unusual" (as will Ni conclusions, but those unusual conclusions will come from a frame/lens shift, an unusual set of abstract associations, rather than, um, however Ne does it), because they deviate from the intended uses and the "normal" uses that a more concrete function like Te or Se might find for the object.

SeTi has the Fe hidden agenda, so they would also be interested in the internal aspects of the object, as well. dualseeking Ni will also help, as will role Ne.

SeFi has the Fi creative, Ni dualseeking, and Ne role. They're more likely to emphasize the internal fields related to the object, rather than the internal characteristics of the object itself.

So it's not that an Se base type is incapable of discovering internal qualities of an object, just that they would do it in a different way than an Ne base type would. But you already covered an awareness of that in the rest of your post.


edited to add:
oh, and what you wrote about trying to figure out the puzzle? My infp friend mentions that when he talks about the interacts he's had with female estps. That they seem to initially be attracted to him because he's a harder puzzle to figure out. The process of figuring him out takes time, and gradually familiarity and in-syncness grows between the two.

[silverchris9]

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

erm... that's vaguely accurate in some ways... but to say that Se has nothing to do with sense perception is to ignore Jung. I mean, it might be overstatement to say that Se information is fundamentally concerned with actual sense perceptions, but certainly Jung's description of Se focuses on reality-as-perceived-through-the-senses, i.e., "sense perception."

But yeah, that bit about stereotypes is standard-issue polr-whining. And Se doesn't try to fill in the properties of an object based on a few... it would be more accurate to say that is a result of the Ni-dual seeking function in Se-leading individuals, i.e., a need to know as many properties of the object as possible, but weak ability to understand the whole from the parts. Intelligent Se egos are likely to compensate for this weakness by trying to experience more of the object or getting help from an Ni-ego, not by assuming you're a nerd because your mom gave you a chili bowl haircut. People who do that are called "anyone with power and insecurity in high school," or, 99% of high schoolers.

Jung's types are an attempt at "pure" types, meaning without anything else coming in to influence. So his Se type, is a person as if all they view the world through, is Se. External statics of objects is very simply just what is. What you can observe. This is the form, appearance, action, gestures and motion. Yes, motion and actions too. Statics, and the state of something is not unable to see movement, especially given that movement is just a series of positions. Dynamics = cause and effect. Statics = what is. A movement can be just what is, without worrying about the cause of it.

So, a "pure" Se is going to be involved in what is, and getting the most out of it. Sensory experience is how a person interacts with the outside world. You can't INTERACT with the tangible outside world without involving your senses. So, Se is interacting with what is.

Ooh, this is a good point. Jung's information should be taken to describe an individual who only takes information in through one function. Socionics is more applicable to individuals because it accounts for how the functions interact in human behavior. It is a refinement of Jung's larger insight that increases its utility.

Anyway, yeah, Se in its pure form focuses on the sensory part of experience. But an actual Se-ego or Se-valuer does have to deal with the non-sensory part of experience, i.e., although the words on a page in a physics book are sensory, the generalized rules of those words, the meanings of those words, are abstract, intelligible, mental, and all the Se-egos I know are perfectly capable of dealing with those abstract rules. But yeah, I suppose Se itself is not the function that would process that abstract meaning, although it might manipulate that knowledge in order to use it for a purpose. This is another way that Ni and Se complement each other, and are almost a complete dyad for understanding things, insofar as reality can be divided into sensory objects and their meanings.

[Blaze]

Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

you're describing Ne role.

[krieger]

but to say that Se has nothing to do with sense perception is to ignore Jung.

I know. Its one out of two of Jung's main mistakes:
- calling Se "sensory" when it is in fact a function of inferred, indirect identification
- mixing up two forms of objectivity and subjectivity (the epistemic kind concerned with justifiability on one hand and the ontological kind concerned with the distinction between perceptive forms and represented reality on the other hand; the first relating to Je and the latter relating to Pe)

I don't take it lightly to challenge the claims of the socionics' main "founding fathers", but to say they can never be wrong is absurd.

This sounds like the Ni-super-id side of Se. The strength of Se is in it's hyper-realism. Seeing physical properties of things exactly as is with relatively little interpretation or bias allowing decisive quickness and certainty. They have problems with making inferences with that information and can be overly assuming, which is what you seem to be pointing out.

Here is the problem with your stated views: one can not "see" the properties of any entity existing in outer reality. One must infer them from experience. So you have to make a choice between these to focusses: are Se types characterized by an interest in the true properties of real objects (which means they are concerned with inference), or do they stick to sense experience without caring about the objects behind the veil of this sense experience.

