NoOriginally Posted by nokomis
No
-
Dual type(as per tcaudilllg)
Enneagram 5 (wings either 4 or 6)?
I'm constantly looking to align the real with the ideal.I've been more oriented toward being overly idealistic by expecting the real to match the ideal. My thinking side is dominent. The result is that sometimes I can be overly impersonal or self-centered in my approach, not being understanding of others in the process and simply thinking "you should do this" or "everyone should follor this rule"..."regardless of how they feel or where they're coming from"which just isn't a good attitude to have. It is a way, though, to give oneself an artificial sense of self-justification. LSE
Best description of functions:
http://socionicsstudy.blogspot.com/2...functions.html
Here's what I observed. Take it with a grain of salt since I have my Se HA glasses on, the opinion of an actual Se-base person would be more accurate.
- ultra-sensitive to competitive environments
- disdain for territorial acts
- gives up when a debate gets heated
- rejects possibilities for proving themselves unless they consider it their personal duty
- refuses when someone puts pressure on them in general
- "caving in" when put on the spot
- have problems standing up for themselves properly, will compromise more than they should
- agree instead of resist when tackled psychologically or physically
- backs down, keeps grudges to themselves
- lacks sense of confrontation
- wouldn't use force even when it's deeply needed
- for example, least likely to escape or kill the kidnapper(s) when taken hostage. Imagine SLE or SEE as hostages, they would fight for their lives, literally
- surprised by their own aggressive outburst when they actually have one
- mellow characters, sometimes overly patient
- body language: INxjs generally stay in their "box", zero expansion unless they use their creative a lot
- dreams of being a saviour
- "it made sense that I did it" (Ti), "it was my responsibility, the right thing to do" (Fi) motivations for getting what they want, don't apply volition just for the sake of it.
- ultra-sensitive to competitive environments
Possibly. I really prefer a more cooperative atmosphere where everyone is on an equal level working together towards some common goal, not trying to outdo one another.
I do like gaming though, which I guess is competitive in that there is a winner and loser. But even in gaming I'm more self-competitive and I'm not cut-throat in competing with others. I am more interested in the mental stimulation of it and just laughing and joking around with others in my gaming group. I have difficultly with people who take the game too seriously act like its life or death.
So last night I was playing Pinochle with a group of people. I’ve played lots of card games but this was my first time playing Pinochle. Anyway, my partner across the table made me feel very uneasy. I think she was SLE. She kept bossing me around, or at least that was my perception. The way she talked sounded to me like she was just yelling all the time. “Why did you lay down a counter on the trick that goes to the other team?” To which I responded “I’m sorry but I’m learning the game, give me a break here.” Then she responds back “If I don’t tell you then you won’t learn.” There were a few other similar instances. The way she said things made me uneasy.
Anyway, I felt so uncomfortable with her, my muscles literally tensed up but I also felt like I couldn’t just leave the game either without offending anyone. There was no one else to take over my spot if I left. Luckily the other team scored enough points to end the game and we lost big time. I didn’t care though. I just needed to get out and leave. Then I had myself a good cry.
Anyway Se PoLR really sucks.
- disdain for territorial acts
Yes! I can't stand it when someone violates my territory without asking me first. This could be as simple as grabbing something that's not theirs or even touching my body without asking. It could even be more intangible such as when I'm helping a customer and a coworker thinks they know how to do it more effectively and just "jumps in." I really resent that if if their intentions are good.
- gives up when a debate gets heated
It depends. If I feel very strongly about the issue and have a good defense for my case and I can persistently push on. But oftentimes, I maybe give up sooner then needed. I don't feel like I can adequately defend my points to the opposition and also if the other side is throwing insults and hurting me, it also makes me want to quit.
- rejects possibilities for proving themselves unless they consider it their personal duty
I generally hate having to prove myself. People should just know that I am competent and capable person, who is reasonable.
- refuses when someone puts pressure on them in general
- "caving in" when put on the spot
These two sound rather contradictory. But I suppose I can relate to both statements. I have very low tolerance for people putting pressure on me of any kind. It's usually why I won't answer the phone or doorbell unless I'm quite sure who is there. Because oftentimes it is some call trying to sell you some shady product or service I don't need or some religious fanatics trying to convert you. I don't want to take the time and energy to 'prove' why I am not interested. It is difficult to say 'no' gracefully in such situations. I don't give in to them. I just hang up or say I am busy and already running late. It's easier to just avoid such people and interactions all together.
