Define Se and how it looks like in Egoblock

Basically when it comes to Wikisocion, you have to keep in mind that it is very introductory level, and is melded with MBTI to give people a base understanding without whacking them with a whole bunch of abstract concepts. I wish there was a better process, but as long as people are in here for the long-haul, they will learn to give up a lot of the stereotypes to what fits reality better. Either way, what is on Wikisocion isn't the end-all explanation, and what Ashton and I (among others) are saying is the description of :Se: as force, power, aggression etc, is unrealistic because these are personality traits accessed by multiple people regardless of type, :Se: doesn't enable these sorts of personality traits, no IME does. :Fi: doesn't make you more moralistic, :Fe: doesn't make you a hysterical drama queen, :Ti: and :Te: don't make you a scientist, (Here's lookin' to you, Carl Sagan thread :mad:). The answer we have to give (or, at least, the reasoning and proof) is going to be complicated because it is abstract, but it is closer to the truth. Why lie and have you waste your time thinking all these misconceptions, that's not respectful. So all in all, use Wikisocion to gain your bearings, and then get into the discussion that practices Socionics a little more scientifically.

Yeah I agree with everything you said, Mattie, stereotypes, developing a more experienced and accurate method of typing, nonetheless more abstract, etc. I have nothing to add.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

ESTj's can also behave a bit like this. Their ordering around can be seen as agressive behaviour. They have no problem telling you what to do. This they share with Se types.

I just made up some things, maybe it helps you to differentiate better between estj/istj:

ESTj: their talk is very business like, they talk usually faster then the average person, and also louder. They want everyone to work really hard. They are also hard workers themselves.

ISTj: they talk calm and slowly. They can be extremely stubborn, and want others to do everything according to the procedures/book, which they also follow loyally themselves. They are slow and somewhat private workers, but you can completely trust them to do their duty.

Which one is you?

---

From what you say: this matches the 2 older (more than 30) male LSIs I know. My uncle LSI talks very slow, like he´s pausing in between words and sometimes like he´d rather not talk at all, sometimes I ask him something and the reply comes after some nice almost 10 seconds of silence LOL, trying to be as precise as possible but with no trace of any hurry or need to talk.

This is not my case. I really talk and act on an energy level which tires me until I really collapse. Things I have recently noticed:

- I talk too much
- I expect the same kind of talk from the other person(s) involved in the conversation. If that doesn´t happen, I feel somewhat frustrated with a simple 'yes, it is.' or 'no, I don´t think so.' and leave. Sometimes, if it´s someone I´m close to, like my parents, brother or a girlfriend, this can bring enormous sadness to me and a thought that the other person simply doesn´t care much about me as I do about him/her and responds with few definitive words to what I thought could be a good conversation. If it´s an unknown person or group of strangers, this is interpreted as a sort of rejection (which is not always the case, I´ve seen irl).
- I should be more calm. I am not calm enough to live. I´ve got lack of enthusiasm mixed with something telling me that I should be doing every type of work doubled and better, and without any delay or any time for pleasure. I´ve been having problems with tachychardia since january, my heart is usually at around 90-120 bpm. I take Propanolol 3 times a day for tachychardia and I´m only 28 LOL. This sucks. I must get calmer.

From what you wrote, I´m the ESTj .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

and what Ashton and I (among others) are saying is the description of :Se: as force, power, aggression etc, is unrealistic because these are personality traits accessed by multiple people regardless of type, :Se: doesn't enable these sorts of personality traits, no IME does. :Fi: doesn't make you more moralistic, :Fe: doesn't make you a hysterical drama queen, :Ti: and :Te: don't make you a scientist, (Here's lookin' to you, Carl Sagan thread :mad:). The answer we have to give (or, at least, the reasoning and proof) is going to be complicated because it is abstract, but it is closer to the truth. Why lie and have you waste your time thinking all these misconceptions, that's not respectful. So all in all, use Wikisocion to gain your bearings, and then get into the discussion that practices Socionics a little more scientifically.

---

First of all, thinking more abstractly doesn't mean you're thinking more scientifically. Science involves investigation, but also proof and validation. Mere speculation, turning meaning and context like some rubrik's cube at infintum between a couple of people does not qualify as science. Complexity does not equal truth. The fact that two of you agree with certain abstractions does not qualify it as truth.

Secondly - No - personality traits are not accessed the same way by multiple people regardless of type. People have preferences, modes of information processing that lead to recognized behaviours/traits. Information metabolism doesn't happen in a vaccuum, as some discreet entity. Having better access to certain aspects does favor you to be better at certain activities. Any type can be an engineer, but, it's clear - certain types are far better than others, and many people instinctively understand this - She's an 'engineer' type. Stereotypes are unfortunate, but, there is some element of truth - at least, there is a message being communicated about your preferred channel of information processing. Sometimes, it's a question of labeling, in the absence of a more accurate term to describe it. So aggression is not quite right, but, the point being made is that the person prefers the immediate context - to interact directly with the object.

Removed at User Request

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinq

First of all, thinking more abstractly doesn't mean you're thinking more scientifically. Science involves investigation, but also proof and validation. Mere speculation, turning meaning and context like some rubrik's cube at infintum between a couple of people does not qualify as science. Complexity does not equal truth. The fact that two of you agree with certain abstractions does not qualify it as truth.

---

I didn't mean to make the associtation of abstract = science, my only mentioning of the abstract is the fact that you have to dive into it to honestly understand all of the Information Aspects fully... There isn't really any escaping that. I used the term "scientifically" to encourage a methodology that tries to discern what is the closest to reality rather than convienent to use. Understanding that very little, if anything, about Socionics is empirically based, I imagine a logical methodology relating to Anthropology or Sociology to be applied to find how it is applicable. When I see the assigning of causation from IA to behavior without proof of such a link, I can only assume a non-scientific methodology, if any at all, was used to double check this line of thinking. This is what I meant when I used this term, and not particularly the act of going into abstracts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cinq

Secondly - No - personality traits are not accessed the same way by multiple people regardless of type. People have preferences, modes of information processing that lead to recognized behaviours/traits. Information metabolism doesn't happen in a vaccuum, as some discreet entity. Having better access to certain aspects does favor you to be better at certain activities. Any type can be an engineer, but, it's clear - certain types are far better than others, and many people instinctively understand this - She's an 'engineer' type. Stereotypes are unfortunate, but, there is some element of truth - at least, there is a message being communicated about your preferred channel of information processing. Sometimes, it's a question of labeling, in the absence of a more accurate term to describe it. So aggression is not quite right, but, the point being made is that the person prefers the immediate context - to interact directly with the object.

---

Well, of course the 'engineer' type is going to be good at engineering and skills related to such a field. I would say you would find more commonality among people of a profession, such as engineering, than amongst the type that is assumed to be skilled at being said profession. I can understand this sort of thinking when it comes to traits that are observable, which I don't Socionics can prove causation to. MBTI can prove causation because the traits are labeled rather than caused by something in particular; MBTI is moreso identifying than revealing a process. Though, if you have a particular insight of how you think a particular IME arrangement causes someone to be better at engineering, I'm definitely curious to hear about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

Basically when it comes to Wikisocion, you have to keep in mind that it is very introductory level, and is melded with MBTI to give people a base understanding without whacking them with a whole bunch of abstract concepts. I wish there was a better process, but as long as people are in here for the long-haul, they will learn to give up a lot of the stereotypes to what fits reality better. Either way, what is on Wikisocion isn't the end-all explanation, and what Ashton and I (among others) are saying is the description of :Se: as force, power, aggression etc, is unrealistic because these are personality traits accessed by multiple people regardless of type, :Se: doesn't enable these sorts of personality traits, no IME does. :Fi: doesn't make you more moralistic, :Fe: doesn't make you a hysterical drama queen, :Ti: and :Te: don't make you a scientist, (Here's lookin' to you, Carl Sagan thread :mad:). The answer we have to give (or, at least, the reasoning and proof) is going to be complicated because it is abstract, but it is closer to the truth. Why lie and have you waste your time thinking all these misconceptions, that's not respectful. So all in all, use Wikisocion to gain your bearings, and then get into the discussion that practices Socionics a little more scientifically.

