Results 1 to 40 of 43

Thread: Extroverted Sensing

Hybrid View

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Extroverted Sensing

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

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

    Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me
    Last edited by hellothere; 01-20-2008 at 10:21 PM. Reason: correction

  2. #2
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellothere
    But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?
    I was wondering the exact same thing. is supposedly aware of desire, power structures, has to do with motive/will/motivation, territory, possession, blah, blah, blah... Are these all somehow external objects??? Somehow this must arise out of the external object statics thing (like be a byproduct of it or transcendent quality of it).

    Quote Originally Posted by Hellothere
    Also, why are "facts" usually associated with ? They sound like "external statics of objects" to me.
    I thought Niffweed did a good job of explaining this when he said
    Te information is not "this ball weighs 30 kg and has a radius of 5 m." that information could be considered Te, but it's a very poor example because its just a factoid and is not important.

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

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

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

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I thought Niffweed did a good job of explaining this when he said


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

    seems to be more about what the objects are doing or can be used for... I also think it perceives events in terms of what the objects were doing when... out of this arises a sort of logic about the most efficent ways to use or apply the objects (fact-based logic).
    Yeah, niffweed's explanation of to me is consistent with "external dynamics of objects". But "facts", in general use of the term, strike me as more about the 'statics' of an object (also about the 'dynamics', but more often about the 'statics'). If anything, it seems to me that "facts" should be associated with BOTH Te and Se.

  4. #4
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I dislike the word "fact".

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

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  5. #5
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

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

  6. #6
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

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

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

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  7. #7
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?
    Well, you don't have to. There does tend to be a focus on strength in the manifestation of Se in the ego block though. I think it's because strength is one of the things Se sees, so it stands out to them. Se is one of the centers through which reality is primarily processed.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  8. #8
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    okay so I kind of understand why for example, , "internal dynamics of objects", is related to "internal processes, mood, emotional activity and arousability, emotional content".

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

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

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

    Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete. [p. 459]
    There is no ulterior motive due to extraverted sensing. When something is seen and heard, everything is done. The motivation you're (naturally) looking for is provided by the equivalently simmetrical function , which not by chance is your dominant.

    On the differences between Te and Fe: Te transforms a not-well-defined function into a well-defined function (Si), Fe transforms a well-defined function into a not-well-defined one. This is part of the reason why they cannot work together: Fe takes in strict information and transforms it into comprehensive and open-ended information, Te takes into comprehensive and open-ended information and transforms it into strict information. This is why Fe types are sometimes accused of "clouding issues" by Te types, and Te types are criticized as being "rude" by Fe types. In this sense both versions are completely right.
    Last edited by FDG; 01-21-2008 at 01:44 PM.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  9. #9
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    TIM
    /
    Posts
    7,038
    Mentioned
    175 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG
    Well, quoting from Jung:

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

    There is no ulterior motive due to extraverted sensing. When something is seen and heard, everything is done. The motivation you're (naturally) looking for is provided by the equivalently simmetrical function , which not by chance is your dominant.
    Okay, so the point is that is focused on "tangible reality" and on these external objects. Because that's where its focus lies, it (or the Se-person) naturally just interacts with these "external objects." So it's like having a "constant motive" at work.

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

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

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

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

  10. #10
    Creepy-Diana

    Default

    .

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Diana View Post
    You could look at it as Ni provides the path and direction. And there's a reason why Ni is tied to time, as in the proper time to act - time, direction, path/vision all make sense in that framework. NiFe - which is the better vision to enact, NiTe - which is the more beneficial choice to make. (Play with, correct, switch around these ideas as you wish, just ideas I'm throwing out while taking a break from studying).
    That's sound reasoning. Very sound. If you think about it, what is spatial translation other than a path of work through space?

  12. #12

    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,687
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    I think you are on the right path, read my previous post on how Fe transits form well-defined to not-well-defined (Si->Fe->Ni) and Te transits in the opposite way (Ni->Te->Si) to understand the differences in input-processing-output.
    Quote Originally Posted by FDG View Post
    On the differences between Te and Fe: Te transforms a not-well-defined function into a well-defined function (Si), Fe transforms a well-defined function into a not-well-defined one. This is part of the reason why they cannot work together: Fe takes in strict information and transforms it into comprehensive and open-ended information, Te takes into comprehensive and open-ended information and transforms it into strict information. This is why Fe types are sometimes accused of "clouding issues" by Te types, and Te types are criticized as being "rude" by Fe types. In this sense both versions are completely right.

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

  13. #13
    Ezra's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    9,168
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hellothere View Post
    But HOW, for , do you go from "external statics of objects" to willpower, aggression, power, etc etc?

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

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    It's about energy levels, and qualities like level of aggression and how powerful a person is are to do with the energy and will of a person. Te and Se are stood in a bar. Te says "what is that man doing?". Se says "he's really fat isn't he. I bet he couldn't fight for his life".
    In this case, you're speaking only of 8th function Te. Not all Te is like this.

    EDIT: No wait, I misread what you said. Sorry. I thought to meant Te by "It's", not Se.
    Last edited by tcaudilllg; 01-23-2008 at 12:21 AM.

  15. #15
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    From what little I understand of functions; as confirmed correct by some of the 'simulative' mathematical work I have been doing:

    Extrovert perception is about an inference. It is a conclusion drawn about the situation outside of oneself on the basis of data that is know from ones own viewpoint. It is necessarily tied to the input from the introvert perception functions. It is extroverted in the sense that it is "NOT solipsism proof" - from ones own viewpoint one might deny it's existence altogether.

    Something of importance: extrovert sensation is a part of types... It can basically only be understood through recursive understanding of the types that hold the function. The type is real, the function is the theoretical construct.

    Now, Se is about that which occurs outside of viewpoint as cognized as a whole rather than as a part. Types are about recording data and building networks by filling in gaps in an incomplete stream of data. Se does this by considering all "outside situations" the same as per the understanding when they are litterally the same. If there occurs a concrete situation, there is reason to presume the next situation that looks to be an exact copy of it, is indeed, a copy of it. In common terms this means: "expect the usual".

  16. #16
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    TIM
    TiNe
    Posts
    7,858
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    From what little I understand of functions; as confirmed correct by some of the 'simulative' mathematical work I have been doing:

    Extrovert perception is about an inference. It is a conclusion drawn about the situation outside of oneself on the basis of data that is know from ones own viewpoint. It is necessarily tied to the input from the introvert perception functions. It is extroverted in the sense that it is "NOT solipsism proof" - from ones own viewpoint one might deny it's existence altogether.

    Something of importance: extrovert sensation is a part of types... It can basically only be understood through recursive understanding of the types that hold the function. The type is real, the function is the theoretical construct.

    Now, Se is about that which occurs outside of viewpoint as cognized as a whole rather than as a part. Types are about recording data and building networks by filling in gaps in an incomplete stream of data. Se does this by considering all "outside situations" the same as per the understanding when they are litterally the same. If there occurs a concrete situation, there is reason to presume the next situation that looks to be an exact copy of it, is indeed, a copy of it. In common terms this means: "expect the usual".
    That's sound reasoning. It would explain why Se is so good at observing where, for example, a lightswitch is in a room, when Ne would probably bumble right by it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •