Results 1 to 40 of 64

Thread: Se an irrational element?

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Bananas are good. Aleksei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    The Rift
    TIM
    C-EIE, 7-4-8 sx/sp
    Posts
    1,624
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default Se an irrational element?

    From descriptions I've read, there appears to be a contradiction in terms here: Se-dominants are irrationals, and yet the definition of Se seems to fit the rational definition far better. ESTps and ESFps seem to be quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders. I'm using these definitions: Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion

    Rationals
    (Also called shizotymes in early socionics literature)

    1.Tend to plan ahead, make decisions early.
    2.Are more often rigid and stubborn.
    3.Do not like to change their decisions.
    4.Tend to finish what they started.
    5.Usually have stiff movements.
    6.Usually more 'authoritarian' leadership style.
    7.Low stress tolerance.

    Irrationals
    (Also called cyclotymes in early socionics literature)

    1.Tend to wait and see, more spontaneous.
    2.Are more often flexible and tolerant.
    3.Change their decisions frequently.
    4.Tend to start new things without finishing them.
    5.Usually have gentle movements.
    6.Usually more 'democratic' leadership style.
    7.High stress tolerance.
    Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion
    Extroverted sensing () is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing.

    includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required.

    Types that value are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value . There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing ()-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".

    Unlike , which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
    I figure based on the contradiction, one must be wrong. Can anyone please discern this, or explain this to me?
    What do these signs mean—, , etc.? Why cannot socionists use symbols Ne, Ni etc. as in MBTI? Just because they have somewhat different meaning. Socionics and MBTI, each in its own way, have slightly modified the original Jung's description of his 8 psychological types. For this reason, (Ne) is not exactly the same as Ne in MBTI.

    Just one example: in MBTI, Se (extraverted sensing) is associated with life pleasures, excitement etc. By contrast, the socionic function (extraverted sensing) is first and foremost associated with control and expansion of personal space (which sometimes can manifest in excessive aagression, but often also manifests in a capability of managing lots of people and things).

    For this reason, we consider comparison between MBTI types and socionic types by functions to be rather useless than useful.

    -Victor DarkAngelFireWolf69, Dmitri Lytov

  2. #2
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I guess I don't really see much contradiction here. You may be seeing a contradiction based on a faulty definition of Se. Se is not rigid or stiff. And the leadership style of SLE is not authoritarian. They also have a very high stress tolerance, at least all the ones I know.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  3. #3
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*

  4. #4
    Logos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    5,407
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Se is an irrational element. It is simply part of the Socionics definition of irrationality. It uses a perceiving function, which are tautologically irrational, as opposed to the rational, judging functions.

    The SLE and SEE fit with the irrational descriptions. There is no contradiction there at all. Being "quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders" does not make one rational.
    "Alpha Quadra subforum. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious." ~Obi-Wan Kenobi
    Johari Box

  5. #5
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Rationality/Irrationality is one of the hardest dichotomies to define, and wikisocion only did it half well. I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  6. #6
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.
    No, it's terrible. "What should be" has nothing to do with information metabolism. You can't pretend to create a system about the way a person structures and organizes information and suddenly involve the person's motivations or wishes in the explanations.

  7. #7
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*
    That's what I always suspected. I still don't understand why you type yourself as rational. A mystery...

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    Rationality/Irrationality is one of the hardest dichotomies to define, and wikisocion only did it half well.
    Wikisocion is not an author but a project. If you have a better definition - why don't you just correct the wikisocion article?

    Quote Originally Posted by Crispy View Post
    I'm surprised they didn't use Irrationals look at "what is" and Rationals look at "what should be" which is a much better, albeit still vague distinction.
    The problem is, you can change wikisocion pages as you wish. Nobody cares if it is right or wrong, nobody would correct it if someone wrote complete nonsense there. So nobody should be surprised if he reads bogus on wikisocion...

    The article half a year ago (before I changed it): Rationality and irrationality - Wikisocion
    That was even worse, wasn't it? "Perceives things as what they should be"?!? Ridiculous. The difference is just that rationals have higher expectations and some of them might even think that everything would happen as it should happen...

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    No, it's terrible. "What should be" has nothing to do with information metabolism. You can't pretend to create a system about the way a person structures and organizes information and suddenly involve the person's motivations or wishes in the explanations.
    Socionics is not only about information. I can see nothing wrong in it when someone describes the types and dichotomies by behaviour or thoughts...

