Results 1 to 35 of 35

Thread: In a Socionics Mood

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default In a Socionics Mood

    I'm in the mood to do theory. Who's up for serious theory atm?

    Like, what the hell is Se? My operational definition is "the function that treats information as though it were sense perception," hence the standard decisiveness and forcefulness associated with Se. But it has to be deeper than that; that's just a stereotype. It's external statics of objects. So it's the most concrete function (well, actually, Te might be the most concrete function, it depends on whether you see the world as essentially static or essentially dynamic, and therefore which is the mental conception and which is reality. I tend to go with reality as fundamentally static and the experience of change as requiring abstraction---that is, the idea that one object is in some way the same even as it undergoes change; two experiences, though they are separated in time, can be of the same object. I see that Platonically, as meaning that one perceives that the two objects, although they have differed slightly; if they have undergone any change in the intervening period, which, at the molecular/atomic level, they absolutely have; as the same object, and therefore the two objects, separated in time, are related to the same abstraction or form, the same mental conception of the object in question. Now there's an area where you could legitimately do socionics-related research on how humans fundamentally perceive reality).

    Anyway, Se is, if not the most concrete function, one of the two most concrete functions. What does this imply about Se? Does it matter? And then what about the idea of seeking experience? How do you derive Jung's idea of Se as the type that constantly seeks further sensory experience (in a very E7ish way) from the aspectonics of "external statics of objects"?

    This may relate to a metaphor I've been using lately, which is the idea that a function "wants" to treat the world like it's preferred form of information, and wants to maximize the aspects of life that are like that form of information. The best example is Fe: the nature of alpha and beta social environments begins with Fe and builds to more and more Fe, in the sense that you keep the internal dynamic in motion. Fe-egos in a social environment like that are always keeping the energy changing: as soon as everyone settles down from one joke, you have to rush in with another. If you tell a story, it has to build, it has to start in one place and take you to a different place emotionally. Even the theater games I play with my very alpha theater troupe are all about keeping the emotional dynamic going (with an Si twist): you start REALLY BIG AND LOUD and then get really small and quiet, and then you get REALLY BIG AND LOUD again, and so on and so forth. It's all about the dynamic. Each function seeks to maximize itself.

    Similarly, Se must in some way want to focus on more and more external static properties of objects. And what are the static properties? Well, the way it feels in the moment, the way it smells in the moment, the way in tastes in the moment. Beta STs, it seems, also find the Fe emotional atmosphere in some way part of the "fact" of the moment (analogous to the way that Te takes certain Fi judgments as established "facts"): the energy of the moment is an external fact, not a sensation of my own body.

    This elucidates the basic difference between Se and Si, using another sort of general rule about the functions I like to use. I say the difference between two functions is in where they "want" things, in how they want to program their associations. So Ne-valuers want their mystery as far outside themselves as possible, and eliminate interior mystery as soon as possible. Ni-valuers want their mystery as far inside themselves as possible (one is reminded of Hamlet: "you would pluck out the heart of my mystery"), and eliminate exterior mystery with a quick, "Oh, what's going to happen is x, y and z. Can we move on?" Similarly, Se-valuers want all their sensations as far outside themselves as possible. Hence the desire for constantly new sensations, as a sensation one has experienced before is in some way part of you, or at least, is more part of you than a new exotic sense experience. Perhaps this is one of the main benefits of Ni for Se-egos: by changing the frame of reference (an internal change), they allow the external world to appear new again. And vice versa, by changing the Ni-ego's external world, they change the internal world, insofar as the Ni-ego has to generate a new conceptual framework for this new experience in order to discover more things about it (and tinkering with how one is to understand something, and what one experience brings to bear on another, is one of Ni-egos' favorite activities). On the other hand, Si-valuers want all their sensations as far inside themselves as possible. So they want an internally consistent system of motion that happens inside their bodies, a contained system that engenders positive physical feelings, feelings of contentment and comfort. A closed system, if you will, perfectly in balance. This is analogous to the way that Ni seeks a mental constant (i.e., extrinsic or Platonic form) to underlie change. Similarly, Si seeks a system that is not itself changed (no exterior impact) as the system changes insofar as it goes through its internal processes. A constant "way of being" that produces comfort. In other words, homeostasis. Ne brings balance by preventing stagnation, by ensuring that the system can see new possibilities for increasing comfort. Without Ne, Si-egos therefore have a tendency to stick with what they know, with what works for them, preferring a system that definitely produces comfort to that period of uncertainty between systems (internal Ni uncertainty, insofar as the uncertainty is to that which is at their core, their homeostatic balance). Ne patiently shows that making changes, incorporating new aspects, adding some things and taking away others, can produce even better results, an improved homeostasis if you well.

