# Songs from Se-Dominent People



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

arkigos said:


> I think Passion Pit guy is probably ISFP, but a good example anyway.


Honestly, I can't tell the types of musicians from their music. I just went with what seemed to be Se to me. roud:

How can you tell if it's dominant or not? Besides the obvious introverted/extraverted kinds of songs.. because "Take a Walk" sounds pretty Se-dom to me at first glance.. or maybe it was just the video itself.


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

I don't know much about Supergrass, but I've always thought Alright had Se type lyrics. If I were on PC now I'd be posting that video as a suggestion.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)




----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

Muse is heavy on the Rhythm Section. Just Bass and Drums.


----------



## RachelAn (Jun 26, 2011)

Matthias Tarnath - ESTP


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)




----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

monemi said:


>


I was expecting something light-hearted but I actually found quite a lot of meaning in the video. Or maybe it's my weird Ni.


I don't really know the types of most of the musicians I listen to so I'm just going to share some songs that I think are Se (and musicians/bands that likely have a Se preference).


* *




















Oh! I do know of Amanda Palmer, ESTP.






Not the most Se song of hers but I think it represents her well.

Hmm Lady Gaga might be an ESFP.




Btw, no one mentioned Madonna so far. Was she too obvious?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

@Pancreatic Pandora - Seemed pretty straight forward to me. YOLO. They give all the reasons for it, including the bus. 

Madonna has been pointed out a lot. She strikes me less as a musician so much as a performance artist.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

monemi said:


> @_Pancreatic Pandora_ - Seemed pretty straight forward to me. YOLO. They give all the reasons for it, including the bus.


It is rather straight forward. I don't want to go on the meaning of the video because I think I might get lost in my own thoughts and I'll be battling to get the right words to express what I think but I believe it was the bus that gave the whole thing a dark tone. That and the policemen. They were a bit strong and overall made the video very serious for me. Btw did you notice how the girl left no mark when she was run over? I mean, she could have been pushed forward due to the impact but I like to think it represents how little impact on the world we can make in our lives. We can live fast, give it all we've got, try to get the most out of life and it all dissappears so easily. The only mark we left in the world was in those cameras that took pictures of our privates/the people/police that were present. They are a mark that will make people think "How am I living my life?" and they might become the next streaking nudist or whatever. I don't know how that relates back to the song since I wasn't paying attention to the lyrics but there's probably some theme regarding time, learning and life that unites it all. Oh geez, I did start talking about the meaning of the video didn't I? lol Crap, I sound old.



> Madonna has been pointed out a lot. She strikes me less as a musician so much as a performance artist.


True. I forget this is a topic about songs.


----------



## zazara (Nov 28, 2013)

How has this not been mentioned yet?


----------



## pianodog (Jan 25, 2013)

Uh this is songs right? How about music meaning, Se dominants also would be able to appreciate intricate and complex music with interesting details. 

This is a song I did and I think it would very much appeal to an Se dominant.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

Okay, so, I've become extremely sure that John Lennon was an ESFP. *braces for the yelling*.

Hear me out: I think most of us can agree that he uses Fi (I constantly hear him typed as an INFP), so I'm going to concentrate on the Se:

He had an effortless confidence and a no-nonsense approach to life. He could be very laid-back when he wanted to, but he always had this underlying strength and aggression, even when he wasn't speaking. A physical presence. He spoke in declarative statements and always seemed satisfied with them, no matter how absurd. _The Beatles were "bigger than Jesus."_ He naturally changed with the times without ever seeming out of place or uncomfortable (*cough*Paul*cough*). 

As for his music, his songs often present a series of scenes, like you're moving through the world:

* *











*&*

* *











*&*

* *











His way of trolling fans looking for deep "meanings" was to present them with a bunch of unconnected "objects" and watch them invent explanations:

* *











In particular this song, which includes the lyric "and here's another clue for you all."

* *











I think all that speaks to inferior Ni and his amusement at people making up conspiracy theories about how Paul was dead, etc.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

And in case anybody needs Fi proof, here you go:


* *












And of course:

* *












And if anyone tells me that song is intuiting because it's about imagining I will simply respond with: :angry: :angry: :angry:


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> His way of trolling fans looking for deep "meanings" was to present them with a bunch of unconnected "objects" and watch them invent explanations:
> 
> In particular this song, which includes the lyric "and here's another clue for you all."
> 
> I think all that speaks to inferior Ni and his amusement at people making up conspiracy theories about how Paul was dead, etc.


