# Se function descriptions sound passive



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Tried to search previous conversations about Se function but it's too short. 

Is it just me or is the way Se is described, sound too passive. It's possible I think sensing feels more action-y. Like people talk about thought and action as two different things, but a lot of the time, I think they're happening simultaneously and it's not always for the good. Music starts to play and the whim to dance along is like it's already happened. The whim and stimuli are wrapped up in a confusing ball. Like I'm kinda already doing something as I initially experience it, my muscles wind up and my breathing changes and I've adapted before I've decided if I'm going to take that step or try that thing or talk to that person or touch that thing. I hate when people say you should have thought about that before you did it. What thought process? A lot of the time, it happens so fast, I don't remember any thinking taking place. It's not fair. 

Why does MBTI make sensing sound so passive?


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Because it is a system made by intuitives who have extremely simplified understanding of sensing. 

Jung made an interesting point about sensing archetypes, one such could be_ pain _for example. Very profound but hardly no one theorizes about it.

Strong Se types actually make active use of their experiences. Etc.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Gilead said:


> Because it is a system made by intuitives who have extremely simplified understanding of sensing.
> 
> Jung made an interesting point about sensing archetypes, one such could be_ pain _for example. Very profound but hardly no one theorizes about it.
> 
> Strong Se types actually make active use of their experiences. Etc.


What was Jung's point about sensing archetypes?


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Perhaps on the outside it is not passive. But wouldn't you agree, from your experience of yourself, that you feel like you are just "accepting" the experience, and that would be why people tell you that you should have thought about it?

I see both *Ne* and *Se* as accepting. Because both accept and follow the thing they are foccused on (the possibility, or the experience).

But I have to agree with you. The information about the Sensation functions is not only scarce but often wrong. Some information about the intuitive functions is wrong too.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Perhaps on the outside it is not passive. But wouldn't you agree, from your experience of yourself, that you feel like you are just "accepting" the experience, and that would be why people tell you that you should have thought about it?
> 
> I see both *Ne* and *Se* as accepting. Because both accept and follow the thing they are foccused on (the possibility, or the experience).
> 
> But I have to agree with you. The information about the Sensation functions is not only scarce but often wrong. Some information about the intuitive functions is wrong too.


Accept in the sense that I'm not initially experiencing good or bad. It just is.


----------



## Gilead (Oct 5, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> What was Jung's point about sensing archetypes?


Well, that these certain sensations are understood via inherent sort of subjective perception that has gathered through the ages and generations in us, all the while making it possible to "update" these archetypes/models when facing new sensory experiences. 

So we have certain instinctive reactions to (i.e. painful) sensations but can also maintain the ability to adapt to those sensations. This is one part of what strong S types supposedly do. You can also passively receive the sensory information or actively make use of it or seek out more "raw material". Now my general idea is that Jung described extroverted sensing types as more pro-/reactive and introverted as more passive/idle. Which one is more receptive/accepting though? The extrovert. Introverts reject a lot by default. So it is messy to say the least.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> Accept in the sense that I'm not initially experiencing good or bad. It just is.


Yes. My dominant function is not Se, so I can't talk from experience. I can only understand what I read, what I observe on others and compare with my dominant function. I know Se&Ne have a similar nature. I imagine (comparing Se with Ne) when some "sensation/experience/something" captures your attention, you feel compeled to "go there", to experience it, to "go after", to "accept".
This is why I think you might see discriptions of "Se" as passive. But this psychological "passivity" and acceptance of the thing that captures your attention can look active and energetic on the outside.
Like when I am interested in a possibility: on the outside, I am full of energy and active, but really what it is (on the inside) is that I am "possessed/owned" by the idea/possibility.



Gilead said:


> Well, that these certain sensations are understood via inherent sort of subjective perception that has gathered through the ages and generations in us, all the while making it possible to "update" these archetypes/models when facing new sensory experiences.
> 
> So we have certain instinctive reactions to (i.e. painful) sensations but can also maintain the ability to adapt to those sensations. This is one part of what strong S types supposedly do. You can also passively receive the sensory information or actively make use of it or seek out more "raw material". Now my general idea is that Jung described extroverted sensing types as more pro-/reactive and introverted as more passive/idle. Which one is more receptive/accepting though? The extrovert. Introverts reject a lot by default. So it is messy to say the least.


Very well put. I always say I see Introverted functions as Defensive towards the outside world and Extroverted functions as "engaging/accepting" (I can't find a better word) with the outside world.

I can't deny Introverted Sensors look more passive on the outside, while Extroverted Sensors are more active on the outside. But from the things I read (and I can be wrong), I got the idea that psychologically, the experience of Extroverted Sensation is more passive in the sense that it accepts the new sensations without the "critical" attitude with wich the Introverted Sensation "recieves" the sensations.
And the Introverted Sensasion I understood as less "passive" in the sense that the person has an "ideal" that is constantly being compared with the new Sensations.

I am interested in following this thread to learn more about Sensation. I am not satisfied with the simple discriptions I read.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Gilead said:


> Well, that these certain sensations are understood via inherent sort of subjective perception that has gathered through the ages and generations in us, all the while making it possible to "update" these archetypes/models when facing new sensory experiences.
> 
> So we have certain instinctive reactions to (i.e. painful) sensations but can also maintain the ability to adapt to those sensations. This is one part of what strong S types supposedly do. You can also passively receive the sensory information or actively make use of it or seek out more "raw material". Now my general idea is that Jung described extroverted sensing types as more pro-/reactive and introverted as more passive/idle. Which one is more receptive/accepting though? The extrovert. Introverts reject a lot by default. So it is messy to say the least.


So for instance, I've read people talk about blocking out pain but I don't really see how they block it out. Like I've fucked up my feet dancing and I've been on stage, bleeding through fabric and my feet really hurt. The only thing to do is suck it up and deal with it because the pain isn't going anywhere. Sometimes life is painful and it's part and parcel with the human experience. 

Possibly that's a Se thing.


----------



## Moo Rice (Apr 9, 2018)

probably because it is a perceiving function and the descriptions are describing (or are supposed to describe) the process of perceiving, instead of describing how it affects someone's personality.
you could say that ESxPs are characterized by their aggressiveness and preference for action, but to me that's more of a consequence of high Se then the definition of Se in general.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Yes. I have always associated with the Socionics description of Se than the MBTI one(s).


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

I'm curious as to where this conversation will go, I've been confused by Se descriptions, S in general really, for sometime now, and it's the group I feel I get the least, especially Se. 

I had thought for sometime, that Se = action, but feel like that's more stereotype now, and yet, it still feels to me like action correlates to Se in someway, just from observation. But I could be misreading of it too.


----------



## poco a poco (Nov 21, 2013)

I suppose the definitions seem passive because they describe why you find yourself already involved in those situations, which is because you've "accepted" the experience. It's hard to describe _why_ your thinking and acting are sort of taking place simultaneously without using more passive vocabulary.
But it makes sense, I think, to say that you "accept" experiences.


Also... it's really interesting to hear a description of Se from an actual Se dom:shocked:


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> So for instance, I've read people talk about blocking out pain but I don't really see how they block it out. *Like I've fucked up my feet dancing and I've been on stage, bleeding through fabric and my feet really hurt.* The only thing to do is suck it up and deal with it because the pain isn't going anywhere. Sometimes life is painful and it's part and parcel with the human experience.
> 
> *Possibly that's a Se thing*.


I think so too. I'm sure others do this as well though. 

But it has been the story of my life as well. Suck it up. Move on. Life is pain. The world will tear you down, but it's up to you to get back up and continue moving forward through the blood and sweat. 

The only thing holding me back is myself.


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Roslyn said:


> Is it just me or is the way Se is described, sound too passive. It's possible I think sensing feels more action-y. Like people talk about thought and action as two different things, but a lot of the time, I think they're happening simultaneously and it's not always for the good. Music starts to play and the whim to dance along is like it's already happened. The whim and stimuli are wrapped up in a confusing ball. Like I'm kinda already doing something as I initially experience it, my muscles wind up and my breathing changes and I've adapted before I've decided if I'm going to take that step or try that thing or talk to that person or touch that thing. I hate when people say you should have thought about that before you did it. What thought process? A lot of the time, it happens so fast, I don't remember any thinking taking place. It's not fair.


This reminds me of my experience with my ESFP friends. They get so caught up in what their Se is picking up that their poor Ni doesn't even have a chance to say, "hey wait, what if...!". The moment is everything to them and the future is something not considered or is put off until after the moment is over. This leads them to get into all sorts of trouble and having to deal with consequences of their actions. My Fe-Ni would have about a half dozen heart attacks while I was hanging out with them because of their tendency to jump into situations or do embarrassing things in public.

I'm not sure what descriptions of Se you've been reading but it is certainly the most physically energetic of all functions. Se is about action, about being in the moment, about DOING things. If it sounds boring then it was probably written by a pleb who didn't have Se or has it as an inferior function. High functioning Se is NOT PASSIVE.

This site has some of the better function oriented descriptions of types.

https://www.typeinmind.com/seti/
https://www.typeinmind.com/sefi/


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Gilead said:


> Because it is *a system made by intuitives* who have extremely simplified understanding of sensing.
> 
> Jung made an interesting point about sensing archetypes, one such could be_ pain _for example. Very profound but hardly no one theorizes about it.
> 
> Strong Se types actually make active use of their experiences. Etc.





Guajiro said:


> Yes. My dominant function is not Se, so I can't talk from experience. I can only understand what I read, what I observe on others and compare with my dominant function. I know Se&Ne have a similar nature. I imagine (comparing Se with Ne) when some "sensation/experience/something" captures your attention, you feel compeled to "go there", to experience it, to "go after", to "accept".
> This is why I think you might see discriptions of "Se" as passive. But this psychological "passivity" and acceptance of the thing that captures your attention can look active and energetic on the outside.
> Like when I am interested in a possibility: on the outside, I am full of energy and active, but really what it is (on the inside) is that I am "possessed/owned" by the idea/possibility.
> 
> ...





Moo Rice said:


> probably because it is a perceiving function and the descriptions are describing (or are supposed to describe) the process of perceiving, instead of describing how it affects someone's personality.
> you could say that ESxPs are characterized by their aggressiveness and preference for action, but to me that's more of a consequence of high Se then the definition of Se in general.


If the system is created by intuitives, what makes us so sure that Se cognition is purely passive perception? If the system were created by sensors, my guess is sensor definitions of Ni would approximate something along the lines of Ni-doms jumping to conclusions based on their own biases. Not to be insulting, but saying that the system isn't to describe how it's experienced, but how Ni is experienced has to play into how Ni is given so much credibility while Se is just merely accepting/engaging etc... Why is something like intuitives experience of using Ni given more credibility that Se-dom's experience of using Se?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Gilead said:


> Because it is a system made by intuitives who have extremely simplified understanding of sensing.
> 
> Jung made an interesting point about sensing archetypes, one such could be_ pain _for example. Very profound but hardly no one theorizes about it.
> 
> Strong Se types actually make active use of their experiences. Etc.





Guajiro said:


> Yes. My dominant function is not Se, so I can't talk from experience. I can only understand what I read, what I observe on others and compare with my dominant function. I know Se&Ne have a similar nature. I imagine (comparing Se with Ne) when some "sensation/experience/something" captures your attention, you feel compeled to "go there", to experience it, to "go after", to "accept".
> This is why I think you might see discriptions of "Se" as passive. But this psychological "passivity" and acceptance of the thing that captures your attention can look active and energetic on the outside.
> Like when I am interested in a possibility: on the outside, I am full of energy and active, but really what it is (on the inside) is that I am "possessed/owned" by the idea/possibility.
> 
> ...





Winegums said:


> This reminds me of my experience with my ESFP friends. They get so caught up in what their Se is picking up that their poor Ni doesn't even have a chance to say, "hey wait, what if...!". The moment is everything to them and the future is something not considered or is put off until after the moment is over. This leads them to get into all sorts of trouble and having to deal with consequences of their actions. My Fe-Ni would have about a half dozen heart attacks while I was hanging out with them because of their tendency to jump into situations or do embarrassing things in public.
> 
> I'm not sure what descriptions of Se you've been reading but it is certainly the most physically energetic of all functions. Se is about action, about being in the moment, about DOING things. If it sounds boring then it was probably written by a pleb who didn't have Se or has it as an inferior function. High functioning Se is NOT PASSIVE.
> 
> ...


You focus on how Se gets Se-dom's into trouble but don't mention how often it shows ways out of trouble. I get into a lot of trouble but I'm pretty good of getting out of trouble too. I'm nothing if not adaptable. So I might climb something and maybe I should have thought it through first, but I'm still able to get back down and at the end of it, I got an experience that I got to keep. So it's definitely worth the risk because I received a reward for my efforts. If I had thought it through too far, I would have missed out on something cool. You understand that right? Are you able to see it from their perspective at all? 

You make other types sound so fearful if they're always avoiding things because it could go wrong. What are we living for if we're not here to experience living?


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

Winegums said:


> This reminds me of my experience with my ESFP friends. They get so caught up in what their Se is picking up that their poor Ni doesn't even have a chance to say, "hey wait, what if...!". The moment is everything to them and the future is something not considered or is put off until after the moment is over. This leads them to get into all sorts of trouble and having to deal with consequences of their actions. My Fe-Ni would have about a half dozen heart attacks while I was hanging out with them because of their tendency to jump into situations or do embarrassing things in public.
> 
> *I'm not sure what descriptions of Se you've been reading but it is certainly the most physically energetic of all functions. Se is about action, about being in the moment, about DOING things. If it sounds boring then it was probably written by a pleb who didn't have Se or has it as an inferior function. High functioning Se is NOT PASSIVE.*
> 
> ...


This is how I always though too, and makes me question why I get some people who tell me I must be ISFP, especially since I always identified closer to Ne/Si.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> You focus on how Se gets Se-dom's into trouble but don't mention how often it shows ways out of trouble. I get into a lot of trouble but I'm pretty good of getting out of trouble too. I'm nothing if not adaptable. So I might climb something and maybe I should have thought it through first, but I'm still able to get back down and at the end of it, I got an experience that I got to keep. So it's definitely worth the risk because I received a reward for my efforts. If I had thought it through too far, I would have missed out on something cool. You understand that right? Are you able to see it from their perspective at all?
> 
> You make other types sound so fearful if they're always avoiding things because it could go wrong. What are we living for if we're not here to experience living?


Of course, the negative aspect of not seeing the consequences so clearly is also a strenght. I had a lot of fun with Se friends and I always admired the uncomplicated way of aproaching situations. Every function has strenghts and can influence in a positive way the life of others.


----------



## Moo Rice (Apr 9, 2018)

Roslyn said:


> If the system is created by intuitives, what makes us so sure that Se cognition is purely passive perception? If the system were created by sensors, my guess is sensor definitions of Ni would approximate something along the lines of Ni-doms jumping to conclusions based on their own biases. Not to be insulting, but saying that the system isn't to describe how it's experienced, but how Ni is experienced has to play into how Ni is given so much credibility while Se is just merely accepting/engaging etc... Why is something like intuitives experience of using Ni given more credibility that Se-dom's experience of using Se?


intuition is just as passive/receptive as sensation. _both_ functions are irrational, _both_ functions simply represent different forms of interpretation.

by the way, i'm still talking only about the functions (processes), not the types (people)

_EDIT: i agree that the inconsistency in the descriptions is really annoying and that a lot of times intuition is in fact described as this "mystical" thing that is "sooo special" when that's just not truth._


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Roslyn said:


> You focus on how Se gets Se-dom's into trouble but don't mention how often it shows ways out of trouble. I get into a lot of trouble but I'm pretty good of getting out of trouble too. I'm nothing if not adaptable. So I might climb something and maybe I should have thought it through first, but I'm still able to get back down and at the end of it, I got an experience that I got to keep. So it's definitely worth the risk because I received a reward for my efforts. If I had thought it through too far, I would have missed out on something cool. You understand that right? Are you able to see it from their perspective at all?


I understand Se, and I totally understand the desire of an SP to have a good moment that they treasure for a long time. I've had them describe these moments to me quite a lot and I can see the joy that they have for these moments, (I've had a few myself). I can understand their desire to have them and how this leads them to do what they do. 

I'm not trying to imply that Se is bad or immediately means that the person will get in trouble. Se can be driving force of a beautiful display of human physical ability. 


> You make other types sound so fearful if they're always avoiding things because it could go wrong.


We're not as confident that our low Se is really up to the task of dealing with the situation as quickly as it comes up. Our senses aren't as easily managed and wielded as those with high Se. Quickly thinking our way out of a tricky situation or through it does not come naturally. Usually our Se comes out in the form of less energetic activities and we don't desire high energy activities which are too physically involving.

You mentioned that Se gets you out of situations as often as you get yourself into them. Our intuition keeps us out of situations before we get ourselves into them. It works both ways and neither is better than the other. 



> What are we living for if we're not here to experience living?


We all live in ways that suit our perception and makes us feel satisfied, some choose more physical pursuits, others choose more mental pursuits. 

You're an ESP so you will be biased to wanting to use your dominant Se. Being in the moment is what you do best and what makes you feel the best.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Of course, the negative aspect of not seeing the consequences so clearly is also a strenght. I had a lot of fun with Se friends and I always admired the uncomplicated way of aproaching situations. Every function has strenghts and can influence in a positive way the life of others.


I think it's easy enough to foresee the most immediate consequences. For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Anyone interacting with their environment know this. It's more like the focus is on a different aspect of experiences. Me and my friend were on the swings and we agreed to jump off when we got as high as we could go. We both jumped and hurt ourselves. She shrieked and her mother took her to get x-rays (nothing was broken, she was overreacting). And I knew it hurt but I wanted to go again because I had discovered free fall and it was amazing! I planned to do a better job of absorbing the shock next time. I think while jumping off things for the next few months I went through the complicated process of learning the limitations of my body when it comes to jumping off things and how much force I could dissipate over time and space. Isn't that physics? I might not have been able to verbalize it at the time, but it was a physical and mental activity that I carry with me as an adult. I know if I'm in a building on fire, how many floors down I need to get to survive jumping out and account for the material of the ground underneath. 

I think it's more complicated than it looks. We've experimented and earned a certain amount of self-knowledge and knowledge about the physical world around us. What is possible and what is impossible. It's part of why I both enjoy and get annoyed by action movies. Watching the hero do all these stunts that would have broken bone after bone after bone. I choose to suspend disbelief but... 



Moo Rice said:


> intuition is just as passive/receptive as sensation. _both_ functions are irrational, _both_ functions simply represent different forms of interpretation.
> 
> by the way, i'm still talking only about the functions (processes), not the types (people)


My observations of the MBTI community, it looks like many Ne-dominant users are under the impression that their cognition gives them near omnipotent ability to see all and invokes them with higher credibility in conversations, everyone should simply trust that they know what's good for us. Interesting, in that they don't see it as passive perception but as a nearly supernatural ability with Se just being 5 senses and they have 5 senses too, so it's pretty meaningless on the whole. 

My suspicion is that Se offers its own insights, while not the same as Ne, I'd argue equally useful. 



Winegums said:


> I understand Se, and I totally understand the desire of an SP to have a good moment that they treasure for a long time. I've had them describe these moments to me quite a lot and I can see the joy that they have for these moments, (I've had a few myself). I can understand their desire to have them and how this leads them to do what they do.


Not to put you on the spot, but I'd like to know what it is you understand about Se? I get that you have SP friends and you have five of your very own senses, but do you think a tertiary Fe user understands it in the same way that a Fe-dom would? 



Winegums said:


> I'm not trying to imply that Se is bad or immediately means that the person will get in trouble. Se can be driving force of a beautiful display of human physical ability.


I think it's not just a force behind a display of human physical ability. I think the Se-dom perspective offers our own way of looking at the world and the human condition. I have a Ni-dom and Ne-dom parent who thought a lot about symbolism and meaning behind things. As a kid, I found it annoying and that they couldn't see what I was seeing and couldn't put into words. 






It's when I'm not hedging my bets and I'm wearing my heart on my sleeve that I experience it at it's most raw. When I've thrown everything I have into something and I'm aware of the consequences but the possibility of breaking new boundaries are just beyond my reach that it's worth seeing if I can go that little bit further. It can be the same, going out on a limb and being vulnerable in front of strangers. Giving them the opportunity to castigate me but hoping they won't. Or signing up for a course in college that is hopelessly out of my element and likely to result in some humiliating moments but seeking the challenge of something new and wanting to push the limits of my mental abilities. 

Most of the time, I surprise people. I'm not always successful. Sometimes, I fail hard and the consequences are abysmal. But even those failures are worth it. 




Winegums said:


> We're not as confident that our low Se is really up to the task of dealing with the situation as quickly as it comes up. Our senses aren't as easily managed and wielded as those with high Se. Quickly thinking our way out of a tricky situation or through it does not come naturally. Usually our Se comes out in the form of less energetic activities and we don't desire high energy activities which are too physically involving.
> 
> You mentioned that Se gets you out of situations as often as you get yourself into them. Our intuition keeps us out of situations before we get ourselves into them. It works both ways and neither is better than the other.
> 
> ...


I don't settle just for physical pursuits. I challenge myself in areas I'm not strong at. I wouldn't be learning about MBTI if I only focused on the things I specialized in. Every ESTP on here is choosing to pursue something that isn't one of their strengths and we aren't worried about embarrassing ourselves or failing. We're aware that it's a high possibility, but what is to be gained from sticking to what's comfortable?


----------



## Moo Rice (Apr 9, 2018)

Roslyn said:


> My observations of the MBTI community, it looks like many Ne-dominant users are under the impression that their cognition gives them near omnipotent ability to see all and invokes them with higher credibility in conversations, everyone should simply trust that they know what's good for us. Interesting, in that they don't see it as passive perception but as a nearly supernatural ability with Se just being 5 senses and they have 5 senses too, so it's pretty meaningless on the whole.
> 
> My suspicion is that Se offers its own insights, while not the same as Ne, I'd argue equally useful.


agree


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Ne, being interested in what could be, it's biggest strenght (in my view)is interpretations. I think the Ne users usually have very good conversation ability, like a good salesman. Everyone is able to think they are superior regardless of type, of course. But sometimes, Ne people are not taken seriously because they talk about things that are "behind the courtain", and we have to use a lot of words to get our message across, and people sometimes think we are trying to look smart. At least I know I have that experience, when I am just trying to explain an interpretation. When I talk about something that happened or a fact, I just have to name it and people get it. But when I start describing an interpretation people sometimes assume I want to preach them. When I throw an interpretation to the world I am always aware that I might be wrong. Perhaps the same way you break into the unknown experiences not knowing what the feedback will be, we do the same with our interpretations. We throw them at the world to see what comes back. If people learn from mistakes or not that is up to the individual.

However I am aware that at the same time Se can be judged as "obvious" by others because it is interested in things that happened, are happening or will happen, things that "are there". I imagine perhaps they can feel like other people get lost in "other realities" and are not aware of the real time, the things that they have. I imagine they might feel that people are not gratefull for the world we live in. I am guilty for sometimes not enjoying the things I have in front of me.

I don't see any of these functions as best or worst. I see it as neutral. But we are all "stuck" in our automatic way. And I think we are all capable of bringing others to different worlds. I liked to read how you described your way of knowing the world and understanding what is possible and what is not.

I will throw some questions to get the Extroverted Sensation topic rolling. It is curious, Ne is often described as the "novelty seeking" function, but Se is also "novelty". And adaptable. So *do you also feel "tired", bored when something is not new anymore? What are the things that annoy you and make you seek new experiences?*


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> You make other types sound so fearful if they're always avoiding things because it could go wrong. What are we living for if we're not here to experience living?


This is because some other types _are _fearful and barely experience anything the world has on offer for them .. or why some of them wait till their 60's or 70's to start exploring .. and even then it's not really exploring but mostly going through the motions. 

What they see as us getting into "trouble" is essentially just a way of reassuring themselves from not having to attempt to do something and remain in their comfort zones. I'd rather not give a fuck about what my Ni tells me, if it makes me too paranoid to chase after my whims. 

We push boundaries. We explore possibilities. They don't. That's why we are who we are and they are who they are.


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Roslyn said:


> Not to put you on the spot, but I'd like to know what it is you understand about Se? I get that you have SP friends and you have five of your very own senses, but do you think a tertiary Fe user understands it in the same way that a Fe-dom would?


 I have Se as a tertiary function, while Ni is my dominant perceiving function I still use Se quite often. I understand the draw of Se urges and how it manifests. I don't have quite the grasp of it (or should I say I'm not in the grasp of it?) like an SP, that's for certain. I do have enough functionality in it that I can relate.

A tertiary user can relate but they will never be "immersed" like a dominant function user. They might have moments where the tertiary function raises up to the level of dominance but it won't be an everyday thing. 



> I think the Se-dom perspective offers our own way of looking at the world and the human condition. I have a Ni-dom and Ne-dom parent who thought a lot about symbolism and meaning behind things. As a kid, I found it annoying and that they couldn't see what I was seeing and couldn't put into words.


I can see how a Ni-dom and an Ne-dom would have trouble with sensing in general, just like my Si-dom parents have a hard time understanding my Ni. 

high Se has quite a different way of looking at things from what I've seen, It's refreshing for me to hear.



> I don't settle just for physical pursuits. I challenge myself in areas I'm not strong at. I wouldn't be learning about MBTI if I only focused on the things I specialized in. Every ESTP on here is choosing to pursue something that isn't one of their strengths and we aren't worried about embarrassing ourselves or failing. We're aware that it's a high possibility, but what is to be gained from sticking to what's comfortable?


It's good that you don't settle and it's good that you challenge yourself.

I don't think you're understanding what I was trying to say. It's not like INTJ, INFJ, ENFJ and ENTJ are going to avoid their Se because it puts them in an uncomfortable spot. It's just that they're less likely to actually follow their Se because their Ni is the stronger voice in them. 

Just like an ESTP might not be comfortable with academics, a low Se user is going to be an uncomfortable dancer and possibly be horrible at it. Will that stop them from dancing? No. Could they embarrass themselves? absolutely. It goes both ways, see? Strong intuitors don't just settle for mental pursuits, just like Strong sensors don't just settle for physical pursuits. 

Neither group is limited to what they are good at, we just do it in greater or lesser degrees depending on where it falls in our function stacks.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Winegums said:


> Just like an ESTP might not be comfortable with academics


This is bull. ESTP's are fine with academics. The Thinking function is literally a sponge. 

It's the way schools are run that are anti-Sensing because they have labeled our restlessness and physically energetic natures a mental disease and are actively trying to shove pills down children's throats for simply not wanting to sit still in a fucking prison.

Most of us are fairly antiauthoritarian as well and schools are the ultimate expression of the totalitarian state.


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> This is bull. ESTP's are fine with academics. The Thinking function is literally a sponge.
> 
> It's the way schools are run that are anti-Sensing because they have labeled our restlessness and physically energetic natures a mental disease and are actively trying to shove pills down children's throats for simply not wanting to sit still in a fucking prison.
> 
> Most of us are fairly antiauthoritarian as well and schools are the ultimate expression of the totalitarian state.


How is it "bull"? You just said exactly why ESTP don't do well with school.

Public schools aren't designed to deal with SPs, just as they aren't designed to deal with intuitives, who both like to do things their own unique way. Public schools are designed to cater to the majority of students who do well with regurgitating what ever the school system crams into their heads. I was constantly told that I was doing my math wrong despite getting the right answers. I didn't understand it the way they did it so I worked out a way that was right for me. 

If you want to kill the soul of an SP you stick them in a chair for 8 hours and blab at them while nothing happens.

An SP would do far better with hands on learning and practical application that they can physically interact with. Like say, an apprenticeship or practicum.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> We push boundaries. We explore possibilities. They don't. That's why we are who we are and they are who they are.


Hmmm..... Really?


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Winegums said:


> How is it "bull"? You just said exactly why ESTP don't do well with school.
> 
> Public schools aren't designed to deal with SPs, just as they aren't designed to deal with intuitives, who both like to do things their own unique way. Public schools are designed to cater to the majority of students who do well with regurgitating what ever the school system crams into their heads. I was constantly told that I was doing my math wrong despite getting the right answers. I didn't understand it the way they did it so I worked out a way that was right for me.
> 
> ...


What you said pretty heavily implied that there is an innate reason why ESTP's aren't comfortable with academics. 

So whatever you're adding to that now is based on reflecting on my post. So while your argument heavily implied innateness, mine counters that by presenting the environmental factors - which your original statement completely ignored. 



Guajiro said:


> Hmmm..... Really?


Yes. Really. 

Considering a lot of Ne and Ni doms consistently talk about how hard it is for them to engage in the real world. 

It's interesting though that it doesn't sound so nice when it comes from some other type :laughing:


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Winegums said:


> I can see how a Ni-dom and an Ne-dom would have trouble with sensing in general, just like my Si-dom parents have a hard time understanding my Ni.
> 
> (...) a low Se user is going to be an uncomfortable dancer and possibly be horrible at it.


True. I might not be immersed in the experience drived by the sensation of the experience. But I do feel immersed in whatever experience I am experiencing. I also have jumped into a lot of experiences and was many times the first to jump into new experiences. I am a good dancer and I have an INFJ friend that dances well too and we have no shame about it.
I also know a lot of Se doms that can't dance and some of them are not active and are fat. This is one of the reasons (apart from others) that I don't agree with Socionics.


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> This is because some other types _are _fearful and barely experience anything the world has on offer for them .. or why some of them wait till their 60's or 70's to start exploring .. and even then it's not really exploring but mostly going through the motions.
> 
> What they see as us getting into "trouble" is essentially just a way of reassuring themselves from not having to attempt to do something and remain in their comfort zones. I'd rather not give a fuck about what my Ni tells me, if it makes me too paranoid to chase after my whims.
> 
> We push boundaries. We explore possibilities. They don't. That's why we are who we are and they are who they are.


You speak from the point of view of a high Se user that isn't considering how the Intuitive feels about exploring the world. We don't have the same desire or get the same pleasure from exploring the physical world. It's not fearful, but rather it's overwhelming, too much to take in at once and the moment goes from being pleasurable to being very uncomfortable. 

Does an Se-dom ever get overwhelmed by a physical situation? If so how often? Provide an example if possible.



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> What you said pretty heavily implied that there is an innate reason why ESTP's aren't comfortable with academics.
> 
> So whatever you're adding to that now is based on reflecting on my post. So while your argument heavily implied innateness, mine counters that by presenting the environmental factors - which your original statement completely ignored.


Heavily implied? I said "might", I feel like you're just picking a point to argue over and getting angry over an assumption. 

I didn't ignore anything, I just didn't feel it necessary to explain everything in depth. You chose to read into it and heard what you wanted to hear, instead of asking for clarification.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Yes. Really.
> 
> Considering a lot of Ne and Ni doms consistently talk about how hard it is for them to engage in the real world.
> 
> It's interesting though that it doesn't sound so nice when it comes from some other type :laughing:


Ne doms are not exploring possibilities in the real world, hum? My ESFP cousin only had the courage to try the experiences I had already tried before him. He never left his own home town. His experiences are driving in circles with his new car. It's cool, he drives fast.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Winegums said:


> You speak from the point of view of a high Se user that isn't considering how the Intuitive feels about exploring the world. We don't have the same desire or get the same pleasure from exploring the physical world. It's not fearful, but rather it's overwhelming, too much to take in at once and the moment goes from being pleasurable to being very uncomfortable.
> 
> Does an Se-dom ever get overwhelmed by a physical situation? If so how often? Provide an example if possible.


