# Se PoLR



## ferroequinologist

To_august said:


> Because Jung tied Si-inferior with unhealthy focus on physical states, bodily sensations etc.
> 
> 
> As long as typing systems are based on Jung's cognitive functions theory (and, as far as I know, both MBTI and Socionics admit this), they do interpret the same phenomena. It's not like Socionics invented own processes and decided to put on them IE labels. I believe that cognitive functions represent real patterns of the human psyche, and what Socionics and MBTI to a greater extent are doing is just describing their possible manifestations. Both systems want to give something concrete and tangible to make it easier for people to identify these things. Of course each system would be different in that respect, because they choose to focus on different possible behavioural manifestations of essentially the same cognitive processes, as they are not functions themselves.


My impression of introverted sensing, though, is that Jung never really did define it well, and his descriptions seem to be lacking, while Socionics interpreted it primarily as physical sensing pointing inward--i.e. internal sensations, rather than the cause of those sensations. 

In reality, I think some of this can be seen simply in the manual dexterity that introverted sensing types have in contrast to extroverted sensing types. The guy who does the Sports types book seems to hold to this theory, from what little I've read of his descriptions. He uses fine motor skills vs. gross motor skills, but if my memory serves me correctly, this division was between Si and Se. I could be wrong, but I wanted to toss this point into the ring for perusal.


----------



## myst91

To_august said:


> Because Jung tied Si-inferior with unhealthy focus on physical states, bodily sensations etc.


And why would you think that in Socionics Si egos have unhealthy focus on physical states? No they don't. Some types low in Socionics Si would have that unhealthy focus, sure and so in that sense same as Jung. Not the opposite lol




> As long as typing systems are based on Jung's cognitive functions theory (and, as far as I know, both MBTI and Socionics admit this), they do interpret the same phenomena.


Nope. Do you think just because Myers and Augusta read Jung's writings (and Augusta read other ones too!) they magically figured out what the cognitive processes were behind the descriptions? No, they just interpreted shit in their own ways and thus diverged from Jung.




> It's not like Socionics invented own processes and decided to put on them IE labels.


Yes they actually did invent their own to some degree. It's really unfortunate that these systems all keep using the same fucking notations because that's why people keep confusing them for each other.




> I believe that cognitive functions represent real patterns of the human psyche, and what Socionics and MBTI to a greater extent are doing is just describing their possible manifestations.


If you also consider how different Si is in MBTI, it's hard to keep that view that they describe the same and real patterns throughout all the different theories.




> Both systems want to give something concrete and tangible to make it easier for people to identify these things. Of course each system would be different in that respect, because they choose to focus on different possible behavioural manifestations of essentially the same cognitive processes, as they are not functions themselves.


And why would they choose to focus on different behavioural manifestations? What's your answer to this?


----------



## myst91

ferroequinologist said:


> My impression of introverted sensing, though, is that Jung never really did define it well, and his descriptions seem to be lacking, while Socionics interpreted it primarily as physical sensing pointing inward--i.e. internal sensations, rather than the cause of those sensations.


I actually kind of understand Jung on Si, it's really a different process than the Socionics Si.




> In reality, I think some of this can be seen simply in the manual dexterity that introverted sensing types have in contrast to extroverted sensing types. The guy who does the Sports types book seems to hold to this theory, from what little I've read of his descriptions. He uses fine motor skills vs. gross motor skills, but if my memory serves me correctly, this division was between Si and Se. I could be wrong, but I wanted to toss this point into the ring for perusal.


What book is that and is that about Socionics Si and Se specifically?

Interesting definitely, I'm Se user in MBTI and Se valuing in Socionics and I'm better at gross motor skills. I don't even have patience for fine motor skills stuff a lot of the time (though I can take it up as a challenge to be as precise as I can in hitting a target including really small targets requiring refined precise movements if that counts... uhh I suspect that's still Se though); So uhh, this works out for me...

Does it work out for you too as ESI?


----------



## To_august

myst91 said:


> And why would you think that in Socionics Si egos have unhealthy focus on physical states? No they don't. Some types low in Socionics Si would have that unhealthy focus, sure and so in that sense same as Jung. Not the opposite lol


Nah. According to Jung higher Si isn't about physical bodily fixations at all, it comes to the physical level if the function is low/inferior.



> Nope. Do you think just because Myers and Augusta read Jung's writings (and Augusta read other ones too!) they magically figured out what the cognitive processes were behind the descriptions? No, they just interpreted shit in their own ways and thus diverged from Jung.
> 
> Yes they actually did invent their own to some degree. It's really unfortunate that these systems all keep using the same fucking notations because that's why people keep confusing them for each other.
> 
> If you consider how different Si is in MBTI, it's hard to keep that view that they describe the same and real patterns throughout all the different theories.
> 
> And why would they choose to focus on different behavioural manifestations? What's your answer to this?


Exactly, they interpreted his writings in their own ways, but it's clear that all their descriptions are based on Jung's theory. They didn't diverged from Jung in a sense that they abandon his theories and began to describe something completely different. 
Typology authors choose to focus on different manifestations because of their personal bias and understanding. Augusta herself supposedly has Si-inferior, so this element became so heavily focused on body per se.