Other times when quickly put on the spot, I will 'cave in' if I don't have a good defense. If I say "no" the other side will want to know why, will keep egging me on and again, how to exit the situation gracefully, I may not have a good solution to it. So if I can't easily withdraw from it, I might 'cave in' in hopes of just shutting them up. Especially if there is a lot of uncomfortable pressure.
- have problems standing up for themselves properly, will compromise more than they should
50/50 here. It really depends on the context of the situation. I think earlier on, I tend to be quite compliant but once I'm pushed too far, I will start to assert my limits sometimes to the surprise of the other side.
- agree instead of resist when tackled psychologically or physically
If psychologically, once again, it depends on the context.
If physically, I just 'back away' with my body and hope they get the hint that the touch is unwelcome.
- backs down, keeps grudges to themselves
Yes, I tend to keep lots of grudges and I know it's not healthy for me. I have learned that if a person's behavior is bothering me, I need to confront it earlier than I have been because if I don't, then I sit around with a grudge that's painful. But then if I confronted, I still worry alot about coming on too strong and offending the other person and how will that impact our relationship. So often its a damned if you do and damned if you don't kind of situation.
- lacks sense of confrontation
I wouldn't say that I lack a sense of confrontation. If something is truly going against my principles or if someone has gone too far too many times, I will confront them. But what I do lack is the sense of how to feel psychologically comfortable doing that and knowing what level is adequate. Confrontation almost always gives me some level of anxiety. I physically feel it in my body. Also, when I do eventually confront, sometimes I overdo it and regret it later.
- wouldn't use force even when it's deeply needed
No, I'm not quite as peaceful as Gandhi. LOL! If someone was physically attacking me, I would likely fight back, using force to push them away or even injuring them in self-defense. My instinct for self-preservation is too strong to not to anything in such situations.
- for example, least likely to escape or kill the kidnapper(s) when taken hostage. Imagine SLE or SEE as hostages, they would fight for their lives, literally
I have never been in such a situation but I think I would be coming up with ways to injure the kidnappers. Maybe not kill them but injure them enough to have time to escape. I don't think I could just sit around and 'do nothing.'
- surprised by their own aggressive outburst when they actually have one
Yes. I'm normally a kind, calm, gentle person so when I have an aggressive outburst, I almost always regret it.
- mellow characters, sometimes overly patient
Maybe I appear that way to some people on the outside but on the inside I am quite intense even a raging storm.
To some people I can appear overly patient, perhaps putting up with 'crap' others wouldn't put up with. But like I said, I have a breaking point.
- body language: INxjs generally stay in their "box", zero expansion unless they use their creative a lot
I'm not quite clear what this means. I'm guessing that with our bodies we are more 'static' and careful not to expand our territories, especially if it means breaking into someone elses?
- dreams of being a saviour
Occasionally, yes
- "it made sense that I did it" (Ti), "it was my responsibility, the right thing to do" (Fi) motivations for getting what they want, don't apply volition just for the sake of it.
Yes! If there is anything I can’t stand it’s people applying volition for no real good reason. Such as because you told me to do X, I am going to do Y! Even though there may logically be a very good reason why one should do X or mayb e X is the more ethically correct option and harms the fewest people. Its like some people cannot tolerate any authority at all and want to be exempt from any sense of responsibility.
LII-Ne with strong EII tendencies, 6w7-9w1-3w4 so/sp/sx, INxP
I think it more aligned with low Se than Se POLR in general. I have – in past – avoided those kinds of things. However I'm able to pull myself together and get done with it and do not wish excessive help with those things because I see it as something where to become better at in smaller doses.
However I have seen pathologically inept LIIs before to whom avoidant personality label might be very fitting. I had a date (arranged by older SEI) with one. She was grateful of meeting someone. However next time never happened because she was so terrified of everything including people around.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
How one defines boundaries is IE related. For example ESI's ways can be very invasive for me. Like having very little idea where you stand (concrete meaning)
can be seen invasive as well as taking over it consciously.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
Joinif you dare https://matrix.to/#/#The16Types:matrix.org
Sounds like LII (or ILE) alright. Fe/Si seeking, Ni demonstrative/ID, emphasis on Ego functions Ti/Ne. I don't know what you mean by Alpha SFs not always following your ideas but it doesn't have to exclude an Alpha NT typing for you.