Next, if Se types are in fact concerned with inference, we run into a problem when we also say they are without bias: inference without bias is a painstakingly slow process, not something lending a basis to decisive action. This would contradict all of the empirical material available on the type.

[Azeroffs]

Here is the problem with your stated views: one can not "see" the properties of any entity existing in outer reality. One must infer them from experience. So you have to make a choice between these to focusses: are Se types characterized by an interest in the true properties of real objects (which means they are concerned with inference), or do they stick to sense experience without caring about the objects behind the veil of this sense experience.

Next, if Se types are in fact concerned with inference, we run into a problem when we also say they are without bias: inference without bias is a painstakingly slow process, not something lending a basis to decisive action. This would contradict all of the empirical material available on the type.

That's exactly what they do. They take what their senses provide them and accept reality for exactly the way they perceive it to be. "True properties of real objects" seems like Ne's focus. The essence of objects behind the senses. The true reality which is unknowable. It makes a lot of sense that that would be what Ne focuses on actually.

[silverchris9]

I know. Its one out of two of Jung's main mistakes:
- calling Se "sensory" when it is in fact a function of inferred, indirect identification
- mixing up two forms of objectivity and subjectivity (the epistemic kind concerned with justifiability on one hand and the ontological kind concerned with the distinction between perceptive forms and represented reality on the other hand; the first relating to Je and the latter relating to Pe)

I don't know that the "mixing up" is a mistake, more a recognition of their fundamental similarity. It introduces a lack of clarity, but is an example of sacrificing clarity for the sake of expressing more information. There is a similarity between "justifiability" and "reality as perceived through the senses." Both are objective, insofar as both place emphasis on something that is not the self, something outside the self. Also, I would say that objective is more a T/F thing for the rational functions, although it is more of an E/I thing for the perceiving functions.

I don't take it lightly to challenge the claims of the socionics' main "founding fathers", but to say they can never be wrong is absurd.

Maybe, but you're going to have to provide a lot more evidence than "that's why Se egos call people nerds" to convince me to go along with you rather than Jung, given that Jung was a genius. Also, this touches on a basic question about socionics. If socionics has some existence in reality separate from our mental conception, if socionics exists independently or objectively, then Jung can be wrong about socionics. if, however, socionics is a mental conception, a way of viewing the world that can tell us something about the world, while not having any existence independent of human minds, Jung cannot be wrong about socionics, or at least he cannot be wrong about the eight functions/IMs/IAs/IEs/IQs/whateverfucks. To appeal to an authority higher than the creator of a system requires that the system have some source beyond that creator--that it be ingrained in a reality that exists beyond the mind. Otherwise it's not much different than saying Shakespeare is wrong about Hamlet. Shakespeare can't be wrong about Hamlet, because Shakespeare is Hamlet's creator. (Well... actually, a part of Shakespeare, Shakespeare's conscious mind, or Shakespeare at a certain moment in time, can be wrong about Hamlet, but only insofar as that part of the mind or the aspect being expressed at the given moment is not itself the creator of Hamlet. What in Shakespeare wrote Hamlet cannot be wrong about Hamlet.)

[Jarno]

Yes, thank you for saying this. It's baffling to me why this point is lost upon so many people, who assert that Jungian functions are somehow totally incommensurable with Socionics IEs. It's beyond ridiculous. As if Socionics is its own little self-contained reality splintered off from the rest of the universe, where any and all statements/critiques of Socionics theory must themselves be based upon Socionics theory, else they are invalid. Wtf?

Lol. I remember when I first came here some years ago, I was really shocked that people actually thought this way. Then I started to realize later how common it actually is.

yes, and it annoys the shit out of me.

[Gilly]

Personally I no longer see the Jung's functions as "irrelevant," but they are certainly not the "same thing" conceptually. They are attempting to model similar things/making similar observations, but to say they are "the same" is superficial at best, because there are technical differences, and incredibly misleading at worst, as it assumes the "objective existence" of functions.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Yes, thank you for saying this. It's baffling to me why this point is lost upon so many people, who assert that Jungian functions are somehow totally incommensurable with Socionics IEs. It's beyond ridiculous. As if Socionics is its own little self-contained reality splintered off from the rest of the universe, where any and all statements/critiques of Socionics theory must themselves be based upon Socionics theory, else they are invalid. Wtf?

Lol. I remember when I first came here some years ago, I was really shocked that people actually thought this way. Then I started to realize later how common it actually is.

I'm rather surprised that you think that "so many people" here "assert" that the Jungian functions are totally incommensurable with the Socionics information elements, when this is clearly not the case.

For one thing, most people would agree that they have the same name.

So get over yourself.