    I sort of got carried away there.

    Anyway, these are my ideas of late. Let's do some socionics. Doesn't necessarily need to be about any of that stuff above, but some of that rambling could be a place to start.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  2. #2
    Shazaam's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Lamp
    TIM
    AB-IEI-Ni
    Posts
    13,813
    Mentioned
    597 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se is directly and purely and calmly, stating what a physical object or situation really is. It's hard to really separate Se/Ni as they are so connected. INFp's Fe will 'Flair the Se' up some though.

    Se is Te like in they are both 'matter of fact' like that, so they can't get their duals to stop doubting and second guessing something based on their intellect. How they differ is, as Ashton already stated sort of- Te/Fi is more naturally idealistic. But, they are idealistically defined. Te/Fi is 'Gooey' in the sense that it's very idealistic, Se/Ni is 'Gooey' in the sense that it's very raw. Te/Fi is 'Sharp' in the sense that it's Defined well, Se/Ni is 'Sharp' in the sense that it's physically relateable.

    Se/Ni: Realistically raw.
    Te/Fi: Idealistically defined.

    Ah fuck it. That's my best shot today. I have a headache.

  3. #3
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Regarding Se:
    For myself, I tend to view Se as the information about the qualities of concrete objects (objects that we can pick up or manipulate in other ways).

    How do we find out information about the concrete objects that are in our world? By doing things to them. We get into a car with gadgets we've never seen before, and we start flipping switches and pushing/pulling knobs and buttons. The action that happens after that lets us know some of the qualities of that car. We'll experiment with how fast the car goes when we press the gas pedal, or how how the car handles when we have to suddenly apply the brakes.

    We build up our understanding of the object, though, not by just one information element, but by a combo; in this case
    conscious Se + conscious Ti
    or conscious Se + conscious Fi
    or conscious Se + subconscious Ni
    or even subconscious Se + conscious Ni (but here the object isn't the primary focus; though the external behavior may be similar)


    I think Se gets its "force" definition because to get the information about the object, you are having to manipulate it, which is generally done manually or mechanically. Part of the qualities of an object is what it does, so you have to get it to DO whatever it DOES.

    Add in that a person can be treated as an object as well. So you want to find out the concrete qualities of a person? Get the person to DO something. One way is by a variety of 'rough housing'....here we get friendly (or not so friendly) pushing around, friendly (or not so friendly) punches, etc. The recipient of such behaviors may think the Se info processing is bullying, while the Se person may be thinking "hey, this guy's a good guy, a friend".

    I think that this is also how Se gets its "power" definition. Power is used as an example of an object's quality. But how do you determine something's power? By getting it to DO things.


    Now, lest people confuse "getting an object to DO something" as being "dynamic", please remember that the qualities being looked for are qualities that are relatively consistent for that object.

    Such that "lots of physical strength" is a relatively consistent quality of "large muscular men"; or, as pinocchio/piper once suggested...'lots of rings on the hands' suggests someone who has money and power...such that if an Se person has experienced the association of 'rings on hands' and 'object having money/power', then they will likely view that as a quality of 'rings on hands'. However, if they haven't experienced that, then there won't be that association.

    Does Se focus on the changing qualities of an object? Those qualities that are here one moment, and gone the next? And how would one know when the quality is available...or not available at any given time? They would have to utilize an Xi element to help with that. So yes, Se egos can do that...but that doesn't mean 'dynamic Se'.


    Oh and one more thing about Se (which applies to the other elements as well). We're talking about information. Information, and how we process it, can influence our behavior, yes. But processing the information does not necessarily mean that the commonly attributed external behavior will show up.
    (iow, we can discover Se information by means other than violence, aggression, or strong forcefulness.)
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  4. #4
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.

  5. #5
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.
    how did those preconceptions come into being?
    iow, how did the person obtain those preconceptions?
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  6. #6
    squark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,814
    Mentioned
    286 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris
    I'm in the mood to do theory. Who's up for serious theory atm?

