derail-Suz's type

[chemical]

@thehotelambush -- the thing is more or less, will is separate from the 4 functions in Jung's theory. He did conceive of it, but the closest thing linking will to sensation was his linking instinct to sensation (although not equating). I mean, that makes sense enough -- instinctual reactions can certainly be related to sensation. I suspect this is a better way to describe how Se is related to kinetic energy -- aka the instinct on how to move objects in a concrete situation you're involved in.

What I'm getting at is... if Mr. X defines a theory modeling the psyche with 'things" arranged in order TNSF, and says T has to do with logic, F has to do with feelings, etc, and then says hey, my theory is totally different, evaluate it on its own terms I have to say that's a little silly. It's like building two programming languages supporting similar paradigms, but with different functionality in terms of the greater specifics. I think it's safe to say sure, you can't expect those programming languages to be the same, but it's also safe to say you can evaluate them against each other because they're trying to do similar things to at least a degree, and you can certainly improve the design of one by having a deep understanding of another. Yes you should accept fresh things one can have that the other doesn't due to differing philosophies.

At the end of the day, if Se is will, and Ne is potential, and Jung put S=sensation and N=possibilities, and will is outside the 4 functions, I think it's a problem to be solved why these two differing perspectives, rather than a thing to be accepted that zomg, Se in socionics has NOTHING to do with Se in Jung....the better question to me is should it be the case that Se in socionics has nothing to do with Se in Jung -- does it make sense, given the rest of the model, and given the rest of the overlap with Jung.

BTW, I get the sense Gulenko somewhat links raw forcefulness of personality with the D personality for which Je is first and Se is second? And note that in the MBTI, J correlates with willfulness more than P does.. AND what's more, Gulenko asserts a correlation of J with socionics rationals and P with socionics irrationals in an article I can link you. I'm not saying any of this is 100% determining of what view we should have, or anything more than data. But it's at least alternate stuff to keep in mind before getting too cozy in one's understanding of what Se in socionics should be.

My current take is Se as the cognition of how to tangibly impact a situation makes much more sense (and also, synergized better with Jungian ideas -- not coincidentally IMHO) than saying Se is mostly given by forcefulness of character.
That pretty much turns socionics into a 4 temperaments kind of thing with 2 quadras full of everyone who is uhm, forceful and not loosey goosey.

Like here is socionics in a nutshell:

- DO YOU EXPRESS YOUR EMOTIONS OUT LOUD/WANT SOMEONE TO HELP YOU DO SO? NO? Gamma or Delta.

- ARE YOU STRONG AND WILLFUL AND LIKE BEING AGGRESSIVE AND/OR WANT SOMEONE TO HELP YOU? YEAH? Beta or Gamma.

Done deal. That's literally all there is to understanding socionics.
@Myst, just in case that wasn't clear, I was being sarcastic at the end O__O