It's my polr and I want to make it buffer. What are some suggestions? Just ignore my brain and feel everything with my five senses? Sounds cool. I'm starting today.
It's my polr and I want to make it buffer. What are some suggestions? Just ignore my brain and feel everything with my five senses? Sounds cool. I'm starting today.
haha.
I tried that and felt repulsed and overwhelmed by all the shit around me.
4w3-5w6-8w7
....Originally Posted by intjguy
Walk around laying dudes out at random.Originally Posted by intjguy
(Beware of cops.)
SLI/ISTp -- Te subtype
Why do you want to make it buffer?Originally Posted by intjguy
Johari Box"Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
I was inspired by your post so I just got done trying that. I walked outside and down the street and all I could do was make observations of everything I saw. I opened up my eyes really wide and just stared at everything for a few seconds. I thought it was the most boring thing I've ever done. the road is grey, the sky is blue, It's a very pretty blue. The people aren't so pretty though. They think I'm strange, because I hang my mouth low and my eyes are shifty. I'm trying to see everything at once. It's difficult. I look like my sister did when she got a concussion from gymnastics. She would walk around the house and stare at things like she never saw them before. Then she kept asking for chinese food. So I was just walking around thinking about my sister and chinese food, and then I realized I had stopped sensing things and was about to run into someone.
I'm very bad at sensing things.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
That sounds more like (except the ignore my brain part doesn't sound any function because they are apparently located in the brain)Originally Posted by intjguy
yes, life is much more interesting when experienced through the imagination.Originally Posted by americancer
I actually felt like that last night at a restaurant. took a moment to sense everything, but then I was like fuck this. of course there are advantages to everything, I'm not knocking sensors.
4w3-5w6-8w7
Flexing the excersize might be more like...find a person, then try to make them do something by applying some pressure to them, commanding them while reading how they react to that and finding the right way, timing and amount of pressure you should use so that they won't feel intimidated, rebellious, pissed off or run away but instead do exactly what you command. Perhaps something like that. But it has to be _pressure_ not _persuasion_ which would not be . Perhaps an easier one is to find someone who is somehow weaker than you and vulnerable to you (perceive that with ) then match force with force and push them so hard they will break and submit to your will. This might not be completely accurate but it is closer to than perceiving things with five senses which is more related to .
If you really want to look credibly , just get very large - either become grotesquely obese or a hulking mountain of muscle. Either will do.
"How could we forget those ancient myths that stand at the beginning of all races, the myths about dragons that at the last moment are transformed into princesses? Perhaps all the dragons in our lives are princesses who are only waiting to see us act, just once, with beauty and courage. Perhaps everything that frightens us is, in its deepest essence, something helpless that wants our love."
-- Rainer Maria Rilke, Letters to a Young Poet
Actually that doesn't help. There are HUGE people who look like push-overs. And they attract bullies.Originally Posted by Baby
INTp
sx/sp
The easy answer is "join a karate school", so that way you think you are actually learning "self defense". You can show off your katas and demonstrate what a punch and kick looks like to your enemies!
Posts I wrote in the past contain less nuance.
If you're in this forum to learn something, be careful. Lots of misplaced toxicity.
~an extraverted consciousness is unable to believe in invisible forces.
~a certain mysterious power that may prove terribly fascinating to the extraverted man, for it touches his unconscious.
sensing doesn't mean you walk around mindlessly staring at things...
ISFp; SEI
Se is what you get when you apply the Ti. Start thinking about what dogmas and rules of thumb you have amassed during your existance as an INTj (which should be a lot), then think about how you can use them for maximum effect. Don't hessistate when what you come up with is crude and tactless, or when it makes you move away from an ethical lifestyle; using Se is all about giving in to such vices.
Oh... uhhhhh. Then I have no idea what sensing is...Originally Posted by jelly grass
Everyone likes to tell us what sensing isn't, but no one is willing to say what it is.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
honestly, active attention to one's external environment is a common definition of Se, although in ways i won't claim to understand (as i am not a sensor) this attention seems to produce the more visible effects of aggressive behavior, extensive active interaction with one's environment, and the implementation of strict authoritarianish systems.Originally Posted by anamericancer
Si, on the other hand is not about attentiveness to one's external surrounding but rather to the physical needs of the body and the senses.
I either have or , and I am not weak in either one (at least not that I think). Any way I think is about sheer survival, having fun, knowing your desires, knowing your physical self, and knowing the risks that you are willing to take. I don't know if that is a good explanation, but I hope it helps.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
My dad is very . He enjoys watching survival shows on the discovery channel and swears he looks exactly like survivor man. He loves talking about survival and camping and cooking (he's a chef).
My dad and surviorman, les stroud
So I always assumed to be very environmental and survival-like.
maybe a saint is just a dead prick with a good publicist
maybe tommorow's statues are insecure without their foes
go ask the frog what the scorpion knows
not necessarily how i would describe it. theres at least as good a chance that represents Si.
Okay, how about this: is about being aware of your own survival instincts to the extent that it requires forceful thoughts and actions. There is also in there as well I think.
