# Does anyone has a good description of SEE- Dominant subtype?



## Raiza1990 (Mar 30, 2017)

And tips on how to recognize them? and ways in which they differ from other SEE subtypes?


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Hope these help 


https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/SEE-ESFp/

https://www.sociotype.com/socionics/types/SEE-ESFp/subtypes/

https://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/40-ESFp-description-(Filatova)

Sensory-Ethical Extratim - ESFp (The Ambassador)

https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/2ebmi8/socionicsmbti_descriptions_by_functions_esfp/


----------



## Raiza1990 (Mar 30, 2017)

Not really, sorry. These are general descriptions of esfps, i am looking for something that describes especially the dominant subtype of esfp.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Raiza1990 said:


> Not really, sorry. These are general descriptions of esfps, i am looking for something that describes especially the dominant subtype of esfp.


What do you particularly want to know? There's a slim chance, that I'm one, if by dominant subtype you meant SEE-Se subtype.


----------



## Engelsstaub (Apr 8, 2016)

ILI, female, so let me guess what she wants. She'd like any knowledge that lets you spot a SEE dual. :kitteh:


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Raiza1990 said:


> Not really, sorry. These are general descriptions of esfps, i am looking for something that describes especially the dominant subtype of esfp.


They are like your average ESFp, not much of a difference. 

The way to tell Dominant subtype is that they speak similar to a blustering hurricane. There isn't any beating around the bush with them. They are often too straightforward and they lack some finesse in expression that Harmonizing and Creative subtypes have. Always ready to start something, motivate others to take action, or organize some event or a trip, as Dominant subtypes typically do. Talkative and initiating. Definitely not the quiet or lazy sit-at-home type. If you're Normalizing subtype they will motivate you and push you into some direction pretty quickly. 

Here is an example of SEE-D - video. Even if you don't know the language it's rather easy to hear that she's Dominant subtype by the way that she speaks, which is confidently pressing on and on in the conversation, not leaving much room for the other guy to speak.

Basically look for people who initiate things and take initiative. That's the easiest way to spot the Dominant subtype.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

> They are like your average ESFp, not much of a difference.



Actually, I disagree with that. I think their are some differences between how the two systems describe ESFP. I suppose you just have to read the socionics description's to see what I mean.


----------



## Sylas (Jul 23, 2016)

Hicks said:


> Actually, I disagree with that. I think their are some differences between how the two systems describe ESFP. I suppose you just have to read the socionics description's to see what I mean.


How is the D SEE described, then?


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

Sylas said:


> How is the D SEE described, then?



Socionics breaks down the functions scientifically and explains what the implications of having the functions are.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Hicks said:


> Socionics breaks down the functions scientifically


This didn't happen.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> This didn't happen.


lol, maybe the word scientifically is an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. It explains what the implications of having the functions in the order for each specific type is.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Hicks said:


> lol, maybe the word scientifically is an exaggeration, but you know what I mean. It explains what the implications of having the functions in the order for each specific type is.


That one word was pretty important. I know, that they claim, that it's science, but the only science they have there is that some things are taken from sociology or something like that. While what you say is also important, but if socionics was a real science I would take it 2 times more seriously. But as it is now, we can't even prove or disprove that MBTI is right and that partially leads to proving Jung's functions and that means, that big part of socionics can't be proven too.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

The red spirit said:


> That one word was pretty important. I know, that they claim, that it's science, but the only science they have there is that some things are taken from sociology or something like that. While what you say is also important, but if socionics was a real science I would take it 2 times more seriously. But as it is now, we can't even prove or disprove that MBTI is right and that partially leads to proving Jung's functions and that means, that big part of socionics can't be proven too.



You're an ISTJ btw


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Hicks said:


> You're an ISTJ btw


Why? ...I kinda can guess why (obviously this one encounter), but could you explain it further?

Honestly I had most success with typing myself as ESxP, but even then I hit the limits of what this typology can do. Also it kinda sucks to be entirely defined.


----------