I still can't see the difference between Se leading/Se polr and dopamine levels... is this just a coincidence?
I think I wanna try to learn Se as the absence of Ne, rather than what is currently is. Otherwise I dont think I'll ever find its place in my functional stack except being weaker than Si.
A good way to understand what Se truly is, would be to see how its functions adapt to the technologically advanced world. Given that Internet Culture is a thing, how could "physical space" possibly make sense in an environmenr where the only space is your screen? They can't suddenly become useless as a result? They must have some application and way of living in the interwebs that can be differentiated from Ne? ;p
Unless it is already implied that territory can be defined as anywhere influence over others can be had. Then I guess I agree.
Maybe this was already obvious though, in which case Ive been caught up in the wording and taking it too literally...
Think ad space.
Se space is limited. If a resource is limited, you have to compete for it. And there are definitely people trying to compete for your screen space out there, what you read, what you see, what you think, what you buy, etc. All of that is in the domain of.
in addition to what i may have said before;
I think Se porl should not be associated with a complete aversion to physicality or roughness ; their duals have 4d Se
It's more a matter of an aversion to trying to be impressed upon via Se -- one reason EII and ESE can run into snags is that because of strong Fe and Se sometimes EIIs can be put off or drained by this ; similarly i''ve had experiences with LIIs where I felt their want for Fe was so strong that I eventually felt like I had to constantly perform in order to engage them in the way they felt most comfortable
I've had many Se Porls say the same sorts of thing that Ni doms / Se dual seeking people have said - a want for initiative towards them such that they feel ok about things ; a kind of activation energy even
It's just that kind of assertiveness is grounded in Si / Ne conscientiousness rather than what can seem like too much pressure to be a certain way from people who value Se/Ni
So I encourage - as always - looking at how groupings of valued or unvalued elements work in concert
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.
The question is what LII actually is sensitive about here. I think LII really does not like to be taken for granted, which is about FiSe. This is not about physical threats.
Last edited by Petter; 11-14-2016 at 05:41 PM.
The concept of "being taken for granted" makes no sense to me.
Someone assumes the LII is his/her friend or close acquaintance, but the LII thinks it is a premature assumption.
That only would be a problem if they were using it as an excuse to get something from me. Otherwise I have no problem with someone wanting to be friends, in fact LIIs welcome it for the most part.
Don't you think that Enneatypes would greatly affect how an Se PolR acts? For example having enneatype 3 which needs one to actively try and be the center of attention and 4 which needs you to stand out, that kind of beats the whole Se Polr "Averse to being the center of attention".
C-EII-INFj 4w3 Sx/sp 479
Se PoLR essentially means that xIIs lack the volitional qualities necessary to actively pursue (or ask for) things that they want or need, so they fall back on Si HA (and Ni demonstrative) to compensate for that blind-spot; they find and create value through foresight and self-sufficiency.
"if I come prepared to class everyday, then I won't need to ask anyone to lend me things."
"if I do my homework, then I won't need to ask anyone for help."
"if I'm well-read in a topic, then I won't need to resort to aggression in a debate because I'm confident that my knowledge will suffice."
"if I work hard, then I won't need to beg for a raise. instead I can just calmly explain how I've earned it by referencing my consistent work ethic."
It's like training in a martial art that has its roots in self-defense, for years, so that if you ever find yourself in a position where you need to defend yourself, your goal isn't to injure your opponent; it's to defend yourself so adequately that you don't get injured. that's how I view Se PoLR/Si HA.
