derail-Suz's type

[Exodus]

No, that's a stupid stereotype especially about Si. What about the Si type that gets away from a situation instead of being compliant. What about the Si type that uses their Se ID when necessary?

For Se, forceful works if you don't specifically mean aggression, just an active approach to things. But many people seem to misunderstand the word usage "forceful" as implying aggression

ok, I mostly agree with what you're saying.

Being forceful (or better, strong willed) is not the same as aggression. Certainly many Se ego types are not aggressive people. And yes, getting away from a situation is also using Si. And of course any type can use Se, to different degrees. So we are on the same page there.

You said it's part of the core definition for Se/Si, why? (Where you say: "But this is so closely related to the "definition" that I see* no reason to doubt it")

Well, for example, Augusta described Se information as "the degree of mobilization, strength of will, power, and beauty of observed objects and subjects." I don't know of any author who denies that (evaluating and applying) willpower is a part of Se. If they did, it would be a significant departure from classical socionics.

Here are some things Jung says about Se types (again, he makes little distinction between the psychological function and the type):

Jung's description of the Se type is basically as a bon-vivant pleasure seeker: "his aim is concrete enjoyment". This is closer to Si in socionics, in terms of motivation. He also mentions nothing about willpower.

This topic has been done to death but just in case people are willing to listen... consider the following:

1) Jungian descriptions are somewhat different from socionics.
2) Augusta arrived at the modified descriptions over a period of many years, so these differences are not trivial.
3) Therefore, in cases where Jungian and socionics descriptions differ, the socionic ones should be taken as the socionic definition.

So if you recognize that, what does Jung even add to the discussion of socionics? Sure, you can merely write off all the differences you don't like as "stereotypes" but then you are not making a serious effort to learn socionics in my opinion.

[Myst]

Well, for example, Augusta described Se information as "the degree of mobilization, strength of will, power, and beauty of observed objects and subjects." I don't know of any author who denies that (evaluating and applying) willpower is a part of Se. If they did, it would be a significant departure from classical socionics.

Which sort of willpower, though?

I have willpower for Se things and I have willpower for Ti things. They are a bit different...

Here are some things Jung says about Se types (again, he makes little distinction between the psychological function and the type):

You are terribly wrong about "little distinction", Jung's type descriptions are not part of his core theory and he explicitly states this distinction. They are just exaggerated illustrations, no more. How come you believe the common misconceptions about this?

Jung's description of the Se type is basically as a bon-vivant pleasure seeker: "his aim is concrete enjoyment". This is closer to Si in socionics, in terms of motivation.

Wrong again, don't mix stereotypes with definitions :/

As for the definition itself, consider what Jung says about Se itself: "This need not be in any way a pleasurable reinforcement, since this type is not a common voluptuary; he merely desires the strongest sensation, and this, by his very nature, he can receive only from without"

Also read what chemical said about it earlier in this thread.

And as for "Si in socionics in terms of motivation", what do you even mean by that? Explain more.

He also mentions nothing about willpower.

The will is linked to the ego and the differentiated function(s) in Jung's theory.

This topic has been done to death but just in case people are willing to listen... consider the following:

1) Jungian descriptions are somewhat different from socionics.
2) Augusta arrived at the modified descriptions over a period of many years, so these differences are not trivial.
3) Therefore, in cases where Jungian and socionics descriptions differ, the socionic ones should be taken as the socionic definition.

1) Note again that illustrations != definitions.
2) That's ok, I'm sure there are differences definitionally too but I also like to assess their relevance. Of course I would not want to mix up the two theories. Understanding of each one is important. And then seeing what matches with reality.
3) That's a no-brainer but I was only disputing the idea that Se is basically the same as being forceful and Si is the same as being compliant. Pretty sure that's not what the original socionics definitions are getting at.

So if you recognize that, what does Jung even add to the discussion of socionics?

What chemical said in his previous post above.

Sure, you can merely write off all the differences you don't like as "stereotypes" but then you are not making a serious effort to learn socionics in my opinion.

It's not about liking or not liking differences, it's about what makes sense and what does not make sense. Nothing to do with "not making a serious effort to learn", either. I don't see why you jump to such far-flung conclusions here when my point was simply that the definitions don't include stereotypes.