View Poll Results: Should we redefine Si for SEIs?
- Voters
- 15. You may not vote on this poll
-
[poll] Should we redefine Si for SEIs?
It may just be me, but I think the current definitions of Si are unrelatable and do us a great disservice. Every single time there is a discussion about SEIs, it seems to me that the same old stereotypes get conflated as the truth... Many people will not think of themselves as Si base if they do not have a focus on homeostasis or creating pleasant sensations for themselves or others, if they are not "natural caregivers". The socionics community can't move forward if stereotypes are constantly perpetuated as truth in the descriptions of functions.
I wanted to start a discussion about what it truly means to be Si base and if people think the descriptions are accurate enough to keep using... or if they need to be redefined for the sake of the Socionics community at large.
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts
-
Forum Rules