# Confusion over type profiles. Can someone explain?



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

I recently started looking into Socionics and initially made the n00b mistake of just straight converting MBTI to Socionics. I'm an ESFP in one, I'm an ESFp in the other type thing. After about two seconds of reading the Socionics Se description I realised my error, read a bit more, and then came at it again looking at it as a different theory etc etc.

Basically I decided rather than Se/Fi I would be Fe/Si here (ESE / ESFj). However, the type profiles for ESFj seem remarkably similar to, well, ESFJ. Which I'm clearly not. I relate much more to descriptions of ESFp, but research on functions suggests that's not right either.

So what gives? If the descriptions of the functions are so different why are the types pretty much the same? Are profiles just a load of bull? (Probably yes to the latter and if so could someone point me in the direction of an explanation of what it means to be ESE without ESFJ stereotypes?) 

Thanks in advance. roud:


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> could someone point me in the direction of an explanation of what it means to be ESE without ESFJ stereotypes?)


Alpha - WSWiki


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> So what gives? If the descriptions of the functions are so different why are the types pretty much the same? Are profiles just a load of bull? (Probably yes to the latter and if so could someone point me in the direction of an explanation of what it means to be ESE without ESFJ stereotypes?)


The founder of socionics, A. Augusta, was typed ENTp herself, so both sensing functions were her weakest and least conscious ones. When she tried to describe them, she of course came up with very poor definitions, thus Socionics description of Se/Si are rather questionable and have been confusing people for decades. Extraverted Sensing got depicted as some kind of element of aggression and violence, while Introverted Sensing as a desire to be healthy, comfortable, and well fed all the time, and it just doesn't work like that when you're dealing with real people.

If you want a description of what Se is like, minus the type stereotypes, here is a good one written by an ESTp (that black circle







is Se and white square







is Ti): http://www.the16types.info/vbulleti...-Understanding?p=231930&viewfull=1#post231930

You can look up real life examples of each type and compare yourself to them, you can find a few in these profiles ESFp/SEE and ESFj/SEE.

You can also read through these articles that go over how each information element manifests in each function:
Information Aspect in the Valued Functions
Information Elements: Descriptions by Functions


I personally think that for extraverts, if you have typed yourself correctly by MBTI, then your type will transfer directly to socionics, for example you're ENTP in MBTI then you'll be ENTp in Socionics. For introverts, it's a different story ...


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

cyamitide said:


> The founder of socionics, A. Augusta, was typed ENTp herself, so sensing functions were her weakest and least conscious ones. When she tried to describe them, she gave them very poor definitions, thus Socionics description of Se/Si are rather questionable and have been confusing people for decades. Extraverted Sensing got depicted as some kind of element of aggression and violence, while Introverted Sensing as a desire to be healthy, comfortable, and well fed all the time, and it just doesn't work like that when you're dealing with real people.
> 
> If you want a description of what Se is like, minus the type stereotypes, here is a good one written by an ESTp (that black circle
> 
> ...


That first Se description in particular was spot on! It makes more sense than the other description I've read and seems to fit better than Si.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> That first Se description in particular was spot on! It makes more sense than the other description I've read and seems to fit better than Si.


you can find some more discussions of Si/Se at the very bottom here

seems like theoretical depictions of the elements deviate considerably from what is described of them from personal point of view -- I've had an impression for a while that those who wrote up socionics theory must have been a bunch of nerdy NTs who never got out and socialized with actual human beings much


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> That first Se description in particular was spot on! It makes more sense than the other description I've read and seems to fit better than Si.


fwiw, while I am and have always been a fan of herzy's "this is simple" descriptions (she understands/understood her type very well), most of what is being described here is the process of using available information in the environment to infer anything at all, and not Se. Which, of course, is a part of what Se is, but by no means is that all of what Se means.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

After reading this I still seem to relate more to Si but I wondered if that could be an influence from being a Type 9 in Enneagram, particularly a 9 sx. 

I also did this: Sociotypograph which is a test on Reinin traits and come out as ESE, SEE being ruled out pretty quickly. I'll probably make a Type Me thread in the near future to get other opinions and to make sure I'm not barking up the wrong tree completely.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

@bombsaway

o.o hmm maybe I'm oversimplifying this but Si vs Se would be sort of like comfort vs action.

*I'll give two good examples (in my opinion anyways):* If you have watched Game of Thrones then Arya Stark would be SEE (Se dom) and Sansa Stark SEI (Si dom). They have a lot of problems tolerating each other mainly because Arya can't stand still, she likes to be up and doing things, gets messy, runs around, gets bruised up is snappy and willful, sitting down is not her cup of tea, fighting yes, speaking her mind yes, chasing cats and so on (Se-Fi). Sansa on the other hand likes pretty much anything to do with comfort, aesthetics, fine living, being well off, proper and doesn't like it when her comfort zone is disturbed by events, it kind of overwhelms and stresses her (Si-Fe). Another important difference between the two is that Arya is willful / headstrong while Sansa is obedient / accepting. 

o.o guys correct me if I'm wrong.

*Interesting to note:* In the MBTI ESFJ belongs to the same interaction style pattern as ESFP, ENTP & ENFP. ESFJs are NOT like ENFJs.

*Get-Things-Going™ Interaction type*

*ESFJ*, ENFP, ENTP, *ESFP*

The theme is persuading and involving others. They thrive in facilitator or catalyst roles and aim to inspire others to move to action, facilitating the process. Their focus is on interaction, often with an expressive style. They Get-Things-Going™ with upbeat energy, enthusiasm, or excitement, which can be contagious. Exploring options and possibilities, making preparations, discovering new ideas, and sharing insights are all ways they get people moving along. They want decisions to be participative and enthusiastic, with everyone involved and engaged.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

FreeBeer said:


> @_bombsaway_
> 
> o.o hmm maybe I'm oversimplifying this but Si vs Se would be sort of like comfort vs action.
> 
> ...


If your understanding is correct then that's a wonderful example, thank you! 
I'm still stuck on certain points though. I'm more about comfort than action (my day to day life looks a lot more like Sansa's than Arya's). I'm probably not as completely obedient and accepting as Sansa, nor do I get particularly stressed, but when I honestly look at myself I'm probably not as headstrong as Arya either. I imagine if I were put in their situations, however, I'd probably behave more like Sansa (can't say for certain because don't have experience of being separated from my family, emotionally abused by a fiancee and having my dad lose his head a little bit LOL). I'd say the obedient / headstrong thing with me is more akin to Tyrion. I prefer to be comfortable and enjoy the fine life but will come put things straight if need be.

I'll go create a Type Me thread now, I think, since I think I'm going to need external input on this.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> If your understanding is correct then that's a wonderful example, thank you!
> I'm still stuck on certain points though. I'm more about comfort than action (my day to day life looks a lot more like Sansa's than Arya's). I'm probably not as completely obedient and accepting as Sansa, nor do I get particularly stressed, but when I honestly look at myself I'm probably not as headstrong as Arya either. I imagine if I were put in their situations, however, I'd probably behave more like Sansa (can't say for certain because don't have experience of being separated from my family, emotionally abused by a fiancee and having my dad lose his head a little bit LOL). I'd say the obedient / headstrong thing with me is more akin to Tyrion. I prefer to be comfortable and enjoy the fine life but will come put things straight if need be.
> 
> I'll go create a Type Me thread now, I think, since I think I'm going to need external input on this.


I recommend considering @aestrivex & @cyamitide opinions. Both of them know their stuff. In my case aestrivex got my socionics type right and I have confirmed his analysis several times over privately by looking deeper into it.

I still don't know how to translate socionics type to MBTI...somehow they don't fit. the MBTI J-P dichotomy is always in the way for some reason. Either it won't match or the functions won't match.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

I'll take this thread away from me now and leave it open for others confused about Se/Si or profiles to come in if need be. I'd appreciate opinion on me here, however, where I've just done the questionnaire. Thanks for clearing some stuff up, guys!


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

If you are ESFP in MBT then you are ESFP(SEE) in Socionics. The mistake may to be in your real type or how much correctly you understand types and functions descriptions given on Socionics (of course, something in descriptions you've read may to be wrong too).


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

I think it's the Se description that threw me. That and the Gamma description. I thought I was 100% Alpha but now I'm starting to understand how I would be Gamma. It's an on going process of understanding but I'm pretty sure that I'm ESFP MBTI. If not, then I'd be ISFP but definitely not ESFJ.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

bombsaway said:


> I thought I was 100% Alpha but now I'm starting to understand how I would be Gamma.