I don't see it as weakness, really. I always thought tank man was a great example of Se PoLR:
I also think you can, generally speaking, think of all PoLRs as manifestations of "if I do such and such, I won't have (or shouldn't have) to do [PoLR]"
Its the sort of blind spot that's blind in virtue of the entire personality being the manifestation of an approach that tends to exclude by its nature a certain information aspect. Hence 16 personalities can be thought of 16 differentiated attempts to deal with the world that could be thought of negatively in the sense of 8 types of exclusion x 2 differing perceptive takes or judging takes based on whether the excluded aspect is a perceiving or judging function itself
each personality represents a viable but differentiated approach that lends it the pattern and thus quality we think of as "personality", meaning that without PoLRs personality would be a lot less vibrant, in a certain sense. In another sense broadly actualized personalities tend to incorporate their PoLR but I would associate it with how classic beauty is considered the average of all traits, with nothing sticking out too much--a kind of radical moderation that is special in virtue of its rarity but not because it is unbalanced but precisely because it is so balanced. In the same way personality tends to "stick out" less the more it becomes balanced, but at the same time we hold it as an ideal akin to beauty--sometimes called unification as the product of moral effort. I do not think it is a coincidence that beauty is associated with ethics and ethics is associated with moral effort, etc
further there is something to be said for some problems being intractible except to extreme solutions. the balanced personality may be an end product of development but the differentiation that starts the whole thing is itself an adaptation to the world, hence a certain elegance in light of certain problems by strongly differentiated personalities. at first the natural world seems to have thrust the needs for differentiation upon us and then society itself seems to have compounded it by encouraging specialization (although this varies by culture--Jung talks about this at length with the German Romantics lamenting the bygone era of balance celebrated by the Greeks)... the perfectly beautiful person may in the end be the most useless person in a certain sense. It does seem to be logic v ethics in a nutshell. one viewed in light of the other naturally sees the others weakness and each have a kind of struggle for dominance over the other
sometimes the PoLR itself is a novel solution (non violence as coercive pressure in a kind of paradoxical reversal, but nonetheless effective, as seen by tank man--it would be a mistake to say that useful solutions only come from the personalities adapted to them specifically, i.e.: SLE or some such. SLE may largely represent linear progress on problems of that kind, but PoLRs represent a kind of involutionary take on the problem, which may be the only viable solution for problems of sufficient difficulty-- i.e.: "the only way to win is not to play")
Last edited by Bertrand; 06-27-2017 at 03:08 AM.
Maybe being a crack shot with a rifle or bow yet finding the whole practice or hobby unnecessary and perhaps a bit brutish, therefore probably more fascinated by and interested in the mechanics of the rifle or bow, the physics involved, perhaps the history behind these tools, etc. than the actual practice of using them. You know you could easily master shooting and could even rely on it for survival in a worst case scenario (i.e. zombie apocalypse or being forced to live off the grid), yet there's enough comfort to study it at a distance and no need to really get your hands dirty with it, so you'll content yourself with reading Wikipedia articles on firearms and maybe becoming really good at a first person shooting videogame.
Or
Maybe a person who is obsessed with a sport like baseball, having a deep understanding of the game's rules as well as various game statistics, yet they wouldn't be caught dead playing softball with their company's team, despite their knowledge, that would likely fly out the window once they were put on the spot and expected to perform in an intense, in-the-moment competitive physical environment.
Someone content to fantasize about being a driver in a film like Bullit or Drive, but they would probably be the last person to actually end up in that role.
I associate Se PolR with academics and bookworms who prefer the speculation of possible outcomes and avenues in the world to actually taking any one avenue in the material world. Armchair experts, comfortable theorizing and strategizing from a helicopter view whilst some foot soldiers get down into the actual nitty gritty.
Lao Tzu, as opposed to Jesus Christ (not to liken Christ to a foot soldier, but he was definitely more hands-on as far as great religious leaders and philosophers go, whereas I picture Lao Tzu comfortably hiding away in a cave or hut and changing the world from his seat as opposed to changing it from his physical works and actions).
Last edited by perpetuus; 03-09-2018 at 10:48 PM.
Or, not caring at all about these things and finding them uninteresting.
Someone who is actually attracted to violence or displays of physical prowess and fantasizes about it without participating in it themselves is more likely to be Ni leading.
Last edited by Exodus; 03-10-2018 at 07:53 PM.
this might've been what I was hinting at before, but I've finally settled on self-mastery and/or the mastery of a craft for Si HA to compensate for Se PoLR
there is a disparity between Si and Se in the athletic realm, but I don't think that distinction is as simple as: "Se can do competition, while Si struggles"
when I think of Si in athletics, I think of mastering your body by recognizing its natural strengths and honing them, gauging its limitations, finding ways to circumvent those limitations via your natural strengths, making your body do what you want it to do without burning yourself out, regardless of extraneous pressures, because at the end of the day, your self-esteem lies in your ability to read these cues, and to adjust to them accordingly. essentially there is no need to feel threatened by competition and/or "powerful" opponents if you're confident in your own talent(s) and in control of yourself.