EDIT
Seeing things for what they are without adding anything special to them. Having a good perception of reality (I think), knowing the appropriate action one should take about handling any physical object.
I might just have it totally wrong here. I am assuming that I am an type.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
I thought is that feeling you get when you're going down hill on a bicycle... there's this moment where the experience of it jars me from my private thoughts, and I can only experience it... Is that ???
Edit...
Wait, is it more like that feeling of alertness when walking alone at night...?
unfortunately, i really have no idea if most of these suggestions are right or not. my understanding of what an Se state of mind entails is extremely limited.
throw things at people and have fits of anger!! grr! do not back down in the face of a threat!
6w5 sx
model Φ: -+0
sloan - rcuei
is about punching walls and so on, is about efficient movement and conserving your energy etc. (dominant) types see everything in real-time, and base their decisions on the surface appearance of things - they can tell who to avoid, and who they can beat etc. dominant types are more likely to find someone's hidden Achilles heel , then attack someone with full force. types are about listening carefully to sounds, feeling the exact texture of things etc., rather than following a more proactive approach like types. types know how to satisfy their sensations in the long-term - i.e. they remember what they like - warm fires, plush curtains etc. - types are more 'MOVE! MOVE! MOVE! GOTTA KEEP MOVIN'' etc. etc.
At a beach, types might observe the waves, and notice that every seven waves, there is an extra large one - thus knowing how to maximise their surfing experience. types are more likely to just surf because 'the waves are there' - types observe long-term trends in things, observed the properties of things in the moment.
Well, anyways...
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
What I mean is - types seem to be more about 'winning' things 'Now', while types are less proactive and more efficient in the way they deal with things - to me, at least, it seems that types try to provoke a response from things in a rather haphazard and direct way - I don't mean punching walls because they are angry or whatever . I should have phrased things better .Originally Posted by Herzy
Improving your happiness and changing your personality for the better
Jungian theory is not grounded in empirical data (pdf file)
The case against type dynamics (pdf file)
Cautionary comments regarding the MBTI (pdf file)
Reinterpreting the MBTI via the five-factor model (pdf file)
Do the Big Five personality traits interact to predict life outcomes? (pdf file)
The Big Five personality test outperformed the Jungian and Enneagram test in predicting life outcomes
Evidence of correlations between human partners based on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traits
Originally Posted by Herzy
But wtf! Anyone can do that capability my ass
btw, what's wrong with condensing with two words: survival and reality? Or is it that survival and the perception of reality not type related?
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
i think this is a very good demonstration of SeTi, particularly in the way that everything needs to be categorized into a particular group before it can be determined what action should be taken. its also very much Se blocked with Ti in that prominently displays the exclusionism and arbitrary social standards (dare i say aristocracy after trashing reinin?) that are so commonly (often stereotypically) associated with beta. in these ways these examples very different from the Se of a gamma SF, which is still object-oriented but has a very decision making process (very simplistically, based on moral and ethical bonds and spur of the moment emotions.)Originally Posted by Herzy
what do those concepts have to do with Se? its not that survival and reality are not type related, but rather that, as described, survival and reality are confusing concepts that have no meaning. if you suggest that Se types have the will to survive through anything and are attuned to everything in the reality in front of them, then at least you have a simple working description, although still a drastic oversimplification.Originally Posted by Jimbean
Se is the function that stands out most to me at least in other males. I think because its my role i wish i had it. Se people are very squared in the present moment. With types with Se & Ti together they tend to lack any negative flickers of self doubt i perceive easily in everyone else. They do have them but they seem very few and far between.
I think the link between survival and Se would be due to Se being the first function that evolved for hunting and running away from dangerous predators. Back when you lived in a cave and a tiger charged in if you were not ready and day dreaming instead your dead.
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
this is getting in to very dangerous territory here. for a caveman in 6000 BC, survival is the all-important goal regardless of type (if types existed in primitive humans). to suggest that Se evolved at all for survival purposes is uncertain; Se as it is in modern humans is a conscious function like any other rather than pure instinct used for survival purposes by less complex species. where does the line, if any, between Se and pure instincts blur?Originally Posted by meatburger
if early humans with certain types, etc. did not have enough Se they would not be at all aware of their environment and would have died. if they did not have enough Si to survive they would try to exert themselves while injured and die. if they didn't have any intuition or logic they wouldn't notice connections between events and would be hopelessly confused (and would, in principle, essentially be acting upon instinct) and would not have achieved the mass sentience of today. clearly all of these functions are in abundance for the purposes of not dying because of lack of understanding of them.