The context of what I was saying was slightly different. I'm aware of the struggles individuals who have inferior or weak Se might have in this world, but that's no excuse imo to not engage fully in order to experience what needs to be experienced. For example, I find it unlikely that an INTJ would be able to have enough tangible experience to create their complete world view without active participation in the world. This is the same for INFJ's. Almost all types must actively exist their comfort zones in order to become whole. I do that frequently with my inferior iNtuition when I spend hours at night listening to music and working out ways to connect everything I've experienced into a synthesized whole. 

It is not enough to say that "I'm innately not good at this so I won't do it". One must actively develop what they lack otherwise as I've said dozens of times before on this site, the system is useless. Put it to real world applications the best you can. 

They might or might not. Who knows. I don't think I do. There are aspects of the world I do not like hence I actively choose to not engage or easily disengage from, but it does not overwhelm or bother me. What bothers me is my weaker Feeling and Intuition function .. the last of which I freely ignore (when I can, but not always) because it's not needed and the third, I actively develop as much as is possible. In fact, it's developed to the point where I once mistakenly thought and managed to pass myself off as a dominant in that area. 

The external world for me is a playground. It's mine to control, manipulate and adapt to. My functions exist for me to develop. Not spend hours thinking about "oh I'm not good at this and now that I know that I'm just gonna twiddle my thumbs".




Guajiro said:


> Ne doms are not exploring possibilities in the real world, hum? My ESFP cousin only had the courage to try the experiences I had already tried before him. He never left his own home town. His experiences are driving in circles with his new car. It's cool, he drives fast.


Oh goody it's one of those "I'm gonna play up the anti-stereotype for argument's sake" even though what you're saying has nothing to do with my argument where I had already qualified my statement with limiters that you over looked before you knee-jerked :laughing:


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Ne, being interested in what could be, it's biggest strenght (in my view)is interpretations. I think the Ne users usually have very good conversation ability, like a good salesman. Everyone is able to think they are superior regardless of type, of course. But sometimes, Ne people are not taken seriously because they talk about things that are "behind the courtain", and we have to use a lot of words to get our message across, and people sometimes think we are trying to look smart. At least I know I have that experience, when I am just trying to explain an interpretation. When I talk about something that happened or a fact, I just have to name it and people get it. But when I start describing an interpretation people sometimes assume I want to preach them. When I throw an interpretation to the world I am always aware that I might be wrong. Perhaps the same way you break into the unknown experiences not knowing what the feedback will be, we do the same with our interpretations. We throw them at the world to see what comes back. If people learn from mistakes or not that is up to the individual.
> 
> However I am aware that at the same time Se can be judged as "obvious" by others because it is interested in things that happened, are happening or will happen, things that "are there". I imagine perhaps they can feel like other people get lost in "other realities" and are not aware of the real time, the things that they have. I imagine they might feel that people are not gratefull for the world we live in. I am guilty for sometimes not enjoying the things I have in front of me.
> 
> ...


Tired and bored aren't exactly what I think of. I get frustrated and impatient with people. Dealing with individuals in busy places is like trying to watch a movie at 2/3 speed. I just want to shake them! They take too long to scan their surroundings and focus on the task at hand. It's frustrating and I need breaks from people. 

There are some good dancers at my studio that frustrate me with how long they take to learn new choreography. These slower learners murder songs because it gets overplayed in rehearsals while they figure it out. I love the 1 hour challenge. Learn the choreography in 1 hour and present to an audience but they have dramatic, tearful meltdowns and I have to bite my tongue so I don't scream at them. We rarely get to do the 1 hour challenge because of the cry babies. I just want to keep learning new things and improving. I don't want to take so long on individual pieces. 

I tried backpacking in Mexico during March break. I lost my wallet, my passport, got stuck in a small town, a scary incident with an asshole that I managed to avoid having turn into something violent and an unintentional incident with an oceanic whitetip shark. So in short, I had the time of my life! I wouldn't say that I feel tired or bored. It's not wanting to pull away from so much as a craving for adventure. And in all the chaos and excitement, I have all these new sets of problems to solve and it's having lots of big problems coming at me and limited time to cope that I feel like I'm in my element. 

Most of life is slow, repetitive and uneventful. I want more and if I can't have more, I'll create the adventure I crave. I need challenges. I need new experiences. I don't really get too bored because I respond at the point where I start to crave for something new to do. I don't think I'm patient enough to wait until I'm bored. 

I don't know if I answered your questions.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Oh goody it's one of those "I'm gonna play up the anti-stereotype for argument's sake" even though what you're saying has nothing to do with my argument where I had already qualified my statement with limiters that you over looked before you knee-jerked :laughing:


Yes, you are right. It has nothing to do with your argument that every other type does not explore possibilities and your type is the only that that pushes boundaries and is by definition brave. It actually makes you want to pretend it is irrelevant because it damages your self perception. Oh goody, it's one of those "I am the best!" :heart:


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> Most of life is slow, repetitive and uneventful. I want more and if I can't have more, I'll create the adventure I crave. I need challenges. I need new experiences. I don't really get too bored because I respond at the point where I start to crave for something new to do. I don't think I'm patient enough to wait until I'm bored.


I'm going through this right now. My problem is that when I don't have that excitement I crave and also limited freedom (financial or otherwise to do so) I become increasingly angry and frustrated. 

Over the last two weeks my mood has changed dramatically because I've been stuck in America for 4 years and now that I finally have my green card, I just want to travel. 

We're going to do short weekend trips till we can coordinate our lives such that we can leave this country but ffs I'm feeling frustrated as fuck these days.



Guajiro said:


> Yes, you are right. It has nothing to do with *your argument that every other type *does not explore possibilities and your type is the only that that pushes boundaries and is by definition brave. It actually makes you want to pretend it is irrelevant because it damages your self perception. Oh goody, it's one of thouse "I am the best!" :heart:


Your lack of reading comprehension is not my problem. 



Arrogantly Grateful said:


> This is because *some other types *_are _fearful and barely experience anything the world has on offer for them .. or why some of them wait till their 60's or 70's to start exploring .. and even then it's not really exploring but mostly going through the motions.
> 
> What they see as us getting into "trouble" is essentially just a way of reassuring themselves from not having to attempt to do something and remain in their comfort zones. I'd rather not give a fuck about what my Ni tells me, if it makes me too paranoid to chase after my whims.
> 
> We push boundaries. We explore possibilities.* They don't. *That's why we are who we are and they are who they are.





Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Yes. Really.
> 
> Considering *a lot of Ne and Ni doms *consistently talk about how hard it is for them to engage in the real world.
> 
> It's interesting though that it doesn't sound so nice when it comes from some other type :laughing:


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Winegums said:


> I have Se as a tertiary function, while Ni is my dominant perceiving function I still use Se quite often. I understand the draw of Se urges and how it manifests. I don't have quite the grasp of it (or should I say I'm not in the grasp of it?) like an SP, that's for certain. I do have enough functionality in it that I can relate.
> 
> A tertiary user can relate but they will never be "immersed" like a dominant function user. They might have moments where the tertiary function raises up to the level of dominance but it won't be an everyday thing.
> 
> ...


I'm good at academics, just not in a classroom setting. I'm comfortable with math and science but have to work at humanities and social sciences. I went to a private school for a few years but we gave up and I was home-schooled. I am able to find symbolism and identify themes but it's a chore. 

It seems like people look down on anyone that goes out and takes a big risk and fails. Whether it's considered a noble pursuit, like exploration or cheap, like exploiting someone for money, if they fail they're considered fools. The same people who I don't see taking any real gambles. They finish school, they go to college, start a job that is unrelated to their career, find someone by default, and every step of the way looks like it was a non-decision that became a decision by default. I don't see most people taking risks and if we're really being honest, on some level, they disgust me. They rarely fail because they so rarely dare. "Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all." Helen Keller. I think she was right. People look down their noses at Se-doms for being loud and energetic, but we're in the middle of our adventure every day. Maybe if they weren't trapped in their lives of quiet desperation we wouldn't bother them so much.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Winegums said:


> How is it "bull"? You just said exactly why ESTP don't do well with school.
> 
> Public schools aren't designed to deal with SPs, just as they aren't designed to deal with intuitives, who both like to do things their own unique way. Public schools are designed to cater to the majority of students who do well with regurgitating what ever the school system crams into their heads. I was constantly told that I was doing my math wrong despite getting the right answers. I didn't understand it the way they did it so I worked out a way that was right for me.
> 
> ...


Apprenticeship. So we can learn how to be tradespeople? No. My mother taught me interactively. I agree that classrooms are hell, but I disagree that we should all become blue collar workers.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Hmmm..... Really?


I hear Ne-dom's talk about possibilities but when are they actually exploring them and following through on those explorations? When do they actually push through a boundary rather than just talking about how it could be theoretically done?


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> I'm going through this right now. My problem is that when I don't have that excitement I crave and also limited freedom (financial or otherwise to do so) I become increasingly angry and frustrated.
> 
> Over the last two weeks my mood has changed dramatically because I've been stuck in America for 4 years and now that I finally have my green card, I just want to travel.
> 
> ...


Well, I am sorry then. I did overlook the word "some". Appologies. You were not refering to all types then. A simple word I did not see caused me to have a completely different interpretation. However I still think you assume pushing boundaries and exploring new ground is by definition a behaviour attached to Se doms. As I said before, I know a lot of Se doms that are fat, not active, not brave, etc.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> I don't see most people taking risks and if we're really being honest, on some level, they disgust me. They rarely fail because they so rarely dare. "Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all." Helen Keller. I think she was right. People look down their noses at Se-doms for being loud and energetic, but we're in the middle of our adventure every day. Maybe if they weren't trapped in their lives of quiet desperation we wouldn't bother them so much.


Being disgusted with people who don't take risks is a _*younger *_ESTP blindspot to how others experience reality and see their place in the world. There is innately nothing _that _wrong about wanting to be risk averse however. 

Sometimes I think that if I was LESS of a risk-taker my life would have been more _stable_. I mean, it would have been BORING as fuck :laughing: but much more streamlined and consistent as opposed to having jumped careers, lived in 4 countries, run halfway around the world to get married (I did that not once but TWICE). I consistently gave up stability for excitement and I got burnt out. That said, today I have no regrets. The thing people project on us ESTP's is that they think that failure comes with regrets for us like it might for them, but it really doesn't. I sense that sort of vibe from you as well where you don't understand why this projection occurs. 

I did settle down with my wife 4 years ago and she's an incredibly stable and consistent person and she has provided me with an anchor I lacked for the longest time. I have the freedom to explore the world but I'm also at an age now where I like the idea of being anchored.



Guajiro said:


> However I still think you assume pushing boundaries and exploring new ground is by definition a behaviour attached to Se doms. As I said before, I know a lot of Se doms that are fat, not active, not brave, etc.


That's not true either. You're being reactive for no reason. This is a pretty classic Fi judgement where something impacted how you feel and you feel the need to rationalize it as feeling legitimately caused by someone else. You'll get over it eventually and it'll be fine.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Winegums said:


> Does an Se-dom ever get overwhelmed by a physical situation? If so how often? Provide an example if possible.


I've been overwhelmed by long waits. I wait in line to cash out and it's grueling. Don't these people understand that these are hours of my life that I will NEVER get back? I think they should discount me if I have to wait more than a few minutes. A lot of times, I've given up and walked away. Waiting on the phone to get customer service, I admit, it's a struggle to not lose my shit. Long waits grind on me. It's crushing. When I was a kid, we had "high speed" internet, but it took time for pages to load. It was too slow for my attention span. I typically gave up. It's hard to explain my discomfort. I guess the best way I could explain it would be having a full bladder and being stuck on a witness stand under interrogation for hours. 
@ArrogantlyGrateful makes a point but is harsh. There is an implication there, but I'm not sure you intended it.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Ne doms are not exploring possibilities in the real world, hum? My ESFP cousin only had the courage to try the experiences I had already tried before him. He never left his own home town. His experiences are driving in circles with his new car. It's cool, he drives fast.


Then I'm not sure he's an ESFP.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> I hear Ne-dom's talk about possibilities but when are they actually exploring them and following through on those explorations? When do they actually push through a boundary rather than just talking about how it could be theoretically done?


I am sorry but I have pushed many boundaries in my life and tried a lot of different experiences. I will give you my example of me and my cousin Se dom. He only had the courage to try experiences I had tried before. The only reason he already has his second car and I don't have one is because his mother has the money. I already experienced way more diversity of experiences then him. He either goes to the coffe, plays in one of his 3 playstations (because he always wants a new one), or he drives in circles with his new car. He never left his home town and I went alone in public trasports multiple times since I was a child to visit the family. I have visited different cities in my country because I like to go to new places. He is always closed in his home town. I also know Se doms that are fat and not active. Based on this and my readings of Jung I think extroverted sensation is fundamentaly a drive to have to "go after" a tangible experience. But it doesn't have to be extreme, sports, risky. That I think depends on the person. My cousin has so much clothes, sneakers, etc. it is insane. He doesn't need more but he is always buying more. I use simple white T-shirts. The Ne doms I know don't obsess about tangible things. Obsess with other things. I have another Se dom friend that has opened 3 business and 2 of them went bankrupt. She opened the 3 with her mother's money. I would feel bad for spending my mother's money like that. But when she wants something she just wants it. It can be seen has "pushing boundaries" or it can be seen has "following the wind". Perhaps you got the "pushing boundaries" from socionics (I don't know). I don't agree with a lot of things in socionics. But I do agree Se&Ne share a free spirit and don't like to be restrained.

I don't want to generalyze. These examples are a way of showing how Se is not by definition brave, athletic, etc.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Well, I am sorry then. I did overlook the word "some". Appologies. You were not refering to all types then. A simple word I did not see caused me to have a completely different interpretation. However I still think you assume pushing boundaries and exploring new ground is by definition a behaviour attached to Se doms. As I said before, I know a lot of Se doms that are fat, not active, not brave, etc.


A lot of Ni and Ne doms claim traits as their own that are pretty much shared human traits. Like intelligence, imagination etc... When sensors use the same argument you're using, I don't see any intuitives accepting the argument. I see the 'these are just generalities' argument. I can find examples of people getting annoyed with Se-doms 'pushing buttons' and 'pushing boundaries'. But when it is turned into a positive trait, it's a problem? 

I'm not trying to argue with you, just hoping you'd see another perspective on this.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Being disgusted with people who don't take risks is a _*younger *_ESTP blindspot to how others experience reality and see their place in the world. There is innately nothing _that _wrong about wanting to be risk averse however.
> 
> Sometimes I think that if I was LESS of a risk-taker my life would have been more _stable_. I mean, it would have been BORING as fuck :laughing: but much more streamlined and consistent as opposed to having jumped careers, lived in 4 countries, run halfway around the world to get married (I did that not once but TWICE). I consistently gave up stability for excitement and I got burnt out. That said, today I have no regrets. The thing people project on us ESTP's is that they think that failure comes with regrets for us like it might for them, but it really doesn't. I sense that sort of vibe from you as well where you don't understand why this projection occurs.
> 
> I did settle down with my wife 4 years ago and she's an incredibly stable and consistent person and she has provided me with an anchor I lacked for the longest time. I have the freedom to explore the world but I'm also at an age now where I like the idea of being anchored.


The full on disgust comes when a risk averse person mocks a failure. They can't imagine making those mistakes, but I would never want to live such a restrictive lifestyle. It would be good if there was more live and let live going on.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> I am sorry but I have pushed many boundaries in my life and tried a lot of different experiences. I will give you my example of me and my cousin Se dom. He only had the courage to try experiences I had tried before. The only reason he already has his second car and I don't have one is because his mother has the money. I already experienced way more diversity of experiences then him. He either goes to the coffe, plays in one of his 3 playstations (because he always wants a new one), or he drives in circles with his new car. He never left his home town and I went alone in public trasports multiple times since I was a child to visit the family. I have visited different cities in my country because I like to go to new places. He is always closed in his home town. I also know Se doms that are fat and not active. Based on this and my readings of Jung I think extroverted sensation is fundamentaly a drive to have to "go after" an experience. But it doesn't have to be extreme, sports, risky. That I think depends on the person. I have another Se dom friend that has opened 3 business and 2 of them went bankrupt. She opened the 3 with her mother's money. I would feel bad for spending my mother's money like that. But when she wants something she just wants it. It can be seen has "pushing boundaries" or it can be seen has "following the wind". Perhaps you got the "pushing boundaries" from socionics (I don't know). I don't agree with a lot of things in socionics. But I do agree Se&Ne share a free spirit and don't like to be restrained


Your cousin doesn't exactly sound like a Se-dom. I don't expect all Se-doms to be into extreme sports. But I do expect them to take some risks. It really doesn't sound Se to wait and watch someone else try something before doing it yourself. Se-doms might not typically be leaders (or at least, I don't think we are) but that urge to try new things overpowers fear. I can't imagine a Se-dom always watching someone else try something before they did themselves. 

I agree that Ne/Se both need freedom. I'm not saying other types don't push boundaries. @Arrogantlygrateful repeatedly qualified this discussion; I don't know if I even bothered to qualify because it had already been covered. I'm not convinced that your cousin's an ESFP.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> The full on disgust comes when a risk averse person mocks a failure. They can't imagine making those mistakes, but I would never want to live such a restrictive lifestyle. It would be good if there was more live and let live going on.


Aah. Interesting. The disgust then imo is at being judged, not so much at the other person not doing what you have just done. 

I go full on "yeah, but _you_ were not in _my _situation and _you're _not _me_" when someone tries that with me. 

The other person then tries to bring in _their_ logic of why _they _wouldn't do it but I've pre-emptively told them that I'm not listening anymore when I've already stated that _I_ did what _I _thought was best. I avoid negative people and I shut down such conversations very quickly. By the time the other person has finished talking they have already wasted the time I could have been spending moving on. 

They don't get that there's nothing wrong with going to war and making the occasional retreat in the smaller battles. Every ESTP has a fighting chance as long as we have a breath in our body.



Roslyn said:


> Your cousin doesn't exactly sound like a Se-dom. I don't expect all Se-doms to be into extreme sports. But I do expect them to take some risks.


His cousin is likely ISTP from his description. Not ESFP.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Aah. Interesting. The disgust then imo is at being judged, not so much at the other person not doing what you have just done.
> 
> I go full on "yeah, but _you_ were not in _my _situation and _you're _not _me_" when someone tries that with me.
> 
> ...


Yes, I guess watching the same people who coast through life and moan a lot about their lives, annoy me when they proceed to be judgmental of someone else who actually tried to do something significant. 

Aside from my parents, I haven't had this directed at me personally. My parents are older and settled. I'm not sure I'm good for their health.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Roslyn said:


> Yes, I guess watching the same people who coast through life and moan a lot about their lives, annoy me when they proceed to be judgmental of someone else who actually tried to do something significant.


It used to be for me too but 4 years ago I burned all bridges and left everyone behind. Most people don't even know how to contact me now as I've carved out a life for myself away from prying eyes. 



> Aside from my parents, I haven't had this directed at me personally. My parents are older and settled. I'm not sure I'm good for their health.


I don't know what your parents are like, but I have to tell mine literally every conversation that my life is good and that I'm perfectly happy. 

My family is the kind that is so used to hearing about everyone's problems that they can't fathom that I currently have nothing to complain about.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> A lot of Ni and Ne doms claim traits as their own that are pretty much shared human traits. Like intelligence, imagination etc... When sensors use the same argument you're using, I don't see any intuitives accepting the argument. I see the 'these are just generalities' argument. I can find examples of people getting annoyed with Se-doms 'pushing buttons' and 'pushing boundaries'. But when it is turned into a positive trait, it's a problem?
> 
> I'm not trying to argue with you, just hoping you'd see another perspective on this.


If you haven't seen it it is a fact that you haven't seen it. But I actually had an "argument" with one sensor yesterday where I was explaining I think all these functions exist inside all humans. I do think intuitives rely more on their imagination by default, I think saying Sensors don't have/use imagination would be as stupid as saying intuitives don't have sensations, or we are blind, etc. I think we would not be able to understand different functions if we did not had the capacity to "use" them all.
I have no problem with someone being an active person, it is healthy. I do have a problem with Socionics. One of the problems is the claim that extroverted sensation is about power, being active, etc. I don't think it is part of the function. I think socionics tries to encapsulate everything humans experience in themselves in all the functions. I never read Jung mentioning bodily processes or sexual desires.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> That's not true either. You're being reactive for no reason. This is a pretty classic Fi judgement where something impacted how you feel and you feel the need to rationalize it as feeling legitimately caused by someone else. You'll get over it eventually and it'll be fine.


What is your problem? Do you want me to pick appart your answers and disredit everything you say based on your intoverted thinking? How much is your Ti wanting to be right instead of actually being right? You have no understanding of Fi. Fi is just as RATIONAL as any other judging function. You think I am hurt by what you said? LOL Who are you?!?!?

And I do have an ISTP cousin yes, but he is the brother of the ESFP. The ISTP was always having car accidents.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> Your cousin doesn't exactly sound like a Se-dom. I don't expect all Se-doms to be into extreme sports. But I do expect them to take some risks. It really doesn't sound Se to wait and watch someone else try something before doing it yourself. Se-doms might not typically be leaders (or at least, I don't think we are) but that urge to try new things overpowers fear. I can't imagine a Se-dom always watching someone else try something before they did themselves.
> 
> I agree that Ne/Se both need freedom. I'm not saying other types don't push boundaries. @Arrogantlygrateful repeatedly qualified this discussion; I don't know if I even bothered to qualify because it had already been covered. I'm not convinced that your cousin's an ESFP.


Well, I am not here to prove it to you. You have your own conceptualization of Se. I think behaviour is not the way to go about the functions. I think the functions are drives. When I used socionics discription of Se, I thought a friend of mine was ISFP because of his determination, his persistence, his intimidating side, because I had seen him beating people. Guess what? INFP (no Se in socionics). Now, if you are going to say every person I know is not the type they are then I say you are the one who was mistyped.
(I am jocking with you, not arguing.. you have every right to think socionics functions are right)

I lived 2 years with a friend that was an ESTP (I belive, he never did the tests). I was way more active then him.. but he was in fact the one who talked about the tangible world, he was always in tune with his surroundings and curious to know what was happening. He was analytical with definitions but he sometimes lied to prove he was right. I don't think every ESTP lies because of that


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Guajiro said:


> What is your problem? Do you want me to pick appart your answers and disredit everything you say based on your intoverted thinking? How much is your Ti wanting to be right instead of actually being right? You have no understanding of Fi. Fi is just as RATIONAL as any other judging function. You think I am hurt by what you said? LOL Who are you?!?!?
> 
> And I do have an ISTP cousin yes, but he is the brother of the ESFP. The ISTP was always having car accidents.


Don't get pissy just because I didn't accept your apology and gave you an explanation for why you got condescending based on an emotional reaction instead. 

I had no obligation to do so.


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Fi is just as RATIONAL as any other judging function.


"Rational" here meaning "decision-making" (i.e. "judging"), not "logically sound."

Difficulty with making decisions in a detached, logically sound manner is a trait specific to those with weak thinking.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> Don't get pissy just because I didn't accept your apology and gave you an explanation for why you got condescending based on an emotional reaction instead.
> 
> I had no obligation to do so.


Oh, you are so generous!!! thank you so much for explaining why I did what I did because I have no idea why I do what I do. Perhaps your brain is inside my head and mine inside yours. Or perhaps your introverted thinking gives you the ability to read minds. It must be it. Give me more explanations because when you say something it becomes true. You are not naive at all!!


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Bastard said:


> "Rational" here meaning "decision-making" (i.e. "judging"), not "logically sound."
> 
> Difficulty with making decisions in a detached, logically sound manner is a trait specific to those with weak thinking.


Bastard, for god's sake, if you belive I can't think with logic then you can't feel anything and you don't have emotions. You would be a sociopath. What makes people think they know what function I was using when I am writting? Do you think your emotions don't influence your thoughts? 
Introverted Thinking is not being right! And introverted feeling is not illogical. My introverted feeling kicked in when I decided to not insult based on her functions even though she is trying to discredit what I say saying I am emotional. Functions in use can't be dedecoded only based on what I write.
My introverted feeling judgement is that if I wanted I could discredit what you say based on your functions but I don't do that because I think that is evil. 
I could only say "No, that is your subjective constructed logical system wich has no place in reality" and from that point on nothing you say is valid. Get it?


----------



## Bastard (Feb 4, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Bastard, for god's sake, if you belive I can't think with logic then you can't feel anything and you don't have emotions.


I didn't say that and you're proving my point by assuming so.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Bastard said:


> I didn't say that and you're proving my point by assuming so.


I said "If".
To me it is logicaly sound that if someone discredits and invalidates the rationality and logic of what I say only based on their knowledge that I use a specific subjective function, then they can't expect others to give credit to their subjective construction of what is the right definition of something. Because that was what you did. You are not more logical than me. You just wrote your definition. It doesn't make you more logical writting definitions of words. It is not more logical then defining what is an evil action. This person has the assumption that Fi is just "oh I am hurt". No, I spend a lot of time thinking of criteria that helps me judging when a person has evil intentions. Discrediting what you say claiming your definitions are not true because they are a product of an introverted process would be evil based on my criteria.

But this thread is about Extroverted Sensation and I think the function deserves justice. I am out of here after the lack of mutual respect. I think picking appart what people say and justifying that what they say is wrong because they use a specific function is a low blow. And it reveals, from her side, a lack of self knowledge, an uncoscious belief that using a thinking functions means that whatever she says is right. Cya


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> If you haven't seen it it is a fact that you haven't seen it. But I actually had an "argument" with one sensor yesterday where I was explaining I think all these functions exist inside all humans. I do think intuitives rely more on their imagination by default, I think saying Sensors don't have/use imagination would be as stupid as saying intuitives don't have sensations, or we are blind, etc. I think we would not be able to understand different functions if we did not had the capacity to "use" them all.
> I have no problem with someone being an active person, it is healthy. I do have a problem with Socionics. One of the problems is the claim that extroverted sensation is about power, being active, etc. I don't think it is part of the function. I think socionics tries to encapsulate everything humans experience in themselves in all the functions. I never read Jung mentioning bodily processes or sexual desires.


So if some functions trend toward using imagination more, why wouldn't other functions trend toward pushing boundaries?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Well, I am not here to prove it to you. You have your own conceptualization of Se. I think behaviour is not the way to go about the functions. I think the functions are drives. When I used socionics discription of Se, I thought a friend of mine was ISFP because of his determination, his persistence, his intimidating side, because I had seen him beating people. Guess what? INFP (no Se in socionics). Now, if you are going to say every person I know is not the type they are then I say you are the one who was mistyped.
> (I am jocking with you, not arguing.. you have every right to think socionics functions are right)
> 
> I lived 2 years with a friend that was an ESTP (I belive, he never did the tests). I was way more active then him.. but he was in fact the one who talked about the tangible world, he was always in tune with his surroundings and curious to know what was happening. He was analytical with definitions but he sometimes lied to prove he was right. I don't think every ESTP lies because of that


I'm not arguing about how active he was. That wasn't in any of my arguments if you go back and look. My issue is you're saying he had no drive to go and push his own boundaries. I think you need to go back and read my comments.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Bastard, for god's sake, if you belive I can't think with logic then you can't feel anything and you don't have emotions. You would be a sociopath. What makes people think they know what function I was using when I am writting? Do you think your emotions don't influence your thoughts?
> Introverted Thinking is not being right! And introverted feeling is not illogical. My introverted feeling kicked in when I decided to not insult based on her functions *even though she is trying to discredit what I say saying I am emotional*. Functions in use can't be dedecoded only based on what I write.
> My introverted feeling judgement is that if I wanted I could discredit what you say based on your functions but I don't do that because I think that is evil.
> I could only say "No, that is your subjective constructed logical system wich has no place in reality" and from that point on nothing you say is valid. Get it?


I did no such thing. Unless you got your genders mixed up?


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> But this thread is about Extroverted Sensation and I think the function deserves justice. I am out of here after the lack of mutual respect. I think picking appart what people say and* justifying that what they say is wrong because they use a specific function is a low blow*. And it reveals, from her side, a lack of self knowledge, an uncoscious belief that using a thinking functions means that whatever she says is right. Cya


I did no such thing. You're getting my posts mixed up with other peoples posts.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

He's talking about me. He can't handle the fact that I didn't accept his apology, that's all. Seen a lot of these kind of tantrums in my life. He misread what I said and got condescending and then when I did it back to him he can't handle it. Nothing new. Just another day on the internet.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Arrogantly Grateful said:


> He's talking about me. He can't handle the fact that I didn't accept his apology, that's all. Seen a lot of these kind of tantrums in my life. He misread what I said and got condescending and then when I did it back to him he can't handle it. Nothing new. Just another day on the internet.


Intellectualization on display



Roslyn said:


> I did no such thing. You're getting my posts mixed up with other peoples posts.


Roslyn, I had no problem with you. Those posts were about the Arrgogantly Arrogant.
I was enjoying talking with you. I would have to know exactly what you mean with pushing boundaries because that is kind of vague and it's not a "psychological tool" like imagination or memory. If by pushing boundaries you mean "doing new, different" things, I think that is not just an Se feature. Having a drive to pursue a sensation is pushing a boundary (if you will) just as much as Ne is, it's just that Ne is persuing an idea. Both drives can go beyond what is expected. 
I also do not agree with Se meaning the person is looking for power or the person has more willpower (as in socionics).
*Drive to power:* I think we all have primitive drives that are not related to these functions and the drive to have power can be expressed in many ways. Ni (planning the future) can do it from a drive to rise to the top. I don't see why a calculating/strategic person couldn't apply their strategy to be powerful, like Hitler for example.
*Willpower:* What is will power to begin with? Smoking, taking medication, what you eat, the tragic events of your life, your place in society, your hormones, how others treat you, etc. This influences your willpower and your goals.
As for the imagination part my current view is that intuitive functions require the use of imagination. How could we plan or invent without imagination? But I don't think an intuitive person necessarily has more imagination capacity. Because humans use imagination for different situations, sometimes as a copping mechanism, sometimes as fantasy. Intuitives are also capable of appreciating real world landscapes. To me this system is about what type of information are we looking at and based on what criteria do we make decisions. Power, intelligence, knowledge, character, integrity, enjoying sports, etc. is individual. But hey, this is my view and how I approach people. I am ok with that. And I always say that using Fi doesn't mean you are a good person. It just means you decide alone what is a good or evil action, it doesn't say what you consider to be evil.
People have lifes and more factors influencing them, not only the functions. Not all Ne doms I know are pioneers and not all Se doms are in good shape. People have money issues, diseases, work, personal traumas, religious beliefs, different family dynamics, etc.
I will leave a video of an explanation of Extroverted Sensation based on socionics. An explanation I think has nothing to do with the function itself as proposed by Jung and I think it does more harm then good. This person has the socionics system memorized. This is what she would think about you if you met.





I think socionics is a fun system to play with because it is very symmetrical and creative. I don't think socionics is describing people, it doesn't work in reality. I think it gives people a sense of identity because it is too robotic. Humans can't be predictable to such a point (let alone by other humans).
And it is visible how some people treat each other on these forums, beliving they can read other people's minds. It's very naive and dangerous in my eyes. Humans predicting other humans behaviours to the point they belive they can read minds is not science or psychology... It's an evil drive!!!
But I hope people share more about their experience of Se, as you did, real experiences. Not cliches.
If you want to continue this conversation send me a message and we can talk  I don't want to fill this thread with more critiques.