I think that explanation could be extended to everyday affairs where it's easy for xIIs to inadvertently over-extend themselves in their respective fields of interest, it is usually intellectual or ideological in nature, but that's not all it is nor all that it can be. instead it manifests as this handicap in monitoring Se feedback loops ("I give [x amount], I take [y amount]") because they're operating within the constraints of their ego functions (Ji-Ne) so implementing their ideology is of the utmost importance to them, but if taken too far, then they give a lot without gaining anything in return, mainly because they don't care about gaining anything in return, but then they risk burning themselves out, so they fall back on monitoring their own "needs" and comfort levels (Si) to catch themselves before they reach that point, and thus they can implement their ideology without recklessly sacrificing themselves in the process.
(I think it's important to note that quick reflexes are commonly attributed to Ne-egos [specifically alpha NTs] so they don't buckle under "pressure" in the way that it's been portrayed here, instead it's more like an aversion to excessive physical exertion, not falling prey to threatening circumstances or people)
Se and Si aren't people, they're mental processes. Whenever you're pushing yourself or making effort you're using Se. When you're paying attention to your state of comfort and physical needs, you're using Si. It's really not that complicated.
Roughly yes, if it's something you can do naturally it wouldn't use (much) Se. But getting better athletically almost always entails pushing yourself somehow.when I think of Si in athletics, I think of mastering your body by recognizing its natural strengths and honing them, gauging its limitations, finding ways to circumvent those limitations via your natural strengths, making your body do what you want it to do without burning yourself out, regardless of extraneous pressures, because at the end of the day, your self-esteem lies in your ability to read these cues, and to adjust to them accordingly. essentially there is no need to feel threatened by competition and/or "powerful" opponents if you're confident in your own talent(s) and in control of yourself.
Commonly?(I think it's important to note that quick reflexes are commonly attributed to Ne-egos [specifically alpha NTs] so they don't buckle under "pressure" in the way that it's been portrayed here, instead it's more like an aversion to excessive physical exertion, not falling prey to threatening circumstances or people)I've never heard that before in my life.
She's right.Se and Si aren't people, they're mental processes. Whenever you're pushing yourself or making effort you're using Se. When you're paying attention to your state of comfort and physical needs, you're using Si. It's really not that complicated.
Roughly yes, if it's something you can do naturally it wouldn't use (much) Se. But getting better athletically almost always entails pushing yourself somehow.
Commonly?
Any type can push themselves in the area of their ego.
That doesn't have to do with cognition....it's a core characteristic of ego pertinent to Freud's reality principle:
"the ego's control of the pleasure-seeking activity of the id in order to meet the demands of the external world."
Any type can "push themselves in the area of their ego" but it doesn't transform one function into the other. It just means you stopped using one and started using the other. So Si doesn't meet Se goals via "pushing itself"--as soon as it pushes itself it just is Se, because "pushing" is Se. Another way to look at is a relaxation competition (who can get their heart rate down the lowest). You might win via Si without ever using Se, but that is not the usual situation in competitive athletics. If you sincerely enjoy the activity in such a way that you're not really out there pushing but fully enjoying yourself, you could in theory compete via Si, but generally sports are sufficiently difficult so that no pain no gain is the rule. Some "sports" are more conducive to to victory via Si than others, such as bodybuilding. Sports by definition kind of implicate Se though, because stuff you can do solely via Si are more like vacations than competitions and people don't pay to see that
This is a very good summary of Si. The idea that Si struggles in athletics is complete bullshit. It's exactly the opposite...
It's typically the Se egos that overextend themselves. None of the XII's I've known closely really did that, they are kind of more sensitive than that.I think that explanation could be extended to everyday affairs where it's easy for xIIs to inadvertently over-extend themselves in their respective fields of interest, it is usually intellectual or ideological in nature, but that's not all it is nor all that it can be. instead it manifests as this handicap in monitoring Se feedback loops ("I give [x amount], I take [y amount]") because they're operating within the constraints of their ego functions (Ji-Ne) so implementing their ideology is of the utmost importance to them, but if taken too far, then they give a lot without gaining anything in return, mainly because they don't care about gaining anything in return, but then they risk burning themselves out, so they fall back on monitoring their own "needs" and comfort levels (Si) to catch themselves before they reach that point, and thus they can implement their ideology without recklessly sacrificing themselves in the process.
That's again a good point.(I think it's important to note that quick reflexes are commonly attributed to Ne-egos [specifically alpha NTs] so they don't buckle under "pressure" in the way that it's been portrayed here, instead it's more like an aversion to excessive physical exertion, not falling prey to threatening circumstances or people)
"Push" is a bit too general to call it Se. If it's pushing related to any kind of action then sure, it's Se.
I think both Si and Se pay attention to physical needs, just in a different way, and to different needs. The Se ones would be more aggression related while the Si needs would be more related to thorough consumption of stuff.
Actually, the "pushing" does not have to be going beyond what Si sees as naturally flowing, so in that case it would not really be Se. And this is actually a valid strategy to increase fitness. It's just a different strategy than the Se strategy. I dare say that Si has the edge over Se in some sports stuff and strategies for improvement in sports. Then in other aspects Se has the edge over Si, sure.Roughly yes, if it's something you can do naturally it wouldn't use (much) Se. But getting better athletically almost always entails pushing yourself somehow.
Example. Girl described in a running book (I'd have the find the title of the book - real story btw) would run very good marathons, could've been competitive for olympic trials (USA). She would just run when she felt like it, a lot of trail running and whatever. She was asked to train regularly with some other marathoner girl. First day she'd have to go out in the morning to do whatever intervals as scheduled, she bailed instantly.She continued to run for fun and just be very good and fast anyway, she'd jump into races when she felt like it but that was all.
yes, perfect example
@Bertrand question
how do you figure out if it's Si vs Se if there are extenuating circumstances which might "force" someone to push themselves beyond their comfort levels, i get that the circumstances themselves are Se, but i mean in situations where it's not a comfortable position, but either you put in your best effort (whilst fully acknowledging your discomfort, maybe even whining about it a lot) or you face severe punishments, so you temporarily push through that discomfort before falling back into a comfortable groove again, but even in the few cases where do you push through that discomfort, it's evident to most people that it's still not natural, so i'm curious if that still counts as Se because it's technically a function of "pushing oneself", but it's either that or something worse.
it's a personal question obviously but it marks one of the reasons why i still sometimes consider Se-valuing types even though i think Se is a nightmare
OK another example thenI suspect a runner girl I know is SLI. She would train pretty irregularly and be very good anyway, especially in the marathon (again)... and would win some country-wide races in long hilly trail runs. She did go train with a coach for a while when she was told she was so talented* she should get better. She did want to be good and competent (SLI motivation?) I guess, but she had trouble staying regular with the monotonous training for longer than a couple months at a time. In her training log she'd typically describe how much she felt out of breath in crazy tempo runs and stuff like that lol. Interestingly enough, it would be a strong motivating factor for her to go do training if she could do it with friends. One day she did finally run the goal time she had set for the marathon and then she never tried another one. (She did continue with the hill races.) I have no idea where she could've got if she had continued with it more seriously, actually. On the other hand, maybe her body did like the "natural breaks" (mainly in winter btw) and rebuild itself and be ready to step it up more in the next hard cycle? I don't know, but this worked for her better than continuous (and overdone!) training worked for some other people I've known, lol. All in all, I don't know how an SLI gets to Olympic level in competition but I'm sure it's possible fine in their own way if they are motivated for it.
*: Oh, that was a weird thing too, she'd always just say no she's not talented, she's just thin.
You seem to have missed my point about Si and Se being mental processes that everyone uses, not people or processes that are exclusive to certain people.
That kind of view is consistent in itself, but I also see it as a roadblock to truly understanding what they mean and how they relate to each other.
If you are interested in input from me too: I think pushing against strong discomfort is just never easy for anyone. God, I want Si to die when I am in certain races.
How is it "not natural", can you go into details about this?
Otherwise, this description sounds like a mix of Si and Se awareness. Comfortable groove/position: Si sensations, putting in that best effort and pushing through the discomfort is Se language. The strong focus on the pushing because it's the better option could be Se valuing, actually. It implies readiness to step up to the Se demands instead of finding some other way of existence.
What seems like a nightmare about Se to you? I'm really curious.
I didn't miss it, nah, I was just commenting on some other stuff. I think everyone on this forum is aware that all people have all 8 IEs.