  8. #8
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    That's what I always suspected. I still don't understand why you type yourself as rational. A mystery...
    Because socionics is an inconsistent mess when I don't, in which case I might as well litter the forum with more bullshit because everything else is of that variety anyway.

  9. #9
    jughead's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    NC
    TIM
    IEI
    Posts
    894
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Desire. Is this desire constant or is it changing? The subjective intensity/enjoyability is not the same as willed desire, focusing yourself soley on one goal. However intesity/enjoyability feeds into desire and creates it. They are a loop of sorts, its just what way one gets into it. Se would obviously be more active and changing in striving for one goal while disregarding the enjoyment. Like a boxer per se yes? What a shit pun. Anyhow this is the stupid thing that needs clarification but no one says because they are too good or too stupid to say either way without dropping back into circular definitions.

  10. #10
    Crispy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    2,034
    Mentioned
    18 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JohnDo View Post
    The difference is just that rationals have higher expectations and some of them might even think that everything would happen as it should happen...
    That's really all I meant, which is why I said mine was still vague. I might be able to pull out a better distinction from Filatova's book...
    Uncertainty and Ambiguity make life difficult for Rationals because they cannot predict and plan under such circumstances, while for irrationals the state of ambiguity is their natural domain, and overly organized life is boring and depressing
    This one is weird because it almost sound like making decisions vs keeping options open (strategic vs tactical?).

    Another passage about rationality vs irrationality says something to the effect of rationals single task and irrationals multitask but that seems to be a (mis)copy of Process / Result.

    To be honest I don't often spot irrationality/rationality in people I type until I work on deciphering information elements.
    ILI (FINAL ANSWER)

  11. #11
    context is king
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    1,681
    Mentioned
    58 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I'm irrational according to that list. *shrug*
    Are you the youngest child in your family by any chance?

  12. #12
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    I'm rational according to the list, but you have to consider that may be because I value Te; Beta rationals are more Se, spontaneous, impulsive, less routine. This is why I don't like this category system. The best way to do this is to divide by dual pairs and preferences...SLE/IEI pair and what they prefer...Se/Ni...etc.
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 09-26-2010 at 05:42 PM.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  13. #13
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    I'm rational according to the list, but you have to consider that may be because I value Te; Beta rationals are more Se, spontaneous, impulsive, less routine. This is why I don't like this category system. The best way to do this is to divide by dual pairs and preferences...SLE/IEI pair and what they prefer...Se/Ni...etc.
    I like that idea.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  14. #14
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    moon
    Posts
    4,848
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    There's no contradiction. Se behaves more like an irrational element described there.

  15. #15
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Sure. How about Se rational valuers? So you now have Se and rational. Rational implies way too much preference for routine to also imply that you can be both rational and Se.

    Rational -applies to Te, IMO
    Irrational -applies to Se, IMO

    other's don't apply like TiSe is semi rational. they prefer routine, but don't stick to it (I don't know, from observation, I couldn't even make that correlation).
    Last edited by Beautiful sky; 09-26-2010 at 06:12 PM.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  16. #16
    redbaron's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    9,315
    Mentioned
    17 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Maritsa33 View Post
    Sure. How about Se rational valuers? So you now have Se and rational. Rational implies way too much preference for routine to also imply that you can be both rational and Se.
    well I think that when Se is valued along with Ti but Ti is valued more, as is the case with EIE/LSI, it ends up looking slightly different. Ti rules over Se in those instances and is tempered by it. This is why I don't think you can really look at Se by itself. I mean, you can but it comes across differently IN PEOPLE and in real life depending on what it's paired with in the ego block.
    IEI-Fe 4w3

  17. #17
    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 Maritsa33 View Post
    other's don't apply like TiSe is semi rational. they prefer routine, but don't stick to it (I don't know, from observation, I couldn't even make that correlation).
    seriously? LSI is stereotypically the type the most fits in with rationality. Se isn't necessarily about spontaneity.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  18. #18
    Humanist Beautiful sky's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    EII land
    TIM
    EII INFj
    Posts
    25,960
    Mentioned
    669 Post(s)
    Tagged
    6 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Azeroffs View Post
    seriously? LSI is stereotypically the type the most fits in with rationality. Se isn't necessarily about spontaneity.
    Se is about spontanaity and impulsive action...not planned/schedualed () what do you mean it's not?

