Bossiness is actually poor Se

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I would say bossiness is poor Se, clever Se controls you without you thinking it or knowing about it. I met a Se-ego today (Most likely my dual) and she just totally covered up the external physical reality for me, it was very pleasing and energetic for me. However it was natural, she just took over she wasn't all 'get on your knees fag' like people say sles are. (not that I'd mind that per se) But to me like bossiness or being aggravated at somebody, is like wanting somebody *else* to use Se, but you're not good at it yourself.

Anyways I think this has already been discussed to death so I'd just like to point that out.

[Suz]

I usually think of ESTj and ENTj as bossy. Maybe ENTp sometimes. ESTp's bossiness does not come across as bossy from what i've seen. it's more like, let's get this done together. They will tend to do what they want though, but when they were wrong they will admit it.

[Azeroffs]

Good Se is knowing when to be bossy imo. Knowing the right way to put pressure on someone.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yeah but straight-out bossiness is just unproductive, even an ESTj should know that. So in my mind a frustrated non-se valuer uses bossiness or power games to try and control what they're fed up with. I'm not sure if I ever felt the estj confliction was 'bossiness' per se. It was more like .... blah. I just didn't like them. =/ It's hard for me to even say why now that I think about it. I just know we clashed.

[Azeroffs]

I think most of the time ETjs don't realize they're being bossy. They just want you to do something so they tell you to do it.

ESj's get most bossy out of the types since Se 'leaks' from them in a sense.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Yes I think you're on to something there. It's that 'leaked Se' I don't like much at all. It's like they can't just be naturally self-confident with the Se, it has to leak out to others and them expect other people to be that way too, or something. SLE is more just like 'whatever man I'll do that' and they just do it , because they so naturally want to do it, it's much more self-contained and not leaky.

[tcaudilllg]

Se id believes that everyone should take control of their own lives. People should never try to control others but only agree to be controlled.

Some ESTps can be brash as a means of making clear who's really in charge of the situation. They want to understand who has the power, not necessarily to take power for themselves. However, assertive ESTps will deduce who has the power first, and then exert force over the people who they believe don't have power or the will to resist, effectively taking control of them.

[07490]

Se id

You mean SE in the 7th and 8th functions?

[Azeroffs]

Doesn't confidence in applying pressure usually follow from being capable at it?

[07490]

ESTps generally know when it is appropriate to apply pressure and when it is not. When it is not appropriate they usually won't apply it. They also know HOW to successfully apply the pressure when the need&moment arises. They are one of the most calculating types. They can also be very polite when required. ESTps know the things. They should be persecuted and we should keep them scared to death so that they never ever apply their stinky pressures. They are cowards, just as LIIs are when it comes to applying pressure..however they are more capable which causes them to apply their physical presure more often than LIIs do.

Deep words tutututututu....

[Trevor]

Doesn't confidence in applying pressure usually follow from being capable at it?

Yes it usually does. It can also follow from insanity.

I wonder might it be that there are such cases in which the process is turned upside-down i.e. where confidence gives birth to capability. If such cases exist, and if acquiring confidence is easier than acquiring capability, then we might see the things previously unseen and hear the songs previously unheard of. ..You who have faith..everything is possible for you..

[Trevor]

--possible ways(i don't know right away are all of them actually possible, it certainly is possible to write them down..for demonstration see below)--

Progress in time:

Insanity-Capability-Confidence
Insanity-Confidence-Capability
Capability-Insanity-Confidence
Capability-Confidence-Insanity
Confidence-Insanity-Capability
Confidence-Capability-Insanity

Anyone in a mood for writing descriptions of those? I'm not at the moment. I might get back to them at some point.

[Satan]

a call for help

[redbaron]

Maladaptive Se egos can be really controlling, but I think Se ego types are more inclined to want people to take charge of their own lives and make up their own minds while Se Id types want people to do what they say without giving as much thought to people deciding to do something for themselves because they chose to do it which Se egos may place a high importance on. So I would agree with those who said ESxjs tend to be the most controlling.

exactly right, imo!

[UDP]

maladaptive- good word

[strrrng]

ESj's get most bossy out of the types since Se 'leaks' from them in a sense.

Agreed. Your word choice sheds light on the idea of "strong, unconscious Se." The explicit positions and boundaries of things that Se egos consistently gauge, seem to be generally ignored or taken for granted with ESxjs, and subjected to the focus of ordering events and the environment.