I actually think that might speak of an unvalued Ni rather than a weak one. Se-doms often appreciate finding meaning in art or anything, even if they don't find it themselves (but that also means they will try to make symbolic work and/or use some abstractions if they can). In fact, those with intuition in their middle functions may appear more dismissive of that kind of work and consider it of less importance. I'm not exactly sure how it works for Ne types though. In any case, I can't argue for or against ESFP since I've never cared much for Lennon.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

randomshoes said:


> And in case anybody needs Fi proof, here you go:
> 
> *snip*
> 
> And if anyone tells me that song is intuiting because it's about imagining I will simply respond with: :angry: :angry: :angry:


I've always thought John Lennon was a jerk. He was abusive to the women in his life and admitted to hitting them. He was arrogant on camera. Anyway, I was happy to dump him off on INFP's without critical analysis. They want him... they can have him. You might be right. I like to think of ESFP's as nicer than that.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Love the drummer's grin. "I know where your sunshine's gone. I got her stashed between my sheets."


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> Okay, so, I've become extremely sure that John Lennon was an ESFP. *braces for the yelling*.
> 
> Hear me out: I think most of us can agree that he uses Fi (I constantly hear him typed as an INFP), so I'm going to concentrate on the Se:
> 
> ...


I've argued for Lennon being an ENTP in the guess the type threads. Based on what I know of him, and being a huge Beatle fan. I'm not gonna reiterate this argument, since I'm not sure if I'd argue it as well as I did the first time.

His songs were a lot more intuitive than his counterpart, Paul. I think they might have been conflicting-- Paul an xSFP, and Lennon an ENTP? It's possible.

I think Paul being some kinda J-type isn't out of the realm of possibility either. ENFJ even.

But, I see Paul as being far, far more Se and Ni than Lennon, definitely.

A lot of what Paul's written is about directly what he observes, and everyday scenarios based upon kind of shallow, but entertaining musings. It's also pretty important to note that Paul was the only one of the fab who could read music. Lennon did it by ear, something I think that intuitives have a tendency towards, plus Si being the primary sensing aspect.

As a contrast to Paul's everyday antics, light and silly songs, Lennon's tend to be darker, with more depth, and more meanings, connecting with patterns. Sometimes he's mocked what people have read into his lyrics, such as with his nonsensical song, (Pure Ne) 'I am the Walrus', because he thought that there is no way to know what he was thinking when writing his songs, and they're just interpreting it in their own way. That's probably his Ti making fun of Te, in the way ENTPs love to.

But, yeah, for a more extensive argument, check out my post in the Beatles 'Guess the type' thread. :kitteh:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I've argued for Lennon being an ENTP in the guess the type threads. Based on what I know of him, and being a huge Beatle fan. I'm not gonna reiterate this argument, since I'm not sure if I'd argue it as well as I did the first time.
> 
> His songs were a lot more intuitive than his counterpart, Paul. I think they might have been conflicting-- Paul an xSFP, and Lennon an ENTP? It's possible.
> 
> ...


Earnest Hemingway claimed there wasn't any meaning behind his stories. He was also an alcoholic and a liar. Se doesn't mean lacking depth.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

monemi said:


> Earnest Hemingway claimed there wasn't any meaning behind his stories. He was also an alcoholic and a liar. Se doesn't mean lacking depth.


Sahri, I didn't mean depth in _general._ I meant abstract, unseen depth. Though, Se can also be depthfully abstract-- Especially and probably moreso than Ne-Si. But, not in usually in a wholesome manner, rather in a vague way to get their point across to people who think this way. Probably, also to mock this way of thinking, occasionally. :kitteh: 

It's unusual to see Se-Ni being in-depth in the manner which I imply-- Ideas, patterns, and symbolism connecting to overarching themes that go on into endless possibilities, but when it is, it's an entirely rewarding encounter, when done skillfully. Which, of course, it can be quite skillful, when in practice, yes? But, it will still have a different flavour than Ne.

