Se and aggression

[Ezra]

This is essentially a brainstorm for ideas about Se and aggression i.e. how they interrelate.

While I think it's fairly obvious that a Se devaluer who was inept in it - such as the EII - would generally have quite low aggression levels, there are types, such as the LIE, who are weak in Se but yet value it, who can become aggressive. People attribute the EIE's getting wildly forceful and aggressive to "Se HA" e.g. take ******'s angry little man speeches, where he whines on about the forthcoming Germanic empire. People would naturally see this as Se HA. But what exactly does this mean? If they're inept in Se, and need someone who is proficient in it, surely, by socionics terms, if Se was related to aggression, the LIE and the EIE, even the ILI and the IEI, could not, by definition, become aggressive. But they do. People who are bad in Se get aggressive. But what is most complex about Se as relating to aggression is the fact that Se PoLR people seem almost never to get aggressive (the LII and the EII), while Se ego (particularly base) types (SEE and SLE) are quite often aggressive. This would seem that aggression is in fact related to Se.

The Wikipedia article for socionics is as follows:

Se is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space. It assesses appearance and the geometric form of subjects, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve its purposes. Se understands territory and aggression (both physical and psychological).

LINK

So, what we gather from this is that Se understands aggression. This does not necessarily imply that Se is aggression. Se's understanding could be likened to the Eight's strategic use of it; they use it to make a gain, unlike the counterphobic Six, who uses it instinctively in order to escape from a threat to their security (this is not to say that the Eight does not use aggression instinctively - because they are an aggressive type by definition - but just that the counterphobic Six will rarely if ever use aggression strategically). Another question that is pertinent here is whether or not weak Se implies that an individual cannot use aggression strategically.

What do you make of Se? How do you think it relates to aggression?

[Jimbean]

I think this pertains to everybody's Se, but I am not comfortable if people mess with my possessions, especially if I do not know about it.

[machintruc]

I don't think has anything to do with aggression itself. is just the perception of space, of teritorry, of the real world "as is", in a quantitative manner. For this reason, Rick typed chess as a game.

Physiologically, is correlated to an high dopamin level. An high dopamin level makes someone a physiological feeling of wanting to compete.

[marooned]

I think with strong that the person is able to effectively use, manage, and create aggression. Their use of aggression and response to aggression is fine-tuned, it isn't clumsy like the use of aggression by types that aren't strong in . Aggression is a way to channel ones will or communicate it very powerfully/clearly to someone else. I think types are good at using it in this way. This does not necessarily mean they are aggressive people (or that Se=aggression), only that they can deal with aggression in a more masterful way. I think that sometimes when types behave aggressively it is simply to communicate their will in an effective way that will get others to listen... it isn't that they've flown off the handle necessarily and have launched into an uncontrolled attack. In fact, I think that types that are weak in Se might be much more likely to fly into uncontrolled attacks on the infrequent occasions where they actually become aggressive (sorry trying to generalize half the socion into one sentence). Anyway, in short, types strong in Se are in general better able to manage aggression. Types weak in Se tend to mismanage it more often than not.

Looking at it another way, I would probably feel a lot more safe around an Se-dominant who's being aggressive than I would around an Se-PoLR type who's being aggressive. The Se-dominant probably knows what they're doing (and there's a security in that)... the Se PoLR type may have momentarily lost it (there is no security at all).

[Slacker]

People are individuals. I think people with strong Se are comfortable with confrontation and aggression if it seems necessary, but that doesn't mean that any given person with strong Se would be aggressive in normal circumstances. How aggressive someone with strong Se is depends on the person and the particular circumstance.

So I think they understand it, they're comfortable with it, and they are capable of using aggression if they find themselves in a circumstance where it would be helpful. But they aren't necessarily running around being aggressive on a regular basis.

I can see how that would be useful because there are times I'd like to be able to confront someone and be a bit aggressive but I don't feel comfortable with it.

[zenbrat]

I do not experience -types as aggressive; I experience them as 'entrenched' and expansive. Their demeanor is rather passive & controlled, but speech patterns and expressions of personal convictions can seem aggressive.

To me, 's are fortresses against aggression and invasion of territory. Their 'territory' could be mental, physical or emotional space - will dig in and resist all attempts by others to breach the fortress.

will also move into your 'space' but not aggressively. It's more of a utilitarian march - resolute, confident, smooth. If your space has something that they need (physical, mental, emotional resources), will move into it in order to acquire what they need. If they meet with resistence, they will attempt treatise and compromise - but this is not their primary approach.

[Mariano Rajoy]

Looking at it another way, I would probably feel a lot more safe around an Se-dominant who's being aggressive than I would around an Se-PoLR type who's being aggressive. The Se-dominant probably knows what they're doing (and there's a security in that)... the Se PoLR type may have momentarily lost it (there is no security at all).

Haha. I am a bouncer and have to be aggressive on a regular basis.

[marooned]

Haha. I am a bouncer and have to be aggressive on a regular basis.

But is it always necessary to be aggressive the times when you are, or are there other means of turning people around? (I simply seem to have more faith in Se to manage these things... it's some sort of discriminatory bias of mine!)

*Anyway, what I'm saying is problematic because it's approaching other biased things that people have said about other IM elements (or lack of)... for instance lots of people of differing types can be good at being a bouncer. I think where my bias is coming in is my Se preference.

In my experience, types are skilled in knowing what type of "persuasion" is needed. Lots of the time this isn't brute force or aggressiveness. They just seem better at knowing what kind of pressure the situation/person calls for.

Agree.

For instance, Se types might be very adept at diffusing confrontations with the least amount of aggression necessary.

[Jimbean]

I would consider the book The Art of War as a good book for Se types, and maybe to understand Se for those who have that as a weakness.

[strrrng]

I would consider the book The Art of War as a good book for Se types, and maybe to understand Se for those who have that as a weakness.

really?! I didn't know there was a book that described how to perceive information in a specific way, namely the external statics of objects. awesome! now I'll go buy a book that 'is' every function and become great at them...

books, games, whatever, aren't functions...I love how we personify this shit. the only thing a function is, is information processing.

[Jimbean]

That is not what I meant.

[Brilliand]

But The Art of War is about Se, like some math textbooks are about Ti. So it's good practice, if you can make sense of it...

[strrrng]

yeah, I mean, the guy's thinking may be Se, specifically Se-Ti, but jim's phrasing just conveyed it in an artificial way.

I really don't see how the art of war actually is Se...it's a bunch of phrases/small paragraphs spaced out on pages just listing tactics

[FDG]

Not sure about my experience. I would say that my anger is genuine and well-controlled when related to T matters - ex. when somebody is misgiving informations and the like. Vice versa, I cannot really feel it controlled when I am pissed for typical "F" reasons.