---

So you're saying Wikisocion must be simplified to be read at a low level so it may lack depth and may propel stereotypes. I'll agree with that.

But what then is the authority on socionics? Not wikisocion, because that caters to a lower level and may not be literally correct. The Russians then? There is no collective database of their work, and even if fragments are translated it is very difficult to interpret. Perhaps Rick? He has lost all interest and much of what he has written mirrors wikisocion. Surely questions like 'What is Se?' don't get solved through discussion on the16types forum, or any kind of discussion at all for that matter. Collective subjective experience? That's just self contradictory.

So I ask; what is the English authority on socionics? How can we come to a consensus?

why don't you just let everyone pursue their own understanding, so that communication isn't clouded by bureaucracies (as it has been in the past), instead of looking for the socionics phallus? christ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strrrng

why don't you just let everyone pursue their own understanding, so that communication isn't clouded by bureaucracies (as it has been in the past), instead of looking for the socionics phallus? christ.

---

I completely agree with you on allowing freedom to persue personal understanding and am trying to prevent that freedom from being limited. My reasoning;

All of the teaching resources are just starting points. They rely on the individual to connect dots for himself afterward and as a result there will be no consensus, no one will really know what 'Se' universally means because they all have a different subjectively true idea of it; they will all have made different connections from wikisocion to their real lives.

So, in a topic that seeks to define Se, close attention has to be paid to the starting points (resources) so the OP can begin to make connections to his life and 'understand' the function... subjectively. In this case, care would need to be taken not to steer too far off that course into people's personal lives else we will end up disagreeing on different personal truths and painting a picture of the function that does not help the OP to persue his own understanding.

It is a pretty big leap to take the following and attempt to depict it as something that does not relate to strength or power;

Quote:

---

:Se: is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.

---

So we need to focus on the fundamentals to help Airborne (+anyone else interested) out and prevent confusion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skeptic

So I ask; what is the English authority on socionics? How can we come to a consensus?

---

That is a great question, and one I have been thinking about, especially since I've read Filatova's book. I wondered how my ideas of Socionics related to what was practiced here, or in Russia, or by figures we recognize as "experts." The best that I could come up with is that there is no true authority outside of what is fundamentally Socionics. But I haven't seen an explicit of what strictly IS Socionics and what isn't. To me, Socionics is the combination of the ideas of information metabolism and Jung's functions, and outside of that, it seems a lot of Russians are taking liberty with different model, a different amount of types, etc. So I won't say anyone's version of Socionics is really wrong, but I feel like I can ascertain what is truer. My only basis is through how applicable to reality something sounds... And I understand that's a subjective process. I put in my opinion in this thread because it's open to everyone's perspective, so I gave mine because I thought it was important for people to at least give a thought. I can see how my posts can come off as a "my way or the highway," but I was just trying to stick to my guns rather than shoot other people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strrrng

why don't you just let everyone pursue their own understanding, so that communication isn't clouded by bureaucracies (as it has been in the past), instead of looking for the socionics phallus? christ.

---

This is a public thread that asked for opinions, and I've solely just responded to remarks on my posts. I don't think everyone should do it my way, because it'd be full of weaknesses by the lack of varying perspectives. I'm just saying how I personally find whatever faulty, and what I think is a good way to go about things, because I'm a part of the community, and therefore have a voice.

I wasn't saying it to you. also, having a voice doesn't mean your voice matters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strrrng

I wasn't saying it to you. also, having a voice doesn't mean your voice matters.

---

Good to know it applies to us all.

The thing I'm confused about in this thread is how somebody will post something about themselves and then objectively try to apply it to all human nature. It's just not....true. You're just saying that to try and make yourself feel more comfortable about all the stuff the First Evil has trapped you in its own black vortex with, and I understand why you'd do that but I also just think it's a delusion. Although I agree with ashton's 'driving example' it's just really everything else. You can't assume that everybody has your same fears and insecurities and hopes or dreams. Maybe a lot of stuff interlaps but nah. It's just your ego's way of psychologically projecting itself.

Instead of trying to conform to objectivity, and I may be out on my own here, but- I think you'd actually grow and evolve more in life allowing your own subjective self to be breathed back in your body. I think what everybody on this thread is trying to do is to simply accept their differences, and get in touch with their truest most feelings. And that yes, that includes the fears and the shadows and the ambiguities and the complex nuances that makes you, you.

Removed at User Request

LOL @ Bullets ......you just critisized....harshly.....then okay it´s over.

ROFLMAO

Quote:
is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.


fuck you pirate, okay? FUCJK YOU. FUCK YOU. GET A BIG DICK INTO YOUR ASSS. FUCK RETARD HOMO. YOU SUCK,. YOU´RE A FAILURE OF NATURE. YOU SHOULD BE ELLIMINIATED.

SIEG HEIL.

Removed at User Request

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

From what you wrote, I´m the ESTj .

---

Oke thanks. You also do indeed seem to describe yourself as having the EJ temperament.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

from the info I gathered so far I must be LSI really...

anyone got a suggestion of a painless, peaceful death suicide method?

I just can´t live this ridiculous burgeous life. I was made for something greater, a cause, a war, something big, very big, in which the whole world could be changed, something like Nazism. I can´t see any point in living this ridiculous life, getting enough money to buy a nicer car after years of working in a boring job, then get old and fat and talk about eating out at night with old and fat friends. And think all this is life. It just isn´t. Life must have something grand to it, something crazy, it must be intense and I cannot feel any intensity within myself. In fact I feel a big gap within myself. This is why I think I´m LSI, this total 'lack of passion'. It´s like everyone is living with some adrenaline level that I just don´t have. I need something big like a war or racing cars or flying planes to get to this point of adrenaline which people normally get just by being alive.

---

I relate to this 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Because you're both depressed emos lol.

---

For some reason when you're just joking, it comes off as a hostile personal attack and is off-putting. You should fix that.

Okay. Here's my rant about how force is an applicable concept to Se.

Identifying Se with force is a useful conceptual tool. It reveals something relevant about both Se and the behavior it tends to engender. OF COURSE what is predicted by socionics for a type isn't going to hold true of everyone in that type. OF COURSE there are people who possess traits typically associated with one type who are not that type. That's why its essential to determine type holistically using more than one "test." But to say that Se has nothing to do with force is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, imo. To say that Se has no inclination to observe others' use of force and capacity to use force is the same. We all know these terms can be misleading. If you're stupid, you'll start thinking that only Se-egos can be forceful, and the minute someone tells you what to do, suddenly you think they're an Se ego. But if you're intelligent, you'll realize that there are different kinds of forcefulness, and Se pertains to a certain kind of forcefulness or drive, and one should consider an Se-ego typing when a person behaves with that type of forcefulness in a habitual manner. I know plenty of SLEs you wouldn't say were super forceful on a first meeting by any means. And I've seen every Se-ego I know in a situation in which they were uncomfortable or uncertain, and were definitely not behaving "powerfully" or "forcefully." But that doesn't mean that the word is useless in helping us understand Se. It just means that we have to be intelligent about how we interpret the word, and how we apply the stereotype.

So sure, Se is not "strength" because the word "strength" has ten billion possible meanings. Of course any type can be strong. I'm pretty damn strong myself, and there's no way in hell I'm an Se-ego. But there is a certain kind of strength, or perhaps a kind of strength as a preferred orientation towards things, that you can see in 95% of Se-ego people. To me, it's as clear as day, and if it isn't Se, then I need to quit socionics and come up with my own typing system.

Anyone can develop a trait, sure. Quite frankly, 100% accuracy in typing is impossible, because any person could be any type; the external signals of type just don't have a 1:1 relationship with internal information processing, which is what socionics is concerned with at base. What socionics tells is, roughly, what traits a person is likely to develop. It is likely that if you hang out with an ESI for a week, he or she will be the type of person you are likely to describe as forceful. Now, is it likely that you will describe her as forceful the week that her mom dies and she loses her job and everything in life seems hopeless and like there's no point in trying anymore because everything just falls to dust? Hm, probably not. But in general, since all socionics can answer is questions about people "in general," an ESI is going to be described as forceful. If you line up ten thousand ESIs and ten thousand EIIs and asked people to spend a week with each person, at the end of the survey, more people are going to describe more ESIs as forceful than EIIs. Are they going to label some EIIs as more forceful than some ESIs? Sure. But we're talking about "in general" here, about "averages," and yes, about stereotypes. To claim otherwise is, in my opinion, to misunderstand socionics, even to over-apply it.

Now, if we're cutting to the grand theoretical core of WHAT IS SE, is "forceful" a sufficient answer? Of course not. But could language of force be a part of a grand theoretical description, or at least a description that gives the person who reads the description the capacity to recognize Se in herself and others? Of course! I know this is somewhat off-topic, and may even come off attacking, and I promise I don't mean it this way, but if the argument is that words like "force" for Se, or "comfort" for Si, or even "intuitive of time" for Ni are too misleading to be used in serious socionics discussion, what on earth makes anyone think that finding more obscure terminology is going to reduce the incidence of misunderstanding? Maybe the concept is improve the words and thereby improve the quality of thought. I'd rather improve my quality of thought and make the words communicate what I want them to communicate.

Maybe I'm crazy here, but I'm on Pinnochio's side:

Quote:

---

Se actually may deal with social power, among other things, like Si may deal with bodily states among other things again. The problems are:
1. Se is not equivalent with social power; Si is not equivalent with bodily states;
2. an Se type is not necessarily domineering; an Si type is not necessarily interested in health.
---

But in case you're just cautious, you go way overboard making a similar error (IMO, of course) in stating that these attributes of the IEs make no related difference.

---

Now, I wouldn't go this far:

Quote:

---

That anyone can do anything regardless of type, or close to this.

---

I would say that type does not constrain individuals, like a limit on their behavior. But I would say that type does make certain modes of perception for certain people highly inefficient energy-wise, and emotionally unpleasant. Now, if it can be conceded that certain tasks and ways of behaving are most successfully performed using certain modes or perception (and this is the central question here), then it follows that type makes certain tasks and modes of behavior for certain individuals highly inefficient in energy use. It seems a natural next step to suppose that people will be less likely to perform these tasks and behave in these ways, and more likely to perform those tasks and behave in those ways which are more energy-efficient. That's the argument, in my opinion.


Now that I've blown a lot of smoke, here's what I think Se is.

I think Se is, yes, a focus on sensory information about the world. As such, Se tends to focus on those properties of all situations which have analogues in sense experience. For instance, it is easy to guess, based on sense experience, how strong something is; generally, size and some tactile properties (ductility, density, etc.) are all you need to make a pretty good guess about how easy or difficult it is to cause change to an object. So, since that worked out so well with sense experience, the Se-ego will then apply that to situations, focusing on who is metaphorically "bigger" or "stronger" in a given situation. Se-egos also found, in my opinion, in early childhood, that physical experience of a thing was a good way to understand what that thing is. So, over time, the answer to "what is it" becomes "what can it do" and the way to figure out the answer is to have sensory experience with it. Sensory experience often requires manipulation, and so Se-egos get comfortable with manipulating resources, and may even see people as such resources, especially in a corporate setting. Just as physical items can be moved, pushed, relocated, etc., so resources can be moved, pushed, relocated, applied, taken back, etc. And the more you practice this sort of confidence with causing things (since material things have relatively uncomplicated causation; kick the ball, the ball moves) the more comfortable you get in it, until you are completely cool with applying this relatively simple causation to more complicated things, like people. Physical experience teaches us that the application of force results in causation, so Se-egos learn to apply force in order to cause things. I'm not saying this is a conscious process. What I'm saying is that early on, Se-egos learn the laws of the physical world, and especially their impact on the physical world, very well, very intuitively, very naturally. And then, as such, they apply what they learn from the physical world to the world-in-general, which includes nonphysical things such as emotions, concepts, theories, ideas, generalizations, categories of items, people, etc.

So the physical world teaches you that application of force results in causation of movement, but that excessive force may result in breaking the item, rather than causing it to go where you want it to go. You can see how that would naturally transfer over to interpersonal affairs. Obviously, the second lesson is harder to learn, but I think that it's one that an Se-ego would naturally learn, "from the inside out" as it were, whereas others, especially intuitive types, would be more likely to learn that "from the outside in," from study, if they learn it at all. Hence the "stereotype" that Se-egos are comfortable applying force and knowing how much force to apply in order to achieve the desired result. And we can also see, given the relative increase in difficulty between lesson one and lesson two, how some Se-egos who are smart/mature/intelligent/adult would have that sort of fine precision in applying force, while others who are dumb/immature/unintelligent/childish would have lesson one down pat, but fail to understand how to moderate force to the appropriate context. And we can also see how in moments of stress, an Se-leading type might resort to just fighting to make shit happen, taking control of everything herself, since the more fundamental level of understanding is "well, if all else fails, when I apply force to this, I can make it move."

NOTE that this can actually be abstracted. While Se-egos, especially early in life, are likely to focus on a sort of tactile learning, a learning-by-doing, intelligent Se-egos can abstract the process. This is just a theory of mine, but I'm guessing that Se-egos are likely to manipulate ideas in their minds, thinking about their concrete applications, and above all asking, what does this abstract idea mean for concrete reality? This doesn't mean Se-egos can't be abstract, certainly Ti, at least, is practically the archetype of philosophical reasoning. But it does mean that they will be driven to ask what the consequences are for external reality, for what the world is like. So perhaps an Se ego is likely to take metaphysical concepts and look at them from the perspective of "what does this say about reality?" And I know, the way I said that it's like, "well, who isn't concerned with what something says about reality?" But with Se-egos it's not this abstracted concept of reality, the reality-axioms you have in your head, it's a present reality, a local reality, reality as a thing with properties understood through experience, like anything else. Brilliant Se-egos may be particularly gifted, therefore, in integrating theoretical concepts into their fundamental understanding of reality, like the SEE who sees the formation and breaking of social bonds as part of the inherent reality of life, or who understands how one's emotional response to a situation (or "resonance" with that situation--that's really a useful metaphor here) is simply a part of life, a part of external reality, and can therefore better appreciate and better use that "resonance."

EDIT: Wow. This is one hell of a wall of text. Apologies.

http://johnkellyandkids.info/May2005...ego_blocks.jpg

a huge wall of text indeed. but well-said! bravo silverchris!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

It is likely that if you hang out with an ESI for a week, he or she will be the type of person you are likely to describe as forceful. Now, is it likely that you will describe her as forceful the week that her mom dies and she loses her job and everything in life seems hopeless and like there's no point in trying anymore because everything just falls to dust? Hm, probably not.

---

Ho ho ho. :)

Quote:

---

But in general, since all socionics can answer is questions about people "in general," an ESI is going to be described as forceful. If you line up ten thousand ESIs and ten thousand EIIs and asked people to spend a week with each person, at the end of the survey, more people are going to describe more ESIs as forceful than EIIs. Are they going to label some EIIs as more forceful than some ESIs? Sure. But we're talking about "in general" here, about "averages," and yes, about stereotypes. To claim otherwise is, in my opinion, to misunderstand socionics, even to over-apply it.

---

I can't correlate 10,000 random nameless, faceless to a type. 10,000 ESIs are judged as "forceful". Does that make the distinction meaningful? Who is doing the judging? What are their intentions? I wouldn't consider someone who was willing to put 10,000 people through the ringer of their generalizations just so they could pigeonhole the next ESI that comes along into this kind of category as insightful. Not to say that it's automatically banal, but I'd consider useless if the only reason of its validity hinged on the fact that such a sheer number of people shared the observable trait. I mean, the relevance of numbers can be valid, but you have to be ascribing categories with the right motive. 10,000 people have brown hair, but I really don't care. 10,000 ESIs are "forceful", but 20,000 people have dead mothers, 50,000 have an alcohol abuse problem, 70,000 people hate their jobs, 27,000 people say their #1 fear is giving a speech in front of a crowd, 30,000 say they love their pet more than their spouse, and 44,000 like the lavender vanilla febreeze.

Actually that's a good idea. I think I'm going to invent my own psychology system based on the lavender vanilla febreeze dichotomy. I think it's going to be a worthy endeavor, something that says something meaningful about humanity as a whole.

No one automatically assumed that when you say "forceful", you're actually describing this complex process or view that you go on to detail here. You're acting like it should be obvious to assume that, but to assume that complex understanding requires a knowledge of your person. I'm not going to go around assuming that people necessarily have a huge complex understanding. If they don't detail their thought process I'm going to want an explanation.

That's natural. Throwing around loose, general terms while making them somehow theoretically untouchable while correlating them to a theory while making them the end all and be all of the level of understanding is silly. I don't want to study Socionics if everything is relegated to this level. I'd rather apply it person to person with more detail. (So think I understand the way you reacted to Ashton's statement is annoyance at his lack of reasoning, because I find myself annoyed with the same sort of issue in people.)

Now what if people's problems overwhelm them? What if a person is struggling with their mother's death, or lost their job, or has recurring issues for whatever reason? What if you experience them at the lowest point in their life? Or what if you come into contact with them while they continue to struggle? What if you are prone to all their misgivings, their fears, failings? What if the dichotomy of "force" is lost entirety of their person? How are you able to categorize them in any meaningful way now that you don't know which factors to ascribe to Socionics and which to disregard, which trait goes with this or what is actually because of that over there. Are you going to see them as a hallmark greeting card example of Se? No. You might even type them as something else. But the fact is, they are STILL Se. They did not suddenly become another type because they got problems or someone saw them in a bad state or because you are in a position where you become a bit incapable of lining up their traits/behaviors. They don't fit neatly into the 10,000 marker. So what now? They don't impinge on the existence of Se just because they don't fit the stereotype. Not if the existence of Se is something a bit more fundamental, at least.

This makes me want to categorize, analyze, and talk about thought processes, not just observable phenomenon. I'm here to see how these processes work with people.

So I'm not going to categorize 10,000 ESIs as "forceful", because some have the fine precision control and some don't, and there's not always a way to realistically gauge that. It depends on what one person values to the next. I know there's a process in their mind that guides them, but I don't know how their life circumstances have affected them to the point of where their behavior isn't going to be anything like "stereotypical" examples.

I don't fundementally disagree with a lot of your observations, but I think the way you're reacting to the holiness of stereotypes and how you define Socionics is unrealistic. Of course we have to use the word "forceful" intelligently. We have to look at any word intelligently. But to interpret the word "forceful" used in an intelligent way and to automatically accept it as an intelligent use are different things. Perhaps the people who have had an issue with it don't see it being used in an intelligent way. It is not their duty to accept it any more than it is your duty to accept a terse couple sentence reply. The difference I see here is that Pinnochio is detailing his reasoning and Ashton is making a statement with no observable justification.

I actually liked this:

Quote:

---

Se actually may deal with social power, among other things, like Si may deal with bodily states among other things again. The problems are:
1. Se is not equivalent with social power; Si is not equivalent with bodily states;
2. an Se type is not necessarily domineering; an Si type is not necessarily interested in health.

---

And I think that this is inaccurate, (although reasonable given the lack of explanation):

Quote:

---

But in case you're just cautious, you go way overboard making a similar error (IMO, of course) in stating that these attributes of the IEs make no related difference.

---

because I think the concept Ashton's is taking as a given when he says that

Quote:

---

That anyone can do anything regardless of type, or close to this.

---

is that on a workable level, the level that people deal with each other, there is often no relevant, meaningful difference. But he didn't detail his thoughts so there's really no way for you to tell.

Quote:

---

I would say that type does not constrain individuals, like a limit on their behavior. But I would say that type does make certain modes of perception for certain people highly inefficient energy-wise, and emotionally unpleasant. Now, if it can be conceded that certain tasks and ways of behaving are most successfully performed using certain modes or perception (and this is the central question here), then it follows that type makes certain tasks and modes of behavior for certain individuals highly inefficient in energy use. It seems a natural next step to suppose that people will be less likely to perform these tasks and behave in these ways, and more likely to perform those tasks and behave in those ways which are more energy-efficient. That's the argument, in my opinion.

---

Then this is nothing more than not agreeing with your central question. So to break it down:

• It's not a natural step to assume that people will be more likely to perform the tasks that are efficient energy wise, and natural.

• It's not more likely to assume that people will shy away from emotionally unpleasant behaviors or thought processes.

• It's not natural to assume that people will naturally act in more energy efficient ways.

That's just an ideal view. We have the existence of the functions or the IEs or whatever the proper term is, and we have thought processes, and yeah we do have behaviors, but saying they are the end all to typing is false IMO. Who is to say that we comprehend or so easily access our "natural, easy" thought processes on such a 1:1 level? Can you not see the way people fight their thought processes, the most natural, easy way of being, every day of their lives? Can you not see the level of neuroticism present in human nature?

There's got to be a ton of poetry on this. The way you're describing this thing that should happen is the natural, best way for energy related matters. And since when is this natural way going to play out?

Take Shakespeare. People are prone to off themselves, to murder themselves in the most horrible ways, and murder others, and go mad, and to fight their instincts, and to die in pain at the last second right before their saving circumstances come through. And dance around cauldrons, and tear their hair, and run around naked in the rain, and what have you. Humans aren't natural. They're very weird.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

From what you say: this matches the 2 older (more than 30) male LSIs I know. My uncle LSI talks very slow, like he´s pausing in between words and sometimes like he´d rather not talk at all, sometimes I ask him something and the reply comes after some nice almost 10 seconds of silence LOL, trying to be as precise as possible but with no trace of any hurry or need to talk.