    You should observe activity relations between LSE and IEE; they are planning more then acting..lol and that's what was observed that "E activity relations slow down" and I's speed up.
    -
    Dual type (as per tcaudilllg)
    Enneagram 2w1sw(1w9) helps others to live up to their own standards of what a good person is and is very behind the scenes in the process.
    Tritype 1-2-6 stacking sp/sx


    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

  19. #19
    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 Maritsa33 View Post
    Se is about spontanaity and impulsive action...not planned/schedualed () what do you mean it's not?
    No, Se is about the perception of reality as is or explicit properties of reality. Ne is basically the perception of the hidden properties of reality.

    Se may manifest into spontaneity because it's perceptions are obvious and easily decided upon and in the case of ESxps it often does, but with ISxjs it usually manifests as rigidity and self-assertion. I'm not sure why you think Ne has anything to do with planning.
    3w4-5w6-9w8

  20. #20
    Ti centric krieger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    5,937
    Mentioned
    80 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    I find myself firmly deciding I don't want to commit to a plan a lot.

    I also assert decisions without being committed to them myself.

    I am really ambiguous where J/P is concerned.
    Last edited by krieger; 09-26-2010 at 09:37 PM.

  21. #21
    Hot Message FDG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North Italy
    TIM
    ENTj
    Posts
    16,615
    Mentioned
    235 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by labcoat View Post
    I find myself firmly deciding I don't want to commit to a plan a lot.

    I also assert decisions without being committed to them myself.

    I am really ambiguous where J/P is concerned.
    Yeah, I also feel like that. Although, I tend to be much more commitment-oriented whenever another person is included in what I have decided - basically, when changing my decision might be problematic for the other party. Sensing and process are also traits which tend to give a certain "rational" vibe, in MBTI sense. Even an ESFp can be terribly dogmatic in his/her decisions when he/she has made his/her mind, even though those decisions will likely concern relatively short-term matters, so they won't constrain any future action.
    Obsequium amicos, veritas odium parit

  22. #22
    Joy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    TIM
    SEE
    Posts
    24,507
    Mentioned
    60 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    No information element is ever used alone. The rationality comes from either Fi or Ti.
    SEE

    Check out my Socionics group! https://www.facebook.com/groups/1546362349012193/

  23. #23
    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

    Technically, every function is irrational because each person supposedly processes these functions differently in their psyche, subjectively. There is nothing objective or rational about how somebody purely makes you feel. This theory is mainly based on interpersonal dynamics, not 'who you are.' It's how you exist in relation to others...

    Reality clings to the relationship of things in order to exist. the first evil makes people self-destruct because it operates on the premises, that relationships are 'bad' (I'm talking about a pure thing) Until you are so much in your own world that you slit your wrists. Nothing is as 'pure' or raw to be an 'objective element', obviously.

    I look at it this way, the lifeforms that asexually reproduce are always in a worse boat then hybrdization sexual reproduction because it fucks up their immune systems and doesn't balance them, one disease wipes out the whole line. In short, if you look at functions as 'rational' or 'objective' in that sense, you are treating functions like a virus, or a half-life. You are, hilariously enough, turning socionics into AIDS for your brain.

  24. #24
    JohnDo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    TIM
    LII-IEI
    Posts
    636
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aleksei View Post
    From descriptions I've read, there appears to be a contradiction in terms here: Se-dominants are irrationals, and yet the definition of Se seems to fit the rational definition far better. ESTps and ESFps seem to be quite decisive, effective planners, organizers, and harsh leaders.
    To answer the question of the OP: You mix up Rationality with Decisive*Strategic*Farsighted. These three Reinin dichotomies overlap to a certain degree with Rationality:

    Rational types make decisions early - Decisive types, too. Types that are both Rational and Decisive (ENFj, ISTj, ENTj, ISFj) decide immediately, types that are Irrational and Judicious (ENTp, ISFp, ENFp, ISTp) need months or years to come to a decision. "Eeny, meeny, miney, moe, catch a rabbit by the toe,..."

    Rational types set goals - Strategic types, too. Types that are both Rational and Strategic (INTj, ENFj, ENTj, INFj) usually set a lot of goals, types that are Irrational and Tactical (ENTp, INFp, INTp, ENFp) are not interested in goals at all. "The way is the goal"

    Rational types think about the future - Farsighted types, too. Types that are both Rational and Farsighted (ESFj, INTj, ESTj, INFj) usually think a lot about the future, types that are Irrational and Carefree (ENTp, ISFp, ENFp, ISTp) don't worry about the future at all. "Just wait and see"



    ESTp and ESFp are somewhere in between. They make decisions when it's time to make them (Decisive, but not Rational). They certainly set some goals (Strategic, but not Rational). They sometimes think about the future (Farsighted, but not Rational).

Posting Permissions

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