    Like, what the hell is Se? My operational definition is "the function that treats information as though it were sense perception," hence the standard decisiveness and forcefulness associated with Se. But it has to be deeper than that; that's just a stereotype. It's external statics of objects. So it's the most concrete function (well, actually, Te might be the most concrete function, it depends on whether you see the world as essentially static or essentially dynamic, and therefore which is the mental conception and which is reality. I tend to go with reality as fundamentally static and the experience of change as requiring abstraction---that is, the idea that one object is in some way the same even as it undergoes change; two experiences, though they are separated in time, can be of the same object. I see that Platonically, as meaning that one perceives that the two objects, although they have differed slightly; if they have undergone any change in the intervening period, which, at the molecular/atomic level, they absolutely have; as the same object, and therefore the two objects, separated in time, are related to the same abstraction or form, the same mental conception of the object in question. Now there's an area where you could legitimately do socionics-related research on how humans fundamentally perceive reality).

    Anyway, Se is, if not the most concrete function, one of the two most concrete functions. What does this imply about Se? Does it matter? And then what about the idea of seeking experience? How do you derive Jung's idea of Se as the type that constantly seeks further sensory experience (in a very E7ish way) from the aspectonics of "external statics of objects"?
    Jung's types are an attempt at "pure" types, meaning without anything else coming in to influence. So his Se type, is a person as if all they view the world through, is Se. External statics of objects is very simply just what is. What you can observe. This is the form, appearance, action, gestures and motion. Yes, motion and actions too. Statics, and the state of something is not unable to see movement, especially given that movement is just a series of positions. Dynamics = cause and effect. Statics = what is. A movement can be just what is, without worrying about the cause of it.

    So, a "pure" Se is going to be involved in what is, and getting the most out of it. Sensory experience is how a person interacts with the outside world. You can't INTERACT with the tangible outside world without involving your senses. So, Se is interacting with what is.
    Quote Originally Posted by 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
    It's very straightforward then how external statics of objects (the tangible world around us) creates the man Jung describes as Se.

    The sensing is not something taken within the man, or coming from within him. In other words, it's not Si. It's interaction with the world outside of the man.

  7. #7
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.
    This sounds like the Ni-super-id side of Se. The strength of Se is in it's hyper-realism. Seeing physical properties of things exactly as is with relatively little interpretation or bias allowing decisive quickness and certainty. They have problems with making inferences with that information and can be overly assuming, which is what you seem to be pointing out.
    Last edited by Azeroffs; 08-14-2010 at 06:59 PM.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  8. #8
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.
    erm... that's vaguely accurate in some ways... but to say that Se has nothing to do with sense perception is to ignore Jung. I mean, it might be overstatement to say that Se information is fundamentally concerned with actual sense perceptions, but certainly Jung's description of Se focuses on reality-as-perceived-through-the-senses, i.e., "sense perception."

    But yeah, that bit about stereotypes is standard-issue polr-whining. And Se doesn't try to fill in the properties of an object based on a few... it would be more accurate to say that is a result of the Ni-dual seeking function in Se-leading individuals, i.e., a need to know as many properties of the object as possible, but weak ability to understand the whole from the parts. Intelligent Se egos are likely to compensate for this weakness by trying to experience more of the object or getting help from an Ni-ego, not by assuming you're a nerd because your mom gave you a chili bowl haircut. People who do that are called "anyone with power and insecurity in high school," or, 99% of high schoolers.

    Jung's types are an attempt at "pure" types, meaning without anything else coming in to influence. So his Se type, is a person as if all they view the world through, is Se. External statics of objects is very simply just what is. What you can observe. This is the form, appearance, action, gestures and motion. Yes, motion and actions too. Statics, and the state of something is not unable to see movement, especially given that movement is just a series of positions. Dynamics = cause and effect. Statics = what is. A movement can be just what is, without worrying about the cause of it.

    So, a "pure" Se is going to be involved in what is, and getting the most out of it. Sensory experience is how a person interacts with the outside world. You can't INTERACT with the tangible outside world without involving your senses. So, Se is interacting with what is.
    Ooh, this is a good point. Jung's information should be taken to describe an individual who only takes information in through one function. Socionics is more applicable to individuals because it accounts for how the functions interact in human behavior. It is a refinement of Jung's larger insight that increases its utility.