This is not my case. I really talk and act on an energy level which tires me until I really collapse. Things I have recently noticed:

- I talk too much
- I expect the same kind of talk from the other person(s) involved in the conversation. If that doesn´t happen, I feel somewhat frustrated with a simple 'yes, it is.' or 'no, I don´t think so.' and leave. Sometimes, if it´s someone I´m close to, like my parents, brother or a girlfriend, this can bring enormous sadness to me and a thought that the other person simply doesn´t care much about me as I do about him/her and responds with few definitive words to what I thought could be a good conversation. If it´s an unknown person or group of strangers, this is interpreted as a sort of rejection (which is not always the case, I´ve seen irl).
- I should be more calm. I am not calm enough to live. I´ve got lack of enthusiasm mixed with something telling me that I should be doing every type of work doubled and better, and without any delay or any time for pleasure. I´ve been having problems with tachychardia since january, my heart is usually at around 90-120 bpm. I take Propanolol 3 times a day for tachychardia and I´m only 28 LOL. This sucks. I must get calmer.

From what you wrote, I´m the ESTj .

---

Yes you are. I'm exhausted of saying so.

The concepts of Socionics change with time just as society and culture changes with time. If it becomes asserted that it should be static in a certain way then it already fails to be useful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mattie

I have to agree with Ashton, most of the suggestions are stereotypes and don't actually apply to :Se:.





To be fairly honest, but not wanting to be rude, what you're mocking here is how you actually understand concepts such as :Se:... So it's like you want someone to do the thinking for you and point you a direction. If you click through some of the links on Wikisocion, and the threads called Information Aspects, you can read up and become familiar. It might help out seeing that you're asking this question.

:Se: the Information Aspect (the Information Metabolism Element not in any function placement) has to do with understanding the capacity and capabilities of things, people, ideas, etc, discerning what they are by the qualities of their's that can be observed. As :Se:-creative, which is what I guess you're interested in, :Se: takes on an active role where the type (TiSe or FiSe) directly assess the Object with a criteria (:Ti: or :Fi:) already in mind. TiSe will do whatever they need to get an understanding, so they manipulate (more in the handling sense than the using, though it is applicable) the Object directly to understand its capabilities, remembering the observable data they gain from interacting with the Object.

---

So you're saying that Se is handeling objects and remembering it's experiences from the interation they have with the object?

To which I add in an Se sense not Si, Si types will also interact with people/objects but internalize the sensations to feelings; this is why Si types often cringe at unpleasant feelings internally and won't often pursue things they have experienced to be unpleasant because their minds seek to adjust the details between the real object and the experience that they derive from interaction with that object.

Se is just observable qualities, like the object is red, green, hence seeming to be more blunt, honest, surface like and Se ego types ignor Si so....


Airborn you can only consciously choose one; do you feel that the sensation that you derive from the object is related to your feelings about the object or as a surface impresion?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Airborne

That´s very interesting Maritsa.

I love hugging and things like that, but I certainly can´t have an orgasm without some sort of sexual intercourse... I really don´t know whether I´m Si or Se valuing. It´s hard to tell, really, because I have depression. But many of the ISTJ features as in wikisocion.org strike me as being very much myself.

Although I do not and cannot know for sure my type probably in this thing without actually meeting face to face someone who knows a lot about this, and being with this person for some time. Then the person may be able to dispell my doubts.

What makes sense in me being LSI:

Special attraction to EIE women,
Stiff, rigid, not very much relaxed in everyday life - only weekends or holidays, then it´s like my 9 wing comes and takes me to a deep peace.
I walk like I´m marching.
I´ve been told I´m arrogant, people have the impression that I have a big ego and think I´m better than everyone (I relate this to beta quadra).
Can be forceful in a physical and psychological manner for extended periods of time.

Although, there´s probably an Si issue. Either I use a lot my demonstrative Si or I´m a delta ST.

---

You can't use a lot of Si if you're Se because Se type ignor Si. But LSE, who have Si as second function will use Se as demonstrative function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redbaron

no, I can do this too.

---

yes you do because it would be in your conscious block and not ignoring function, as it is with Se ego types.


@Divided

I guess you are ESFj then :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dolphin

Ho ho ho. :)

I can't correlate 10,000 random nameless, faceless to a type. 10,000 ESIs are judged as "forceful". Does that make the distinction meaningful? Who is doing the judging? What are their intentions? I wouldn't consider someone who was willing to put 10,000 people through the ringer of their generalizations just so they could pigeonhole the next ESI that comes along into this banal, useless category as insightful. Not to say that it's automatically banal, but I'd consider banal if the only reason of its validity hinged on the fact that such a sheer number of people shared the observable trait. No one automatically assumed that when you say "forceful", you're actually describing this complex process or view that you go on to detail here. You're acting like it should be obvious to assume that, but to assume that complex understanding requires a knowledge of your person. I'm not going to go around assuming people's understanding. If they don't detail their thought process I'm going to want an explanation. Throwing around loose, general terms while making them somehow theoretically untouchable while correlating them to a theory while making them the end all and be all of the level of understanding is silly. I don't want to study Socionics if everything is relegated to this level. I'd rather apply it person to person with more detail.

Now what if people's problems overwhelm them? What if a person is struggling with their mother's death, or lost their job, or has recurring issues for whatever reason? Are you going to see them as a hallmark greeting card example of Se? No. You might even type them as something else. But the fact is, they are STILL Se, because we are categorizing thought processes, not observable phenomenon. We're here to see how these processes work with people, not to play God and throw around stereotypical labels detachedly. That isn't where the meaning comes from.

So we're not going to categorize 10,000 ESIs as "forceful", because some have the fine precision control and some don't, and there's not always a way to realistically gauge that. It depends on what one person values to the next. We know there's a process in their mind that guides them, but we don't know how their life circumstances have affected them to the point of where their behavior isn't going to be anything like "stereotypical" examples.

I don't fundementally disagree with a lot of your observations, but I think the way you're reacting to the holiness of stereotypes and how you define Socionics is unrealistic. Of course we have to use the word "forceful" intelligently. We have to look at any word intelligently. But to interpret the word "forceful" used in an intelligent way and to automatically accept it as an intelligent use is are different things. Perhaps the people who have had an issue with it don't see it being used in an intelligent way. It is not their duty to accept it any more than it is your duty to accept a couple sentenced reply. The only difference I see here is that Pinnochio is detailing his reasoning and Ashton isn't.

---

I'm fine with people using their own method. I'm just non-fine with the argument that one of the methods I use is useless. It seems to me that Mattie, Ashton, and others are arguing that concepts like "force" or "strength" should never be applied to Se, and even that concepts like emotions or relations shouldn't be applied to Fi and Fe. And I disagree with that. I'm not saying you can't also use other concepts like resonance and homeorhesis and emergence and whatever. But I am saying that you can arrive at and communicate a deep theoretical understanding without that sort of terminology.

And the fact that you can't identify with 10,000 nameless faces, well, I mean, this is a great example of "take it in the sense that it was meant." If you don't trust experimental data that gauges people's verbal reactions, then you might as well throw out almost all of experimental psychology. The point of saying that isn't an argument from authority, look at me, I'm doing science, because I don't know methods of psychology, and what I proposed probably has a billion things wrong with it from that POV. My point that kind of data is obviously considered useful or valid to somebody, even without the level of specificity you want. So presumably you can put yourself into the mindset of such a person?

