# Most hedonistic types? And by functions?



## The Nameless Composer (Sep 20, 2014)

What are the most hedonistic types IYO? And the least? Which function would lead one to be more hedonistic? Would you say E over I, perhaps S over N, F over T, and P over J? Which would make ESFP the most hedonistic type and INTJ the least. Of course that's just a hypothesis.


----------



## perpetuallyreticent (Sep 24, 2014)

Personally, I'd say ISFPs can be one of the types on the scale of 'more hedonistic'. I don't know if I'd label us as THE most hedonistic of all types, but I can personally say I'm extremely self indulgent, especially when stressed. Anything I enjoy that I can get my hands onto, like alcohol if that's what I specifically want, or food, or binge-watching a show on Netflix, then I'm gonna do it. And not care what people think about it.

I'd say, function wise, Fi could be behind this characteristic. Most Dom and Aux Fi users know what they want and usually aren't afraid to pursue them.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I'd give this one to the ES_Ps, and I'm torn between the EN_Ps and the IS_Ps for second place. It partly depends on what kinds of pleasures you categorize as "hedonistic" pleasures.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Si types are the most hedonistic so SEI and in different ways, the SLI.

Se types are more prone to exhibitionism though however which is really quite different from hedonism.


----------



## SweetPickles (Mar 19, 2012)

ESFPs 7w8


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

SweetPickles said:


> ESFPs 7w8


If the OP were asking which type is the most grounded SP then I'd agree with you. Hedonism... not so much. I like nice things and pleasant feelings but I don't chase after pleasure. That would be the sign of an unhealthy ES_P.

Living in the moment =/= Pursuing pleasant sensations.

One is extroverted and the other is introverted in orientation.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

MNiS said:


> If the OP were asking which type is the most grounded SP then I'd agree with you. Hedonism... not so much. I like nice things and pleasant feelings but I don't chase after pleasure. That would be the sign of an unhealthy ES_P.
> 
> Living in the moment =/= Pursuing pleasant sensations.
> 
> One is extroverted and the other is introverted in orientation.


How do you explain the following?

Jung on Se:



> As sensation is chiefly conditioned by the object, those objects that excite the strongest sensations will be decisive for the indiviual's psychology. The result is a strong sensuous tie to the object. ... Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations, and, so far as lies within the power of sensation, they are fully accepted into consciousness whether they are compatible with rational judgments or not. The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation produced by their objective qualities. Accordingly, all objective processes which excite any sensations at all make their appearance in consciousness.


Jung on Se-type:



> His life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name "experience" at all. What he experiences serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends. ... This type ... naturally does not think he is at the "mercy" of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life--it is simply real life lived to the full.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> How do you explain the following?
> 
> Jung on Se:
> 
> ...


Keep in mind the context. Sensations in both passages means to use ones senses. However, Jung is clearly describing the desire to acquire new experiences involving the senses. Not engaging in introverted sensing.

Anyway, modern interpretations of Se and Si are Se = Always wanting new experiences involving the senses; Si = The desire to find a comfortable state involving relaxation, rest and the influencing of one's internal state.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Si types _are_ more concerned with comfort and pleasure than Se types are. I know a lot of Ne-doms (incl. myself) and Ne-aux who are more or less compulsively drawn to the fun things in life; such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc. 

If you mean hedonism in the most correct sense, I don't truthfully know. But I'd argue it's _not _​bound to type.


----------



## Sporadic Aura (Sep 13, 2009)

The_Wanderer said:


> Si types _are_ more concerned with comfort and pleasure than Se types are. I know a lot of Ne-doms (incl. myself) and Ne-aux who are more or less compulsively drawn to the fun things in life; such as alcohol, tobacco, drugs, etc.
> 
> If you mean hedonism in the most correct sense, I don't truthfully know. But I'd argue it's _not _​bound to type.


I was going to say... I kind of think ENxP's are just as if not sometimes more hedonistic than ESxP's.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

It's dumb to assume behavior such as hedonism is type-related in the first place.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

ESFPs. No contest. I would say IStx for least.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Entropic said:


> It's dumb to assume behavior such as hedonism is type-related in the first place.


It's dumb to assume anything its type related and then nothing is type related which means there are no types to begin with...huray


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

No idea but pleasure is one of my most favoritest things.


Sent from my undisclosed underground bunker using Tapatalk


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

B00Bz said:


> It's dumb to assume anything its type related and then nothing is type related which means there are no types to begin with...huray


You present a slippery slope logical fallacy and therefore your assertion is incorrect.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Look at this xSxJ's indulgent candle haul (her entire channel is candle haul videos)







And then look at every video this ESFP has ever made (hundreds of hauls of everything)







Easy distinction's to make: Angela the ISxJ honed in on one thing that makes her feel really comfortable and at home--scented candles. Trisha does nothing of the sort. She buys _anything _and _everything_ in abundance and excess.

They are both hedonistic. But I would argue Se is vastly more hedonistic. (or at least _can_ be. Se and Si obviously manifest in different ways in different people. Maybe some Si users get off on organizing everything. That's not very hedonistic. Maybe some Se users get off on performing. That's not very hedonistic.)


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

And then there's the actual hedonistic definition which somehow got faded away and stuffed behind the bush somewhere. 

So in pursue of sensual pleasure and possibly impulsive, I would assume Ne or Se. Possibly more ExFP slightly more likely unless their values get in the way of that. 

And unhealthy INxJs. I can't tell you how much nonsense and impulsive shit my friend has gotten into as she was going through turmoily-rocky stages in her life.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

[No message]


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

emberfly said:


> look at this xsxj's indulgent candle haul (her entire channel is candle haul videos)
> 
> 
> 
> ...


oh my gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd. so. fucking. annoying. I think the second one actually made my hangover come back. I'm going to keep an INTJ around just so that if I ever reach the level of obnoxiousness seen in the second video they can take me out behind the barn and shoot me. It actually terrifies me that we are the same type.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

B00Bz said:


> INot really, but you'd like that to be the case.


Except I am correct and you are wrong:

*Fallacy: Slippery Slope 
Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
*
*Description of Slippery Slope
*The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question. In most cases, there are a series of steps or gradations between one event and the one in question and no reason is given as to why the intervening steps or gradations will simply be bypassed. This "argument" has the following form:

Event X has occurred (or will or might occur).
Therefore event Y will inevitably happen.
This sort of "reasoning" is fallacious because there is no reason to believe that one event must inevitably follow from another without an argument for such a claim. This is especially clear in cases in which there is a significant number of steps or gradations between one event and another.

*Examples of Slippery Slope
*"We have to stop the tuition increase! The next thing you know, they'll be charging $40,000 a semester!"
"The US shouldn't get involved militarily in other countries. Once the government sends in a few troops, it will then send in thousands to die."
"You can never give anyone a break. If you do, they'll walk all over you."
"We've got to stop them from banning pornography. Once they start banning one form of literature, they will never stop. Next thing you know, they will be burning all the books!"

*Hyperbole:*
A claim made with extreme exaggeration.
Example- The Kansas State Board of Education has made a joke out of science!


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Except I am correct and you are wrong:
> 
> *Fallacy: Slippery Slope
> Also Known as: The Camel's Nose.
> ...


You missed the whole entire point of my post. I even edited my second post to make it explicit, I really didn't think you would need that.

I made a type thread, it should be glaringly obvious that I do not believe there is no such thing as types, if I spent two hours I should have been sleeping making a thread trying to figure out my type...correct?


----------



## peoplesayimanahole (May 21, 2013)

I know an ENTP that proudly admits that he's extremely hedonistic and a couple of oters ENTPs and ENFPs.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

B00Bz said:


> You missed the whole entire point of my post. I even edited my second post to make it explicit, I really didn't think you would need that.


You do that by trolling, lol? It's pretty fucking simple - cognition != behavior. Cognitive functions are about how we take and reason the world - they do not however, actually say what we want to do with that data. I think I'm pretty hedonist. Very sure of being an INTJ. Hedonism as a behavior has a lot of underlying factors whereas cognition may play one small single role. Even the enneagram is probably a better system to understand behavior such as hedonism than cognitive functions.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Functions or types can't be hedonistic in themselves. Hedonism, however, is an attitude that can be expressed in several different ways, with several different foci, depending on your type.



B00Bz said:


> You missed the whole entire point of my post.


Hey, next time try not to be obtuse and expect everyone around you to do you the privilege of reading your mind  You're gonna be snide, don't expect anything less in return.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Entropic said:


> You do that by trolling, lol?


It was rather obvious sarcasm, I'm sorry if you feel trolled. 


> It's pretty fucking simple - cognition != behavior. Cognitive functions are about how we take and reason the world - they do not however, actually say what we want to do with that data.


Of course cognitive functions in themselves do not cause specific compulsions, but our orientation to the world overall goes a long way in how we react to it, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that certain types are more likely to be hedonist than others, and I think SFs would have more of a tendency for this than NTs, for example.


> I think I'm pretty hedonist. Very sure of being an INTJ.


This is useless information because we are talking about general trends. Just because a certain type has a higher tendency towards a certain behavior doesn't mean other types can't also exhibit that behavior. 


> Hedonism as a behavior has a lot of underlying factors whereas cognition may play one small single role. Even the enneagram is probably a better system to understand behavior such as hedonism than cognitive functions.


But that still doesn't mean that there isn't an observable trend. This thread isn't asking why, although we can and probably should discuss why a trend exists. 

What I will agree with (I assume this is a point you are trying to make if I am reading between the lines correctly) is that different people show hedonistic tendencies in different ways and ESFP's tend to be more superficial about it.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> Functions or types can't be hedonistic in themselves. Hedonism, however, is an attitude that can be expressed in several different ways, with several different foci, depending on your type.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, next time try not to be obtuse and expect everyone around you to do you the privilege of reading your mind  You're gonna be snide, don't expect anything less in return.


I don't, but I'm pretty sure it was obvious, at least one other person got it. I'm not really sure how my communication style is any of your concern unless I am addressing you.

It's really beyond me how anyone would think that is a serious argument.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

B00Bz said:


> I don't, but I'm pretty sure it was obvious, at least one other person got it. I'm not really sure how my communication style is any of your concern unless I am addressing you.
> 
> It's really beyond me how anyone would think that is a serious argument.


It doesn't have to be a serious argument. I think it's rather silly to make a joke that is only obvious to you and then tell others they missed the point. If you're going to be obtuse like that, also, anyone has the right to say that's just trolling.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

B00Bz said:


> It was rather obvious sarcasm, I'm sorry if you feel trolled.


Uh no? It was not at all obvious. 



> Of course cognitive functions in themselves do not cause specific compulsions, but our orientation to the world overall goes a long way in how we react to it,


Not necessarily because the cognitive functions do not actually deal with motivations like you suggest they do, here. 



> so it's perfectly reasonable to say that certain types are more likely to be hedonist than others, and I think SFs would have more of a tendency for this than NTs, for example.


I don't think so. I think it leads to stereotyping. Take Naomi Quenk's description of inferior Se for example, where she clearly expresses how inferior Se can manifest as a hedonist attitude. Not that I think it must do that either, necessarily, or that there is a correlation between Se and hedonism, but just to express that thought. 

Similarly, "hedonism" as a word is poorly understood and defined in this context. What does it mean to be hedonist? Hedonist in what way? Someone pointed out how Si can seem hedonist seeking physical comfort so there's that aspect to it. 



> This is useless information because we are talking about general trends. Just because a certain type has a higher tendency towards a certain behavior doesn't mean other types can't also exhibit that behavior.


But it undermines the entire argument that such trends are meaningful in the first place. 



> But that still doesn't mean that there isn't an observable trend. This thread isn't asking why, although we can and probably should discuss why a trend exists.


No, this thread is asking if there is such a trend and I staunchly deny that there is one beyond one that is not better attributed to say, the enneagram that actually deals with human life motivations which has a much more clear and direct manifestation in behavior than cognitive functions do. 



> What I will agree with (I assume this is a point you are trying to make if I am reading between the lines correctly) is that different people show hedonistic tendencies in different ways and ESFP's tend to be more superficial about it.


LOL? No, though good for you to see yourself as superficial I guess?


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> It doesn't have to be a serious argument. I think it's rather silly to make a joke that is only obvious to you and then tell others they missed the point. If you're going to be obtuse like that, also, anyone has the right to say that's just trolling.


As I've pointed out, it wasn't only obvious to me, and he did miss the point, so it's important to ensure he understands what my point was if we are going to have a discussion about the central issue. Which begs the question, what is your point in this? The issue between entropic and I seems to have sorted itself out and we both understand where we are and where we want to take the discussion. Your attack on my post has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. It seems like you just want to start an argument with me because you don't like my communication style, correct me if I am wrong, but if that's the case, please pm me about it instead of derailing the thread.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Uh no? It was not at all obvious.


I'm sorry it wasn't obvious to you, like I said it is a little beyond me how someone could make such an argument as a serious point. I'm not trying to say anyone is at fault here, clearly our sense of humor and communication styles are different. No harm no foul as they say. 



> Not necessarily because the cognitive functions do not actually deal with motivations like you suggest they do, here.


No, I said cognitive functions do not cause specific compulsions, its how we use these functions to interpret and react to the world around us. This is starting to look like a round about way of addressing the nature vs nurture debate. 




> I don't think so. I think it leads to stereotyping.


A lot of things can lead to stereotyping, doesn't mean they have to. I'm not saying that hedonism is how we should define a certain type and that we should not recognize people as individuals. 


> Take Naomi Quenk's description of inferior Se for example, where she clearly expresses how inferior Se can manifest as a hedonist attitude. Not that I think it must do that either, necessarily, or that there is a correlation between Se and hedonism, but just to express that thought.


Sounds reasonable to me. Sounds exactly like the point I'm trying to make in fact. 


> Similarly, "hedonism" as a word is poorly understood and defined in this context. What does it mean to be hedonist? Hedonist in what way? Someone pointed out how Si can seem hedonist seeking physical comfort so there's that aspect to it.


As you have already seen I make this point at the end of my post, but then you somehow deny that this was the point you are trying to make because I made it. I'm not sure why you are trying to disagree with me when we generally don't. 




> But it undermines the entire argument that such trends are meaningful in the first place.


The thread asked which types are the most hedonistic, so it's the point of the thread to point out the trend. Whether or not you like the thread is another subject, which is an interesting one, but still not exactly the point of the thread. 




> No, this thread is asking if there is such a trend and I staunchly deny that there is one beyond one that is not better attributed to say, the enneagram that actually deals with human life motivations which has a much more clear and direct manifestation in behavior than cognitive functions do.


You are welcome to deny that there is a trend. Thank you for elaborating on your position. I'm not inclined to agree. I don't think anyone was arguing that correlation must equal causation. 





> LOL? No, though good for you to see yourself as superficial I guess?


 @_Amaterasu_, _this_ is an example of being deliberately obtuse. What I was doing was called sarcasm.

Also jokes are not always derails, not if they are made in quest of getting someone to elaborate their point. Which mine was. Anyway since you admitted to posting off topic and still did it I'm reporting you. What you are doing qualifies as harassment.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

B00Bz said:


> oh my gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd. so. fucking. annoying. I think the second one actually made my hangover come back. I'm going to keep an INTJ around just so that if I ever reach the level of obnoxiousness seen in the second video they can take me out behind the barn and shoot me. It actually terrifies me that we are the same type.


I'm glad you find her annoying, too <3 she is a very fucked up person. I have been following her channel for years and I have learned that she 
1) has daddy issues because she never had a father figure in her life growing up
2) as a result she was a stripper for many years
3) she got fake boobs to be more appealing to men because she desperately needs male approval.
4) she dresses as sexually desperate as she can get away with. She needs male approval badly.
5) she is extremely sexually promiscuous (if it wasn't obvious), having sex with a new stranger weekly it seems. Again, desperate desire for male approval.
6) She is a shopaholic. And a hoarder.
7) she is addicted to eating unhealthfully. And has been struggling with her weight since high school. She is a binge eater.

Among other things.

She probably represents the majority of qualities unhealthy ESFPs might have. She's not a very nice example to use to represent a "normal" ESFP. But unfortunately I don't know of any of those on YouTube. (I'm sure they exist; I just don't know of them)


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

emberfly said:


> I'm glad you find her annoying, too <3 she is a very fucked up person. I have been following her channel for years and I have learned that she
> 1) has daddy issues because she never had a father figure in her life growing up
> 2) as a result she was a stripper for many years
> 3) she dresses as sexually desperate as she can get away with. She needs male approval badly.
> ...


Yeah, I thought as much. I feel bad for her, but at the same time she doesn't try to fix herself and glorifies her lifestyle which makes it unbearable.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

Amaterasu said:


> If it was intended as sarcasm it wasn't very good, imo.


You've made clear that you don't like my posting style, and I don't care, nor does it have anything to do with the topic of the thread. 


> Also, the word "deliberately" existed nowhere in my original post to you. You can be obtuse without realizing it.


I never implied that. I was not being obtuse, but he was, and he was doing it deliberately. 


> When you have a discussion about the pointlessness of your joke with someone else, that discussion has evidently become a part of the thread and hence is the "topic" at hand.


No, it has nothing to do with the topic at hand it has to do with you harassing me because you don't like my posting style. Don't flatter yourself, and please leave me alone. 


> If you did not want ANY sort of derail at all, then you should have taken care to ensure you made yourself perfectly clear to every sort of reader who would encounter your post.


Like you said it's not other people's job to know what's in my head nor is it my job to know what's in theirs. I am allowed to express myself on topic in a way I feel comfortable as long as it doesn't violate the rules of the site and it didn't. Leave me alone. 


> By making a joke that didn't make sense to someone and then blaming them for not understanding it,


I explicitly stated that "no one was at fault". I made this very clear, not sure what your problem still is. 


> you are encouraging discussion about it and hence making it a part of the "topic", yourself. So it's like the pot calling the kettle black.


No, I'm not, we realized a misunderstanding had occurred and continued on with the topic at hand. That is what happened, I'm really not sure why you keep attacking me. 



> Feel free to report me if that helps you think you win  I think you took a little too much offense to not being understood and liked.


Win what? Last time I checked this was a civil discussion about dispersion of hedonistic within the 16 types. I'm pretty sure you're the one that took too much offense to something that had absolutely nothing to do with you, and decided to be as offensive as possible as a result. That's on your head not mine.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## johnnyyukon (Nov 8, 2013)

B00Bz said:


> oh my gaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawd. so. fucking. annoying. I think the second one actually made my hangover come back.


lmfao


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Thread warning: It* is* possible to disagree without making it personal or devolve into a name calling fest. Please try.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

@_Amaterasu_, I specifically said that it was a misunderstanding and I'm not making anyone look like the bad guy, I've said that MULTIPLE TIMES NOW. I said no one was at fault. I'm not sure what your problem is. Please leave me alone like I asked, you've made clear you don't like my posting style. I don't care about what other people think of this, and I'm sick of your personal attacks that are completely unwarranted. Its not victimizing myself to point out that your behavior is ridiculous. Now, Leave me alone. 

My attitude has nothing to do with the topic of the thread. And you telling me you don't like it repeatedly serves no function other than to start an argument because you dislike me. Please stop and either post on the topic of the thread if you plan to address me again or not at all.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

So I've noticed a lot of people here don't really know what hedonism means so here are two easy definitions:

hedonism:
noun
1. the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good. 
2. devotion to pleasure as a way of life: _
"The later Roman emperors were notorious for their hedonism."_

I also think it's worth noting that "happiness" in this context means happiness derived from pleasure.

That hardly describes Se unless you have some weird conception of Se because excess =/= hedonism and instead is pretty much Si at it's very core. Maybe Ne too since Ne loves to seek out new forms of Si which is why NTPs are the types most likely to experiment with recreational drugs.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

MNiS said:


> So I've noticed not many people here know what hedonism really means so here are two easy definitions:
> 
> noun
> 1. the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the highest good.
> ...


I was wondering that (I didn't make it explicit earlier but it's where I was leading) does debating on forums like this one for example, qualify as a hedonistic behavior for, say, an ENTP? At some point it seems like intent is really what matters so we can only evaluate whether or not someone is hedonistic if they are 1) outwardly and obviously so or 2) they tell us they are.


----------



## Antipode (Jul 8, 2012)

Inferior Se can be hedonistic in a binge kind of way.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

I can't imagine why anyone would say Si. Seeking comfort (and _security_) =/= hedonism. I have met very, very few Si users who fall anywhere into the realm of hedonistic and many, many Se users (and quite a few Ne users as well.)


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

B00Bz said:


> I was wondering that (I didn't make it explicit earlier but it's where I was leading) does debating on forums like this one for example, qualify as a hedonistic behavior for, say, an ENTP? At some point it seems like intent is really what matters so we can only evaluate whether or not someone is hedonistic if they are 1) outwardly and obviously so or 2) they tell us they are.


If the ENTP derived pleasure from posting on this forum then yes, it might be a form of pleasure seeking. I think it'd be pretty light compared to say, enjoying sex, eating for pleasure, over-drinking, smoking weed, etc though.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Se dom/aux users. Though Ne doms can be quite hedonistic too.


----------



## ScarlettHayden (Jun 8, 2012)

Antipode said:


> Inferior Se can be hedonistic in a binge kind of way.


Though it's in a more subtle form than Se dominants or auxiliaries.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

I know an INTP and an ENTJ who are hedonistic and my ESFP friend has mastered the art of keeping her shit together and soldiering forth for the sake of making a living out of her art and putting a down payment on a house. 

....and working in the hospitality business for years taught me that not everyone in the pub was an ESFP or ENFP. 

I would say it's more of a health/priority thing for individuals rather than type.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> I would say it's more of a health/priority thing for individuals rather than type.


Although if one were to really and truly examine the question without becoming overly politically correct about it, which type would be the most likely to dedicate their life to the pursuit of pleasure?

Si - The types who literally seek comfort and pleasure.

Or

Se - The types who live to experience everything possible

I think it's not type related is just a PC excuse, because people are so afraid to draw conclusions if it might hurt someone's feelings.

If the prompt were to ask, which function and types were the most likely to engage in excess then without a doubt it would be Se. Doing something to excess doesn't make it hedonistic unless it's pleasure seeking.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

MNiS said:


> Although if one were to really and truly examine the question without becoming overly politically correct about it which type would be the most likely to dedicate their life to the pursuit of pleasure?
> 
> Si - The types who literally seek comfort and pleasure. Or
> Se - The types who live to experience everything possible?
> ...


Not so much PC but a broader idea of how people might be hedonistic perhaps.

There is some literature to say that Se inferior might be prone to binging as was suggested before. INTPs are known to stare into the abyss when they are unhealthy. I know a few INFP alcoholics (as is the nature of working in hospitality you get to see alcoholics). I just think it may come out in different forms in different types.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> Not so much PC but a broader idea of how people might be hedonistic perhaps.
> 
> There is some literature to say that Se inferior might be prone to binging as was suggested before. INTPs are known to stare into the abyss when they are unhealthy. I know a few INFP alcoholics (as is the nature of working in hospitality you get to see alcoholics). I just think it may come out in different forms in different types.


See, the thing is, I don't think having unhealthy sensate fixations is hedonism. It's simply an unhealthy addiction.