    Anyway, yeah, Se in its pure form focuses on the sensory part of experience. But an actual Se-ego or Se-valuer does have to deal with the non-sensory part of experience, i.e., although the words on a page in a physics book are sensory, the generalized rules of those words, the meanings of those words, are abstract, intelligible, mental, and all the Se-egos I know are perfectly capable of dealing with those abstract rules. But yeah, I suppose Se itself is not the function that would process that abstract meaning, although it might manipulate that knowledge in order to use it for a purpose. This is another way that Ni and Se complement each other, and are almost a complete dyad for understanding things, insofar as reality can be divided into sensory objects and their meanings.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  9. #9
    Blaze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,714
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Se has nothing to do with sense perception. This is one of the biggest and most tenacious misconceptions in all of socionics. Se is more like a way of understanding reality that is based on heavy preconceptions. Prototype thinking is a good word for it. Upon encountering any object or situation an Se type tries to the greatest possible extent to fill in ALL of the properties of an object based on having seen only a small number of them. Everything gets linked to a stereotype and pigeonholed on that basis. This is how terms like "nerd" and "jock" come into existence.
    you're describing Ne role.

    ILE

    those who are easily shocked.....should be shocked more often

  10. #10
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Silverchris
    but to say that Se has nothing to do with sense perception is to ignore Jung.
    I know. Its one out of two of Jung's main mistakes:
    - calling Se "sensory" when it is in fact a function of inferred, indirect identification
    - mixing up two forms of objectivity and subjectivity (the epistemic kind concerned with justifiability on one hand and the ontological kind concerned with the distinction between perceptive forms and represented reality on the other hand; the first relating to Je and the latter relating to Pe)

    I don't take it lightly to challenge the claims of the socionics' main "founding fathers", but to say they can never be wrong is absurd.

    This sounds like the Ni-super-id side of Se. The strength of Se is in it's hyper-realism. Seeing physical properties of things exactly as is with relatively little interpretation or bias allowing decisive quickness and certainty. They have problems with making inferences with that information and can be overly assuming, which is what you seem to be pointing out.
    Here is the problem with your stated views: one can not "see" the properties of any entity existing in outer reality. One must infer them from experience. So you have to make a choice between these to focusses: are Se types characterized by an interest in the true properties of real objects (which means they are concerned with inference), or do they stick to sense experience without caring about the objects behind the veil of this sense experience.

    Next, if Se types are in fact concerned with inference, we run into a problem when we also say they are without bias: inference without bias is a painstakingly slow process, not something lending a basis to decisive action. This would contradict all of the empirical material available on the type.

  11. #11
    Azeroffs's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    California
    TIM
    ENTj 3w4 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,200
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    Here is the problem with your stated views: one can not "see" the properties of any entity existing in outer reality. One must infer them from experience. So you have to make a choice between these to focusses: are Se types characterized by an interest in the true properties of real objects (which means they are concerned with inference), or do they stick to sense experience without caring about the objects behind the veil of this sense experience.

    Next, if Se types are in fact concerned with inference, we run into a problem when we also say they are without bias: inference without bias is a painstakingly slow process, not something lending a basis to decisive action. This would contradict all of the empirical material available on the type.
    That's exactly what they do. They take what their senses provide them and accept reality for exactly the way they perceive it to be. "True properties of real objects" seems like Ne's focus. The essence of objects behind the senses. The true reality which is unknowable. It makes a lot of sense that that would be what Ne focuses on actually.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  12. #12
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I know. Its one out of two of Jung's main mistakes:
    - calling Se "sensory" when it is in fact a function of inferred, indirect identification
    - mixing up two forms of objectivity and subjectivity (the epistemic kind concerned with justifiability on one hand and the ontological kind concerned with the distinction between perceptive forms and represented reality on the other hand; the first relating to Je and the latter relating to Pe)
    I don't know that the "mixing up" is a mistake, more a recognition of their fundamental similarity. It introduces a lack of clarity, but is an example of sacrificing clarity for the sake of expressing more information. There is a similarity between "justifiability" and "reality as perceived through the senses." Both are objective, insofar as both place emphasis on something that is not the self, something outside the self. Also, I would say that objective is more a T/F thing for the rational functions, although it is more of an E/I thing for the perceiving functions.