----------



## ferroequinologist

myst91 said:


> I actually kind of understand Jung on Si, it's really a different process than the Socionics Si.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What book is that and is that about Socionics Si and Se specifically?
> 
> Interesting definitely, I'm Se user in MBTI and Se valuing in Socionics and I'm better at gross motor skills. I don't even have patience for fine motor skills stuff a lot of the time (though I can take it up as a challenge to be as precise as I can in hitting a target including really small targets requiring refined precise movements if that counts... uhh I suspect that's still Se though); So uhh, this works out for me...
> 
> Does it work out for you too as ESI?


That gross vs fine motor skills difference was like a light bulb for me, so yeah, it works out. 

But that guy is also MBTI. Here's the ESI/ISFP description from the forum here: 
http://personalitycafe.com/isfp-articles/14072-your-key-sports-success-isfp-description.html

There's a link there, i think, to his web site.

Like I said, I'm not sure how accurate my assessment is.


----------



## The Exception

lavendersparrow said:


> How does Se PoLR manifest in EII and LII?
> 
> If Se is your PoLR, could you explain how you experience it?
> 
> If it's not, how do you view Se PoLR?
> 
> I've read up on it some, but I'd like to get additional opinions, others own personal understandings or perspectives of Se PoLR.
> 
> Definition from Wikisocion:
> 
> " • as a vulnerable (4th) function (LII and EII)
> The individual tends to overreact to aggressive or confrontational behavior, taking it as a personal threat when it may only be a knee-jerk reaction or the result of a bad mood.
> He tends to avoid intruding on others' space or engaging in behavior that may be perceived as coercive, and tries hard to handle his needs by being disciplined and well-prepared himself - rather than relying on others to do things for him. If these strategies fail, his efforts at dealing with the resulting conflict make him look actively pushy in a way that appears awkward and unnatural to others. This opens him up to painful criticism and feelings of weakness and helplessness.
> He is able to moralize and instruct others about what they should do and why, but he is not prepared for others' active resistance or refusal to do as he says. In his mind, this would require him to put aside reason and good feelings and simply make the other person do what is necessary. This is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for him to do."
> 
> Thanks for any feedback!


I'm an XII, H subtype. I would say this description is spot-on based on my experience.


----------



## The Exception

Schweeeeks said:


> Hmm not sure what to say that you don't already know.
> 
> PoLR can be a strength if you think of it in the opposite way. xII tends to be non-confrontational and unwilling to push their opinions on others. They'd just want to state whatever it is they want to state and others to do the same in their own respective space. Live and let live.
> Not bossy and when they try to be, things go downhill. It's better for them to suggest instead of demand.


Makes sense. 



Schweeeeks said:


> -Se PoLR of EII: Difficult for EII to assert own interests and press others; not sure how to take power back once it is already gone. More likely to stonewall (as a retention of power) when cornered, but won't be to assert their own initiatives in a situation. (Similar to type SEE)
> 
> +Se PoLR of LII: Not sure how to defend against strong intrusion from others; may not realize others are undermining LII until too late. Can be overly confrontational if cornered and in a way that winds up giving away all of LII's power accidentally (Similar to type SLE)
> Using same format from here combined with keywords from Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-)


Not sure if I'd be more +Se or -Si as I'm still undecided between LII and EII. I can see myself in both +Se and -Se.


----------



## The Exception

TruthDismantled said:


> Se PoLR, hmmm. I've decided for now I'm some kind of NTP so I'll give it a go.
> 
> I'd say I'm very sensitive to body language when it comes to people's behavior and attempts to gain power or show dominance. I hate being forced to do something even when I know it's the best thing for me. I'll prefer to do it at my own time.
> 
> I'm very careful to appear friendly and receptive to people, especially those whom I've just met. And I'll make sure not to appear in any way confrontational, aggressive, brutish.
> 
> I hate being in positions where I need to depend on others, wait for others, where I need to put trust in other people basically. It sucks for people who like to feel as though people depend on them. My father for example.
> 
> If someone threatens me and I cower away, or basically not defend myself well, I'll beat myself up about it for ages


I can definitely relate to this.



TruthDismantled said:


> I have very little awareness of how the environment affects me mood. So it could be really warm and it's giving me a headache making me feel negative, then someone comes and opens the window and it's like woahhh I feel much better. Or I'll be studying in the dark then someone turns of the light and it hadn't even occurred to me. Though this may be more to do with Si.


I think it's more a sign of weak Si than anything.





ferroequinologist said:


> My impression of introverted sensing, though, is that Jung never really did define it well, and his descriptions seem to be lacking, while Socionics interpreted it primarily as physical sensing pointing inward--i.e. internal sensations, rather than the cause of those sensations.
> 
> In reality, I think some of this can be seen simply in the manual dexterity that introverted sensing types have in contrast to extroverted sensing types. The guy who does the Sports types book seems to hold to this theory, from what little I've read of his descriptions. He uses fine motor skills vs. gross motor skills, but if my memory serves me correctly, this division was between Si and Se. I could be wrong, but I wanted to toss this point into the ring for perusal.


I seem to suck at both. Probably better at fine motor skills if I had to pick one. 2D Si and 1D Se for me, so in this case the theory holds. I've never been good at sports- I've dabbled in several hoping to find one I was halfway decent at but never happened. When I was young, I made the mistake of believing that somehow if I practiced more, it would make me better but it didn't play out that way for me. Part of it was even though I practiced, I did not practice *smart*. For instance, I just wanted to play the game and not bother with the boring drills. But the boring drills make up the fundamental component of the game- apparently by doing the drills, your body gets prepared for the real thing when it happens in the game. Again, that never worked for me. 

Also I have trouble with precision and timing in sports and how much force to use (Se thing- force). For example when playing softball- trying to time my swing just right, position myself at just the right angle so I'm in position to hit the ball and on the rare occasion when I do hit it, try to control the direction it goes. Or how much force to use when throwing a ball. For some people these things are second nature. Certainly not for me.


----------



## myst91

To_august said:


> Nah. According to Jung higher Si isn't about physical bodily fixations at all, it comes to the physical level if the function is low/inferior.


OK, I was originally interpreting you as if you were talking about just the unhealthy aspects of the attention on physical bodily stuff. Because, Si egos in socionics don't have an unhealthy focus on it, it works well for them, they just like to pay attention, is all. People low in Si would then have an actually unhealthy focus on it, according to the socionics theory.

But what you are saying is actually just that with Jung, high Si doesn't even pay too much attention to internal physical sensations. That actually would kind of make sense, if we assumed high Si would just have a refined notion of comfort that includes less directly tangible/physical aspects of it. Well in Socionics, the Si definition is more physical than that, Si egos included. And the Jungian definition on Si is of course more complex than just having "comfort".




> Exactly, they interpreted his writings in their own ways, but it's clear that all their descriptions are based on Jung's theory. They didn't diverged from Jung in a sense that they abandon his theories and began to describe something completely different.


I guess your attention just doesn't naturally go towards the more subtle aspects in theories that actually make a lot of difference... Mine does so yeah we see this differently.

Basically, there is a lot of area between "completely identical" and "completely different". If you don't see that or not interested in seeing it, I can't explain it to you.




> Typology authors choose to focus on different manifestations because of their personal bias and understanding. Augusta herself supposedly has Si-inferior, so this element became so heavily focused on body per se.


I think that explanation to account for the differences is way too oversimplified. Also no proof that this is actually the case. Not that it isn't highly unlikely anyway.


----------



## myst91

ferroequinologist said:


> That gross vs fine motor skills difference was like a light bulb for me, so yeah, it works out.


Thanks for the link, umm, where did you read about the gross motor skills == Se, fine motor skills == Si exactly?

I read up on a few of those sport profiles here on the forum and this is actually not what the theory seems to state

What I did see mentioned is a correlation between right brained spatial sensory awareness and Se. And yes that again works for me. How about you?


----------



## myst91

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Not sure if I'd be more +Se or -Si as I'm still undecided between LII and EII. I can see myself in both +Se and -Se.


How do you see yourself in both? Some details?




Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> (....) Also I have trouble with precision and timing in sports and how much force to use (Se thing- force). For example when playing softball- trying to time my swing just right, position myself at just the right angle so I'm in position to hit the ball and on the rare occasion when I do hit it, try to control the direction it goes. Or how much force to use when throwing a ball. For some people these things are second nature. Certainly not for me.


Strange reading this description. It's almost like you try to use extra mental activity to figure out what to do instead of simply seeing things and reacting naturally. I guess it's hard for me to imagine that because I just do the latter - simply see and react without thinking. All the variables you are talking about here are automatically handled by simply seeing things in the situation all as one together. That in MBTI is supposedly strong Se and yes I'm STP in MBTI. I will add though, I once had a moment where it was weird to realise all this works automatically for me by just seeing and not having to think and consider anything, not knowing where this comes from beyond just seeing!  But yeah otherwise completely natural for me.


----------



## ferroequinologist

myst91 said:


> Thanks for the link, umm, where did you read about the gross motor skills == Se, fine motor skills == Si exactly?
> 
> I read up on a few of those sport profiles here on the forum and this is actually not what the theory seems to state
> 
> What I did see mentioned is a correlation between right brained spatial sensory awareness and Se. And yes that again works for me. How about you?


Like I said, my memory may not be serving me well... I thought it was an Se-Si difference... Also, I may have been conflating stuff I read elsewhere. What you say kind of makes sense. I'll need to go back and reread stuff I read then.


----------



## ferroequinologist

myst91 said:


> Strange reading this description. It's almost like you try to use extra mental activity to figure out what to do instead of simply seeing things and reacting naturally. I guess it's hard for me to imagine that because I just do the latter - simply see and react without thinking. All the variables you are talking about here are automatically handled by simply seeing things in the situation all as one together. That in MBTI is supposedly strong Se and yes I'm STP in MBTI. I will add though, I once had a moment where it was weird to realise all this works automatically for me by just seeing and not having to think and consider anything, not knowing where this comes from beyond just seeing!  But yeah otherwise completely natural for me.


I know what you are talking about here. Since I was a teen, I've been a place hitter in softball. I step up to the plate, watch how the fielders shift when they see I'm a lefty, notice where they left the holes, where other batters are on the field, and decide where to put the ball--I seldom miss. I also usually get my desired result in advanced bases/runners brought home. I don't knock the ball out of the park--can't really do that, but I usually accomplish my desired ends, and I also don't meditate on what I want to do. It's a glance and size up, and do thing. The idea of trying to think all that through, including where to stand, how fast and when to swing? If I tried, I know I would strike out.


----------



## TruthDismantled

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I can definitely relate to this.
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's more a sign of weak Si than anything.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I seem to suck at both. Probably better at fine motor skills if I had to pick one. 2D Si and 1D Se for me, so in this case the theory holds. I've never been good at sports- I've dabbled in several hoping to find one I was halfway decent at but never happened. When I was young, I made the mistake of believing that somehow if I practiced more, it would make me better but it didn't play out that way for me. Part of it was even though I practiced, I did not practice *smart*. For instance, I just wanted to play the game and not bother with the boring drills. But the boring drills make up the fundamental component of the game- apparently by doing the drills, your body gets prepared for the real thing when it happens in the game. Again, that never worked for me.
> 
> Also I have trouble with precision and timing in sports and how much force to use (Se thing- force). For example when playing softball- trying to time my swing just right, position myself at just the right angle so I'm in position to hit the ball and on the rare occasion when I do hit it, try to control the direction it goes. Or how much force to use when throwing a ball. For some people these things are second nature. Certainly not for me.


Well if sporting ability was heavily influenced by functions I'd be an Se dom haha, but here I am contemplating Se polr.

Also 2 of my closest friends are xNxPs and they take to sports and athletics quite naturally. Though I seem to often end up with friends who are good at sport sooo not sure how useful it is to mention that.


----------



## To_august

myst91 said:


> OK, I was originally interpreting you as if you were talking about just the unhealthy aspects of the attention on physical bodily stuff. Because, Si egos in socionics don't have an unhealthy focus on it, it works well for them, they just like to pay attention, is all. People low in Si would then have an actually unhealthy focus on it, according to the socionics theory.
> 
> But what you are saying is actually just that with Jung, high Si doesn't even pay too much attention to internal physical sensations. That actually would kind of make sense, if we assumed high Si would just have a refined notion of comfort that includes less directly tangible/physical aspects of it. Well in Socionics, the Si definition is more physical than that, Si egos included. And the Jungian definition on Si is of course more complex than just having "comfort".


Yeah, probably just a little miscommunication. I wasn't intended to say that Si egos have unhealthy focus on body. It's just Socionics behavioural descriptions seem too 'physical' in regards to this element. Being an abstraction of reality, Si is much greater and more subtle than that.



> I guess your attention just doesn't naturally go towards the more subtle aspects in theories that actually make a lot of difference... Mine does so yeah we see this differently.
> 
> Basically, there is a lot of area between "completely identical" and "completely different". If you don't see that or not interested in seeing it, I can't explain it to you.


I understand differences just fine. It's just I'm more interested in sources of those theories and roots of behavior rather than behaviour itself. And, yes, to a degree my mind seeks to find underlying patterns for all this typology stuff and unify it. Not that I succeeded in this task so far, lol. But anyways, behaviour =/= cognition and this way it's easier to understand the theories themselves, where they are coming from, why differences even exist and, in general, why they are as they are.



> I think that explanation to account for the differences is way too oversimplified. Also no proof that this is actually the case. Not that it isn't highly unlikely anyway.


*Shrugs* I've seen her being typed as ILE, so that makes sense as possible explanation regarding Si particularly.


----------



## myst91

TruthDismantled said:


> Well if sporting ability was heavily influenced by functions I'd be an Se dom haha, but here I am contemplating Se polr.


So you are naturally good at all kinds of sports? Interesting




To_august said:


> Yeah, probably just a little miscommunication. I wasn't intended to say that Si egos have unhealthy focus on body. It's just Socionics behavioural descriptions seem too 'physical' in regards to this element. Being an abstraction of reality, Si is much greater and more subtle than that.


Well, yeah, but it's not just the behavioural descriptions that seem too physical for Si compared to Jung. Though I can't say Jung is more right on this, after all you could argue that S in either orientation is supposed to be pretty physical




> I understand differences just fine. It's just I'm more interested in sources of those theories and roots of behavior rather than behaviour itself. And, yes, to a degree my mind seeks to find underlying patterns for all this typology stuff and unify it. Not that I succeeded in this task so far, lol. But anyways, behaviour =/= cognition and this way it's easier to understand the theories themselves, where they are coming from, why differences even exist and, in general, why they are as they are.


I do see some underlying patterns but they are not sufficient to unify the theories. I'm also not just looking at it on the behavioural surface. And no, even when ignoring the behavioural descriptions, differences will still remain between the systems. One main issue I find with the approach in these typologies is that they try to pull too many features/properties together into definitions without providing the proper logical connections. 




> I've seen her being typed as ILE, so that makes sense as possible explanation regarding Si particularly.


They've had enough time to fix Si. So I still find it as an unlikely explanation. Much more likely that it's simply talking about something else other than Jungian Si.


----------



## The Exception

myst91 said:


> How do you see yourself in both? Some details?


I work in a library and there are certain rules that need to be enforced like no talking loudly on the cell phone, no food, need to show ID to look up account information, etc. Someone is not following the policy and it’s up to me to ‘make’ them change their behavior to something more appropriate. Sometimes I won’t bother confronting them even though I know their behavior is over the line, not confronting them unless it starts really getting out of hand. I hope someone just does it for me. I suppose this would be more –Se. Other times I’ll be overly confrontational and too hard on them. That doesn’t end up so well- people angry at me. That’s +Se. I will also do both stonewalling and overly confrontational behavior when cornered. I think it depends on how confident I am that I’m right and how confident I am that I can handle any potential backlash that happens if I try to defend myself. The more confident, the more likely I am to confront +Se. Less confident, more likely to stonewall, -Se. 