Regardless-- I see Lennon as an Ne type.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Sahri, I didn't mean depth in _general._ I meant abstract, unseen depth. Though, Se can also be depthfully abstract-- Especially and probably moreso than Ne-Si. But, not in usually in a wholesome manner, rather in a vague way to get their point across to people who think this way. Probably, also to mock this way of thinking, occasionally. :kitteh:
> 
> It's unusual to see Se-Ni being in-depth in the manner which I imply-- Ideas, patterns, and symbolism connecting to overarching themes that go on into endless possibilities, but when it is, it's an entirely rewarding encounter, when done skillfully. Which, of course, it can be quite skillful, when in practice, yes? But, it will still have a different flavour than Ne.
> 
> Regardless-- I see Lennon as an Ne type.


I disagree. It takes longer to get there, but we are capable of it. Much like Ne-dom's are capable of being excellent athletes. It might not come as quickly to them, but they aren't disabled.

ETA: if we're going to preclude all artists from being Se if they use complex abstract symbolism and meaning, every super hero, athlete and fictional character that shows athletic ability should be precluded from being anything but a sensor.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

monemi said:


> I disagree. It takes longer to get there, but we are capable of it. Much like Ne-dom's are capable of being excellent athletes. It might not come as quickly to them, but they aren't disabled.
> 
> ETA: if we're going to preclude all artists from being Se if they use complex abstract symbolism and meaning, every super hero, athlete and fictional character that shows athletic ability should be precluded from being anything but a sensor.


I thought that's basically what I just said. :tongue:

I agree with you. But, I do not think that Lennon is utilizing Se, or Ni. That's all. In his particular case.

There are tons of Se-dominant artists who employ complex, abstract symbolism and meaning in a remarkably compelling fashion. Take Russell Brand for instance. Amazing. Probably better than me in this way.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I thought that's basically what I just said. :tongue:
> 
> I agree with you. But, I do not think that Lennon is utilizing Se, or Ni. That's all. In his particular case.
> 
> There are tons of Se-dominant artists who employ complex, abstract symbolism and meaning in a remarkably compelling fashion. Take Russell Brand for instance. Amazing. Probably better than me in this way.


Your wording isn't clear. 

Personally, I dislike presenting my art when it is too easily understood. I dislike people having ready access to my thoughts and feelings. Those are my insecurities, hopes, fears and loves being put out there for people. I can understand why many artists are vague and keep as much distance between their personal lives and their work as possible. Extrovert or not, my private life is private.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

monemi said:


> Your wording isn't clear.
> 
> Personally, I dislike presenting my art when it is too easily understood. I dislike people having ready access to my thoughts and feelings. Those are my insecurities, hopes, fears and loves being put out there for people. I can understand why many artists are vague and keep as much distance between their personal lives and their work as possible. Extrovert or not, my private life is private.


Okay.

I can see that being a driving force for a lot of artists. 

As a rule of thumb, I tend towards the idea that everyone has a singular experience separate from my own, with their own complexities, feelings, and thoughts.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> I've argued for Lennon being an ENTP in the guess the type threads. Based on what I know of him, and being a huge Beatle fan. I'm not gonna reiterate this argument, since I'm not sure if I'd argue it as well as I did the first time.
> 
> His songs were a lot more intuitive than his counterpart, Paul. I think they might have been conflicting-- Paul an xSFP, and Lennon an ENTP? It's possible.


That's funny, I remember checking the16types and a socionics typing list and finding the general concensus for Lennon is ENTp, which is starkly different to the one of INFP in MBTI. I really like finding new perspectives regarding people's types, as long as the reasoning is not bull, especially because in some MBTI topics it seems like people may start repeating the general opinion and the case of Lennon in particular seems like a person that could be easily typed as INFP without giving it much thought because he fits the supposed archetype of the type.



> I think Paul being some kinda J-type isn't out of the realm of possibility either. ENFJ even.
> 
> But, I see Paul as being far, far more Se and Ni than Lennon, definitely.


I've seen Paul frequently as ISFP which would make him a judging dom, so I don't think that's an unpopular opinion?



> A lot of what Paul's written is about directly what he observes, and everyday scenarios based upon kind of shallow, but entertaining musings. It's also pretty important to note that Paul was the only one of the fab who could read music. Lennon did it by ear, something I think that intuitives have a tendency towards, plus Si being the primary sensing aspect.


Meh, I could equally see a sensor learning by ear, if it isn't even more likely actually.