I don't really agree with the initial idea; it's just far too simplistic. When ESxps get bossy and domineering, it still maintains a tactical quality that is absent in ESxj bossiness, and never comes across as directly controlling as the latter types.

[mu4]

Bossiness typically occur when there is a information conflict!



Sensors become bosses because they're detail oriented.
Intuiters become bosses because they have a good idea of what might come next and can give vision to a project.

[07490]

Maladaptive Se egos can be really controlling, but I think Se ego types are more inclined to want people to take charge of their own lives and make up their own minds while Se Id types want people to do what they say without giving as much thought to people deciding to do something for themselves because they chose to do it which Se egos may place a high importance on. So I would agree with those who said ESxjs tend to be the most controlling.

Totally agree, I think ESXjs are the most controlling of all types.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ugh, I dunno, i've met some pretty bossy ISTj's, and some that are easy going.

Hopefully not to be controversial, i've known 2 bossy INFp's, but their bossiness isn't as apparent as first, it sort of revealed itself after time when their act of being "easy going" and "approachable" was really just that - an act when they really enjoyed having a little power by being sort of middle management in their workplace.

Of course, not saying they are all like that, but I think, with a lot of ESXj's, what you see is what you get, so maybe it's more honest or not as concealed, dunno though, people are the strangest things, apart from things that are stranger than people, hmmm.

[redbaron]

Of course, not saying they are all like that, but I think, with a lot of ESXj's, what you see is what you get, so maybe it's more honest or not as concealed, dunno though, people are the strangest things, apart from things that are stranger than people, hmmm.

this is very true, in my experience. With every ESE I've ever known.

[strrrng]

Ugh, I dunno, i've met some pretty bossy ISTj's, and some that are easy going.

I've met some bossy ones as well; I think this trait is a bit more prominent among the Ti subtypes (especially the E1s). It seems fairly common for LSIs to have a 'background authority' role in certain organizations, serving as the 'voice of reason' who maintains the principles and holds things together. Their bossiness is still markedly different than that of LSEs, though: a lot less actively controlling but more immutable in their dispositions (an LSE will alter Te processes based on objective criteria, whereas LSIs will not abandon a Ti system they see as right in principle).

Hopefully not to be controversial, i've known 2 bossy INFp's, but their bossiness isn't as apparent as first, it sort of revealed itself after time when their act of being "easy going" and "approachable" was really just that - an act when they really enjoyed having a little power by being sort of middle management in their workplace.

This rings true. I think IEIs are the least likely to clearly occupy a position of power in beta hierarchies; they seem to move around more amorphously. I recall being bossy in the past, though; it would almost always manifest with people, where I would spontaneously come out and start dictating how each member in a group should do something.

Of course, not saying they are all like that, but I think, with a lot of ESXj's, what you see is what you get, so maybe it's more honest or not as concealed, dunno though, people are the strangest things, apart from things that are stranger than people, hmmm.

I could see this being the case with alpha vs beta, but that's all. ESEs can be pretty underhanded in certain emotional tactics, but the strategies they employ are directed at a tangible sense of control. But with LSEs, I don't think this idea applies. I've observed enough in action to know that there is often some ulterior set of 'values' that they foist into situations through the appearance of pragmatic action.

[Blaze]

i'm ashamed to say that i've definitely been seen as bossy at various times in my life. it's like my Ne takes over and i want us all to MAKE IT SO!!!! lol

[Slacker]

The two bossiest people I know are SEEs. I love them both - they're dear friends - but they are bossy as hell.

Maybe there are different ways for different people to be bossy, and we're sensitive to people who are bossy in a way that is not compatible with who we are.

[mu4]

I've found that EII and EIE are both bossy to me.

EII has this sort of passive-aggressive martyr-dom that if you do not comply with their neurotic morals, no matter how wierd they are, they give you the guilty, "I'm dying" stare of fear.

EIE bossiness..... I don't think I need to explain this one.

[redbaron]

Yes! I have an extremely bossy EIE aunt!

[strrrng]

EII has this sort of passive-aggressive martyr-dom that if you do not comply with their neurotic morals, no matter how wierd they are, they give you the guilty, "I'm dying" stare of fear.

LOL... my Fi-INFj step-mother is exactly like this, down to the nuances of the bitchy little stare at moral transgression. It's weird. I get conflicting impressions. Like, they want to both be dominated by some bread-winning LSE who spanks them as they cook, yet want to maintain residence in this airy bubble of pristine perfection.