Anyway, when confronting others, to try to change their behavior, it rarely goes well. People get overly defensive or upset at me that I’m confronting them. They feel like they’re being controlled which they don’t like (hey, I don’t like it either!). Sometimes they get all emotional when I won’t make an exception for them. Like they have a library account but have no library card or ID with them but want me to look up their PIN number so they can sign onto the computer and I refuse to give it to them. I have a hard time dealing with the emotional backlash that results and the customers’ relentless attempts to just give in to them. I’m not proud of it but there have been times where I have given in where I shouldn’t just to shut them up and leave me alone so I can go back to my own business, which is more interesting to me than making sure rules are enforced. I wonder if difficulty dealing with the emotional backlash, suggests LII rather than EII, since LII has weak 1D Fe. 





myst91 said:


> Strange reading this description. It's almost like you try to use extra mental activity to figure out what to do instead of simply seeing things and reacting naturally. I guess it's hard for me to imagine that because I just do the latter - simply see and react without thinking. All the variables you are talking about here are automatically handled by simply seeing things in the situation all as one together. That in MBTI is supposedly strong Se and yes I'm STP in MBTI. I will add though, I once had a moment where it was weird to realise all this works automatically for me by just seeing and not having to think and consider anything, not knowing where this comes from beyond just seeing!  But yeah otherwise completely natural for me.


I don't have faith that just 'getting the feel' of something and letting the body take over the brain will work. I hate it when people say 'just get the feel of it.' It's not precise enough, how do you know you're doing it right. My natural processing involves taking things apart, trying to analyze it.

The only remotely athletic thing I've ever excelled at is walking/running. With practice, I managed to get my body to a respectful level of endurance and speed. But that's just doing the same thing repeatedly. There aren't a gazillion variables to constantly keep track of how they're changing like they're are in most team sports. I wonder if this is related in anyway to static/dynamic dichotomy. I'm far more static than dynamic. Also, walking/running, it's very easy to track progress and see results from your efforts.


----------



## myst91

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> I work in a library and there are certain rules that need to be enforced like no talking loudly on the cell phone, no food, need to show ID to look up account information, etc. Someone is not following the policy and it’s up to me to ‘make’ them change their behavior to something more appropriate. Sometimes I won’t bother confronting them even though I know their behavior is over the line, not confronting them unless it starts really getting out of hand. I hope someone just does it for me. I suppose this would be more –Se. Other times I’ll be overly confrontational and too hard on them. That doesn’t end up so well- people angry at me. That’s +Se. I will also do both stonewalling and overly confrontational behavior when cornered. I think it depends on how confident I am that I’m right and how confident I am that I can handle any potential backlash that happens if I try to defend myself. The more confident, the more likely I am to confront +Se. Less confident, more likely to stonewall, -Se.
> 
> Anyway, when confronting others, to try to change their behavior, it rarely goes well. People get overly defensive or upset at me that I’m confronting them. They feel like they’re being controlled which they don’t like (hey, I don’t like it either!). Sometimes they get all emotional when I won’t make an exception for them. Like they have a library account but have no library card or ID with them but want me to look up their PIN number so they can sign onto the computer and I refuse to give it to them. I have a hard time dealing with the emotional backlash that results and the customers’ relentless attempts to just give in to them. I’m not proud of it but there have been times where I have given in where I shouldn’t just to shut them up and leave me alone so I can go back to my own business, which is more interesting to me than making sure rules are enforced. I wonder if difficulty dealing with the emotional backlash, suggests LII rather than EII, since LII has weak 1D Fe.


I don't know, Alphas certainly don't like negative emotions much and I've heard another likely LII (self-typed as LII anyway) complain about the same thing but I don't know about how EII handles that. 

As for you talking about how it's sometimes more likely for you to confront etc whenever, that to me sounds -Se of LII. What do you see as +Se about it?




> I don't have faith that just 'getting the feel' of something and letting the body take over the brain will work. I hate it when people say 'just get the feel of it.' It's not precise enough, how do you know you're doing it right. My natural processing involves taking things apart, trying to analyze it.


I'm sorry lol but that sounded totally Ti.




> The only remotely athletic thing I've ever excelled at is walking/running. With practice, I managed to get my body to a respectful level of endurance and speed. But that's just doing the same thing repeatedly. There aren't a gazillion variables to constantly keep track of how they're changing like they're are in most team sports. I wonder if this is related in anyway to static/dynamic dichotomy. I'm far more static than dynamic. Also, walking/running, it's very easy to track progress and see results from your efforts.


Hey what are your running PRs? Just curious 

Btw, sure, it's easy to track progress with running but that's true of other sports as well. Uh I'm probably talking about that from my own perspective. Hmm and I'm Static type too and I don't have a problem with keeping track of variables. I just do it in a Static fashion.