I don't think hedonism is necessarily a vice per se but more of a very self-indulgent way of living. Perhaps over time the lifestyle can begin to manifest itself in some negative ways but that's beside the point. I think being self-indulgent is why some view it in a particularly negative light.

For me though, living a life in pursuit of pleasure and only doing what makes me feel good isn't a very enticing life to me. I guess I'm using myself as an example of why Se isn't a hedonistic function because I can't ever see myself being satisfied with a life where I only do things that feel good and give up on anything that causes discomfort.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Although if one were to really and truly examine the question without becoming overly politically correct about it, which type would be the most likely to dedicate their life to the pursuit of pleasure?
> 
> Si - The types who literally seek comfort and pleasure.
> 
> ...


Your bias is showing. Si is not about pleasure seeking and I don't know who taught you that, but it isn't true. That's Se. 

An Si-dom/aux (I would know, I am one) is far more likely to view hedonism as dangerous -- the exact opposite of the _security_ that most of us seek. Comfort should not be confused with dangerous levels of pleasure-seeking. They're very different.

If you're going to pursue this reasoning it would be those with low-order Si (so, Ne dom/aux) that are more likely. Dom/aux Si, though? Definitely not.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

MNiS said:


> See, the thing is, I don't think having unhealthy sensate fixations is hedonism. It's simply an unhealthy addiction.
> 
> I don't think hedonism is necessarily a vice per se but more of a very self-indulgent way of living. Perhaps over time the lifestyle can begin to manifest itself in some negative ways but that's beside the point. I think being self-indulgent is why some view it in a particularly negative light.
> 
> For me though, living a life in pursuit of pleasure and only doing what makes me feel good isn't a very enticing life to me. I guess I'm using myself as an example of why Se isn't a hedonistic function because I can't ever see myself being satisfied with a life where I only do things that feel good and give up on anything that causes discomfort.


Addiction is one thing in a private individual sense but; it sometime comes other forms of pleasure seeking and a kind of hedonistic lifestyle and all the wonderfuls that come with it. I would see it more of a pointer when viewing it from a social perspective (like being the local bar manager). Groups of people hanging out, interacting, not from a single individual. If you look at The Baader Meinhoff gang, and their rock star type lifestyle (regardless of their terror group activities) or groups like Factory records (shown in 24 hour party people, a movie based on the incidents there) or famous nightclubs like The Factory (Andy Warhol) you get the impression that it's all a hedonistic atmosphere. Then as common sense will dictate you will also form an impression that there are many different types being caught up in that environment rather than simply one or two types. You may have charismatic types (which might go beyond type too) in these situations that spur things on a bit and a multitude of other factors that hinge on people being in that group but it still remains a factor that type would not be the main factor for hedonistic behaviour.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Eckis said:


> Your bias is showing. Si is not about pleasure seeking and I don't know who taught you that, but it isn't true. That's Se.
> 
> An Si-dom/aux (I would know, I am one) is far more likely to view hedonism as dangerous -- the exact opposite of the _security_ that most of us seek. Comfort should not be confused with dangerous levels of pleasure-seeking. They're very different.
> 
> If you're going to pursue this reasoning it would be those with low-order Si (so, Ne dom/aux) that are more likely. Dom/aux Si, though? Definitely not.


I'm not being biased. Here's the definition of Si (it's Socionics Si, not the vague and undifferentiated MBTI version):



Si said:


> Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.


http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?title=Introverted_sensing


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I'm not being biased. Here's the definition of Si (it's Socionics Si, not the vague and undifferentiated MBTI version):
> 
> 
> 
> Introverted sensing - Wikisocion


How does this relate to hedonism?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

bethdeth said:


> Addiction is one thing in a private individual sense but; it sometime comes other forms of pleasure seeking and a kind of hedonistic lifestyle and all the wonderfuls that come with it. I would see it more of a pointer when viewing it from a social perspective (like being the local bar manager). Groups of people hanging out, interacting, not from a single individual. If you look at The Baader Meinhoff gang, and their rock star type lifestyle (regardless of their terror group activities) or groups like Factory records (shown in 24 hour party people, a movie based on the incidents there) or famous nightclubs like The Factory (Andy Warhol) you get the impression that it's all a hedonistic atmosphere. Then as common sense will dictate you will also form an impression that there are many different types being caught up in that environment rather than simply one or two types. You may have charismatic types (which might go beyond type too) in these situations that spur things on a bit and a multitude of other factors that hinge on people being in that group but it still remains a factor that type would not be the main factor for hedonistic behaviour.


I understand what you're saying. Any and all types can engage in hedonistic behavior. I don't disagree since any type likes to be entertained, enjoy their surroundings and engage in pleasurable activities. However, if the question is which type or types would most likely adopt hedonism as their primary life philosophy then it becomes a more clear distinction, IMO. After all, I like to visit Disneyland but that doesn't mean I would want to live there (And I do know people who would love to live in a real life Disneyland if they could!).