> As a contrast to Paul's everyday antics, light and silly songs, Lennon's tend to be darker, with more depth, and more meanings, connecting with patterns. Sometimes he's mocked what people have read into his lyrics, such as with his nonsensical song, (Pure Ne) 'I am the Walrus', because he thought that there is no way to know what he was thinking when writing his songs, and they're just interpreting it in their own way. That's probably his Ti making fun of Te, in the way ENTPs love to.
> 
> But, yeah, for a more extensive argument, check out my post in the Beatles 'Guess the type' thread. :kitteh:


Hmm, I mentioned above that I think that was Ne making fun of Ni, but I'm curious as to why you think it's actually Te (as an ENTP you might have experienced the same).


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

randomshoes said:


> Okay, so, I've become extremely sure that John Lennon was an ESFP. *braces for the yelling*.
> 
> Hear me out: I think most of us can agree that he uses Fi (I constantly hear him typed as an INFP), so I'm going to concentrate on the Se:
> 
> ...


The answer to this is easy. Those are not the world. They are fantasy worlds. The focus is always on agnostically unaligning conceptual perspective.

John Lennon was an Ne-dom. He was also a bit of a troll. I vacillate ENTP and ENFP for him constantly. Amusement at trolling people is much more associated with Ti/Fe than any Perceiving function. xNTPs are among the most epic of trolls. 

So, him being a troll is a fine argument for ENTP. 

He wanted to come across as laid back, but he was anything but... he was actually riven by angst, as shown by his recollections of the past. His recollection of all those times he was 'laid back' show he was anything but. I don't know if that matters for his type, though.

I seem to recall that the point of I am the Walrus was that it had no meaning, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an Ne. I think actually it was a rebellion of his against people reading their own meanings into his music and him showing them that it was all a big trick, or that he didn't intend the meaning they read into it. I can see how you'd interpret this as Se, but again this is something I think is more something I'd expect from a strong N. 

Who better to judge whether an experience is dynamic (or not) than an Se? Whether something is sensorily pleasing or interesting, or not, than an Se?

Then, who better to judge whether meaning is objective (or not) than an Ne? Whether something is conceptually resonate or interesting, or not, than an Ne?

I think Ni is a bit more lenient in this way, focused as they are on their own subjective interpretation. Ni would say 'it has a private meaning', Ne would say, 'it has no objective meaning'. This is PRECISELY how I am. If I made a cool world in a song, and people started reading subjective meaning into it, I would be absolutely DRIVEN to troll them or subvert them in that. I would ultimately NEED them to know that their subjective interpretations were just that. It's just a song, meant to be a feast for the imagination, not fortelling an impending race war or whatever.

I thought this would be an argument, again, for ENTP rather than ENFP... but asking xNFP musicians and writers about this question of subjective interpretation, I actually got a similar reaction. Would an ENFP be willing to be such a troll about it? Maybe, it would just have a more polemic quality... 

You see why I vacillate on this one. Anyway, he is an Ne - most likely dom.


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> The answer to this is easy. Those are not the world. They are fantasy worlds. The focus is always on agnostically unaligning conceptual perspective.


I don't have "Fantasy worlds." That's not how ENxP works. This is a better argument for him being introverted, although I think it's mostly an argument for drugs, and lots of 'em.



> I seem to recall that the point of I am the Walrus was that it had no meaning, but that doesn't mean he wasn't an Ne.


Ne sees _all the possible meanings_. I don't see how that could lead someone to say "that means nothing, haha you silly over-thinkers."



> I think actually it was a rebellion of his against people reading their own meanings into his music and him showing them that it was all a big trick, or that he didn't intend the meaning they read into it. I can see how you'd interpret this as Se, but again this is something I think is more something I'd expect from a strong N.


Why? Why would an intuiting dominant make fun of people for reading into things? That's what intuiting dominants DO.



> I think Ni is a bit more lenient in this way, focused as they are on their own subjective interpretation. Ni would say '*it has a private meaning*', Ne would say, 'it has no objective meaning'.


This isn't how my INFJ gf makes art at all. She's extremely interested in other people's subjective interpretations of her poetry's meaning, more so than her own. And, as an Ne-dom, I say that something "could mean x, y, or z, or maybe banana," never that it has no objective meaning. That would just kill the fun for me completely.