And that is how?


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

aestrivex said:


> And that is how?


I'm mainly going on descriptions, which is funny since this whole thread is about how descriptions tend to make things less clear.

Basically, I relate to the light hearted nature of Alpha and also the love of aesthetics, though I think the latter is possibly more of a guideline than a rule. However, I'm not going to put personal relationships in front of my ethical values. I'm not very forgiving of past mistakes. I wouldn't say I seek revenge like it says it some Gamma descriptions, but I certainly would be less willing to talk to someone who I felt had done wrong and would probably not conceal my distaste for that person. Again, this may be a generalisation like the Alphas liking aesthetics, but I also don't relate to public holidays and 'special occasions', which is linked with being Gamma. 

Beta could be a candidate but if I'm Beta then that means I'm completely wrong about my type and am either an intuitive or thinker, neither of which I could see myself being in MBTI so I haven't much considered them for Socionics.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

Ironically, I think delta might be the most likely.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

Well, that would be unfortunate. I've read the Socionics WS description and some things jump out. I agree with, "delta types orient themselves towards their lived physical environment and its immediate characteristics. Valuing  , they are most concerned with the physical functionality of their world", "Deltas find it foolish to not use an available resource solely because of a cultural taboo", "Deltas are attuned to the character and personal qualities of people" and "deltas can be highly independent and individualistic, requiring self-sufficiency, independent judgment and confirmation, and a devaluation of  -style collectivistic participation for the sake of participation.".

It didn't immediately grip me like other descriptions but then again, neither did Gamma. My problem again here would be the N / T. I never did get around to improving my type me thread so I guess that would be hard for us to discuss further.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@_bombsaway_ On what basis did you type yourself in the MBTI to begin with? Did you do it by taking tests and/or reading descriptions or did it do it by function e.g. trying to understand your cognitive function make-up in a Jungian sense? 

It is for instance very possible that in terms of external behavior you seem like an ESFP (your persona is that of an ESFP) but are in fact, cognitively, in a Jungian sense, an ESFJ, and this is why ESFj also seems to fit better in socionics.

By the way @FreeBeer in Keirsey Terminology I'd be a "get things going" type too because I like to start or instigate action when I desire something but everyone else are too lazy to do something themselves. Overall I don't think I'm much of a "behind the scenes" type even though INxPs are supposed to be. I like to be behind the scenes but that just means things are already kind of working so there's no need for me to instigate action.


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> @_bombsaway_ On what basis did you type yourself in the MBTI to begin with? Did you do it by taking tests and/or reading descriptions or did it do it by function e.g. trying to understand your cognitive function make-up in a Jungian sense?
> 
> It is for instance very possible that in terms of external behavior you seem like an ESFP (your persona is that of an ESFP) but are in fact, cognitively, in a Jungian sense, an ESFJ, and this is why ESFj also seems to fit better in socionics.


The first time I took an MBTI test I got ENTJ, haha. Not sure how that happened. Anyway, it was a study of Cognitive Functions. I think I went from ENTJ to ENTP to ESTP to ESFP, changing one letter at a time as I began to understand it more. I'm pretty confident I'm ESFP and have been confident for a while, at least on the fact that I'm Se and Fi. I can't see much Fe in me really so I'd doubt that's my dominant function in MBTI.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> The first time I took an MBTI test I got ENTJ, haha. Not sure how that happened. Anyway, it was a study of Cognitive Functions. I think I went from ENTJ to ENTP to ESTP to ESFP, changing one letter at a time as I began to understand it more. I'm pretty confident I'm ESFP and have been confident for a while, at least on the fact that I'm Se and Fi. I can't see much Fe in me really so I'd doubt that's my dominant function in MBTI.


How would you describe Se, Fe and Fi respectively as functions?


----------



## bombsaway (Nov 29, 2011)

LeaT said:


> How would you describe Se, Fe and Fi respectively as functions?


Se: Impulsive, action orientated function. Takes in information from the outside world and processes it in a concrete way. Is more concerned with what is than what was. For example, "wow, this room is so big I can do whatever I want in here" vs. "wow, this room is much bigger than what I'm used to."