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Eckis said:


> How does this relate to hedonism?


That Si (the Socionics Si) is the function most likely related to enjoying hedonism as a lifestyle since hedonism is essentially maximizing comfort and pleasure while minimizing pain and discomfort.

I'm not saying every Si type a hedonist, but that people with strong Si as a function are _most likely_ to find hedonism to be appealing.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

MNiS said:


> That Si (the Socionics Si) is the function most likely related to enjoying hedonism as a lifestyle since hedonism is essentially maximizing comfort and pleasure while minimizing pain and discomfort.
> 
> I'm not saying every Si type a hedonist, but that people with strong Si as a function are _most likely_ to find hedonism to be appealing.


Hedonism: the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.

That, personally, sounds more Se to me. 

And what strong Si user would find hedonism appealing? I've yet to meet one. Perhaps, though, I'm confusing hedonism with debauchery. Forgive me if that's the case.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

MNiS said:


> If the ENTP derived pleasure from posting on this forum then yes, it might be a form of pleasure seeking. I think it'd be pretty light compared to say, enjoying sex, eating for pleasure, over-drinking, smoking weed, etc though.


I would agree with you except when it comes to people like Newt Gingrich and his hedonistic trolling actually has the potential to destroy millions of lives. Is hedonism necessarily unhealthy or excessive?


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> I know an INTP and an ENTJ who are hedonistic and my ESFP friend has mastered the art of keeping her shit together and soldiering forth for the sake of making a living out of her art and putting a down payment on a house.
> 
> ....and working in the hospitality business for years taught me that not everyone in the pub was an ESFP or ENFP.
> 
> I would say it's more of a health/priority thing for individuals rather than type.


It seems to me like ESFP is one of the types with a high rate of diversity within the type....is this true? Sorry for derail. Maybe I should post this as a separate thread in the ESFP jail. I just want to hear from a moderator because they are probably more knowledgable than the average poster.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

B00Bz said:


> It seems to me like ESFP is one of the types with a high rate of diversity within the type....is this true? Sorry for derail. Maybe I should post this as a separate thread in the ESFP jail. I just want to hear from a moderator because they are probably more knowledgable than the average poster.


Not sure really as there isn't a huge representation to go by on the net.

I only know two ESFPs really well (one is my bestie for 20+ years) and both are committed to their work, family and friends. They are both creative, and make a living off their creativity along with their ability to sell their personality through it. They party hard when they "need" (their terminology not mine) to and everyone is a friend until they are crossed. They are both well rounded and mature. I just think people misunderstand and stereotype based on what they think types might be like after they read the blurb of each type and relate negative traits (that all types might have) to a particular type ie NTs unfeeling bastards NFs, too emotional, SPs whimsical and shallow, SJs hardarsed traditionalists. While some aspects might be common among types there is a risk of going overboard and saying things like that INFJ can't be that type because they are unemotional and aren't into mysticism or that INTJ can't be that type because they don't like science and can be emotional. 

So I would say yes but then again no because every other type has variance also.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Eckis said:


> Hedonism: the pursuit of pleasure; sensual self-indulgence.
> 
> That, personally, sounds more Se to me.




I was using the Socionics definitions. The Si definition I listed aligns pretty well with hedonism. I guess if one were to define excess as hedonism then Se is also a hedonistic function, but that's an incorrect definition.




Eckis said:


> And what strong Si user would find hedonism appealing? I've yet to meet one. Perhaps, though, I'm confusing hedonism with debauchery. Forgive me if that's the case.


Yeah, hedonism is not necessarily debauchery. Although debauchery is an immoral and unethical form of hedonism. The definition of hedonism you provided is accurate of what hedonism means as a definition. I think you're on to something... I think when people think hedonism they automatically assume debauchery.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

B00Bz said:


> I would agree with you except when it comes to people like Newt Gingrich and his hedonistic trolling actually has the potential to destroy millions of lives. Is hedonism necessarily unhealthy or excessive?


Well I'll take your word for it regarding Newt Gingrich. Do you have any examples of the damage he's done with his trolling?



B00Bz said:


> Is hedonism necessarily unhealthy or excessive?


Not necessarily no to both, as Eckis pointed out.

It's simply the life goal of seeking out pleasure and happiness. That kind of life seems pointless to me, but it holds a certain appeal to others.


----------



## B00Bz (Jul 11, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Well I'll take your word for it regarding Newt Gingrich. Do you have any examples of the damage he's done with his trolling?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


He hasn't done anything directly to my knowledge, but the way he goads people on with his ridiculous comments it almost seems like he wants something to happen.