    I don't take it lightly to challenge the claims of the socionics' main "founding fathers", but to say they can never be wrong is absurd.
    Maybe, but you're going to have to provide a lot more evidence than "that's why Se egos call people nerds" to convince me to go along with you rather than Jung, given that Jung was a genius. Also, this touches on a basic question about socionics. If socionics has some existence in reality separate from our mental conception, if socionics exists independently or objectively, then Jung can be wrong about socionics. if, however, socionics is a mental conception, a way of viewing the world that can tell us something about the world, while not having any existence independent of human minds, Jung cannot be wrong about socionics, or at least he cannot be wrong about the eight functions/IMs/IAs/IEs/IQs/whateverfucks. To appeal to an authority higher than the creator of a system requires that the system have some source beyond that creator--that it be ingrained in a reality that exists beyond the mind. Otherwise it's not much different than saying Shakespeare is wrong about Hamlet. Shakespeare can't be wrong about Hamlet, because Shakespeare is Hamlet's creator. (Well... actually, a part of Shakespeare, Shakespeare's conscious mind, or Shakespeare at a certain moment in time, can be wrong about Hamlet, but only insofar as that part of the mind or the aspect being expressed at the given moment is not itself the creator of Hamlet. What in Shakespeare wrote Hamlet cannot be wrong about Hamlet.)
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  13. #13
    wants to be a writer. silverchris9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    New York
    Posts
    3,072
    Mentioned
    14 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anndelise View Post
    Regarding Se:
    For myself, I tend to view Se as the information about the qualities of concrete objects (objects that we can pick up or manipulate in other ways).
    Hm. I like this. It fits with the idea of Ne as information about the internal qualities of objects (which is another--Aristotelian--way of asking what they are).
    How do we find out information about the concrete objects that are in our world? By doing things to them. We get into a car with gadgets we've never seen before, and we start flipping switches and pushing/pulling knobs and buttons. The action that happens after that lets us know some of the qualities of that car. We'll experiment with how fast the car goes when we press the gas pedal, or how how the car handles when we have to suddenly apply the brakes.
    So Se gets its reputation for force or volition because the Se ego's basic way of interacting with the world is by applying force/volition to it. Hence the beta atmosphere of ribbing, as you said (a term which I am certain has its origins in some form of play-fighting, touching people's ribs), it's a way of manipulating an object (in this case, a person), to see what it can do, to see what it's made of, to see what it's qualities are. But then, we're in danger of making it difficult to differentiate Se from Ne, because Se isn't supposed to be interested in internal characteristics. But I think we solve this problem by saying that Se focuses on the external aspects of internal characteristics, i.e., "what effect can it have in the world?" And again, SLEs find IEIs fascinating because we are a mystery insofar as it is difficult to deduce the effect we are capable of having on the world by most of the means they are accustomed to employing, most of the markers they are used to seeing. At least, I would find a puzzle like that interesting, were I not one myself. So the difference between Ne and Se is, like most in socionics, a difference of emphasis. Much like Ti and Fi can both come to same moral judgment, but will discuss it in different terms and arrive at it by different means, so Ne and Se may come to the same conclusion about what an object, say, a company, is capable of doing, but Se will have arrived at the conclusion via a concrete, active process, whereas Ne will have arrived at the conclusion via an abstract, intuitive process that cannot be clearly explicated, a guess, a hunch, a "feeling," that sort of sudden, intuitive knowledge, that "oh, look, you can do x with this object!" A basket can be a hat, a box can be a fort, etc. These conclusions will usually be considered "unusual" (as will Ni conclusions, but those unusual conclusions will come from a frame/lens shift, an unusual set of abstract associations, rather than, um, however Ne does it), because they deviate from the intended uses and the "normal" uses that a more concrete function like Te or Se might find for the object.