> This is PRECISELY how I am. If I made a cool world in a song, and people started reading subjective meaning into it, I would be absolutely DRIVEN to troll them or subvert them in that. I would ultimately NEED them to know that their subjective interpretations were just that. It's just a song, meant to be a feast for the imagination, not fortelling an impending race war or whatever.
> 
> I thought this would be an argument, again, for ENTP rather than ENFP... but asking xNFP musicians and writers about this question of subjective interpretation, I actually got a similar reaction. Would an ENFP be willing to be such a troll about it? Maybe, it would just have a more polemic quality...


I like trolling, sure, but I wouldn't ever feel the need to tell people that the subjective meaning they got out of a piece of art *I* made was _wrong_. That's just not how any intuiting artists I've ever met make art. It might be how intuiting people _criticize_ art (in fact, I think it is), but those are absolutely not the same thing.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@randomshoes 

1) On Fantasy Worlds. I don't think they get lost in fantasy worlds, but every single ENxP I personally know has developed several fantasy worlds and focused on their development. I've never seen an NFJ do this, though perhaps they could. Introversion might make the individual live in that world, but I doubt that. I am an introvert, and I wouldn't. The imagining of worlds as sandbox for concepts or (usually idealized) interactions to help the individual explore themes and emotions is very much a feature of Ne-dominance. Of course it is.

2) On All Possible Meanings. Yes, but this is what makes Ne perhaps best able to disconnect from private meanings. Someone says, 'This is about the upcoming race wars!' and the Ne says, 'dude, I can see all the things this could mean. That is one speck on the mosaic. A speck. It is nothing.' ...and thus might indeed say, that it doesn't mean anything. My interactions, again, with NFP vs, say, NFJ is that in an art gallery, the NFJ will get all into what the art could mean. Each offering their subjective opinion and usually feeling a resonance with that. The NFP will do one of two things, or both... first, they will want to know what the art is meant to mean. Objectively. Not privately. Ni tries to make a subjective leap, Ne will not. Ne might rattle off all the things it may or may not mean, but won't 'divine' what it is. If it unclear, I find that most Ne get frustrated with it... because it is too subjective. This isn't always the case, and may involve judging functions... but as a rule it feels as though the NFJ is attempting to divine what the artist 'really meant' while the NFP would probably much prefer to ask the artist what it objectively means. A group of NFJs would likely each come up with their own subjective interpretation, where the NFPs would brainstorm a consensus. OR the second thing Ne would do, which would be to 'riff' off of it another idea entirely, which they would not attach to the original. I actually think that Ne is more prone to accidental plagiarism, btw, as a result of this. I don't find that nearly as much with Ni.

3) On People Reading Into Things. No, that is what Ni does. Ne is more objective. More an agnostic mosaic of interpretation. This objectivity, as stated in #1, would make Ne resistant to private interpretations. Now, would they mock it? I don't think an ENFP would. I DO think and ENTP would. Mocking, trolling, all that stuff... speaks to a lower 'emotional intelligence'. A lower F function, that is. That being said, I don't think that Lennon would mock an individual for their interpretation. That is different from mocking society as a whole, or a section of society. I think an ENFP might do this, as it is not an individual in front of them. We've seen NFPs do this. 

4) On The Case Of Your Girlfriend. This is Fe, if I am reading it correctly. Seeking outwardly for Validation of Worth, well everyone does that in their way, but it would be Fe, not Ne, obviously. I think you are conflating (or see me as conflating) Ne/Ni with Judgment considerations. That we would see private meaning as too subjective is the point. Whether we would be jerks about it, or mocking, or say 'it has no meaning' is something else entirely. I agree that Ni could and would say, 'it has no meaning'. I mean to say that Ne could as well, and that Lennon strikes me as the Ne variety.. BECAUSE he was talking about his own work, which he knew lacked the subjective meaning they gave it. He resisted that. I would do the same. I think Ni would be a bit more lenient in this way, as they are more open to subjective meaning. If, for example, people came back to John and said that his music inspired them to think of new possibilities, he would have been over the moon. That isn't what happened. Instead, they locked in on some subjective interpretation, cutting off possibilities, and he saw, obviously, that such meanings were nonsense. Simple as that.

5) On The Subject Of Trolling And Bad Interpretations. Right, but what if they locked into one specific, even damning, interpretation and insisted it was the One interpretation that was real. Then, this interpretation began to spread as the One interpretation... and it was ridiculous and specific and even negative. How would you react then?


----------



## randomshoes (Dec 11, 2013)

arkigos said:


> 1) On Fantasy Worlds. I don't think they get lost in fantasy worlds, but every single ENxP I personally know has developed several fantasy worlds and focused on their development.


That's not really an extrovert thing, at all. We live _in the world_. We may play with it, we may push at it, we may seek to control or change it, but we live in the world. Ne plays with and augments the world. It does not make its own imagined worlds.



> I've never seen an NFJ do this, though perhaps they could.


What NFJs have you been interacting with??? Ni is the mother of all imagined worlds. INFJs invented the concept of a fantasy world. I don't get this at all.



> Introversion might make the individual live in that world, but I doubt that.


Not introversion alone. I was saying that extroversion never would.



> I am an introvert, and I wouldn't.


You are a Ti-dom. Nobody thought you lived in a fantasy world.



> The imagining of worlds as sandbox for concepts or (usually idealized) interactions to help the individual explore themes and emotions is very much a feature of Ne-dominance. Of course it is.


No, it isn't. That may be a feature of Ne auxiliary, actually.



> 2) On All Possible Meanings. Yes, but this is what makes Ne perhaps best able to disconnect from private meanings. Someone says, 'This is about the upcoming race wars!' and the Ne says, 'dude, I can see all the things this could mean. That is one speck on the mosaic. A speck. It is nothing.' ...and thus might indeed say, that it doesn't mean anything.


It does. It's part of the mosaic. It means something, just not everything.



> My interactions, again, with NFP vs, say, NFJ is that in an art gallery, the NFJ will get all into what the art could mean. Each offering their subjective opinion and usually feeling a resonance with that. The NFP will do one of two things, or both... first, they will want to know what the art is *meant to mean. Objectively. Not privately. *


That sounds like Te to me. Certainly a judging function.



> Ni tries to make a subjective leap, Ne will not. Ne might rattle off all the things it may or may not mean, but won't 'divine' what it is. If it unclear, I find that most Ne get frustrated with it... because it is too subjective. This isn't always the case, and may involve judging functions... but as a rule it feels as though the NFJ is attempting to divine what the artist 'really meant' while the NFP would probably much prefer to ask the artist what it objectively means.


You're missing the point: Ne as a function doesn't feel the need to pick one meaning out of the many. You do, you lead with a judging function. ENxPs and _especially_ ENFPs are fine with a plurality of meanings--that's the definition of who they are. They may personally think one is more logical or have one that is their favorite, but it's secondary to the possibilities. We can live with cognitive dissonance. In fact, we're quite found of it.



> 4) On The Case Of Your Girlfriend. This is Fe, if I am reading it correctly. Seeking outwardly for *Validation of Worth*, well everyone does that in their way, but it would be Fe, not Ne, obviously.


You misunderstood what I meant. She likes people to get differing, even contradictory meanings out of her poetry. It's nothing to do with validation and everything to do with what she sees the purpose of art as.



> I think you are conflating (or see me as conflating) Ne/Ni with Judgment considerations.


Yes, I think you are conflating your Ti with Ne in general.



> That we would see private meaning as too subjective is the point.


That's what I'm disagreeing with. I don't see someone's individual opinion as "too subjective," I see it as interesting, another piece to add to the mosaic of possibilities. I think the idea of someone's meaning as being "too subjective" is your Ti. In general, there's a miscommunication here: perceiving dominant people aren't necessarily looking for _one_ answer or meaning when they make or experience art.



> He resisted that. I would do the same.


I honestly think he just thought it was funny & stupid. I don't think it offended him or anything.



> 5) On The Subject Of Trolling And Bad Interpretations. Right, but what if they locked into one specific, even damning, interpretation and insisted it was the One interpretation that was real. Then, this interpretation began to spread as the One interpretation... and it was ridiculous and specific and even negative. How would you react then?


I would laugh my ass off and be over the moon that that many people had read and cared about my art.

