Se in Socionics - Misunderstanding?

[Tarnished]

I feel very wrong a bout the description of Socionics's Se, like it was wrote by some Se Polr people who hate Se the most. I know some real life INTjs whose really really hate Se user, and I think I understand why.

The differences between Se and Si, to my understanding is:
Si is dynamic, it focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. Which mean, if a Si people see new object A, it will not only focus on A, but also focus on the connection between A and the objects around it (B,C,D for example). They will also compare those object with their past physical experience.

And Se, as opposed to Si, it wont focus on the connection between objects/past experience, but only focus on the objects alone. For example, If Se see object A, it will focus only on A, try to touch it dicrectly to observe the information of A.

Si user will be more careful when they are about to understand new object (physically). If they want to understand A, they will spend time to see all the space around it, things that connect directly to it. So, it will take time, and in Se user's eyes, that must be: "too slow/nitpick, just touch/feel it right now!" (Se polr will be very upset to hear that, and feel like they are being force to do something)

As Se user wont spend much time to see the connection, they will act quickly and directly, and to a Si user's point of view, they will see Se user as being "Reckless", and for someone that value both Ti and Si like INTj, they will see Se dom user as "stupid people, acting before thinking"

And all the craps about Se being organize are nonsense. Because Se is static, it wont focus on the connection of things, how could it be organize? It focus to put action directly to things it feel interest in (Ti/Fi). So it will be more about reckless and random action with high energy (in other people's eyes)

About it being forceful, power seeking, control..., I think there is a huge misunderstood of those who have blind Se. Se is very direct and can be seem as "brute force", but in truth, its the way it observe the information. It's an observing function, not Judging function. So, power seeking, control seeking are Nonsense. It's only look forceful when combine with other Judging functions.


I must say, as a Fe polr type, I feel the same way about Fe )

[Sol]

The differences between Se and Si, to my understanding is

Si is about subjective sensations (taste, for example), and Se is about objective sensations (forms of objects, for example)
Socionics also links to Se an interest to power and will, but it's secondary. This follows from the interest to surface materia and hence to control such environments and by means of objective materia as physical force, property, etc.

> Si is dynamic

Forget nonsense Reinin's traits.
Read Jung, as Socionics is an expansion of his theories.

[Rebelondeck]

The only difference between Se and Ne is perspective - how everything and everybody are initially viewed: absolute vs relative position; component vs system perspective; bottom-up vs top-down approach. Both see the same things but their filters differ so they gravitate toward looking at different aspects of the same thing; most arguments between them revolve around Ne talking about the whole while Se trying to get the other to consider the parts. There are five times more Se types than Ne and many are friends. Per capita, I seem to put more Ne-types at a distance than I do Se but while an individual's baggage can annoy me, their type doesn't.

a.k.a. I/O

[Tallmo]

Si is dynamic, it focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. Which mean, if a Si people see new object A, it will not only focus on A, but also focus on the connection between A and the objects around it (B,C,D for example).

Si is not about objects at all. Only about the impressions evoked by objects. Be really careful with these old "low-level" functional analysis in Socionics. I think it is better to read Jung for low-level stuff. Socionics identifies Si correctly though in the more everyday descriptions like "comfort" and "impressions" etc.

They will also compare those object with their past physical experience.

Definitely not. This keeps coming up in the forum again and again. Why? Is it the MBTI ghost?

The difference between Si and Se is that Se senses outer reality/objects, and Si senses the inner reality, that is, the ever-changing psychic impressions evoked by the environment and the body.

[Exodus]

Se is not perceiving, that's an MBTI concept. In fact it's the IME that is least about perceiving. You're right that it means taking direct action - action is the opposite of perception. It takes force to "move things" and effect change through direct action, and that's the goal of all action. Power is one's capacity to do this.

I also don't consider it right to describe Si as dynamic, but it is about tangible connections between things, in a certain respect, though this is not its essential origin.

[Computer Loser]

Se is not perceiving, that's an MBTI concept. In fact it's the IME that is least about perceiving.

Hmm. Which function then, in your opinion, would notice richness and nuance in data in the outer world in real-time? I feel like Se-egos are so immersed by what's in front of them

[consentingadult]

Si is not about objects at all. Only about the impressions evoked by objects.

precisely this indeed. In fact, any extroverted IE asks "what is it", whereas any introverted function asks "how does it relate to/affect me?" Thus, introverted IEs are more about the observer (aka subject) than about the object observed.

[Exodus]

Hmm. Which function then, in your opinion, would notice richness and nuance in data in the outer world in real-time? I feel like Se-egos are so immersed by what's in front of them

Can you give an example of what you mean?

I was exaggerating slightly - Se does include information about sensory appearance, which is part of what is immediately present.

[Lolita]

Se is focused on concrete, factual reality. Concrete attributes of an object are emphasized and immediate influence to change that object happens at that moment/is immediate. “What you see is what you get” is an Se thing.

[inaLim]

Se is related to sense of, pursuit of, realization of agency and vigor. Agency is the ability to act within a situation or to change a situation. Vigor is a sense of aliveness, vividness, intensity, etc that comes with experiencing your own ability to shape reality. The things visible to an outside observer are only necessary prerequisites to agency (senses, reality, situational awareness etc), means to exercise agency (will, inspiration, connections, purchasing power, force etc) or the tangible feedback of one's agency (impact, power, empowerment of others etc). Si wants to settle in and savor, Se wants to erupt and feel alive.

Ne ego tend to define Se through violation of Si (force)
Si ego tend to define Se through violation of Fe/Te (nonproductive competition or disruptive self-assertion)

Most Socionists are Ne ego why is why there is a bias around force. Stratvieskya isnt, but she's Gamma complex of tied hands, and she places a paranoid emphasis on "control". They're not entirely wrong, but its like saying Ne is "pursuit of unworkable nonsense built on images haphazardly associated out of context". It happens often enough to be true, but its not the defining function of Ne.

Socionics has a bad case of overextending a theory that describes information processing well, into a theory that tries to explain core motivations and everything else you can throw at it.

[Northstar]

Se leading has low inhibition to act, intentions (especially physical ones) very quickly translate into action which gives the stereotype of recklessness and rough impulsiveness. Ni is the opposite, constant consideration of consequences and outcomes leads to inhibition and long delay to act.

[Exodus]

Se is related to sense of, pursuit of, realization of agency and vigor. Agency is the ability to act within a situation or to change a situation. Vigor is a sense of aliveness, vividness, intensity, etc that comes with experiencing your own ability to shape reality. The things visible to an outside observer are only necessary prerequisites to agency (senses, reality, situational awareness etc), means to exercise agency (will, inspiration, connections, purchasing power, force etc) or the tangible feedback of one's agency (impact, power, empowerment of others etc). Si wants to settle in and savor, Se wants to erupt and feel alive.

Ne ego tend to define Se through violation of Si (force)
Si ego tend to define Se through violation of Fe/Te (nonproductive competition or disruptive self-assertion)

Most Socionists are Ne ego why is why there is a bias around force. Stratvieskya isnt, but she's Gamma complex of tied hands, and she places a paranoid emphasis on "control". They're not entirely wrong, but its like saying Ne is "pursuit of unworkable nonsense built on images haphazardly associated out of context". It happens often enough to be true, but its not the defining function of Ne.

Socionics has a bad case of overextending a theory that describes information processing well, into a theory that tries to explain core motivations and everything else you can throw at it.

I like the word agency. The way I see it Se is fundamentally about action, and the themes of force/control/aggression are secondary to action and making an impact.