Seeing results from your efforts, well it's not as simple as simply putting in the effort without any strategy. I could talk a lot about training theory here but that'd be entirely off topic lol, if you are interested by any little chance, just let me know in a PM


----------



## The Exception

myst91 said:


> I don't know, Alphas certainly don't like negative emotions much and I've heard another likely LII (self-typed as LII anyway) complain about the same thing but I don't know about how EII handles that.
> 
> As for you talking about how it's sometimes more likely for you to confront etc whenever, that to me sounds -Se of LII. What do you see as +Se about it?


Part of my dislike for negative emotions stems from feeling like I'm obligated to do something about them- to try to comfort them, cheer them up, etc. and not being sure how to go about doing that in the best way. When I do try, I'm not always successful at it. Sometimes I just make it worse no matter how good of intentions I have.

I may not be understanding +/-Se properly. My understanding is +Se is more confrontational while -Se is more about avoiding confrontation, or is there more to it than that?



myst91 said:


> I'm sorry lol but that sounded totally Ti.


Yeah, it did. :laughing:




myst91 said:


> Hey what are your running PRs? Just curious
> 
> Btw, sure, it's easy to track progress with running but that's true of other sports as well. Uh I'm probably talking about that from my own perspective. Hmm and I'm Static type too and I don't have a problem with keeping track of variables. I just do it in a Static fashion.
> 
> Seeing results from your efforts, well it's not as simple as simply putting in the effort without any strategy. I could talk a lot about training theory here but that'd be entirely off topic lol, if you are interested by any little chance, just let me know in a PM


What do you mean by running PRs?


----------



## myst91

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Part of my dislike for negative emotions stems from feeling like I'm obligated to do something about them- to try to comfort them, cheer them up, etc. and not being sure how to go about doing that in the best way. When I do try, I'm not always successful at it. Sometimes I just make it worse no matter how good of intentions I have.


That sounds like LII > EII to me.




> I may not be understanding +/-Se properly. My understanding is +Se is more confrontational while -Se is more about avoiding confrontation, or is there more to it than that?


No, no. Which sources did you read?




> What do you mean by running PRs?


Best time for each race distance you've run.


----------



## The Exception

myst91 said:


> That sounds like LII > EII to me.


I thought so too. 





myst91 said:


> No, no. Which sources did you read?


Just the blurb in this thread about +Se / -Se and making my own misguided interpretation of it.





myst91 said:


> Best time for a distance you've run. (Either in a race or time trial on your own .. if you do any of that. I assumed so because you said you got decent at it  )


I could run 3-5 miles in a stretch without stopping. To some runners, that sounds like nothing but for someone who used to be out of breath after running one block, that is an accomplishment. I don't run regularly anymore, I got bored with the routine and never got into the habit. I'm back to being out-of-shape, having to stop to catch my breath after going a short distance.


----------



## myst91

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Just the blurb in this thread about +Se / -Se and making my own misguided interpretation of it.


Oh well some sources quickly: 
Socionics - the16types.info - Signs of Functions (+/-)
Plus/Minus by Victor "El Diablo" Gulenko




> I could run 3-5 miles in a stretch without stopping. To some runners, that sounds like nothing but for someone who used to be out of breath after running one block, that is an accomplishment. I don't run regularly anymore, I got bored with the routine and never got into the habit. I'm back to being out-of-shape, having to stop to catch my breath after going a short distance.


OK I see  Too bad really though that you stopped.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

The description is actually fairly accurate, but I think it manifests itself differently among subtypes.


----------



## myst91

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> The description is actually fairly accurate, but I think it manifests itself differently among subtypes.


how does it for you?


----------



## vintage stardust

Can anyone tell me what happens when someone tries using their PoLR too often. Like what if an EII or LII was pushed into using Se? Like having a job that orders other people around etc.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

myst91 said:


> how does it for you?


I'm usually ignorant of hierarchies, do not act according to them to a greater degree than most people, and am sensitive to people "forcing" me to do things. It might be kind of childish, really. I'm also really bad at guessing how much force (physical or figuratively) something will take. I do, however, have a lot willpower and endurance myself, internally. I can also exert my will on others (in non-coercive ways), but it's best left to other people. 

I guess you could say Se shows up as unorthodox or maybe even aggressive behavior, for me. I'm a Creative subtype.

I knew a guy who is an LII (Normalizing subtype), and for him, he just avoided confrontation and telling people what to do (instead using reason and making arguments to convince, but stopping there, as the description said). He didn't avoid confrontation in a nervous way, he just kind of naturally never went that path. 


Did any of that make sense? Too vague?


EDIT - also, I've had problems with short-term motivation all my life


----------



## Schweeeeks

lavendersparrow said:


> Can anyone tell me what happens when someone tries using their PoLR too often. Like what if an EII or LII was pushed into using Se? Like having a job that orders other people around etc.


Maybe overall anxiety. They might eventually develop "shortcuts" to use Se that involve other IMEs. Less draining that way.
Eventually after a looooooot of work, they can find ways to use PoLR that "work in their day to day life just fine", but may not be able to abstractly use that function. It's for practical use only, not really much else.


----------



## AmandaLee

Schweeeeks said:


> Maybe overall anxiety. They might eventually develop "shortcuts" to use Se that involve other IMEs. Less draining that way.
> Eventually after a looooooot of work, they can find ways to use PoLR that "work in their day to day life just fine", but may not be able to abstractly use that function. It's for practical use only, not really much else.


Even for a 1D function, it's possible to accumulate plenty of personal experience and thus appear more competent.