[Gilly]

Reow.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Funny. Because you were sure quick to agree with Gulanzon about that in this thread apparently: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...tml#post525771

Sorry, did you make some insightful point? I can't really see it. I do agree that Jung's Introverted Sensing and Augusta's Introverted Sensing both have the same names, correct.

[Not A Communist Shill]

You forgot this part

Gulanzon: "SPOILER WARNING: SOCIONICS IS NOT JUNG."
Subterranean: "bla bla bla… But Gulanzon is quite right."

It's pretty clear you were siding w/ Gulanzon on dismissing Jung's relevance re: socionics.

I was largely talking about the distinct differences between Jung's functions and Augusta's, and taken it as given that I agreed that both sets of functions had the same names. Sometimes words have two meanings etc.

But if you don't realise the very real distinction between Jung's fucntions and Augusta's, you shouldn't post in the Socionics Discussion section for Model A.

[Azeroffs]

It's a mistake to view any IE as seeing reality 'as it is'—in either its abstract or concrete dimensions. Generally, I'd say all humans with intact senses and normal brain function effectively intake the same reality-stuff at a basic and unrefined level, i.e. everyone knows the sky is blue, shit stinks, 2+2=4, etc.

It's the ways which a mind embellishes upon the raw data, what qualitative polarities get emphasized, and how the data translates into something experienced by that mind. Which is where I think IEs largely begin to become relevant, not so much before that. And is why I think its hopelessly misleading to consider functions as things which confer specific capabilities, competencies, or skillsets. Yeah, there are probably some vague correlations between certain IEs and certain vocational aptitudes, particularly in fields with methodologies significantly influenced by certain types. Beyond that, it's pretty obvious that all IEs are tremendously adaptable, with overlapping generalizability to a broad spectrum of life situations and desired objectives. They're the means, not the ends. They tell us less about what a person will do and how well they will do it, and more about the hows and whys in the way they go about doing it.

I mostly agree. The way I see it, type determines which aspects of reality are most focused on, not that any aspects are completely blanked out on just relatively unaware or minimally aware. But, I agree, all modes of awareness (the elements) are derived from "as is" reality. Se and Ne (and maybe Si) may be closest to "as is" reality, but the fact that Se and Si use sense data means that it clearly is not because the senses are only a kind of echo of "as is" reality, and assuming that Ne (or Ni for that matter) does focus on "true reality," you can look at labcoat's explanation as to why it is still a inference rather than true reality.

I think the point of disagreement is in the degree to which the mind embellishes reality at least in the case of extroverted IEs and Se in particular. Yeah, it's still not free of embellishment, but it is minimal imo.

[krieger]

That's exactly what they do. They take what their senses provide them and accept reality for exactly the way they perceive it to be. "True properties of real objects" seems like Ne's focus. The essence of objects behind the senses. The true reality which is unknowable. It makes a lot of sense that that would be what Ne focuses on actually.

Then Se is not an "object" function. It wouldn't concern itselves with objects but with sensation divorced from objective reality.

What you're describing is, in my opinion, what Si does, not what Se does.

I don't know that the "mixing up" is a mistake, more a recognition of their fundamental similarity. It introduces a lack of clarity, but is an example of sacrificing clarity for the sake of expressing more information. There is a similarity between "justifiability" and "reality as perceived through the senses." Both are objective, insofar as both place emphasis on something that is not the self, something outside the self. Also, I would say that objective is more a T/F thing for the rational functions, although it is more of an E/I thing for the perceiving functions.

It's more like the relation between the two is inverse. As a greater focus gets placed on the ontologically "real", it becomes harder to establish the reality of the entities concerned epistemically - to prove that your knowledge of these real entities is correct. The easiest way to stick to absolutely certain epistemic reality is to exclude ontological reality entirely; that is, to treat everything in terms of mere data to be manipulated.

[Satan]

i like the bit where you're like big and loud .. the rest is just too much text for me to take...

[silverchris9]

Re: labcoat,

Yes, Se does have a deductive aspect to it, insofar as no one has direct access to the external world. All access to the external world is mediated through our brains, which can create perceptions that are not 100% true to the external world, i.e., red-green colorblindness. However, assuming you have normal brain function, the deductive pathway between sense perception and external reality is so reliable that it effectively ceases to be deductive at all. So that is the sense in which Se can "see" properties of external reality. And sense perception is only one example of reliable deductive pathways. Se is also concerned with the manipulation of objects. So when you keep trying to move an object that is much larger than you and you are unable to, but then you try to move an object that is smaller than you and are you are able to, then you have the reliable deductive idea that says: "my eyes tell me this object is smaller than me. I know that things smaller than me can be moved. Therefore, one of the properties of this object is 'can be physically moved by me.'" Yes, technically, this requires deduction. But 1) the Se-user does not focus on that deductive pathway, he/she focuses on the conclusion, and 2) the deductive pathway is again so reliable that one might as well just say "he saw that he could move the object." We are being somewhat metaphorical when we say that Se determines the properties of objects through sense perception. It is more accurate to say Se determines the properties of objects through unconscious and reliable deductive pathways such as the deductive pathway that says that our senses give us reliable information about the world that exists outside of us.