    So Se and Ne may both determine that this company is capable of increasing its market share, but an SLE will have experienced (preferably directly by doing it him/herself or by doing something similar and applying the similar experience to the current one) the scenario and thereby made a Ti generalization which is applied to the company; while an ILE will have a Ti list of all its internal qualities, determined by mentally probing the object, asking questions such as "what is it like? how does it work? what processes are integral to it? what resources does it have, and what are the capabilities of those resources?" rather than actually experiencing what it can do (or, again, what something like it can do) first-hand. Se will drive headlong towards the goal that they've set on (in our example, "increasing market share"), manipulating whatever resources need to be manipulated in order to reach this goal confidently, much as one would manipulate a concrete physical object (this goes back to my idea that Se treats all information as though it is sensory information, or at least all objects as though they were sensory objects, although, while most resources indeed have a physical manifestation---even if it's only a patent on the books in an office in Washington, or, better yet, a tiny bit of code on a computer somewhere---really, a patent is more a non-physical, abstract resource---i.e., the right to use a certain technology---than a physical one.) Ne, on the other hand, would continue to generalize: what else can we do with this? We could do more than just increase market share, we could also do x, and y, and z, and l, and q, and alksjdfao... and might come up with such a creative and interesting use for the company that they completely outmaneuver the SLE and end up increasing the market share faster than the SLE as a side-effect of some other creative use they came up with. Or the SLE might win because, well, SLEs usually win.

    I think that this is also how Se gets its "power" definition. Power is used as an example of an object's quality. But how do you determine something's power? By getting it to DO things.
    This goes back to my idea that power is capability. What is a "power"? It is the capacity to do something specific, as in, I have the power to move my fingers. What is the abstract noun "power"? It is the generalized capacity to have certain kinds of effects, and is usually employed to describe the kinds of effects that people are most interested in, i.e., the power to affect people's livelihoods, the power to cause material change in people's lives (which generally boils down to affecting one of three things: physical state--i.e., life, death, having all one's limbs, being a quadraplegic, etc.,--freedom--i.e., imprisoned, free, in New York City, in Siberia, etc.,--and money). So when we say, Barack Obama is a powerful man, what we mean is that Barack Obama has the power to affect the physical state, freedom, and finances of many people (and using his power over these three, can also lead people to take a variety of actions ostensibly unrelated to physical state, freedom, or finances, such as whether the White House uses red napkins or orange ones--not that the president would ever care about something like that, but that is presumably something that he could change if he so desired, using, ultimately, his power over the finances of the White House staff).

    The difference between Se and Ne, then, can be seen in the difference between the words "power" and "capability." A capability has no direction. It just is. It is merely information. You are not expected to do anything with it. It branches out. It has permutations. One capability, say, the ability to move one's fingers, implies several other capabilities, say, the ability to type on a socionics forum (assuming several other capabilities, including the capability to access a computer). Power, on the other hand, has a direction. Even if it is not being used at the moment, there is the assumption that power will eventually be used to do something. Power is towards something, like energy. Even if energy just spins in circles, it's still moving in a direction. Power is information as well, in one sense, and betas and gammas love to measure the power of others, be it as crude as Dragon Ball Z ("It's over 9000!!!!!!"), or as refined as a gentleman testing someone's social "power" based on how that person's social actions strike them (as of low breeding or high, for instance, which could be, for gammas, an indirect measure of power). But power has a crucial dimension beyond information. When you think of power, you don't think of inactive information, but of active wielding, active application of force upon others. You think of kings pronouncing banishments. You think of CEOs breaking companies by inducing massive sell-offs of stock, or taking over companies by massive purchases of stock. Power is Se, capability is Ne.

    Of course, you have to focus on the similarities too: power and capability are, as I said in the beginning, the same thing. Of course if you have the capability to crush another company, you can, by definition, crush that company. If you have the capability to fire an employee, you can, by definition, fire that employee. The difference is in emphasis. Power implies being put to a specific use. Capability is more free-form, more mental, more explorative.


    Now, lest people confuse "getting an object to DO something" as being "dynamic", please remember that the qualities being looked for are qualities that are relatively consistent for that object.

    Such that "lots of physical strength" is a relatively consistent quality of "large muscular men"; or, as pinocchio/piper once suggested...'lots of rings on the hands' suggests someone who has money and power...such that if an Se person has experienced the association of 'rings on hands' and 'object having money/power', then they will likely view that as a quality of 'rings on hands'. However, if they haven't experienced that, then there won't be that association.

    Does Se focus on the changing qualities of an object? Those qualities that are here one moment, and gone the next? And how would one know when the quality is available...or not available at any given time? They would have to utilize an Xi element to help with that. So yes, Se egos can do that...but that doesn't mean 'dynamic Se'.[/QUOTE]

    Well, I like the idea of static functions as "snapshots." So while an Se-ego might be able to use help from an Ni-ego as far as alerting them when a new snapshot of the qualities of an object needs to be taken, or even anticipating what that new snapshot will be (eliminating the need to update one's conception of the object because the Ni-ego updates it for you), they can always "take a new snapshot" of the object. They would, however, presumably hold the assumption of the capabilities of the object constant or static until such time as they reassessed the object's potential, and an object with constantly changing potential would probably be seen as unreliable or flaky, and therefore not to be used, an irritation to deal with.

    Oh and one more thing about Se (which applies to the other elements as well). We're talking about information. Information, and how we process it, can influence our behavior, yes. But processing the information does not necessarily mean that the commonly attributed external behavior will show up.
    (iow, we can discover Se information by means other than violence, aggression, or strong forcefulness.)
    Heartily agreed.
    Not a rule, just a trend.

    IEI. Probably Fe subtype. Pretty sure I'm E4, sexual instinctual type, fairly confident that I'm a 3 wing now, so: IEI-Fe E4w3 sx/so. Considering 3w4 now, but pretty sure that 4 fits the best.

    Yes 'a ma'am that's pretty music...

    I am grateful for the mystery of the soul, because without it, there could be no contemplation, except of the mysteries of divinity, which are far more dangerous to get wrong.

  14. #14
    escaping anndelise's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    WA
    TIM
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp
    Posts
    6,359
    Mentioned
    215 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by silverchris9 View Post
    Hm. I like this. It fits with the idea of Ne as information about the internal qualities of objects (which is another--Aristotelian--way of asking what they are).


    So Se gets its reputation for force or volition because the Se ego's basic way of interacting with the world is by applying force/volition to it. Hence the beta atmosphere of ribbing, as you said (a term which I am certain has its origins in some form of play-fighting, touching people's ribs), it's a way of manipulating an object (in this case, a person), to see what it can do, to see what it's made of, to see what it's qualities are. But then, we're in danger of making it difficult to differentiate Se from Ne, because Se isn't supposed to be interested in internal characteristics. But I think we solve this problem by saying that Se focuses on the external aspects of internal characteristics, i.e., "what effect can it have in the world?" And again, SLEs find IEIs fascinating because we are a mystery insofar as it is difficult to deduce the effect we are capable of having on the world by most of the means they are accustomed to employing, most of the markers they are used to seeing. At least, I would find a puzzle like that interesting, were I not one myself. So the difference between Ne and Se is, like most in socionics, a difference of emphasis. Much like Ti and Fi can both come to same moral judgment, but will discuss it in different terms and arrive at it by different means, so Ne and Se may come to the same conclusion about what an object, say, a company, is capable of doing, but Se will have arrived at the conclusion via a concrete, active process, whereas Ne will have arrived at the conclusion via an abstract, intuitive process that cannot be clearly explicated, a guess, a hunch, a "feeling," that sort of sudden, intuitive knowledge, that "oh, look, you can do x with this object!" A basket can be a hat, a box can be a fort, etc. These conclusions will usually be considered "unusual" (as will Ni conclusions, but those unusual conclusions will come from a frame/lens shift, an unusual set of abstract associations, rather than, um, however Ne does it), because they deviate from the intended uses and the "normal" uses that a more concrete function like Te or Se might find for the object.
    SeTi has the Fe hidden agenda, so they would also be interested in the internal aspects of the object, as well. dualseeking Ni will also help, as will role Ne.

    SeFi has the Fi creative, Ni dualseeking, and Ne role. They're more likely to emphasize the internal fields related to the object, rather than the internal characteristics of the object itself.

    So it's not that an Se base type is incapable of discovering internal qualities of an object, just that they would do it in a different way than an Ne base type would. But you already covered an awareness of that in the rest of your post.


    edited to add:
    oh, and what you wrote about trying to figure out the puzzle? My infp friend mentions that when he talks about the interacts he's had with female estps. That they seem to initially be attracted to him because he's a harder puzzle to figure out. The process of figuring him out takes time, and gradually familiarity and in-syncness grows between the two.
    IEE 649 sx/sp cp

  15. #15
    I've been waiting for you Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Behind you
    TIM
    sle sp/sx 845
    Posts
    4,925
    Mentioned
    146 Post(s)
    Tagged
    16 Thread(s)

    Default

    i like the bit where you're like big and loud .. the rest is just too much text for me to take...

Posting Permissions

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