----------



## SilentScream (Mar 31, 2011)

Guajiro said:


> Intellectualization on display


Says the guy who didn't read shit, didn't go back to check that he was trying to BS his way through a conversation, got called out for it and threw a multiple post tantrum after his half apology was rebuked and still can't let it go :laughing:

Man, I love forums sometimes. Brings me an endless stream of amusement.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

I agree that Se types wouldn't be happy with routine and being forced to do the same work all day until retirement. Mine is trash compared to them but even sometimes I've done stunts that have caused trouble family wise, specially my career change despite picking something not that different and taking my time to ponder about it. Really even if changing to chemistry has delayed my studies, I prefer that than to be forced to work at an hospital. The mere idea of dealing with that and drama (yeah, I've heard some nasty stories about power conflicts on health care and the routine too made me think it would be hell) made me better nope from biochemistry. Also, I thought about going to PhD, but the market is saturated and spending 4-6 years on that made me rethink and better see if I can find a job that doesn't require such mess.

I guess that was one of the few moments that my low ass Se helped as I decided to go for it instead of rotting away on that other career.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Intellectualization on display
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Everyone pushes boundaries. Everyone uses their imagination. Human beings use human traits. What I'm saying is that some traits are pivotal to certain functions. Saying that Ne uses imagination, isn't to say that Si-doms are unimaginative. It's just saying it plays a pivotal role in how Ne perceives the world. Saying that Se energizes to push boundaries (something as small as pushing someone's buttons to annoy them, to trying something new, to going after something big), isn't to say to say individuals with different dominant functions don't push boundaries. I'm saying it plays a pivotal role in how Se perceives the world. I'm saying it's as much as psychological tool as memory or imagination. You consider it a primitive drive, but I don't. Se is taking everything in and wanting more. 

You've repeated many times that you've known sedentary ESTP's. I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep repeating it. I'm aware that there are some sedentary Se-doms. Se use doesn't speak to an individuals mental health. The thought of a Se-dom who isn't engaging physically with their physical world sounds like they're very depressed and need help. But this doesn't disprove anything. Unhealthy individuals exist. An INFP with a drug problem may be trying to escape the physical world but their addiction would force them to engage a great deal with the physical world. That doesn't mean INFP's don't love to be in their heads. It just means that individual INFP has an addiction and needs help. 

Engaging in these sorts of discussions is part of a learning process. I don't think you've been overly critical. I think that you and @Arrogantly Grateful miss each other when communicating. That's a shame.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Dragheart Luard said:


> I agree that Se types wouldn't be happy with routine and being forced to do the same work all day until retirement. Mine is trash compared to them but even sometimes I've done stunts that have caused trouble family wise, specially my career change despite picking something not that different and taking my time to ponder about it. Really even if changing to chemistry has delayed my studies, I prefer that than to be forced to work at an hospital. The mere idea of dealing with that and drama (yeah, I've heard some nasty stories about power conflicts on health care and the routine too made me think it would be hell) made me better nope from biochemistry. Also, I thought about going to PhD, but the market is saturated and spending 4-6 years on that made me rethink and better see if I can find a job that doesn't require such mess.
> 
> I guess that was one of the few moments that my low ass Se helped as I decided to go for it instead of rotting away on that other career.


I think even Si-doms can reach their limits with routines. It's just how quickly routines become monotonous hits different personalities that varies.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Roslyn said:


> I think even Si-doms can reach their limits with routines. It's just how quickly routines become monotonous hits different personalities that varies.


Yeah, specially if the routine is stressful or doesn't motivate them in the long run. Clearly a Se dom will prefer to change things sooner as they crave the experience, while a Si dom probably will do that when their source of comfort is getting too stale or something else pushes them to seek something different. I'm a Ni dom so for me is more of a matter of thinking if this will pay off later or it's better to ditch it like a hot potato and try to find a better choice. Also, efficiency matters too so if some task is being a chore and can be done better, then I'm all for altering it as many routine procedures can be improved by either changing reagents or getting machines to do the task that would be too slow to do manually. People can think that's risky to change your analysis methods, but you can't progress in science if you don't test anything different.

I think Se types would also be good at experimental sciences for this reason, as they can notice those changes in reality better and can improvise if they have a grasp of the concepts and what supplies do they have in the moment. Then they would try to not be biased about the results considering that Se is an objective perception.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Dragheart Luard said:


> Yeah, specially if the routine is stressful or doesn't motivate them in the long run. Clearly a Se dom will prefer to change things sooner as they crave the experience, while a Si dom probably will do that when their source of comfort is getting too stale or something else pushes them to seek something different. I'm a Ni dom so for me is more of a matter of thinking if this will pay off later or it's better to ditch it like a hot potato and try to find a better choice. Also, efficiency matters too so if some task is being a chore and can be done better, then I'm all for altering it as many routine procedures can be improved by either changing reagents or getting machines to do the task that would be too slow to do manually. People can think that's risky to change your analysis methods, but you can't progress in science if you don't test anything different.
> 
> I think Se types would also be good at experimental sciences for this reason, as they can notice those changes in reality better and can improvise if they have a grasp of the concepts and what supplies do they have in the moment. *Then they would try to not be biased about the results considering that Se is an objective perception.*


I don't know if it's a Se thing or a me thing, but I think I am pretty good at being open about my failures. I see other people trying to cover up when they aren't doing well. I don't think I'm emotionally more available or healthy but that I don't get embarrassed as easily as other people. So if I'm working on something and it doesn't go the way I expect or wanted, I'm more interested in finding out why, than anything else.


----------



## Dragheart Luard (May 13, 2013)

Roslyn said:


> I don't know if it's a Se thing or a me thing, but I think I am pretty good at being open about my failures. I see other people trying to cover up when they aren't doing well. I don't think I'm emotionally more available or healthy but that I don't get embarrassed as easily as other people. So if I'm working on something and it doesn't go the way I expect or wanted, I'm more interested in finding out why, than anything else.


That's a good mindset, as trying to hide or manipulate the fails would not only get you in trouble, but personally I find that dishonest. Trying to find out what went wrong is the first step to fix a mess and to improve it, otherwise if you can't detect if it was human error or error induced by the method/machine/whatever you're using, then you will end running around like a headless duck or waste time.

Dunno if Se types are more honest or not (I think that depends of the person so not function related), but I think they could be overall be blunt so they won't sugarcoat when they do something wrong.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Winegums said:


> We're not as confident that our low Se is really up to the task of dealing with the situation as quickly as it comes up. Our senses aren't as easily managed and wielded as those with high Se. Quickly thinking our way out of a tricky situation or through it does not come naturally. Usually our Se comes out in the form of less energetic activities and we don't desire high energy activities which are too physically involving.
> 
> You mentioned that Se gets you out of situations as often as you get yourself into them. Our intuition keeps us out of situations before we get ourselves into them. It works both ways and neither is better than the other.
> 
> ...


The way I put it shortly; Se is actively looking for external sensory inputs (experiences) while Si is more passively enjoying whatever inputs they are being accustomed to. Se is restless and quick to decide what to do between available options while Si is calm and open yet always having difficult time to pick among the options especially similar ones and often resort to others to do that for them. Which most of the time failed because only the Si users know their preference after all. Funny Si users 

As intj my S(e) is inferior, it work randomly, stutteringly inconsistent and most of the time it come to action only when i'm tired or stressed. Some sort of catharsis escape mechanism which does not really help me at all because i will mostly regret what i did afterwards.

There is no good or bad thing in this preference because i believe it is a matter of balance. Too quick to jump can end up in fail compilation video as well as too slow to react, or even fatal for both. It can only be good if one can find the most proper balance of functions for each person, and vice versa.

Learning and realizing this is fun though. Because i always want to know my limits, accept the facts, and see how am i going to be able to surpass them if I try hard enough to improve.



Sent using Tapatalk


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> Everyone pushes boundaries. Everyone uses their imagination. Human beings use human traits. What I'm saying is that some traits are pivotal to certain functions. Saying that Ne uses imagination, isn't to say that Si-doms are unimaginative. It's just saying it plays a pivotal role in how Ne perceives the world. Saying that Se energizes to push boundaries (something as small as pushing someone's buttons to annoy them, to trying something new, to going after something big), isn't to say to say individuals with different dominant functions don't push boundaries. I'm saying it plays a pivotal role in how Se perceives the world. I'm saying it's as much as psychological tool as memory or imagination. You consider it a primitive drive, but I don't. Se is taking everything in and wanting more.
> 
> You've repeated many times that you've known sedentary ESTP's. I'm not sure why you feel the need to keep repeating it. I'm aware that there are some sedentary Se-doms. Se use doesn't speak to an individuals mental health. The thought of a Se-dom who isn't engaging physically with their physical world sounds like they're very depressed and need help. But this doesn't disprove anything. Unhealthy individuals exist. An INFP with a drug problem may be trying to escape the physical world but their addiction would force them to engage a great deal with the physical world. That doesn't mean INFP's don't love to be in their heads. It just means that individual INFP has an addiction and needs help.
> 
> Engaging in these sorts of discussions is part of a learning process. I don't think you've been overly critical. I think that you and @Arrogantly Grateful miss each other when communicating. That's a shame.


Ok. I unerstand your point. But why do you think "engaging with the physical world" has to be done in a way that is superactive and energetic? These Se doms I refered, engaged with the physical world, but not the same way you do. Some by being stylish, some by dating, others by going to parties, some by going to restaurants. That was the reason I gave the examples. And certainly, the ones I know are not trying to be more powerful than others. But socionics assumes that if someone is enjoying the physical world is because the person wants to be powerful.
If you do it because of power, that is your thing, but not all Se users are in this life to prove that they have more power.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Ok. I unerstand your point. But why do you think "engaging with the physical world" has to be done in a way that is superactive and energetic?


I didn't say they have to be superactive and energetic. I referred to your word 'sedentary'. There's a lot of things between sedentary and superactive and energetic. 




Guajiro said:


> These Se doms I refered, engaged with the physical world, but not the same way you do. Some by being stylish, some by dating, others by going to parties, some by going to restaurants.


These aren't sedentary people. Sedentary people are holed up in their house. 



Guajiro said:


> That was the reason I gave the examples. And certainly, the ones I know are not trying to be more powerful than others. But socionics assumes that if someone is enjoying the physical world is because the person wants to be powerful.
> If you do it because of power, that is your thing, but not all Se users are in this life to prove that they have more power.


At no point have I said Se users are trying to be more powerful than others. Again, you're putting words in my mouth that I have never said in this discussion. You can go back and look. You don't think someone that is into fashion pushes limits? You don't think people who enjoy dating push limits? 

You can turn anything into a game. I'm not sure what is off with your interpretation of my words but you're reading things I've never said.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Roslyn said:


> I didn't say they have to be superactive and energetic. I referred to your word 'sedentary'. There's a lot of things between sedentary and superactive and energetic.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I also didn't say they were sedentary people and you are bringing that up again and again! I said I am not *Se* dom and I am more active than these *Se* doms I know. And that some of them are not in shape, some don't enjoy sports, and some are not that brave when it comes to "pushing boundaries". lol And you were confused about why I was mentioning them: it was to give my real life examples that contradict the features SOCIONICS atributed to *Se*.
If you don't agree with socionics why didn't you say it before? Because all this time I have been critiquing the Socionics idea that *Se* people are very active by definition, seek power and have more willpower. Who said you said it?

I am not restricted to repeat everything you say. If you keep saying that these people who are less active than me can't be *Se* doms, then what am I supposed to think your implicit conception of *Se* is? Of course I will think you read Socionics and that is where you are basing your knowledge about the function.
When people talk they think things about each other, that is inevitable.

This "power" thing came from coments above and I wrote it was a Socionics claim. If you don't tell me you disagree with *Se* wanting power, then you proceed to say that there is a "psychological tool" that "pushes boundaries" and you give the example of "pushing people to annoy them". What do you want me to think?? That you agree with me?!
I am trying to get my message across quite clearly. Who is turning the conversation into a game? (I *hope* that comes from legit confusion and not *Ne* bias, because you don't know me from Adam.) First you said "pushing boundaries" is a psychological tool, now you say being into fashion is pushing boundaries. 
But what boundaries are we talking about? I still think "pushing boundaries" is vague. That is a metaphor. Where are the boundaries? Really, I am confused.

*How can you possibly tell if a person is going beyond the boundaries?*
That is precisely my point. Even if these people I know are "pushing boundaries" in their heads, they are the ones who know what boundaries they are pushing, it's not up to us to decide what is a boundary to another person. Because for you it might be jumping off of a cliff, and for them it might be buying a new videogame. I tried but I can't make it more clear than this!

In my point of view, if you are a person who dares to go beyond what others arround you do, that is more an individual thing about you. We don't have to agree. If you think that is because of your dominant function you have every right to a different opinion.


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

@Guajiro: Why I don't necessarily disagree with you, I am curious as to one thing though. Why bring Socionics into the Cognitive Function thread. Other then one random person, your the only one referring to Socionics, I went through every page of the thread and f3 checked. XD Just wondering, since it's that description you don't agree with, why it bring it up here, and not in the Socionics section.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Persona Maiden said:


> @Guajiro: Why I don't necessarily disagree with you, I am curious as to one thing though. Why bring Socionics into the Cognitive Function thread. Other then one random person, your the only one referring to Socionics, I went through every page of the thread and f3 checked. XD Just wondering, since it's that description you don't agree with, why it bring it up here, and not in the Socionics section.


Hello. There is a MBTI section and a socionics section. This is the "cognitive functions" section. There are lots of different interpretations and discriptions about the cognitive functions. This thread's title is about the *discriptions* of the *Se* function. What is wrong with the fact that I am the only person talking about the Socionics *discription*?


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

This is Berens and Nardi's description of Se. It's not passive.

Extraverted Sensing



> Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail.
> We may be drawn to *act on *what we experience to get an immediate result.
> 
> We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context.
> ...


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

@Guajiro: I just usually think of MBTI/Cognitive Functions/Socionics as different interpretations of Jung's work, from my observations thus far (though I know very little of Socionics), their pretty different in interpretation.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Persona Maiden said:


> @Guajiro: I just usually think of MBTI/Cognitive Functions/Socionics as different interpretations of Jung's work, from my observations thus far (though I know very little of Socionics), their pretty different in interpretation.


I agree that Socionics is a different take on the Jungian functions. I did read the definitions written by Jung and I think socionics distorted the functions (especially the Sensing ones - I have an idea why this is the case but I'll not share it here xD). I never had the opportunity to read the book _Gifts Differing _, but, from what I know, she took the Jungian functions and applied a the priciple that "If your dominant function is extroverted and helps you learn information (extroverted percieving) then your auxiliary must be introverted and a judging function (because people need both a process to learn and a process to make decisions, and both a process to put them in touch with the outside world and another to put them in touch with the internal world). Jung did not make it clear if he thought of it this way or if he thought that the two conscious functions have to be both either introverted or extroverted. However, I personally think Myers Briggs was right about the conscious balance between the outside reality and the inner world.

Since the person who created this thread mentioned "discriptions of Se" in general, I assume she/he read more then one discription and I shared my opinion about Socionics because that is the system that describes Extroverted Sensors as people that are bending reality to their will and searching for power. Something I don't see in Jung's discription 

*Se* (in short), from *my* interpretation, is a drive to know what something in your reach (I don't know if this is the word in english) *is*. Not what it was, not what it might be, not what what will be... what *is*. Is a perception of what *is*. That is the type of *curiosity* that has more weight on the life of people who use this process and shapes the *form* of their thoughts. What the *content* of their thought is can be anything.
All the profile discriptions, to me, are just going in circles arround this :S

I left you links to help you find your type. I will try to read your post thread about your investigation about your type when I find time


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> I agree that Socionics is a different take on the Jungian functions. I did read the definitions written by Jung and I think socionics distorted the functions (especially the Sensing ones). I never had the opportunity to read the book _Gifts Differing _, but I got the idea that she took the Jungian functions and applied a the priciple that "If your dominant function is extroverted and helps you learn information (extroverted percieving) then your auxiliary must be introverted and a judging function (because people need both a process to learn and a process to make decisions, and both a process to put them in touch with the outside world and another to put them in touch with the internal world). Jung did not make it clear if he thought of it this way or if he thought that the two conscious functions have to be both either introverted or extroverted. However, I personally think Myers Briggs was right about the conscious balance between the outside reality and the inner world.
> 
> Since the person who created this thread mentioned "discriptions of Se" in general, I assume she/he read more then one discription and I shared my opinion about Socionics because that is the system that describes Extroverted Sensors as people that are bending reality to their will and searching for power. Something I don't see in Jung's discription
> 
> ...


I do agree Se definitely seems to be more what is, then what was. Not sure on what it will be, in one sense, it seems Se users are most of the time fairly good at improvising, but I could be misinterpreting it, or maybe it's not using a what it will/could be approach, or is aided by Ni in it. Admittedly Se is probably the function I understand least well, even after reading on it. Which is partly why this thread is so interesting to me.

I'll look at the links.  And thank you!


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Persona Maiden said:


> I do agree Se definitely seems to be more what is, then what was. Not sure on what it will be, in one sense, it seems Se users are most of the time fairly good at improvising, but I could be misinterpreting it, or maybe it's not using a what it will/could be approach, or is aided by Ni in it. Admittedly Se is probably the function I understand least well, even after reading on it. Which is partly why this thread is so interesting to me.
> 
> I'll look at the links.  And thank you!


Yes. They are good at facing the moment, and of course, all functions have the other polarity feeding them. However I, personally, think *Ne* is the function of impredictable situations and improvising. Jung wrote this. Every person, regardless of type, has to use *Ne* when she/he is stuck without knowing what to do. We all have every function in us, I belive.


----------



## Persona Maiden (May 14, 2018)

Guajiro said:


> Yes. They are good at facing the moment, and of course, all functions have the other polarity feeding them. However I, personally, think *Ne* is the function of impredictable situations and improvising. Jung wrote this. Every person, regardless of type, has to use *Ne* when she/he is stuck without knowing what to do. We all have every function in us, I belive.


I heard the theory about using all functions, but haven't decided how I feel about it yet. It some ways it makes sense to me, but then so does the 4 model, so I'm torn on them at the moment.


----------



## Guajiro (Nov 16, 2017)

Duo said:


> This is Berens and Nardi's description of Se. It's not passive.
> 
> Extraverted Sensing


Yes not a "passive" discription of the function. However you highlighted words that make it seem more active then it is.
the "active seeking" is for *"more and more input"*. So the goal is experience and learn more about the _thing_ that is capturing *Se*'s attention. Doesn't say what the thing is and also doesn't say it requires the person to walk or run or whatever.

An *active search for more and more input* can simply be asking questions to know more information about the story someone is telling. It doesn't require body activity.
I will not give examples to all the points but people that read will get the idea.


----------



## Veni Vidi Vici (Jun 8, 2018)

Se is not passive. Si is. The way I see it all perceiving functions are accepting but Se accepts first and then impacts the environment while Si accepts and then adapts to it. 

Se doms frequently appear restless and reckless by societal average’s standard precisely because it’s not at all passive and a big chunk of Si people find them disruptive. But again no extroverted function is passive.


----------



## Winegums (Sep 8, 2014)

Roslyn said:


> It seems like people look down on anyone that goes out and takes a big risk and fails. Whether it's considered a noble pursuit, like exploration or cheap, like exploiting someone for money, if they fail they're considered fools. The same people who I don't see taking any real gambles. They finish school, they go to college, start a job that is unrelated to their career, find someone by default, and every step of the way looks like it was a non-decision that became a decision by default. I don't see most people taking risks and if we're really being honest, on some level, they disgust me. They rarely fail because they so rarely dare. "Life is a daring adventure or nothing at all." Helen Keller. I think she was right. People look down their noses at Se-doms for being loud and energetic, but we're in the middle of our adventure every day. Maybe if they weren't trapped in their lives of quiet desperation we wouldn't bother them so much.


It doesn't seem like your mental attitude is any better than those who you think are looking down at Se types. You're just the other side of the coin, looking down on them thinking that your way is better. I can see both sides and neither is better than the other. 

We will always go through life in the way our perception takes us. What feels right to you may not feel right to someone else. If they want to get you down by criticizing your lifestyle I suggest you tell them it's your life and to go live their own. 



Roslyn said:


> Apprenticeship. So we can learn how to be tradespeople? No. My mother taught me interactively. I agree that classrooms are hell, but I disagree that we should all become blue collar workers.


That's not what I meant? Don't assume. Hands on learning and practical application was the key point. Apprenticeship and practicum do not mean you have to have a trades job.


----------



## Roslyn (Aug 2, 2018)

Winegums said:


> It doesn't seem like your mental attitude is any better than those who you think are looking down at Se types. You're just the other side of the coin, looking down on them thinking that your way is better. I can see both sides and neither is better than the other.
> 
> We will always go through life in the way our perception takes us. What feels right to you may not feel right to someone else. If they want to get you down by criticizing your lifestyle I suggest you tell them it's your life and to go live their own.
> 
> ...


Historically, that's exactly what it meant. That's following the bread crumbs, not making assumptions.


----------