It's more like the relation between the two is inverse. As a greater focus gets placed on the ontologically "real", it becomes harder to establish the reality of the entities concerned epistemically - to prove that your knowledge of these real entities is correct. The easiest way to stick to absolutely certain epistemic reality is to exclude ontological reality entirely; that is, to treat everything in terms of mere data to be manipulated.

? I don't get any of that.

@mercutio, ok.


Also, regarding the general question of reality "as is". Se and Te are the most purely attached to the object; that is, they deal with information in the manner that involves the least conscious mental manipulation of information. But insofar as reality is not divisible into socionics units, no function deals with reality as is, by definition. They deal with reality through the lens of something. Sense perceptions aren't any more or less real than people's motivations or what objects are capable of doing or one's emotional reaction to objects or whatever. Some things are more evident, but reality consists just as much of the intangible and hidden as of the tangible and evident. As such, no one function is reality "as is," although Se and Te are closest to reality "as it is evident."

[silverchris9]

bump. More talk, more theory! Ne vs. Se. Tell me how that works. I'm fascinated that both are properties of objects, and I quite like the idea that one focuses not just on external qualities of objects, but more on the external effects of those qualities. In that sense Ne is more "pure" insofar as it is more concerned with the statics of objects for their own sakes. It rather reminds me of how Fe is concerned with the dynamics of objects for their own sakes. Fe is fascinated by internal motion. But what about Te? How does Te compare to Fe? How does Te work as far as dynamics of objects? I don't really think about Te as being inherently in motion. I think of it more as... involving, um, well maybe how you do something, which could be considered dynamics of objects. But certainly optimization, making the best that you can out of the existing or available resources. And then of course externally verified facts of all sorts and stripes. Um... so yeah.

And what's the difference between dynamics of objects and dynamics of fields? Talk.

[anndelise]

bump. More talk, more theory! Ne vs. Se. Tell me how that works. I'm fascinated that both are properties of objects, and I quite like the idea that one focuses not just on external qualities of objects, but more on the external effects of those qualities.

Regarding Ne:
I tend to view it as similar to Se, only instead of information about the qualities of concrete objects (Se), I see it more as information about the qualities of abstract objects. What are abstract objects? Ideas, basically.

While concrete objects can be handled or manipulated by hand, per se, ideas are manipulated by the mind. But it's similar, in that we're manipulating it with the intent to obtain or perceive the qualities of the idea.

How would we do that?
By playing around with an idea. Trying this, trying that. There's no buttons to push or switches to flip, but there are other ways of manipulating and testing the idea. Look at the idea one way...and what qualities show up? Test the idea in another way...and what qualities show up? Combined qualities like this helps us get a clue of what's underlying the idea. Which qualities are extras or unneeded. In other words, we're unintentionally removing those qualities which are 'accidental', by focusing on those qualities which are essential. Those qualities which remain relatively consistent and part of the idea, no matter what conditions the idea is put through. The essence of the idea.

Ne often deals with uncertainty, and neccessarity. Why? Because by playing with the ideas we start to resolve the issue of how certain or uncertain we can be about attributing qualities to an idea. As humans, we all have the tendency to attribute qualities to someone or something, based on our own experiences, and what we've read/learned about something. But other people have other experiences, have read other things, and learned other things about the same someone/something, and so would attribute different qualities to it. How can we be sure which qualities are 'real' and which aren't? By paying attention to all those differences and similarities. Which qualities are being attributed consistently or inconsistently? Which qualities are necessary to an idea, and which aren't necessarily so?

The way to figure this out is to amass a lot of experiences (of own or of others), and bring them together. This requires a constant search, and constantly collecting..both of our own experiences, and the experiences of others. And a focus on finding the (currently) unknown.

This is also why Ne often looks at something one way, then changes and looks at it another way, then changes and looks at it yet another way. So many different povs, all looking at the same thing. Combined we can figure out the internal makeup of the idea, as well as some qualities that may or may not be attributable to the idea.

Ne also uses terms such as could be, possibly, etc. These are cues to the sense of unsureness, but willingness to explore.


What does this have to do with coming up with possibilities, novel connections, and new ideas, etc? The searching and playing with ideas doesn't stop. There's always a chance that some new experience or some new idea will alter the qualities of a previous idea. And when you come across ideas that are similar in essence, they can quickly become associated with each other...even if it's only looking at it through one situation or one pov....but when looking from a different pov or a different situation, the previous association gets dropped and new ones form.

So in a sense, it's not just that we are playing around with povs, nor of testing qualities, but we are also checking out and playing with associations between ideas. This is usually done with the help of Ti, Fi, and even Si and Ni. The kinds of associations we make, or rather, how the two or more ideas become associated will be dependent upon the Xi elements aiding.

And the kinds of ideas that can be brought up this way? Limitless. Not always productive, not always true, not always accurate, not always real, not always useful. But limitless.

...

And then we come across someone who tells us that we shouldn't explore an idea, that we should just accept their word, that we aren't supposed to play around with an idea. Someone who tells us "STOP!"

That's like being placed in a cage or a box, it's stiffling, it's suffocating, it's abusive. (at least to Ne base)

It's akin to trying to blind, deafen, and/or bind down an Se base. Only, because it's the mind and ideas, instead of the body and concrete objects, few would perceive it that way.

...

Some might view the above as being 'dynamic'. But again, anytime there is movement, any time there is processing of information, then 'dynamic' can fit. Humans aren't stagnant, their minds aren't stagnant, and processing information isn't a 'static process'...it's a process.

The thing to keep in mind, is that Ne is focusing on those qualities (and possibly those associations) which keep popping up, those which remain relatively consistent across time, and across situations. The absolute most basic underlying essence, of which if it weren't there, or parts of it were missing, would make it a completely different idea.

[Mattie]

Without having totally developed an analogy to the quality of my Resonance thread, I see both and answering "What is this?" when encountering an Object. Both ascertain the qualities of people, ideas, etc, to get rid of the stereotype of being the "looking at x for what it is," as does that as well.

takes the observable information it receives from an Object to understand its capacity and capabilities; it also bases its final appraisal on past information (this is where the stereotyping stereotype comes from) BUT it also makes note of how the Object defies its expectations, and how it also completely affirms said expectations. deals with is what is directly observable through experience (I would said the link between and is that they are 'experience-based'), so for an example, an -lead will come to an understanding of a person through their behavior and how that fits and doesn't fit into what they already know about qualities associated with the behavior, and will find it confusing when a person is consistently defying what the -lead has established about them (this doesn't mean -leads are weary of unpredictable people, because being unpredictable is a quality that an -lead can understand and maneuver with). An -creative more actively interacts with Objects to understand their capacity and qualities, and probably gets frustrated with people who avoid or try to circumvent this method (main culprits being -egos).

Now also wants to understand an Object's capabilities, but come to understand an Object through all of its possible qualities instead of the ones that are readily experienced. will observe the many different combinations of qualities that exist in an Object, as well as the probability that the Object will assume a certain combination, and use that information to tell them of the Object's capacity. I like to think of related to Chaos Theory, where the Object is the initial condition, but that's a topic for another time. So, for example, -leads will understand the capacity of a person by coming to understand all the possible qualities that can manifest (not to get too deep in other IAs, but - and -creative will trim down these possibilities to a reasonable amount to make a sound observation, I think this is the same process for -lead as well), and will be frustrated when others continually ignore all of their own possible modes of being just because they aren't actively displaying it. -creative likes to actively generate what these qualities are (and to be more clear, -leads observe every possibility and then trim down, while -creative start from an understanding and generate the possibilities that don't break the consistency they have established), and don't appreciate when their observations are disregarded as baseless.

I think that's what I have for now. I'm still looking for a good word for ... The many definitions/application of Assay fit it, but it still doesn't do it for me (aesthetically).

[Satan]

[Satan]

[Satan]

[Creepy-female]

How would we do that?
By playing around with an idea. Trying this, trying that. There's no buttons to push or switches to flip, but there are other ways of manipulating and testing the idea.

Whoo this made sense.

[Azeroffs]

I don't think Ne focuses on ideas really. Maybe it's just misleading to say they focus on ideas. Instead, they focus on their ideas of things. This is an important distinction because Ne is object focused. An Ne-focused person needs to be stimulated. They need something to inspire a thought. Ne picks up on things which give way to the essence of the object. Ne describes the properties of objects which cannot be determined by the senses. Most often, what is the object capable of or what potential does it have? What can it be used for? What kind of person is this? These are things Ne focuses on, and because they focus on such qualities they are often characterized by their inquisitiveness and curiosity.