Very important distinction, good read.
I disagree. Sounds much more like manipulation aka Fe.
Yeah, I agree about the unnecessary girlscout example, sounds like manipulation, doesn't belong there or need more context.
I agree with the article that Se and willpower should not be thought of as substitute terms.
If you ask ten professors in philosophy to explain a single aphorism by Nietzsche, you get ten totally different answers. But if you ask me, I'd say Nietzsche, whatever his level of brilliance, was a megalomaniac, narcissistic EIE, and we should understand his writings as such, and the outcome of our conclusions will be different. Why? Because when I read something, I do not only read what is said, but also contemplate who said it and why it was said, applying all sorts of social sciences, including Socionics, in the process. I do not make the mistake made by ten professors of philosophy.
Thus spoke an IEE.
I'd be happy to kick you in your ILI butt, so you can experience the significance of the difference first hand!
Yeah, I'd wager the girl you mentioned was ESE, not Se valuing. Also, you make it sound as Se is some selfish dominant function wholly and completely. In a sense, it is. But someone who's Se might read this and think, "WTF, I'm not an asshole!" and be subsequently discouraged from typing Se (which is the opposite of what you want, if you want to broaden the definition of it, I presume). Se isn't JUST the assertion of one's own will, on people or on things. It's the knowledge of what you can do to get to a place or state, and it can be applied to anything or anyone, not just yourself. Se doesn't have to be selfish in the way this article makes it sound -- I can and I will protect my own, and also fight for what I believe in. It's not just a singular mindset of wanting to own everything.
What made you think it was implying the person was selfish? I mean I get the context that it was an IEE who wrote it, so there are assumptions there, sure, but... there isn't a morality attached to it, if you take that detail away. Like you said, it can be used in the context of protection and with good intentions.
Recently, I actually got super sensitive to Se being used in the context of Te, at least, as I currently understand it. I was told I had to fill out this form, and there was a lot of verbage on it - under the law, perjury - but as I thought about it for a bit... it was just an administrative thing, and yet, it was definitely "pushing" me to do it, regardless of my own personal thoughts or feelings on the matter. Is it being an asshole? Nah, it's just a piece of paper and a company trying to get something done. It isn't trying to hurt me.
"Se is basically about the capability to make other people do things. Not necessarily against their will, but still it is about making people do things they didn't plan on doing themselves, out of their own motivation." "...physical and psychological pressure over other people (or over external objects) disregarding their own say in the matter, implying that a conflict will not be avoided in the process, if necessary."
This part is what really bugs me. I'm not saying it's WRONG, I'm just saying that coupled with the very Fe + Se example given, which is biased, along with the vague "I wrote more about Se elsewhere" explanation that Se can be used in both good and bad ways... it rubbed me the wrong way. I think articles claiming to redefine something and teach what that thing is REALLY about should use more than one example, and try to be as unbiased as possible.
OR this is intertype conflict, and as a Se dom I'm being a nitpicky asshole about it, and proving the point entirely, or something
Also -- how is filling out a form and it disregarding your feelings in any way similar to an article describing a function? One is something you are obligated to do because you want to get something out of it. The other is something we're discussing here, and is a lot more interpersonal than a form which applies only to you.
Didn't notice the vague "I wrote about Se elsewhere" bit. I'll have to look again.
Yes, aware it only applied to me, as only I experienced it, just as any story told from any of our individual points of view including the story in the article. But you're right, it wasn't a great example. Noted.
I feel like I'm the reason this thread got started, so let me make myself clear then, if Se is not will power, then whatever the fuck will power is, I don't got it cuz I'm a lazy fuck. Are you happy?
I like this post. I would say though that when you have a battle of wills, the will in itself becomes important to consider.
"...physical and psychological pressure over other people (or over external objects) disregarding their own say in the matter, implying that a conflict will not be avoided in the process, if necessary." (Stolen from @voider thanks)
This part gets on my nerves because there are other types who do that beside Se, Te and Fe can too*. Fe can be much more subtle and the physical pressure may not be as obvious but it is there. This article also describes my mother's behavior though she's quite a Te poster girl by Jung's description, and because of this kind of article, I have thought she had to be SLE for a good long while even if it seemed off.
I guess it bothers me because it reads like something someone who doesn't value Se would write.
And well, sale technics can be learned and used, they are just a tool, a tool I find disgusting but a tool nontheless.
I don't think Se is much related to willpower, it's more related toward a kind of ease in the world that allows one to get what they set their mind to, whether or not it's a good idea in the long run, which can convey an air of willpower. And Se can get stuck in logistic or unrelatableness therefore be hindered to the point of being seen as weak willed. Each type has its own kind of willpower, some are less visible.
*Don't know if Ne can too, maybe, I don't notice Ne peeps much.
It's the Ni pendant to the Si slogans "feel your inner strength", "connect to your body" that XSEs say.
Jg djwjmjabujpo jt up tvswjwf, xf nvtu dvmujwbuf uif tdjfodf pg ivnbo sfmbujpotijqt - uif bcjmjuz pg bmm qfpqmft, pg bmm ljoet, up mjwf uphfuifs, jo uif tbnf xpsme bu qfbdf.
Gsbolmjo E. Spptfwfmu
Will power is a component of it.
Its not the full story.
In the same way that business is a component of Te.
Or, emotion is a component of ethics.
Or, opportunities is a component of extroverted intution .
This stuff is nuanced, its not 1=1.