[07490]

Yo, she looks bossy, but noticed she does have very nice teeth.

[ArchonAlarion]

i'm ashamed to say that i've definitely been seen as bossy at various times in my life. it's like my Ne takes over and i want us all to MAKE IT SO!!!! lol

I was bossier as a child.

Basically I'd create some game and get random people to play it and when they started breaking the rules I'd get pissed.

But I was always creating games and shit, so i was also always bossy.

Now I avoid people and therefore rarely find myself being bossy.

[strrrng]

It's all about the layers.

Elaborate.

[strrrng]

A fairly single-layered individual would be incredibly boring, no?

Agreed.

Why the confusion between several aspects/layers of a given EII?

I wasn't so much confused as just interested. I do think there's an underlying theme to their meaning.

People don't interact with each other at the same layers, either...most people here will never interact with me at a deeper layer, and thus most people won't know most of who I actually am inside. I'm much more than the surface that I show here--anyone is.

Yeah, ok, the old "you don't really know me" disclaimer. Whatever. I think it's a hollow point, as one does not need to "know" someone to see through them, i.e. most people give much more away than they think.

I don't see how it's problematic. There's a time and place for just about anything.

Who said anything was problematic?

[717495]

Bosiness is gay.

[strrrng]

You felt the need to bring it up. *shrug* Obviously it's at least somewhat problematic for you if you aren't accepting it at face value.

I mentioned it in response to someone who had already "brought up" the idea. Yes, I was trying to understand it; that doesn't make it a dilemma.


But nice self-effacing elevation.

[silverchris9]

This rings true. I think IEIs are the least likely to clearly occupy a position of power in beta hierarchies; they seem to move around more amorphously. I recall being bossy in the past, though; it would almost always manifest with people, where I would spontaneously come out and start dictating how each member in a group should do something.

I think IEI bossiness happens in a few ways. One occurs in that Michael Jackson movie (which convinced me that he is IEI). Michael doesn't really boss anyone around, but everyone has the background awareness that what he says goes. He always frames bossiness as something else, and he rarely actually tells someone what to do... but what he wants done gets done. So IEIs can do the bossiness-by-proxy bit. In another one, a guy I know who I am almost 100% positive is an IEI is generally fairly passive, won't take direct action, but sometimes when no one will make a decision, he'll just take charge and start doing things. It's kinda funny (one guy joked about how "X has gone alpha male on us") but he gets stuff to happen. He also uses the phrase "I'm just afraid that..." to pull out the Ni and tell someone how something should be done. Not really bossiness... but indirectly bossy. I'm sort of the same way. I generally know how a lot of things should be done, but I'm reluctant to come out and say them. Then if things are bad enough/it's an important situation, I'll just be sort of blunt and tell people how things should be done. But I generally don't like to do that. I think ideally IEIs do the by-proxy thing (i.e., someone else takes care of Se for them while they can still make decisions), but if necessary, we'll step in and take charge, although we don't generally do it and it seems out-of-character when we do (Se DS).

Anyway, I agree completely with the idea of unconscious or "leaking" bossiness from ESXjs. They don't even really boss people around. They assume that you should be doing something a certain way and then tell you to do it that way. It's really annoying. It feels like they automatically assume that they have authority over me, and think nothing of telling me what to do. I know that to them it just looks like doing what needs to be done or somethin, but it's a great annoyance to me.

[strrrng]

I think IEI bossiness happens in a few ways. One occurs in that Michael Jackson movie (which convinced me that he is IEI). Michael doesn't really boss anyone around, but everyone has the background awareness that what he says goes. He always frames bossiness as something else, and he rarely actually tells someone what to do... but what he wants done gets done. So IEIs can do the bossiness-by-proxy bit. In another one, a guy I know who I am almost 100% positive is an IEI is generally fairly passive, won't take direct action, but sometimes when no one will make a decision, he'll just take charge and start doing things. It's kinda funny (one guy joked about how "X has gone alpha male on us") but he gets stuff to happen. He also uses the phrase "I'm just afraid that..." to pull out the Ni and tell someone how something should be done. Not really bossiness... but indirectly bossy. I'm sort of the same way. I generally know how a lot of things should be done, but I'm reluctant to come out and say them. Then if things are bad enough/it's an important situation, I'll just be sort of blunt and tell people how things should be done. But I generally don't like to do that. I think ideally IEIs do the by-proxy thing (i.e., someone else takes care of Se for them while they can still make decisions), but if necessary, we'll step in and take charge, although we don't generally do it and it seems out-of-character when we do (Se DS).

