Si and the arts
I would hazard a guess that the majority (not all) of artists, musicians, actors, and writer are Si valuing. I would hazard a guess that the majority (not all) of brilliant (world class) artists, musician, actors, and writers are Si egos, with the exception of writers who seem to be able to make up in Fi what they lack in Si piquancy. Discuss.
Although it makes theoretically sense from a socionics perspective I wouldn't take anyone seriously who insists on that being the norm. Simply because we have no numbers to support that. And individual experiences on the forum are not enough for statistical purposes.
Ok, fair enough, it's just a trend I'm observing, I wonder if other people have noticed it.Originally Posted by Cosmic Teapot
I don't think so. A lot of artists are Ni egos, like beta NFs. I've seen musicians and actors SEE as well, and I know delta NF artists too.
I strongly disagree. As @Aki pointed out, Beta NF is kinda of stereotypically an artist type. Just anecdotally, I’ve seen Beta STs in dance, music, acting. Some designer and choreographer and actor Gammas, etc. I don’t think any type is precluded from becoming an artist of some kind.
I’ve been involved in publishing for many years and there is no particular type that is a writer. Lots of genres, styles, age groups written for ... really anyone can have something to express in writing although I’ll give the edge to introverts there, maybe.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Artist covers an entire body of creative expression, which incorporates all the personalities, but I think what's going on here is visual art particularly in regard to many well known styles of painting are a quintessential representations of how Si can distort/enhance/portray raw visual stimuli. things like van gogh's starry night, etc. its a good example, but all types have their way of producing art, since art is nothing less than the uncompromising commitment of the self to a medium
I also disagree with the op.
However, Si can be used for art because it sees certain impressions in the material.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Jung put under introverted irrationality.
MOTTO: NEVER TRUST IN REALITY
Winning is for losers
Sincerely yours,
idiosyncratic type
Life is a joke but do you have a life?
NO Private messages, please. Use Discord instead.
Jung put it under Fi too!
Well it's quite likely I am basing my impressions on artists I am drawn to rather than objectively. But I do think the frequency and quality of work which LSE and SLI for example contribute to the arts can be underestimated, (and perhaps same with Beta STs, I'm not sure).
Its much more related to subtype. C and H being the artistic subtypes.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
No Si valuing but just sensation valuing.
So that means all types
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
But we are all sensataion valuing no? Do you mean S ego?
Oh Tallmo jinx!
Well if you mean Se+Si ego I am coming around to that more and more. At least, It is far more prevalent than I thought previously, now that i am typing a little better and more broadly.
More typical for SEI to engage in the arts than SLI. SEI-Si is the light subtype of SEI so they are more drawn towards acting and pop (mainstream stuff). They aren't as intense. The dark subtype of SEI-Fe is much edgier. Examples of the dark subtype include Ozzy Osbourne, Richard Ramirez, Gaahl, Wendy O. Williams, Johnny Depp, Marilyn Manson....clearly the types of people that the closed borders, quadra values mythologizers would instantly bias towards beta quadra. But as I pointed out on another thread, this is mostly due to a conflation/confusion with enneagram triads (reactive types being mistaken for beta, etc.)...more on that here (scroll down).
Si descriptions out there especially do better at describing type 9 than they do Si and by extension SEI descriptions do a better job describing type 9 than they do SEI.…such rail-roading can happen when you have socionists who don't know the enneagram. And don't get me wrong, R & H are as blinded by their closed enneagram universe as Reinin is blinded by his closed socionics universe.
Keep in mind that the map and the territory are different when it comes to Si and other functions/types. A big difference between me and the closed universe typologers is that I have actually laid a conceptually/structurally/logically flawless foundation for both socionics and enneagram, so my approach is more reality-based (I am willing to tweak the map to fit the territory rather than pretend that certain parts of the territory don't exist for the sake of the map's clichés)....my real glory is not in the fact I've cracked each typology individually, in their own right, but for the first time, a conceptually/structurally/logically flawless foundation-in-physical-reality has been laid upon which two separate typologies can be unified. Unification of the two territories is my real claim of glory.
Obviously, any description of Si begins with Jung. Reading Jung is essential to understanding all the Socionic functions because that's where socionics draws its power from. Socionics' main contribution is in model A and intertype relations. For further information about the connection to Jung, see the article by DarkAngelFireWolf69 I posted here on a thread in which I outwitted, outmaneuvered and outmuscled anti-jungian socionists*.