Quote:

---

Then this is nothing more than not agreeing with your central question. It's not a natural step to assume that people will be less likely to perform the tasks that are efficient energy wise, and natural. It's not more likely to assume that people will shy away from emotionally unpleasant behaviors or thought processes. It's not natural to assume that people will naturally act in more energy efficient ways. That's just an ideal view. We have the existence of thefunctions or the IEs or whatever the hell the proper term is, and we have thought processes, and yeah we do have behaviors, but saying they are the end all to typing is false IMO. Who is to say that we comprehend or so easily access our "natural, easy" thought processes on such a 1:1 level? Can you not see the way people fight their thought processes, the most natural, easy way of being, every day of their lives? Can you not see the level of neuroticism present in human nature? There's got to be a ton of poetry on this. The way you're describing this thing that should happen is the natural, best way for energy related matters. And since when is this natural way going to play out? Take Shakespeare.

---

Of course. Socionics is a system like any other. In fact, the arguments you're making are the same ones I make about economics. And economics isn't useless. Socionics isn't useless either. Just because something doesn't fit reality perfectly (and socionics doesn't), doesn't mean it's useless for understanding reality.

And if you disagree with the notion that most people behave most often in the ways that are natural psychologically, isn't that like saying that you think most people don't act out of their "ego block" in Model A? And if you think that, well, why practice socionics at all, if most people's behavior has nothing to do with their ego functions? Where do you think socionics intersects with reality then? How do you think socionics manifests in actual human behavior?

Removed at User Request

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

I'm fine with people using their own method. I'm just non-fine with the argument that one of the methods I use is useless. It seems to me that Mattie, Ashton, and others are arguing that concepts like "force" or "strength" should never be applied to Se, and even that concepts like emotions or relations shouldn't be applied to Fi and Fe. And I disagree with that. I'm not saying you can't also use other concepts like resonance and homeorhesis and emergence and whatever. But I am saying that you can arrive at and communicate a deep theoretical understanding without that sort of terminology.

---

There's a difference with associating words in the light of a concept and then having the word represent the concept. Though, in words, you say that people are generally intelligent enough to know that :Se: =/= power, and other examples, in both this thread and outside is the general practice of this type of thinking! I'm trying to find how this applies to reality, and I have found that there is an :Se: way of looking at power, relationships, emotions, ideas, etc. :Se: being used to represent a show of power or force isn't something I find to be real. An IME = behavior isn't something I find to be real. Do I think everyone has to do it my way to reach the "right" conclusion? No, of course not, and I don't think there's one way to do Socionics right now. Who knows what Socionics really even IS and IS NOT! What is Socionics to you? When does it become something else? This is going to change from person to person, as it should. I say what I say because I see spurious correlations, and I want to share what is apparently an unpopular view of what I see things to be.

I don't assume anyone to have a "deep" or not understanding of this, because I'm not entirely sure if there is a true claim of what "this" is. I have established a personal methodology to how I'm going to discern how I think Socionics is applicable to reality, and shaking off what I find to be superficial claims to cause personality traits is part of that. This is an open forum where a question was asked, so I gave my opinion since it was open to everyone to discuss. I also directly commented about this "practical" vs "abstract" (using the terms used by Airborne) because it was brought to light and one was intentionally devalued. I didn't even end up using any complex terms to try and explain myself. If I do a bad job communicating my ideas and none of it's convincing, oh well, that's my issue.

I think a book could be written using just Silverchris´ and Dolphin´s posts.

Well, I´m becoming kind of disoriented because I do not fit into the LSE stereotype... like I said I cannot stand a simple burgeois lifestyle of a 9 to 5 job which I don´t like but pays my bills, spend my lifetime in something totally robotically and without any heavy involvement in it. But I also have too much Si definitely, and I guess what some ppl mistake for Se is my EJ temperament - take a closer look at how they can be taken one for another especially if someone has demonstrative Se and is short-tempered like I am.

The LSE stereotype seems just not myself, though. It´s like people who are SOOO DAMN HAPPY WITH LIFE AND WITH THIS INDIVIDUALISTIC/EGOCENTRIC SOCIETY, BECAUSE THEY CAN NOW PURSUE THEIR OWN MEDIOCRE EGOCENTRIC INDIVIDUALISTIC GOALS OF GETTING A BIG HOUSE A MERCEDES BENZ AND THINK THEY´RE SOME SHIT BECAUSE OF HAVING GOTTEN THAT. This irritates me a lot in our current world where there is only this total lobotomical style - which is, in its nature, Jewish - called Brutal Capitalism, where anything goes as long as you get rich, and fuck the world, the future, the children, the people you´ve fucked in order to get rich, to sum up, fuck everyone else and get rich.

This was the greatest contribution of the Jews in their infiltration of Europe and later the Americas, especially the USA, where they are almost supreme rulers of media, entertainment, credit cards, banking etc.

I do not want to breed hatred against the Jews - this is just a cold observation of facts. In fact, I don´t think I could kill a Jew, or anyone, unless the person was really into killing me and it was an either me or him situation.

But anyway, nowadays´ system just SUCKS and this world we live in is headed TOWARDS DESTRUCTION IF PEOPLE DO NOT START REVOLTING. The wars, and I mean civil wars, have to begin in all places of the Earth, for the overthrowing of this evil system and implementation of a moderate capitalist system, where people would live life in peace and harmony with nature and spirituality, and material goods could still be enjoyed, BUT NO ONE WOULD HAVE SOMETHING LIKE 1 BILLION DOLLARS BECAUSE IT´S JUST RIDICULOUS.

There would be a limit, say 50 million dollars, for your money including your belongings, cars, jets, etc. No one needs a fucking private jet! The money would be distributed more evenly, and not GIVEN TO PEOPLE, but instead, GIVEN TO STRONG GOVERNMENTAL INSTITUTIONS which would ensure that nobody needed much money to live - those who wanted to try to make the 50 million dollar limit, would be free to pursue their greedy goal, but people with time would begin to make fun of these people and find them somewhat perverted and wicked because spirituality would be fostered and people would have more internal values, and see that life is short, we have to live the moment, and we have to enjoy our lives, not waste it working like an unconscious robot without any passion. If your work makes you feel good, then perfect, you´re on the right track. But there should be no people working just to pay their bills. I´d rather put a .45 caliber bullet in my fucking mouth than live a life like this, or shoot as many people as I could before shooting myself, because they´re supporting this system and not revolting.

So, this is why I don´t relate to LSE who seem to be pictured as being these workaholic idiots who live for their work and nothing else, probably they don´t know what sex is or what FREEDOM is, and I value my freedom too much.

And I am ambitious, I would be lying to say I weren´t, but my ambitiousness has more to do with being a very good policeman, an army officer, something that I could contribute to society, instead of sucking from society - which is today´s world and what I dislike. Most people don´t contribute to anything, and this is not fostered. What is fostered is the most greedy and egoistical way of life where you take everything for yourself and fuck the world. Surely this is not a Jewish invention but a human invention which had to be totally cut down, and Adolf tried to do that, to cut the materialistic greedy values of decadent Europe and USA to nobler and less egoistical ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jarno

Oke thanks. You also do indeed seem to describe yourself as having the EJ temperament.

---

thank you, for the help. :content:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by discojoe

I relate to this 100%.

---

You relate to this, I can clearly see that you see kind of similarly to how I see the world and its current situation and it makes you feel depressed, to live in this mediocre world. I can see it in your eyes when you´re on that chat thing. And many people are waking up to this. That movie Matrix the first one, it´s a story of a guy that just starts to wake up. It´s got a lot of buddhist and cabbalistic metaphors in it.