I do not know how to explain it, I can only describe it in motivations and desires, and the only way I can think of how to do that is to describe being a survivalist
I was trying to provoke a response out of Herzy, but I think she hit the description pretty close. It is also possible that I am an type that is bent on realism and survival
So I think it is best that everyone should take Herzy's view over mine. I apologize for any confusion that I have caused.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
don't take this the wrong way intjguy but i don't think it's truly possible to make one's PoLR really "buff". what is possible though is to work at it. you have to improve your weaknesses. it doesn't mean that you suddenly must ignore your leading functions. although Se isn't all about flexing muscle, pumping iron is a great way to develop it especially if it's the part about intimidation which interest you (i'm going to start sounding like a pro bodybuilder on this site but i assure you i'm not). i mean think about: lifting weights is like trying to climb a hurdle. it's mastering not only yourself but your environment, what's in front of you. and in any case, you don't have to apply too much pressure on others when you're buff. that would be a nice shortcut to creating Se: a physical illusion that you're ready to take on and conquer whatever lies in your way.Originally Posted by intjguy
also, when directing others or just plain taking up space, the Se type isn't pulling out a secret weapon: they're just being themselves. improving your weaknesses requires that one think in different terms. it's like being a fish out of water: you can't stay out too long or you'll choke. you must give importance to things that you usually don't value but without sacrificing who you are.
now, if you would be so kind as to give me some advice on how to build up some good ole' Fi :wink: (kidding!)
IEI - the nasty kind...
I personally don't think you need to apologize at all! I think confusion lies on the path to understanding anyway.Originally Posted by Jimbean
In my understanding it is when someone at work walks into a meeting room and says "Oh damn. How can you work here? It is so warm and way too humid. We need to find another room. I can't work under these conditions." and then we go and change the room. Others were barely noticing the bad conditions and some, like me, were noticing it but thinking something like "air in this room really sucks but I guess I can take it for hour or two". So a dominant person to me seems very perceptive to those environmental conditions around him that cause strong positive or negative sensations in their body and refuse to just adapt to those but instead want to change them for the better.
Then someone who is very much in touch with the nature (a ranger or survival guy of sort) is usually pointing to strong .
I have also noticed that when types do sports they want to usually go full speed and test themselves hard. When types do sports they want to enjoy it. So even if they like to do sports in general they dislike going too high intensity especially when there is no real reason to do so (they are not in a competition setting etc).
How about this?
Jung's first categorization of the two functions described Se as being primarly concerned with the intensity of the experience; at its extreme, whatever the cost of the experience, the intensity overtakes any rationality. This might be the case of people that die during extreme sports. OTOH Si is described as personalized sensation, and thus there is NOobjective standard (i.e. intensity) by which to measure the "pleasure", so the Si type looks like he's enjoying himself because he's reaching is subjective state of intensity (which can actually be internally equal to the objective external intensity of the Se type).Originally Posted by XoX
Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit
Yep i do agree with you Niff! I thought it was perhaps possible that everyone was the same type back then and types slowly changed, although i really haven't given it much thought.Originally Posted by niffweed17
@FDG. Yeah i think a lot of extreme sports dudes are ISTp's (among others). My friends an ISTp and he is one crazy dude. Broken like every bone in his body. Twice
ENFp (Unsure of Subtype)
"And the day came when the risk it took to remain closed in a bud became more painful than the risk it took to blossom." - Anaïs Nin
Well, I can think of how to be , but I simply cannot tell you. Just find it within yourself and use it.
"Far better it is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much, because they live in the gray twilight that knows not victory nor defeat."
--Theodore Roosevelt
"Twenty years from now you will be more disappointed by the things that you didn't do than by the ones you did do. So throw off the bowlines. Sail away from the safe harbor. Catch the trade winds in your sails. Explore. Dream. Discover."
-- Mark Twain
"Man who stand on hill with mouth open will wait long time for roast duck to drop in."
-- Confucius
From what I've read, it appears that Se is judging your surroundings a lot.
We intjs just don't give a fuck I guess.
Herzy's description was quite interesting (great job! ), and I think is often seen in a negative light (basically, combative applications of rather than as a perceptual trait). I don't think I can improve on her description (which is more lifelike), but I think is about being aware of the space around you and objects in that space. In Herzy's description, the emphasis is on the objects themselves that enter her radar screen, not on how they affect her internal state ( ). , I think, also involves keeping tabs on objects in your space and knowing what objects are where. This may translate into what seems like possessive behavior and a strong sense of ownership. Maybe it's more a need to know what objects are where and what the nature of the surrounding space is.
It is easier for the eye of a camel to pass through a rich man than for a needle to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Anytime we reattribute the intention of a behavior away from instinct and towards (for most people, anyway) is a step forward in our understanding. I've never myself seen dominants as possessive and territorial... I think that's probably weak , not strong . It seems to me like a function of assessing rate, by which one may draw conclusions as to what bodies are autonomous or no by contrasting them with . (this is probably subconscious, however) Although there is certainly an connection in there, somewhere.Originally Posted by Rick
Given F = MA and force is intensity, this seems to support the = rate conclusion.Jung's first categorization of the two functions described Se as being primarly concerned with the intensity of the experience; at its extreme, whatever the cost of the experience, the intensity overtakes any rationality.
I can imagine an extremist to be very war-like and a fierce fighter; the ideal combatant until they end up dying from a thousand cuts.