----------



## Schweeeeks

AmandaLee said:


> Even for a 1D function, it's possible to accumulate plenty of personal experience and thus appear more competent.


I agree. But competency on a practical level. They can use it day-to-day just fine, maybe even complimented on it. But it's hard for them to think abstractly using that function.
Not sure how to give examples on all of them. 
For Te, I know how to be "efficient" (save money by checking if I actually NEED this item vs just want it), but I can't do something like...add up statistics on armor in MMOs and tell you how to be efficient there. I avoid that thought process for the most part, because it's too draining. I'd rather follow a few rules of thumb (Ti) and bypass the whole situation entirely.
It's a two-step process in my head compared to Te egos. I did a lot to learn Te tricks of the trade, but I'll never have the natural potential that a Te person has in this area.


----------



## Recede

I don't think Se PoLR means finding it hard to assert yourself or give orders to people. I mean, all that really takes is the ability to speak, right? 

I can't say much about Se PoLR for myself other than that I just don't really do Se. I can confront people, assert myself, etc. but I do so only with my words and I'm not inclined to raise my voice or pressure people in the way that others might. People I interact with, even if they don't know me very well, tend to get a certain impression of me and some have told me they can't see me getting angry and yelling at someone.


----------



## The Exception

Schweeeeks said:


> Maybe overall anxiety. They might eventually develop "shortcuts" to use Se that involve other IMEs. Less draining that way.
> Eventually after a looooooot of work, they can find ways to use PoLR that "work in their day to day life just fine", but may not be able to abstractly use that function. It's for practical use only, not really much else.


Oooooh, please tell me more about these shortcuts. :happy:


----------



## Schweeeeks

Fractals and Pterodactyls said:


> Oooooh, please tell me more about these shortcuts. :happy:


Let's see...I have 1D Se also. It's hard for me to assert myself on others. I make suggestions as well. Even in manager positions, it's difficult for me to command. 
This is actually from a "prevent bullying" site, but it's helpful in this situation too. Bolding what I have trouble with in particular and steps that I take to prevent that:


> The difference between being passive, aggressive, and assertive can be learned at a young age — in fact, as soon as children can speak and understand language fairly well. In Kidpower workshops, we show children the difference with puppets, stories, and role-plays — and then coach them to try out different attitudes themselves.
> 
> When we act passively, the message that we communicate to others is, “What I want is not that important, and no one cares anyway, so I might as well give up.” Our listeners are likely to agree with us — that our message must not be that important in the midst of so many other things competing much more persuasively for their attention. People will often fail to notice our message, will ignore it, or will forget it.
> 
> Examples of Passive Behavior
> *A soft, unsure voice*
> A hopeless expression
> Limp or frozen posture and gestures
> Eyes that are looking down or to the side so that there is no eye contact
> *An apologetic or whiny tone of voice*
> *A closed down body that doesn’t take up too much space*
> *Speaking from a bit too far away to be noticed*
> Waiting and wishing that someone would just know what you want
> Sighing or *shrugging*
> *Hesitant, unclear language*


Assertive Advocacy: Skills Help Prevent Violence and Increase Personal Safety | Kidpower Teenpower Fullpower International

1) I tend to be indecisive and overly accommodating. I don't think it's a bad trait, but the wrong person will find it "vulnerable". So when I talk to someone new, I make sure I say "Let me get back to you" instead of pulling my wishy-washy in front of them. I'll also talk with a neutral tone instead of too many intonations...sounds more firm that way. 
Also try to keep as a rule of thumb to say "sorry" maybe 1/2 the time that I think it's necessary. So let's take the above situation...there's a good chance I will say "Let me get back to you. Sorry! I dunno why I'm like this...it's just....lol."
And that automatically makes me vulnerable again. 

Oh in general, saying "Let me get back to you" has been really helpful in getting closer to saying "no". I'm too quick to help others and go out of my way. If I wait to get back to them, usually the moment has passed where I am eager to do whatever it was and then I am more likely to say no. My lack of Se actually helps me shortcut and use Se better. :tongue:

2) I had to learn a firm handshake. Once I understood what the correct "squeeze" amount was, I always squeezed without hesitation. Limp handshakes also come off passive, which for me, I have to try extra hard to avoid giving that impression.

3) Taking up space is much harder. Not sure how to do that. When I have to take up more space, I try to be more languid (automatically looks less stiff). Maybe uncross my legs or try to prop my foot up on something. If I can't take up space with my person, I'll have a few inanimate objects that I will put around me. Kind of the illusion of looking bigger?
Another way of "taking up space" is to reach out to people. If I walk up to someone and start a conversation, they become part of my space too. 

4) Since I'm bad at saying things to people point blank, I'll use bullet points and outlines. That way when I walk up to the person (say they are my employee), I can give them the exact list of what needs to be done and say "Here's the checklist. Please let me know if you have any questions." And then depart. (using same rules as before, fairly even speech, neutral but of course you're allowed to smile, no apologizing for delegation)
Having to rehearse the list to them by memory or improvise leads to problems. I sound uncertain, very prone to questioning as I continue and in general just don't seem to be taken as seriously as other people. Or go overboard and look like completely stiff and unapproachable.