Also, he was responding to a _lot_ of crazy interpretations, not just one. In other words, a mosaic of possibilities.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_randomshoes_ - Okay, I'll buy that my emphasis on the rejection aspect as putting Ji into Ne overmuch. Sure. That NP would reject subjective meaning is, ultimately, the job of the judging function. Still, Ne has its role. That is, in diffusing interpretation. 

That is, Ne interpretation as a star in a field of stars. The only possible judgment that could come from this is that intensely over-emphasizing that one interpretation is absurd. Yes, that judgment would come from a Judging function, but it is a feature, nevertheless of NP types, because the perception quality of it is provided by Ne. 

Ni attempts to leap to, or reduce to, one singular interpretation. This requires subjectivity, of course. Ne sees them all agnostically. Both of these could lead to a rejection of interpretation. Ni because it has one already, Ne because of lack of such reduction. Ni sees it as the wrong subjective interpretation, Ne is uncomfortable with any intense or final interpretation at all. In either case, I think that N types are FAAAAAAAR more likely, on the whole, to reject/critique interpretations they find wanting. That I perceive Ne types as being moreso is perhaps not meaningful, and it certainly wouldn't be Ne alone that would do that... as you say.

Okay, sure. 

This all works fine on the subject of John Lennon, anyway. 

On the subject of imagined worlds, perhaps that deserves its own thread or something. I am not excited to tangent this one much further.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

Many songs on the radio are by artists who are Se dominant such as taylor swift(esfp-uses a lot of physical detail in her songs(se)),


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

alexibaka said:


> Many songs on the radio are by artists who are Se dominant such as taylor swift(esfp-uses a lot of physical detail in her songs(se)),


Taylor Swift is an ESFJ; her take on physical details is very Si, which is to say subjective to her experience.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

BTW, P!nk is ESFP:






(The "Try" video is one of my favorite videos from her for some reason; it's a very artistic representation of the Se-heavy portion of the Se-Ni axis -- but you still see Ni peeking out. It's a little quirky but very visceral and down-to-earth at the same time. I also really love modern dance like this.)

(Also, the dancer in the video is god damned hot.)


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)




----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> Taylor Swift is an ESFJ; her take on physical details is very Si, which is to say subjective to her experience.


Her songs are completely Se and Fi driven. The emotional tone of her lyrics seem very subjective and personal based (Fi) and not at all sympathetic or general in any way (Fe)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

alexibaka said:


> Her songs are completely Se and Fi driven. The emotional tone of her lyrics seem very subjective and personal based (Fi) and not at all sympathetic or general in any way (Fe)


This isn't the thread for it, but Taylor Swift is an ESFJ. There's even an entire thread explaining that very fact, the fact that her sensate experiences are subjective and internalized. But, no, Taylor Swift is not an ESFP.


----------



## alexibaka (Feb 13, 2014)

koalaroo said:


> This isn't the thread for it, but Taylor Swift is an ESFJ. There's even an entire thread explaining that very fact, the fact that her sensate experiences are subjective and internalized. But, no, Taylor Swift is not an ESFP.


Will be interested to see the thread, do u have link?
Just because her songs seem very Fi driven to me


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

alexibaka said:


> Will be interested to see the thread, do u have link?
> Just because her songs seem very Fi driven to me


They're very Si-Fe driven, actually.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Admittedly, Se can have some filthy mouths.


----------



## Catallena (Oct 19, 2014)




----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Siouxsie said:


>


This song seems so SFJ.


----------



## EccentricSiren (Sep 3, 2013)

alexibaka said:


> Will be interested to see the thread, do u have link?
> Just because her songs seem very Fi driven to me


As someone pointed out in another thread (even though I can't remember which one), if you compare her lyrics to those of someone like Kurt Cobain, who I think most of us would agree was Fi-dom, they're very different.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I like this thread. :happy:

I don't "get" Se-driven music in a relatable way very often, but I'll take a stab or two nonetheless.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

I'd guess that No Doubt is an ESFP. ESTP in a pinch.


----------



## DomNapoleon (Jan 21, 2012)




----------



## CupcakesRDaBestBruv (Aug 6, 2013)

Iggy Azalea and Rita Ora?
Se Se SeVerywhere.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

LostFavor said:


>


Omg all the cliche phrases and images. My soul hurts. I didn't get a Se vibe from this but this guy's awfully not an Ni-dom lol.


----------



## Catallena (Oct 19, 2014)




----------