Makes sense – "proxy" is a good way to put it. I usually allude to different aspects of a situation, which are drawn from an aligned conception of it, so it's kind of like passively guiding people along. I don't usually feel the need to direct things, because it can feel like impinging on the fluidity of developments; but occasionally, if it is blatant that something or someone needs to be "realigned," I will communicate the information very abruptly, because of the sense of urgency the situation causes.

[Trevor]

LOL... my Fi-INFj step-mother is exactly like this, down to the nuances of the bitchy little stare at moral transgression. It's weird. I get conflicting impressions. Like, they want to both be dominated by some bread-winning LSE who spanks them as they cook, yet want to maintain residence in this airy bubble of pristine perfection.

Yeah man. This pretty much sums up what my INFj mother is all about.

[Marie84]

Maybe there are different ways for different people to be bossy, and we're sensitive to people who are bossy in a way that is not compatible with who we are.

Same

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I could see this being the case with alpha vs beta, but that's all. ESEs can be pretty underhanded in certain emotional tactics, but the strategies they employ are directed at a tangible sense of control. But with LSEs, I don't think this idea applies. I've observed enough in action to know that there is often some ulterior set of 'values' that they foist into situations through the appearance of pragmatic action.

Yeah this is true actually re ESE. A lot of negative emotions could still very well be classed as Fe, but too much of it (the "negative" stuff, using inverted commas because maybe it's two characters which say a thousand words/elaborations, lol) would surely be overload for any Fe seeker.

Can't say I agree so much with what you say about the LSE's, even when the ESE's are being negative - underhand maybe in emotional tactics, it's still (I think) easier to spot, but like someone else mentioned here - it's open to interpretations, the conversation/subject of the thread - which - incidentally, is something which is so often the case with socionics, I mean, an obvious but by no means exhaustive example, is the use of the word "force" with Se - depending on what is meant or interpreted by this word it can either by OK, decent-OK, or crap. I've thought before about somehow defining or sharpening up these terminologies and the words that get used, like tightening up the definitions, but a) can't be bothered and b) what WOULD people argue about if it happened (the tightening up of definitions, no doubt, lol).

[electric sheep]

i'm ashamed to say that i've definitely been seen as bossy at various times in my life. it's like my Ne takes over and i want us all to MAKE IT SO!!!! lol

You're such a 3 lol but yea I do it too.

Bossiness is probably better explained by the enneagram than socionics. E7s and E9s are among the least bossy, while 3s and 8s are prone to being more bossy.

[tcaudilllg]

Weak Se(T) is always looking for a fight. It's what the 1st dimension does. Strong Se(T), in contrast, is always looking for ways that people can cooperate with each other. Weak Se(T) sees conflict; strong Se(T) sees peace.

Yet, peace itself can only be obtained through victory. Something must be defeated through defection of its ranks before peace can be obtained. I believe that 3D Se(T) is victory, and 4D Se(T) is peace.

[Aramas]

I would say bossiness is poor Se, clever Se controls you without you thinking it or knowing about it. I met a Se-ego today (Most likely my dual) and she just totally covered up the external physical reality for me, it was very pleasing and energetic for me. However it was natural, she just took over she wasn't all 'get on your knees fag' like people say sles are. (not that I'd mind that per se) But to me like bossiness or being aggravated at somebody, is like wanting somebody *else* to use Se, but you're not good at it yourself.

Anyways I think this has already been discussed to death so I'd just like to point that out.

I believe this is correct. I know this is an old thread, but I wanted to highlight it. Whenever I've dealt with Se dominant types, I've noticed that they didn't really seem overbearing. They were so skilled at using Se that they basically just flowed like water. You could tell that there was a strong will there, and that they could exercise it. But they don't tend to use fear for example as a way of getting what they want, because it's not necessary for them to scare people to get what they want. They're that good at Se.

I knew an SLE who was so great at breaking the concentration of others that he basically just had to walk over and say something and it was done. Whatever the person in question had in mind to begin with was completely gone.

Se dominants are like the magnanimous givers of many things. They are top dog and they know it, so they can afford to relax and be nice.

Bossiest people I've known have been ENjs.