Actually giving presentations and other situations where you "command", but don't banter is a blessing in disguise. It took awhile to master the confidence while public speaking. Now I can always assert myself in a meeting or some place where I have the floor and it compensates for how weak I am when "asserting during a conversation" with others. 

5) Se can also be related to taking action. I find this incredibly difficult to do. One of the things I'll strive for is to create a sense of flow where tasks combine with other easier tasks.
For example, I try to do one 10 min task (like chore or part of hw) when I'm on my way out of the house. Because it's just "10 min" and my adrenaline is already pumping, because I need to leave soon.
I might do a short workout to get my blood moving and then quickly finish a small chunk of project. If I'm lucky, I'll "catch the flow" and be able to work longer, get everything else done.
Whenever I do get into the mood, taking full advantage of it, even if it means losing sleep. I'll catch up my lack of sleep later. Because of this, I don't schedule my day tightly. I need a large buffer to make up for the holes in my "action-taking" abilities.
Btw if you can remember how it feels to be in that "action-taking" state of mind, that might help too. Sometimes I'll pretend I'm in that old situation again, see if I can get a spark going.

6) Research comes easy to me. Same with planning/visualization. So if there's something I want to do, I'll make all the necessary plans/groundwork/resources for it and set it aside. It's comforting to know that when I _do_ feel bold, I can go ahead and get it done. No mental fretting necessary.

7) Clothing makes an impact. If I dress to look powerful, I will be more likely to be perceived as such...regardless of how presence I really have.

8) Accepting that I may lose the battle when it comes to asserting myself and gaining power, but that I can win the war if I play my cards correctly. 
I've had people bully me before. One person made my life miserable for an entire semester. I couldn't really defend myself, but what I could do was appear as impervious as possible. I ignored the comments, treated her civilly when I saw her (but made no effort to say hi or reach out) and continued on being _exactly_ who I was. At the end of the semester, she came to me asking for questions on the class or whatever. Of course I politely pushed her away and didn't really answer much. Her friends that were initially talking bad about me started following suit and trying to get to know me too. I was suspicious, but civil...treated them the same way I treated her. 

It sucks that it took me 6 weeks to gain the advantage I was looking for, but that's just the way it is sometimes. Use your strengths to cover your weaknesses.


----------



## myst91

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> I'm usually ignorant of hierarchies, do not act according to them to a greater degree than most people, and am sensitive to people "forcing" me to do things. It might be kind of childish, really. I'm also really bad at guessing how much force (physical or figuratively) something will take. I do, however, have a lot willpower and endurance myself, internally. I can also exert my will on others (in non-coercive ways), but it's best left to other people.
> 
> I guess you could say Se shows up as unorthodox or maybe even aggressive behavior, for me. I'm a Creative subtype.
> 
> I knew a guy who is an LII (Normalizing subtype), and for him, he just avoided confrontation and telling people what to do (instead using reason and making arguments to convince, but stopping there, as the description said). He didn't avoid confrontation in a nervous way, he just kind of naturally never went that path.
> 
> 
> Did any of that make sense? Too vague?
> 
> 
> EDIT - also, I've had problems with short-term motivation all my life


What do you mean by short-term motivation problems?


----------



## myst91

Silveresque said:


> I don't think Se PoLR means finding it hard to assert yourself or give orders to people. I mean, all that really takes is the ability to speak, right?


No you need the motivation too. It's not just about the ability to open your mouth and utter words.




> I can't say much about Se PoLR for myself other than that I just don't really do Se. I can confront people, assert myself, etc. but I do so only with my words and I'm not inclined to raise my voice or pressure people in the way that others might. People I interact with, even if they don't know me very well, tend to get a certain impression of me and some have told me they can't see me getting angry and yelling at someone.


So what do you do if you using words only doesn't give you the desired result?


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

myst91 said:


> What do you mean by short-term motivation problems?


"Hmm, I should probably study." 

"Nah, let's check PerC."

Except to a bit of a greater degree than most I think, while still retaining the long-term vision and goals.


----------



## myst91

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> "Hmm, I should probably study."
> 
> "Nah, let's check PerC."
> 
> Except to a bit of a greater degree than most I think, while still retaining the long-term vision and goals.


haha hm I'm not sure how much that's type related. Depends on the context, I guess


----------



## Recede

myst91 said:


> No you need the motivation too. It's not just about the ability to open your mouth and utter words.


Motivation can be external, it doesn't have to come from functions. For example, if someone is in a situation where there job requires them to give orders, I don't think Se PoLR is going to stop them from doing it. Doesn't mean they'll be forceful about it necessarily, but I have yet to see a situation in real life where force was required.



> So what do you do if you using words only doesn't give you the desired result?


I can reason with the person, tell them the consequences of not doing something. But if they still don't want to do it, then probably nothing is going to change that person's mind.


----------



## myst91

Silveresque said:


> Motivation can be external, it doesn't have to come from functions. For example, if someone is in a situation where there job requires them to give orders, I don't think Se PoLR is going to stop them from doing it. Doesn't mean they'll be forceful about it necessarily, but I have yet to see a situation in real life where force was required.


Well apparently some Se PoLR people here said it's been really hard for them to give orders even when the job required it. Though yes for some others it works a bit better.




> I can reason with the person, tell them the consequences of not doing something. But if they still don't want to do it, then probably nothing is going to change that person's mind.


And we're back to motivation...


----------