To be clear: where I talked about Si vs Se strategies, it was meant as strategies by Si vs Se valuing types. Obviously everyone can do some of both, but I was talking about overarching tendencies there.
well "value" is tricky because IEE "values" Si as a form of quadral values. It attaches inordinate weight to Si in comparison to its own ability in utilizing it, and expects contribution from the environment or others. In this sense it "values" Si. But being an extrovert it "values" Se in the sense that its better at it, it trains it as a form of social adaptation, and generally engages in it, not precisely because it "seeks" it the way it seeks Si, but nevertheless values it inasmuch as everyone would admit the "value" of their own role function. Gulenko says its the difference between "I want" and "I must" (super id v super ego)
long story short, if you look at a function in terms of "I want" v "I must" you're looking at valued v non valued, even though you might be stronger in the "I must" region, and "I must" implies a degree of value if for no other reason than social responsibility. that form of "I must" value is distinct from value as a part of personality type, its more a second tier admission of the value of people doing stuff they don't want to do, but do because its necessary. one's own "valued" in the socionics sense of values fall into "I know" (ego) and "I want" (superid)
she probably got motivated via superego or something, like emotional pressure, which is probably why she didn't want to keep up on it once she had satisfied people's demands etc. it was never really about winning for her I'm guessing and more about meeting some social dynamic she felt she obligated toOK another example then
*: Oh, that was a weird thing too, she'd always just say no she's not talented, she's just thin.
i mostly used that language because it was the language bertrand used in his post, so i wouldn't get too hung up on itIf you are interested in input from me too: I think pushing against strong discomfort is just never easy for anyone. God, I want Si to die when I am in certain races.
How is it "not natural", can you go into details about this?
Otherwise, this description sounds like a mix of Si and Se awareness. Comfortable groove/position: Si sensations, putting in that best effort and pushing through the discomfort is Se language. The strong focus on the pushing because it's the better option could be Se valuing, actually. It implies readiness to step up to the Se demands instead of finding some other way of existence.
What seems like a nightmare about Se to you? I'm really curious.
the point behind the post was that there was no readiness. in my case, it was either i followed through somewhat, or i was kicked out of the house, and i don't think any 15-17 year old wants to live on the streets with no money. anyway it was competitive sports which started off as a genuine interest before it became solely about competition and politics, and then it degraded into an unsolicited responsibility that i'd try to shirk as much as possible. it was a pretty cool day when i realized i could skip out on practices by claiming that i had too much homework, which i didn't do either, but it was easier to create the illusion i was doing that than like, running and stuff, and the day i quit forever remains to be one of the most pivotal moments of my life probably.
i remember my one coach commenting on how i looked like i was dragging my body through molasses or something
since then i've learned to avoid pretty much any responsibility that comes my way
I'm pretty sure now that I'm Se PoLR given my paralysis in situations that I haven't planned out in my head. Well I don't really plan things out I just imagine the events so they are familiar to me when the time comes, in fact having a concrete plan usually also restrains me. I just need to think and rethink things over in my head until I can be comfortable with my ability to act spontaneously when the time comes.
Pushing yourself is just a general behavior....Therefore, it's not related to socionics type. and the fact is if you're having to push yourself to do it, it doesn't speak to an information processor, because it's not natural and automatic.
Ah ok I see. It's funny how different people can get, I still hold resentment that my high school didn't give a shit about sending me to competition/about giving me more serious training in the sport I was interested in.
Tbh the politics part would be annoying to me too, but the competition part is a great motivator for me.
Any responsibility
I think it was about personal competence more than direct competition for her, yes. I don't know about the social dynamic part.
OK can a Ni lead tell me how they differ from this?
One time me, an ENFp, and an INFj were waiting at a restaurant.
We were sitting at a table for a while and our server didn't arrive yet. I suggested that I'd physically walk up to the server and ask them to serve us (Se)
This obviously made my INFj friend uncomfortable, and said no, lets be polite and wait for them. (Fi + Se PoLR)
--
Another way you see this manifest is if INFjs and INTjs are in leadership positions.
When I've observed them organize group events, I noticed that they'd never push others to come out beyond the invite. They would kind of organize the events, then sit back, and let the individuals do their own thing. (Se PoLR)
Whereas for me, I'd pester people to come out lol (Se)
Great examples
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