Both the light and dark subtype of SEI places a greater emphasis upon props than, say, an IEI actor/musician does.
Si collects sensations, objects, symbols, visuals, even ideas that cause a certain sensation, and Fe-creative chooses among that collection as to which will produce the desired emotional responses from his audience. Ni-role sees outside the box as to ways that those chosen sensations can then be imaginatively organized/collaged in a way that reflects a basic message, theme. So the SEI-Si actress, for example, gets more into his/her role when she has props/set that put her in the period/time/world of that character. Music performers put more stock on show props than Ni-lead performers do. Some examples:
Gaahl (sheep's head on a stake)
Ozzy Osbourne (birds to bite the heads off of)
Wendy O. Williams (televisions and cars to smash)
SEI-Fe's use of Ni is too crude and shallow for Ni-lead. Also, in contrast to IEI, SEI places more emphasis on physical characteristics when making inferences about people.
*their views may have evolved since that point in time so I can't say they are all still anti-Jungian.
Last edited by Kill4Me; 07-27-2018 at 11:16 AM.
Yep. Fe (self-expression) plays a major, if not bigger role in art than pure sensory aesthetics and attention to detail (Si) does.
From what I have seen Si egos tend more to be attracted to the visual arts like painting or sculpture, Beta NFs more to performance art / music / writing, all of which have a temporal component. Writing and music probably have the most general appeal though.
I think the best actors are SLI but I may be biased
sorry meant S3 or S4 so s in ego or alter-ego (id)
Onstage or onscreen?
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Many people here are the experts in asking too broad questions. Sure, there could be answers to these, but are impossible to guess really and it would require from the asking person more investigation and more more specific questions to answer these. The normal question would be about specific type and specific occupation (not "artist"). This way it's impossible to get to the bottom of anything and it's source of many bad things.
Generalizing Si types and generalizing occupation (artists) is a double fail.
Actors though?
EIE
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Art is not Si. Any type could be an artist. The only 'real' artist I know is EIE, which is vulnerable Si. I have SEE and ESI friends who make art as a hobby.
I tried to be specific in career by putting artists (meaning visual) and the other three careers, I didn't say artists meaning all kinds of designers, animators, dancers etc. I was only thinking of the four above, though I see what you are saying about yes the question might be impossible to answer and the statement above inaccurate.
The original post clearly doesn't work and there are of course exceptions and everyone can be creative and an artist sure. I appreciate the role Fe plays in expression But maybe it would be applicable to say the majority of people who deliver movement, sound, colour, voice, action etc. moment by moment, day after day, year after year to a extremely high standard are likely to have Se or Si in the ego, more likely, not you cannot if you don't.
I dont think so. Sensing is a specific term in socionics. Its not just any sensations. Good dancers for example are often EIE because Ni gives dynamic understanding of movement.
I also think intuition is better in art design because they see the trends and styles better. Sensing is more linked to hands on craftsmanship especially in delta ST.
The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them.
(Jung on Si)
Hmm, I agree that there should be no type or element relation for what is art and how it's done, because it's so broad, but I also agree with the relationship with Si and the visual arts. There's a focus on what is physical in the S elements, and Si comes with a sense of harmony, balance, proportion, all valuable traits when it comes to giving an aesthetic perspective, an image. Ni works with vision, but it's more disconnected from reality, it involves otherworldly ideas, concepts, tangents, mythological symbols. Si is working with physical reality instead, but it can contain a good amount of symbolical images, as noted by Jung, for even the real is made of images.
Sounds like a case of selective focus.
“I have never tried that before, so I think I should definitely be able to do that.” --- Pippi Longstocking
Actually at this point in the thread I choose to be offended on behalf of non-Si-valuers worldwide, as well as on behalf of reality.
LSI: “I still can’t figure out Pinterest.”
Me: “It’s just, like, idea boards.”
LSI: “I don’t have ideas.”
Artists seem SF. Esp ESI seems like the staple artist
You seem to have missed the point
I read somewhere the IEI are the best artist, (writing, painting, drawing sort of things) and that EIE are best perfermers (acting, singing, intertaining sort of things).
We don't have numbers to conclude anything, just a bunch of "read somewhere", "IME", the stuff that lacks any sort of reliabily for most. (Look who is saying that)
If we had numbers, this thread would likely be about "x is an artist and is not [artist type]". The artist type in mbti is FiSe, not that it matters much.
In the end, golden made me laugh chosing to get offended on behalf of non-Si valuers.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote