Serious, unanswered question about me

[Ezra]

After the first four posts of the exact shite I referenced as that which I was not looking for, Diana was spot on. Then all her other comments just baked a multi-layered cake. Her response to ArchonAlarion's pile of crap was the icing.

You put "action philosopher" and "plato smash" in your avatar so that we would think you have a hard uncompromising attitude about philosophy and say "oh so that's how Se egos address philosophical matters!" The other theory is that it's just your way of expressing your frustration about your sexuality. In either case, such posturing will get you no where.

lol, nice.

but Te EJ's are bossy motherfuckers though, right???

lol +1

Yeah, they are Glam and thats derived from the actual elements, not your BS elements = behavioral traits.

"Actual" being skewered Ashton-inspired, senseless bollocks?

Ezra, people like deante say you are lse because 1. Deante is lsi and feels that you share some traits 2. Many people envision sles as super active, typically like some kind of jock or sleezy business uber capitalist or meth head punk with a bad attitude 3. You appear very controlled and level headed, which some people who are used to mbti equate with j 4. You seem relatively open minded which some may epuate to ne valuing if they are newish 5. You sometimes appear to be posturing rather "obviously" which some people equate to you "trying to be sle" when in reality its just poor fe+ni.

Waheyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, brilliant. Best post award.

We have all of these people referring to completely different "socionics"-es.

Those you cited as being right are right because they follow the variation of socionics which we discuss here - the good old Augustan variation. If you stick to this, you can separate rubbish (what people who say "classic socionics sucks ass" promote) from truth.

Very few people here have more than a meager grasp of what the IME's are

And you're doing yourself no favours by including yourself in the group of those who have no idea what they are.

Just for the record, I never said Ezra was LSE. I only said that after reading DeAnte's post that it made sense why he could be LSE.

The only reason I can see for calling me an LSE is what Diana said - I am strong in Se, Si, Te and Ti.

[717495]

The only reason I can see for calling me an LSE is what Diana said - I am strong in Se, Si, Te and Ti.

That is why I don't understand people typing me as a Gamma but unknowing of why. Yes I am a Gamma, but in their eyes I could be an SEE or ESI just because I value and . It is an effete presumption.

[Jarno]

lol okay, well convince all the Te valuers here that I'm Te ego and I'll give you a big ole cookie.

You are ILE, and I think most people would agree with that. Better don't waste energy on defending your type.

[ArchonAlarion]

I'm sorry I dont understand that Se is sensing the willpower of people. Hey btw, shouldn't there be an element for sensing how many coins I have in my pocket or what color underpants I'm wearing? Or maybe one that senses how much distain I have for poor element descriptions? Idk, but yeah I guess willpower is definitely 1/8 of all possible information.

and Te-ers can't be forceful because of course Se is being forceful and therefore its reserved for those obviously crazy and bossy Se-ers like Herzy and Jimbean and that guy with the aztec name I can't pronounce.

Jeeze I wish I was as grand as you Ez being able to see that

[Ezra]

That is why I don't understand people typing me as a Gamma but unknowing of why. Yes I am a Gamma, but in their eyes I could be an SEE or ESI just because I value and . It is an effete presumption.

But there's a difference between what one values and what one is good at. You are not good at Se and Fi if you are ILI, and this should be evident to anyone. What is not evident is what you value and devalue. So, it is evident that I am no type other than Beta or Delta ST if Se, Si, Te and Ti are the functions I am proficient in. If is not evident that I am not another type other than said types based on what I value.

I'm sorry I dont understand that Se is sensing the willpower of people. Hey btw, shouldn't there be an element for sensing how many coins I have in my pocket or what color underpants I'm wearing? Or maybe one that senses how much distain I have for poor element descriptions? Idk, but yeah I guess willpower is definitely 1/8 of all possible information.

Do you or do you not advocate classical, Augustan socionics? If not, you can have whatever the fuck you like as "Se", but get off the forum, stop talking to me, and I don't think many others are interested in what you have to say. If so, heed this:

Perceives information about what might be called objects' "kinetic energy" — for example, information about how organized/mobilized a person is, his physical energy and power, and his ability to make use of his willpower or position and exercise his will in opposition to others'. This perception implies the ability to tell what reserves of "kinetic energy" people have and how useful they can be in getting things done. It defines the individual's ability or inability to exercise his willpower and energy in opposition to the will and energy of other people.

Because it explains Se in exactly the way you refuse to describe Se in. If you do think you advocate classical, Augustan socionics, and yet you cannot heed this, you're basically just a fucking idiot and I don't want to talk to you anyway.

[JuJu]

I'm sorry I dont understand that Se is sensing the willpower of people. Hey btw, shouldn't there be an element for sensing how many coins I have in my pocket or what color underpants I'm wearing?

1. Observing functions (Se) = observing the willpower (your word) of people = forcefulness you can see manifested/feel psychologically after you know the functions and learn how they maniofest in real life. = empirical observation. (It might be easier for me because of leading Fe, but everyone can learn it... You too.)

2. How many coins you have in your pocket = psychic ability.

1 = empirical observation... 2 = psychic phenomena

[Gilly]

I love how Jake pretends to be disdainful of "people who dont understand IMEs" while saying stuff like "idk, internal statics of objects sounds too space agey." lmfao.

[Tom]

All elements can see power, and this is the point that Jake is attempting to make.

Se and Ne, for example, are dissection elements. They see objects and continually divide them into ever-smaller objects. This is what Object Statics (OS) do. Se does this by way of particle, and Ne does this by way of concept. Each OS element is, like all the elements, incomplete; it only shows half of the puzzle. The complementary elements which accompany each OS element (the Dynamic Field or DF elements) summate objects back together. Ni does this through an intrinsic sense of being (the summation of all particles as a single, internal flow), and Si views the interweaving physical processes as one, combined thing.

Se/Ni sees things as intrinsically connected units of thing, and thus sees power as an aphysical force emanating from/as an aura around an object.

Ne/Si sees things as physically connected concepts, and thus sees power in objects as a summation of physical processes. These combined processes make a level of power for each conceptual object.

Te/Fi and Fe/Ti work in a similar fashion: Fi dissects internal hierarchies while Te summates the framework through physical implementation; Ti dissects external hierarchies while Fe flows into the system (obviously this is quite brief and not fully explanatory, but hopefully you get the point). Each of these element pairs see power as a measure of fit into such a framework.

Power is what you see it as.

[ArchonAlarion]

I love how Jake pretends to be disdainful of "people who dont understand IMEs" while saying stuff like "idk, internal statics of objects sounds too space agey." lmfao.

Dude I was being sarcastic lol. I was half making fun of the term because its does sound arcane, even if I use it frequently as a term.

[marooned]

I think that associations between "power" and "Se" is referring to a particular sort of power, or using the word "power" to get at something about Se. It doesn't mean power itself (as in the general definition) is Se or anything like that.

I'm too lazy to go look... but wasn't Se likened to "kinetic energy" and Ne to "potential energy" by Augusta? It's a sort of analogy to general physics. Ne can't see "kinetic energy" because it only sees the internal statics of the object. Se, however, seeing the external static properties can identify "willpower" as one of these properties, e.g. "how much get up and go does this object have?" or "how well can this object push the other external objects". It's because the Se ego, thriving in its universe of external static objects, finds it can push and prod these objects and it's just one big play ground... and it notices that some of these objects push really easily and others resist being pushed more, and others push back... so on and so forth. (yes, there is humor in this paragraph.)

Anyway, my point is that "power" needn't be taken so precisely or something.

[ArchonAlarion]

I think that associations between "power" and "Se" is referring to a particular sort of power, or using the word "power" to get at something about Se. It doesn't mean power itself (as in the general definition) is Se or anything like that.

I'm too lazy to go look... but wasn't Se likened to "kinetic energy" and Ne to "potential energy" by Augusta? It's a sort of analogy to general physics. Ne can't see "kinetic energy" because it only sees the internal statics of the object. Se, however, seeing the external static properties can identify "willpower" as one of these properties, e.g. "how much get up and go does this object have?" or "how well can this object push the other external objects". It's because the Se ego, thriving in its universe of external static objects, finds it can push and prod these objects and it's just one big play ground... and it notices that some of these objects push really easily and others resist being pushed more, and others push back... so on and so forth. (yes, there is humor in this paragraph.)

Anyway, my point is that "power" needn't be taken so precisely or something.

Sure, and thats probably what Tom is saying.

[Tom]

The last part, certainly.

Sort of? for the rest of it.

[marooned]

Sure, and thats probably what Tom is saying.

If so, then that's what we're all saying... but when people write about Se they might just say "willpower" or "power" sometimes because they don't want to have to write a big long paragraph every time they mention an IM element. At least to me, these things are all concepts, I see the concept in my mind in a naked form... but as soon as I try to put words to it to try to communicate it, that's where things get messy.

[ArchonAlarion]

ah, but that's the thing. Those words are far too indirect unless you place them in the context of a description.

And it does not follow from "perceiving kinetic energy" that you are aggressive, bossy, or overtly dominant. There is a big difference in how ESTp's assert a dominant posture compared do the ESTj's. One is casual, centered, solid, piercing, and gives off a pointed pressure. The other is looser, more vocal, more "hands on", micro-managing, and process oriented. Both will come across as willful and dominant and that will be perceived negatively or positively based on type.

[Creepy-]

You both have a point [and a similar one, just from skimming].

There is a big difference in how ESTp's assert a dominant posture compared do the ESTj's. One is casual, centered, solid, piercing, and gives off a pointed pressure. The other is looser, more vocal, more "hands on", micro-managing, and process oriented. Both will come across as willful and dominant and that will be perceived negatively or positively based on type.

Good call.

[Sirena]

No that's not why Brilliand.

And Ezra the reason is because there is a bloc of people who dont "get" socionics basing things on trivial behavioral traits like "Being forceful" and sowing seeds of misconception.

You have become one of these people unfortunately.

People say you're LSE not based on ignorance or dislike of you, but on how you display the IME's.

Yet I'm "too soft" to be an IEI. Interesting double-standard.

Ezra, people like deante say you are lse because 1. Deante is lsi and feels that you share some traits 2. Many people envision sles as super active, typically like some kind of jock or sleezy business uber capitalist or meth head punk with a bad attitude 3. You appear very controlled and level headed, which some people who are used to mbti equate with j 4. You seem relatively open minded which some may epuate to ne valuing if they are newish 5. You sometimes appear to be posturing rather "obviously" which some people equate to you "trying to be sle" when in reality its just poor fe+ni.

this is why, Ezra.

[ArchonAlarion]

I mean soft in VI. Hey at least my stereotype has some merit, but yeah that was unfortunately vague, sorry.

[marooned]

ah, but that's the thing. Those words are far too indirect unless you place them in the context of a description.

And it does not follow from "perceiving kinetic energy" that you are aggressive, bossy, or overtly dominant.

ahhhhhhh, but that's the thing. Since the Se ego is busy seeing all these external objects, the ones that happen to be other people can get pulled, pushed and prodded by the Se ego, and then the object might object and say "omg, that Se ego is so pushy and domineering!" So in a sense it does follow.

[Sirena]

I mean soft in VI. Hey at least my stereotype has some merit, but yeah that was unfortunately vague, sorry.

Doesn't matter what the observation is based on. The statement I quoted contradicts this and you continue to contradict yourself here. You're against people using things like this to type people, yet you do it then justify it by saying that your doing it has merit. So, if it's not okay for others, why is it okay for you?

[Slacker]

I mean soft in VI. Hey at least my stereotype has some merit, but yeah that was unfortunately vague, sorry.

Everyone thinks their own stereotypes have merit.

[ArchonAlarion]

except that I never said I was against typing people by behavioral traits. However, I HAVE said that you need to understand what causes those traits, which obviously I believe I do.

I don't feel Im being contradictory at all.

[Ezra]

I think that associations between "power" and "Se" is referring to a particular sort of power, or using the word "power" to get at something about Se. It doesn't mean power itself (as in the general definition) is Se or anything like that.

I'm too lazy to go look... but wasn't Se likened to "kinetic energy" and Ne to "potential energy" by Augusta? It's a sort of analogy to general physics. Ne can't see "kinetic energy" because it only sees the internal statics of the object. Se, however, seeing the external static properties can identify "willpower" as one of these properties, e.g. "how much get up and go does this object have?" or "how well can this object push the other external objects". It's because the Se ego, thriving in its universe of external static objects, finds it can push and prod these objects and it's just one big play ground... and it notices that some of these objects push really easily and others resist being pushed more, and others push back... so on and so forth. (yes, there is humor in this paragraph.)

Anyway, my point is that "power" needn't be taken so precisely or something.

Good post.

[717495]

Anyway, my point is that "power" needn't be taken so precisely or something.

Though I think it will be taken so precisely by a lot of people simply due to the fact that their vocabulary is very limited.