Fe: Is again a function that deals with external information but for ethics rather than sense data. Usually leads to a strong sense of what's right and wrong and that fits in with the culture they grew up in. For example, might take up the stereotypical gender roles of their culture. Also tend to 'feel' what other people are feeling and can adapt to the situation, taking on the role of a carer if necessary.

Fi: View ethics as something internal. Rather than using their socialisation to predominantly get their ethical values it's more about internal evaluation. An Fi dom would often ask if something was right or wrong and would refer to their internal structure rather than look out at their culture and what is the norm. Thus, compared to Fe, people with Fi are often (though not always) slightly off-beat and maybe take sympathies in causes such as animal rights that other people might find odd. I also imagine that an Fi dom would find it harder than an Fe dom to "do as the Roman's do." I think an Fi dom would also be more likely to sympathise with someone rather than become their caregiver.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bombsaway said:


> Se: Impulsive, action orientated function.


Being action-oriented and impulsive is not a feature of Se. 
Ne is impulsive as well. IEEs/ENFps for example can start relationships very quickly and easily. ILEs/ENTps can hop onto new projects and new interests in a blink of an eye. In this sense Ne can mimic Se. Among the internet's informational domain, Ne is even more bold, impulsive, expansionistic, and even more aggressive than Se.

Sorry if I'm picking on a single sentence, but this is a stereotype that I feel needs some debunking ^_^


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

bombsaway said:


> Se: Impulsive, action orientated function. Takes in information from the outside world and processes it in a concrete way. Is more concerned with what is than what was. For example, "wow, this room is so big I can do whatever I want in here" vs. "wow, this room is much bigger than what I'm used to."


I think your understanding of Se and Si is weak and seems to mostly be based on typology culture. This goes for all the descriptions you provided. I forgot to ask how you'd describe Si although you kind of already did. It's interesting you actually made such a comparison without being asked to; it could for instance suggest holographic-panoramic cognition and/or a preference towards Ne. 

In fact, I'd argue that even the Se example you provided here isn't quite an example of Se but more an example of Ne-Si. Look at how you phrased the sentence, "I can do whatever I want in here". The keyword being "can". It suggests an orientation towards possibilities and thus also possibly a preference towards Ne as cognition although it's difficult to say where in your stack. 

An Se type would in fact most likely just say, "The room is big. Look at all the stuff in it!" Imagining what can be done in the room is not in the realm of Se but more in the realm of Ne. In contrast, an Se type would say, "I can see this thing over here, I wanna do X" and is also likely to just do whatever they wanted to do. An Ne type would, in contrast, say something like, "Hey, you guys see that thing over there? We can do X with it." If other Ne types are in the room, they'll pick up on that the Ne type is _suggesting _to do X, instead of interpreting the sentence in a literal sense and just move on like an Se type would in this scenario. an Se ego type wouldn't understand that suggesting a course of action is the same as performing a course of action. 

In this sense yes, Ne and Se are both action-oriented. They just go about it different ways.


> Fe: Is again a function that deals with external information but for ethics rather than sense data. Usually leads to a strong sense of what's right and wrong and that fits in with the culture they grew up in. For example, might take up the stereotypical gender roles of their culture. Also tend to 'feel' what other people are feeling and can adapt to the situation, taking on the role of a carer if necessary.


A big mistake people do when learning about functions from MBTI typology forums is that they think Fe=collective culture values. That's not how Fe works, nor Fi for the matter. Both Fe and Fi can be oriented towards maintaining collective culture values. Fe is rather an ability to cognitively evaluate what is required in any social situation in order for say, people to get along. If you are at a wedding and the person beside you is crying, an Fe type might say, "We're at a wedding, maybe you shouldn't cry in here" based on the collective idea that at weddings, you don't cry because if you cry you could be understood as being sad and being sad is bad at a wedding because people are supposed to be happy. 

Fe evaluation is thus very contextual and thus doesn't have to be very stereotype at all because what the Fe type considers appropriate behavior for any situation depends on the situation they're in and what they value. Yes, Fe types see the group and the collective as important, they want to experience a sense of belonging to something greater and they are naturally attuned to this, but again, it's important to consider it beign contextual and what the Fe type values. While they derive their values from the group, no one suggested what kind of group.

If an Fe type is a part of an evangelist church movement, they are going to support the values of the evangelist church and consider those to be representative of the collective even if the rest of the society is in fact extremely atheist. I thus think that a big problem when it comes to Fe descriptions and what people initially learn about Fe is that they assume cultures, groups of people and such, are in fact homogenic and very uniform. This isn't true. 

It's more about what the Fe type considers to represent the collective of their values and those people can in fact be anyone. I was recently following a conversation between two people, one person clearly being an Fe dominant, discussing various philosophical questions. At some point the Fe type becomes aware that the other party keeps asking for opinions without providing his own, and the Fe type thus asks, "I'd rather have you present your opinions first so I can formulate mine". This is a very typical Fe response because then the Fe type can evaluate his opinions versus that of the other party and thus ensure he for instance doesn't say or express something he might consider inappropriate in this context.


> Fi: View ethics as something internal. Rather than using their socialisation to predominantly get their ethical values it's more about internal evaluation. An Fi dom would often ask if something was right or wrong and would refer to their internal structure rather than look out at their culture and what is the norm. Thus, compared to Fe, people with Fi are often (though not always) slightly off-beat and maybe take sympathies in causes such as animal rights that other people might find odd. I also imagine that an Fi dom would find it harder than an Fe dom to "do as the Roman's do." I think an Fi dom would also be more likely to sympathise with someone rather than become their caregiver.


Fi types can most definitely use socialization as the base of their ethical values. I don't think Fi types are more likely to be counter-culture as you seem to suggest, or support strong causes. Actually, in socionics, this trait is more ascribed to beta NFs and it makes sense if you logically consider that Ni Fe as a functional combination leads to a desire to create social organization to provide with change. 

Also, the example you provided of Fi here shows a poor understanding of Fi. An Fi type could very well consider the example that you gave, "Do as the Romans do", if they find such evaluation to be a good thing. I do, for instance. I think that when you go somewhere else you should respect that group of people's culture, but those people should also respect your differences and that you can't fully adapt to them since you will always be you. Respect is not the same as conforming. 

Just because I agree with a value that exists externally it doesn't mean that the way I judge this value is based on external standards. That you however, in an implied sense in your reasoning process, seem to think so, belies your own cognitive extroverted preference when it comes to feeling evaluation decisively making you an Fe type of sorts. 

Therefore, as a whole, based on the little I saw of your reasoning process here, I'm inclined to lean towards some Fe valuing type in the ego block with Ne-Si somewhere too. Hard to say if I think base or creative. Gut reaction says base to me, which leads us with Si creative.


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

LeaT said:


> Also, the example you provided of Fi here shows a poor understanding of Fi. An Fi type could very well consider the example that you gave, "Do as the Romans do", if they find such evaluation to be a good thing. I do, for instance. I think that when you go somewhere else you should respect that group of people's culture, but those people should also respect your differences and that you can't fully adapt to them since you will always be you. Respect is not the same as conforming.


Aren't INTPs Fe types (albeit Fe-inferior)?



> Just because I agree with a value that exists externally it doesn't mean that the way I judge this value is based on external standards. That you however, in an implied sense in your reasoning process, seem to think so, belies your own cognitive extroverted preference when it comes to feeling evaluation decisively making you an Fe type of sorts.
> 
> Therefore, as a whole, based on the little I saw of your reasoning process here, I'm inclined to lean towards some Fe valuing type in the ego block with Ne-Si somewhere too. Hard to say if I think base or creative. Gut reaction says base to me, which leads us with Si creative.


Fe in MBTI, maybe. What about his/her feelings toward Extroverted Ethics?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kanerou said:


> Aren't INTPs Fe types (albeit Fe-inferior)?


Yes, they are.


> Fe in MBTI, maybe. What about his/her feelings toward Extroverted Ethics?


I don't make that distinction necessarily, in that I think if one's psyche is oriented towards Jung's definition of Fe, then the output will also resemble that of Fe IM in the ego block in socionics.

What I wrote in the above was more Jungian functions than MBTI in a sense.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

cyamitide said:


> The founder of socionics, A. Augusta, was typed ENTp herself, so both sensing functions were her weakest and least conscious ones. When she tried to describe them, she of course came up with very poor definitions, thus Socionics description of Se/Si are rather questionable and have been confusing people for decades. Extraverted Sensing got depicted as some kind of element of aggression and violence, while Introverted Sensing as a desire to be healthy, comfortable, and well fed all the time, and it just doesn't work like that when you're dealing with real people.
> 
> If you want a description of what Se is like, minus the type stereotypes, here is a good one written by an ESTp (that black circle
> 
> ...


When you compare all cognitive processes people have, then Se is the most "aggressive". It simply is volitional sensing. It's just that people take their cognitive capabilities for granted and don't think there's anything special about it. That's why Augusta was right about it, she had a birds eye perspective and could see it. Some people don't understand this. Se is not aggression per se, but it is direct contact with objects, and that manifests itself as something _we often associate with aggression, even if the person is non-agressive psychologically speaking._ For an Se person it is very easy to focus on manipulating objects in a concrete way, that's basically the definition of will-power. In contrast: an Si person is connected with his impressions and it takes an effort to actually focus on the object side of perception. These things are not that easy to understand though, because cognitive processes don't have any labels in everyday language and we have to use semi-related words like aggression. They point in the right direction, though.

The description of Se in the link sounds just like what it is. Coming from an Se person who doesn't see the contrast of his functions to other people. Takes it for granted. Take a SEE for example. It's totally natural for them to expand their own power and social status. It goes without effort and they are very natural about it, and they do it well also.

It's not until you have co-operated and worked with these people for a longer time that you start to see how Se is about will-power and territory. And that you (and I), lack this special ability that they have. That's also important to see, because some people take Se as being some kind of functions wast basket, which is wrong.

I think this is one of the main things socionics brings something very valuable to the table in contrast to MBTI where sensing is understood poorly. Take some more time and observe it. It's worth it!


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

Sleepy said:


> When you compare all cognitive processes people have, then Se is the most "aggressive". It simply is volitional sensing.


Se isn't volitional. There are SEEs and SLEs who are not forceful even down right to being lazy. I've even found a mention of it in SEE profile: "Feels enlivened and inspired when his time is taken up by matters. Otherwise, having an excess of time, may lead a sedentary, lazy lifestyle, despairing and criticizing everything."



> Se is not aggression per se, but it is direct contact with objects, and that manifests itself as something _we often associate with aggression, even if the person is non-agressive psychologically speaking._


There is an expansivist element associated with both Se and Ne, where Se is expansive in physical world and Ne is expansive in mental-virtual world, but to call it aggression could be a miss. Aggression implies conflict, hostility, whereas Se can be used for constructive, peacekeeping and conciliatory purposes.



> For an Se person it is very easy to focus on manipulating objects in a concrete way, that's basically the definition of will-power.


Being able to take, hold, move around objects _is not_ the same thing as willpower. How can you equate these things?

Another problem with calling Se volitional sensing or equating it to willpower is that it automatically means that types that are weak with Se -- all the Ne-egos -- also don't have much will. This is of course not true, as anybody knows who has ever argued with ENTps or INFjs. They can be very stubborn, confident and assertive in their arguments and in achieving what they want.


----------



## Sleepy (Jan 18, 2009)

You seem to go very much by a dictionary definition of the words. Then this just becomes trivial linguistics. But then you also miss what socionics is trying to convey. The arguments that you present about Se:s also being lazy etc, is obvious to anybody who can type correctly. You are taking these things a little too literally. If you draw the conclusion that socionics has misunderstood sensing because they relate Se to willpower and aggression, then it's you who misunderstand what is meant.




cyamitide said:


> Se isn't volitional. There are SEEs and SLEs who are not forceful even down right to being lazy. I've even found a mention of it in SEE profile: "Feels enlivened and inspired when his time is taken up by matters. Otherwise, having an excess of time, may lead a sedentary, lazy lifestyle, despairing and criticizing everything."



Se: and aggression are still related although I agree they are not exactly the same if you go by a dictionary. Se is very aware of power and power struggles, altering territories, impact etc. These things are all very closely associated with aggression also. The other way around, aggressive behaviour is Se, technically speaking, getting an impact, altering powers. And when you look more generally at the culture in different groups of people it's also evident. Betas and Gammas accept aggressive behaviour much better than alpha/delta. Also think about Se polrs, who can be very sensitive to aggression, interpreting even small pressure as "aggression". Also think about why SEE is so common among politicians.




> Being able to take, hold, move around objects is not the same thing as willpower. How can you equate these things?



I think it is. And I think the reason people miss this, is that they haven't realized how different it is to be connected to objects, that Se actually means something very specific that other people don't have. I mean objects in the more general socionics sense. I am especially interested in this since it is the opposite attitude to Si (or whatever it should be called, but anyway). Willpower means here to go outside of yourself to get something, to struggle against forces that work against you. You can also turn things upside down and say that Se persons don't need willpower, because they have Se. It becomes a game of words, but the connection between Se and willpower is profound. Of course other types can use their intelligence to get what they want, or charm your way forward, but Se goes against forces, it struggles the most. It's about asserting yourself, not through emotional pressure, or facts etc. but to actually do it, in the real world, cognitively speaking.


I think it's easiest to see when actually being in a real situation where these things are needed. For example when negotiating with someone I am nostly interested (in the cognitive sense) in keeping peace and harmony and good relations. That puts me in a bad position if I'm not able to also slightly persuade the person with Fe. Whereas my quasi, an ESI/ISFJ has the ability to instantly move the pawns and assert themselves and what they see as right.




> Another problem with calling Se volitional sensing or equating it to willpower is that it automatically means that types that are weak with Se -- all the Ne-egos -- also don't have much will. This is of course not true, as anybody knows who has ever argued with ENTps or INFjs. They can be very stubborn, confident and assertive in their arguments and in achieving what they want.



Yeah they can be stubborn, confident assertive, but these things are more feelings/psychological things. They can't apply pressure in the same seemingly effortless-natural-creative way as Se egos do.


Yes, SEEs or SLEs for example can be lazy or socially introverted, have bad self confidence. But those are actually the individuals where the nature of Se gets an interesting contrast to show itself. Because these people still have the same qualities, it's just that it happens on a smaller scale, or without a big show.


In a way one can say that socionics has discovered the cognitive reality behind concepts like willpower and aggression. Of course these concepts have a floating meaning in everyday language also. It's kindof the same with Ni and time. Of course other types than Ni:s know about time, but Ni connects you to time in a very special and profound sense. Here again you can turn things upside down and say that Ni egos don't need to think about time because they have Ni.


Speaking of Ni. Looking at this dualistically: Ni sees events as floating, everything is unfolding itself according to it's nature. There is nothing we can do but watch, or wait for the right moment. Will doesn't exist. Here Se is the perfect balance to such fatalistic attitude.


I'd just like to say that there is much more insight and wisdom behind it than one would think. Now when I think about it, I think the main difference between us here, is that you relate this maybe a little too much to persons, where of course all kinds of behaviours can be seen (not just about Se) while I keep this on a type and functional level.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sleepy said:


> I think it is. And I think the reason people miss this, is that they haven't realized how different it is to be connected to objects, that Se actually means something very specific that other people don't have. I mean objects in the more general socionics sense.


Can you elaborate on this connection to objects thing?




> Yeah they can be stubborn, confident assertive, but these things are more feelings/psychological things. They can't apply pressure in the same seemingly effortless-natural-creative way as Se egos do.


Can you give some real life examples about Ne egos lacking in this?




> In a way one can say that socionics has discovered the cognitive reality behind concepts like willpower and aggression.


I always thought the concept of aggression had the real meaning in the context of survival (evolution). How does socionics improve on that view? Including the issue of how do we arrive from a cognitive focus on objects to aggression? (This I already asked above)




> Of course these concepts have a floating meaning in everyday language also. It's kindof the same with Ni and time. Of course other types than Ni:s know about time, but Ni connects you to time in a very special and profound sense. Here again you can turn things upside down and say that Ni egos don't need to think about time because they have Ni.


Talk more about this Ni vs special time connection?




> Speaking of Ni. Looking at this dualistically: Ni sees events as floating, everything is unfolding itself according to it's nature. There is nothing we can do but watch, or wait for the right moment. Will doesn't exist. Here Se is the perfect balance to such fatalistic attitude.


Ok this part does makes sense.




> I'd just like to say that there is much more insight and wisdom behind it than one would think.


So don't save the wisdom to yourself


----------