I think words like force, strength, willpower, motivation, volition, mobilization, etc. are associated with Se because these words are trying to get at the concept of what Se is not because there's some claim that Se is these words. This concept once seen, can be seen in people, whether Se leading or creative (or really in any place in the Socionics "psyche" in its corresponding form). For instance I do see ESIs as "forceful." They're not "forceful" in that Se way that Se leading is, but I can see the use of their creative function when it's "on." It just isn't on constantly in the way it is with Se leading. And by all of this I don't mean that Se leading is constantly knocking people around and bellowing out commands to mobilize people and beating their chests or whatever as that is absurd. And Se leading can even be quiet and shy. It isn't about that, it's about seeing the Se and I can see why "forceful" is one of the words used to try to get at it.

I also think that it tends to be convenient to fall back on words like "forceful" or whatever as a sort of shorthand of trying to get at the concept behind the words, a concept which isn't so easily stated in words without going on for paragraphs about it (and when people do that, there's still a lot of disagreement and I don't see how it can ever be chiseled down into something so precise that everyone agrees so I see it as futile to bother... although not that I think it's useless to write out long paragraphs for further understanding). But falling back on such words doesn't necessarily mean one doesn't understand the concept itself or something close to it (or hasn't examined thoughtfully in their own mind what they think the concept is/means). Anyway I tend to see the words as secondary to the concepts because it's not like in Socionics things are the easiest to describe in the first place because these concepts are pretty abstract. Of course, I kind of suspect some of these arguments come up because people detect that the concept in someone else's mind doesn't match the one in their own mind precisely enough.

I also think that everything can be misleading and that one has to at some point just trust others to use their brains... Although I can see that if something seems to be misleading everyone most of the time it needs to perhaps be changed into something that will mislead a smaller percentage of people... but I don't really think the buzz words for Se (like "forceful") are that problematic. Seeing the string of Se buzz words together actually does rather get at the concept of what Se is especially when looked at in comparison with the buzz words for Ne, Si, etc. and then when considered with other Socionics source material and so on. It's basically that people have to draw their own conclusions and hopefully for the sake of communication "we" can all try to get close enough to be able to actually communicate and get somewhere in discussion but I don't really have a lot of faith in that, but somehow still remain optimistic at the same time (in that it is possible).

loki :thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

Lol… if it were so easy, we wouldn't be having it out all the time with inconclusive debates over typings. The subject as a whole would be far less of an enigmatic puzzle than it is presently.

---

I personally don't have a problem with things being inconclusive in Socionics--it's not and probably never will be an exacting science (if everything was 100% conclusive and everyone 100% agreed on the typing of every individual I would think something was wrong).

Quote:

---

Except these buzzwords obviously aren't working that well.

---

If you're trying to say that Socionics as a whole is failing in this "community" in that no one can seem to understand the theory on the same terms, I would say it goes beyond a set of "words" and would even go so far to say that the problem would continue regardless of which new words you decided to choose to use instead. I personally however believe I basically understand the use of the Se "buzz words" because I can see it (of course seeing it and making you believe that I do aren't the same thing but I wasn't trying to convince you of what I see... I was trying to say that I disagree with saying the words are useless as I tend to see them as actually rather useful). If you want to blame the lack of convergence of understanding on them, then I probably disagree with you that they are the problem and you really haven't said anything to back up your claim that they are so we're even in saying "absolutely nothing."

I think the problem is that Socionics is highly abstract and lacking in objectivity (not because there aren't awesome enough definitions but because it literally is not scientific... the best at objective one can get is maybe case "studies" cough and a set of criteria) therefore people have to suspend their own disbelief to expand their Socionics understanding and in the meantime can be pulled in every direction by other people who claim to understand the concepts/theory better. I do think it can be better so I'm not trying to say that your quest of clearing it up so everyone is on the same page is worthless.

Quote:

---

We'll have better communication when we actually start forging and working with better tools of understanding—i.e. definitions which articulate these phenomenon more precisely with greater objectivity. Until then, most discussions are going to be futile crapshoots.

---

Maybe. I generally find narratives that illustrate the concepts in examples with real people the most useful. But going through "definitions" can help with organizing the concepts in ones mind, so I don't at all think threads going over that are useless... I just think that there's a lot being claimed about the understanding of others based on the words they're using and I think that sometimes Socionics is made a lot more complicated than it needs to be, but as I'm prone to do that in my own mind I think it's very understandable and human.

Also, it does take time imo to get anywhere with Socionics so I wouldn't really expect anyone who's only been aware of it for a couple of years to have some sort of spot on understanding (and I don't at all think I have a spot on understanding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by silverchris9

I'm fine with people using their own method. I'm just non-fine with the argument that one of the methods I use is useless. It seems to me that Mattie, Ashton, and others are arguing that concepts like "force" or "strength" should never be applied to Se, and even that concepts like emotions or relations shouldn't be applied to Fi and Fe. And I disagree with that. I'm not saying you can't also use other concepts like resonance and homeorhesis and emergence and whatever. But I am saying that you can arrive at and communicate a deep theoretical understanding without that sort of terminology.

---

Of course you can. You can probably arrive at and communicate a deep theoretical understanding in a lot of ways. But in many ways the manner of communicating you're utilizing just isn't that efficient on some levels. It's very hard to stomach huge walls of text on functions sometimes, and while often they can be interesting and informative, they also have the potential to be sort of meaningless. When I read your posts about Se I get some insight..(And perhaps off focus of the discussion, but to me, your description of Se sounds more like Beta Se than Gamma Se)..but it's also mixed up with your biases and your opinions and your grasping at many different words sort of circling around the point.

I'm not debating your understanding, and I don't think these people are trying to tell you that your method is useless. I believe they're getting at something more along the lines of it is inefficient, and perhaps it has holes that can be solved.

I'm not sure what your impatience with such terminology is quite about. When I read about your descriptions of your perceptions of the functions, they can be often good informative reads, but they're also tedious and grasping. I'm not sure what is coloring your perception and how much of how you speak or think is pre-biasing you to what you describe. It takes so much judgment and time to deal with that. And everyone else, long functional stuff, (I know I'm guilty of rants and really grasping paragraphs), the wikisocion descriptions, these weird translations..

Now I can sort of deal with it by wading through thee material and picking out the relevant bits and discarding the rest. But that's a lot of effort for so little payoff. And I'm sure people haven't been able to digest my walls of text before either. I'm certain it goes both ways.

Now I'm not sure if this homeostasis thing is the perfect technique, but it certainly makes sense to me that instead of broadening the scope of information to great lofty sort of imaginative unrealistic heights, that it can at least be grounded in something practical and brief. And it makes sense to me that by looking at the nature of the functions and taking their base definitions, we can derive some fairly stable terms off that (Not to say that it shouldn't be debated or refined, but rather the goal is to describe something so basic that it can be a sort of fundamental). That way people can have tools to develop their own understanding fairly quickly and/or easily. It's not necessary to study Socionics alone on the mountaintops for years before emerging from the purple fog a wise old sage with mental masturbation-esque knowledge of humanity that no one else understands.

I've tried to explain Socionics to people that aren't familiar with it and it ends up being a lot of hand waving, "it's this but it's not this", "it's kind of like this perception and it has to do with social stuff, but you know, not really, not everyone who does that action has it, it's just this feeling..." whereas if I could have one term for them, like homeowhatever, along with a sort of basic definition to give to them, it's a lot more solid foundation to build their own understanding rather than them getting my filtered grasping hokey sounding idea because I can't explain this abstract idea of Socionics in my perception.

Quote:

---

And the fact that you can't identify with 10,000 nameless faces, well, I mean, this is a great example of "take it in the sense that it was meant." If you don't trust experimental data that gauges people's verbal reactions, then you might as well throw out almost all of experimental psychology. The point of saying that isn't an argument from authority, look at me, I'm doing science, because I don't know methods of psychology, and what I proposed probably has a billion things wrong with it from that POV. My point that kind of data is obviously considered useful or valid to somebody, even without the level of specificity you want. So presumably you can put yourself into the mindset of such a person?

---

I'm not quite understanding where you made the correlation that I don't trust experimental data that guages people's verbal reactions. Experimental data can be essential. It just has to be focused and handled well. And in my opinion someone isolating that sort of "force" description word characteristic in 10,000 "ESIs" isn't focused or handled well. The description and using many different words is not accessible. Sure you have to know what you're trying to look for, and you may have an intuitive perception of Socionics traits, maybe you're aware of them, and that's great. Personally I think there's something real to all of this. But there's no reason to continue hemming and hawing around the point so expansively if the definitions can be reasonably focused and defined and narrowed down to their essentials. I mean you can continue doing that, if you find value in it. But in my mind there is now something that combines the essentiality of perception with the integrity of words. Why settle with just developing your understanding when the words to describe it can also be realistically utilized in a more effective fashion?

Maybe that is more of a value judgment. I keep thinking of analogies akin to efficient machines taking the place of some time tested tradition. There's no seeming difference in the output (there can be claims of "better quality", both valid and invalid, but it depends on the circumstances), but the time and effort spent on something does not always correlate to higher value. Personally when I stay in some sort of inefficient situation the process is more important than the result. So the value must lie in the action of creating.

And at this point, I'm tired of the laborious creating stage in this micro-cycle of that sort of concept I just referenced. I'm tired of talking so extensively about Socionics. It's not something poetic and eloquent and expansive and extensive. It's something specific that I want to be able to refer to easily and communicate about easily and to transfer perceptions to other people without the bother of sending and receiving massive walls of text. Maybe it's not quite possible and such elaboration is integral to the study of such a field. But the point is, if there are better, more condensed terms, I'm going to use them. I think that if you see someone use so much elaboration and struggle for words, and you don't necessarily discard their complex understanding, you should also take a look at the other side, and not disregard their complex understanding because their words seem so streamlined and terse. I think that's a sort of conflict some of the functions take on regarding the field vs object dichotomy, but I'm not exactly sure which dichotomy it can be properly related to, I only know that I see it and I feel it's applicable.

Quote:

---

Of course. Socionics is a system like any other. In fact, the arguments you're making are the same ones I make about economics. And economics isn't useless. Socionics isn't useless either. Just because something doesn't fit reality perfectly (and Socionics doesn't), doesn't mean it's useless for understanding reality.

---

I never said Socionics was useless. I don't think your ideal about people gravitating towards more efficient energy focus/expenditure is necessarily Socionics. I think it may have some insight, perhaps along the lines of the ideas detailed in information metabolism writings. But the fact remains is that there exists a lot of disharmony between people's natural preferences and the extensive web of their actual behavior. In this case I'm choosing to refine the system according to reality, rather than try to find another focal point in which it fits reality.

Perhaps I, as Ashton mentioned, jumped the gun in favor of answering your question too decidedly. Maybe it's not an either/or thing. Someone makes a statement, and then there must necessarily be opposition to define the polarities the statement tried to encompass? But it's like, that's just staying within the circle of the statement, sort of trapping one in it or something. Maybe it can't be resolved very clearly because it's not even a good approximation of reality. Maybe such fundamental divides are illusions when the concentration becomes on some sort of fabricated divide. For me it's often easier to argue against something than to clearly define the parameters of my own understanding, which therefore remains in the realm of hokey poky. But I'm kind of wandering off topic here I think.

Quote:

---

And if you disagree with the notion that most people behave most often in the ways that are natural psychologically, isn't that like saying that you think most people don't act out of their "ego block" in Model A? And if you think that, well, why practice socionics at all, if most people's behavior has nothing to do with their ego functions? Where do you think socionics intersects with reality then? How do you think socionics manifests in actual human behavior?

---

You're making my statements attempting to describe reality into unrealistic absolutes. Maybe people aren't one faceted composites of their ego blocks. Does that make the the study of ego blocks any less useful? No. It just invites further study. What about the positioning of the other elements? How do they come in? What role do they play in a person's psyche? To what extent does a dual seeking function color a person's worldview to the point that they may seem in ways usually correlated to that respective function's leading?

I never said people's behavior has nothing to do with their ego functions. I believe that what has been said is that "That anyone can do anything regardless of type, or close to this" and I agree with that.

Using behavior as the ultimate decider of type is often inefficient because it's all filtered through other people's perceptions. I don't have a problem with people trying to refer to more fundamental perceptions, because in that case it would be pointing to a perception that references a thought process. Maybe you or other people don't use it ultimately, and yes it can be a tool. But it's sort of like beating a nail into the ground with an anvil. Just use a hammer dude. Why would you circle around an intangible definition so laboriously if you didn't have to?

Behavior has a lot to do with type, but it's not the mother Gaia of usefulness. Clearly defined functions and information elements and aspects are simpler and have less bias attached to them. We know behavior is an offshoot of thought processes, and we don't know how Socionics related behavior intersects with all the other guiding and molding and shaping forces that human beings come into contact with. We try to define this from time to time, but I'm not content with saying it's a 1:1 correlation from Socionics to reality. "Reality" isn't confined to "actual human behavior". You're acting like the two are mutually inclusive. Thought processes are reality too even if the studies and theories surrounding them are not so easily pointed to "objectively" as those borne of behavioral observations, and they're more integral. Anyone can observe a behavior and interpret it the way they desire.

:thumbsup: loki and silverchris9.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loki

I personally don't have a problem with things being inconclusive in Socionics--it's not and probably never will be an exacting science (if everything was 100% conclusive and everyone 100% agreed on the typing of every individual I would think something was wrong).

If you're trying to say that Socionics as a whole is failing in this "community" in that no one can seem to understand the theory on the same terms, I would say it goes beyond a set of "words" and would even go so far to say that the problem would continue regardless of which new words you decided to choose to use instead. I personally however believe I basically understand the use of the Se "buzz words" because I can see it (of course seeing it and making you believe that I do aren't the same thing but I wasn't trying to convince you of what I see... I was trying to say that I disagree with saying the words are useless as I tend to see them as actually rather useful). If you want to blame the lack of convergence of understanding on them, then I probably disagree with you that they are the problem and you really haven't said anything to back up your claim that they are so we're even in saying "absolutely nothing."

I think the problem is that Socionics is highly abstract and lacking in objectivity (not because there aren't awesome enough definitions but because it literally is not scientific... the best at objective one can get is maybe case "studies" cough and a set of criteria) therefore people have to suspend their own disbelief to expand their Socionics understanding and in the meantime can be pulled in every direction by other people who claim to understand the concepts/theory better. I do think it can be better so I'm not trying to say that your quest of clearing it up so everyone is on the same page is worthless.

Maybe. I generally find narratives that illustrate the concepts in examples with real people the most useful. But going through "definitions" can help with organizing the concepts in ones mind, so I don't at all think threads going over that are useless... I just think that there's a lot being claimed about the understanding of others based on the words they're using and I think that sometimes Socionics is made a lot more complicated than it needs to be, but as I'm prone to do that in my own mind I think it's very understandable and human.

---

:thumbsup: Excellent post.