----------



## Eckis (Feb 7, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I was using the Socionics definitions. The Si definition I listed aligns pretty well with hedonism. I guess if one were to define excess as hedonism then Se is also hedonistic function, but that's an incorrect definition.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, hedonism is not necessarily debauchery. Although debauchery is an immoral and unethical form of hedonism. The definition of hedonism you provided is accurate of what hedonism means as a definition. I think you're on to something... I think when people think hedonism they automatically assume debauchery.


I think that's where this kind of gets confusing... semantics. I can definitely see where you're coming from using the most basic definition of hedonism and its relationship to Si (though I believe in practice that would mostly be tempered remarkably by Te or Fe, respectively, so excessive hedonistic behavior is not the norm with SJs)... I was definitely jumping to debauchery, which is often -the- descriptor for immature/unhealthy Se dom/aux.


----------



## Mimic octopus (May 3, 2014)

Si is about resisting/postponing pleasure, Se is more indulgent. Si can be attracted to comfort and food but Se is way more excessive and better fits the definition of hedonism. Supposedly ENFPs are attracted to mindless sensual experiences though (I know a lot of them who love EDM music for it's own sake).


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

Eckis said:


> I think that's where this kind of gets confusing... semantics. I can definitely see where you're coming from using the most basic definition of hedonism and its relationship to Si (though I believe in practice that would mostly be tempered remarkably by Te or Fe, respectively, so excessive hedonistic behavior is not the norm with SJs)... I was definitely jumping to debauchery, which is often -the- descriptor for immature/unhealthy Se dom/aux.


Types most likely to be hedonistic = Si
Types most likely to engage in debauchery = Se.

There. Everything is right again. :tongue:


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

MNiS said:


> I'm not being biased. Here's the definition of Si (it's Socionics Si, not the vague and undifferentiated MBTI version):
> 
> _
> 
> ...


This is a nice description, though frequently it is interpreted too literally. First of all, what is meant here is _subjective psychological _comfort in connection to one's environment. Reading description like this people wrongly associate Si with things that are _objectively _considered as being pleasurable or comfortable and picture a somewhat hedonistic person lazily reclining on a couch with a hot drink in their hands. 
It is simply not accurate at all.

Understanding of personal comfort is vastly different among people. For person A it is to surround oneself with leather sofas and rest on them watching recent TV-shows, for person B it is to be cooped up indoors in a room devoid of any furniture except for a chair, a table and a computer and play Hidden Object all day long, for person C it is enough not to have irritating noisy sounds around them and they would be in seventh heaven and so on and so forth. As one can see this is really not in line with hedonism as it is.
Also, it is frequently forgotten that in SiFe and SiTe it manifests differently.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Patrick_1 said:


> Si is about resisting/postponing pleasure, Se is more indulgent. Si can be attracted to comfort and food but Se is way more excessive and better fits the definition of hedonism. Supposedly ENFPs are attracted to mindless sensual experiences though (I know a lot of them who love EDM music for it's own sake).


I think that's just it though. SP's seek new experiences. Se is objective. The ultimate goal isn't necessarily pleasure. I want to try something NEW. All the time. SJ's will go back to the same tried and true pleasurable experiences again and again. How is that not pleasure seeking? Yes, SP's are drawn to debauchery. We're also thrill seekers. When I go out to eat, I rarely eat at the same restaurants I've already been to. I want to try something new. I might try something new and absolutely hate it and I'm still tickled pink that I got to try something new. New is preferable to pleasure. Si seek pleasure. This is why they tend to avoid pleasurable experiences that might have hefty consequences. Se is willing to take those risks in pursuit of new experiences without knowing whether the pleasure will outweigh the negative consequences. Si won't risk comfort and pleasure in these pursuits. 

I get a close view of this with my SJ husband on a daily basis. If we do an activity and there's an injury, he'll remember the injury and associate it as an unpleasant experience. I remember the experience and often have a hard time remembering that I was injured. He has a subjective perspective and I have an objective perspective.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think that's just it though. SP's seek new experiences. Se is objective. The ultimate goal isn't necessarily pleasure. I want to try something NEW. All the time. SJ's will go back to the same tried and true pleasurable experiences again and again. How is that not pleasure seeking? Yes, SP's are drawn to debauchery. We're also thrill seekers. When I go out to eat, I rarely eat at the same restaurants I've already been to. I want to try something new. I might try something new and absolutely hate it and I'm still tickled pink that I got to try something new. New is preferable to pleasure. Si seek pleasure. This is why they tend to avoid pleasurable experiences that might have hefty consequences. Se is willing to take those risks in pursuit of new experiences without knowing whether the pleasure will outweigh the negative consequences. Si won't risk comfort and pleasure in these pursuits.
> 
> I get a close view of this with my SJ husband on a daily basis. If we do an activity and there's an injury, he'll remember the injury and associate it as an unpleasant experience. I remember the experience and often have a hard time remembering that I was injured. He has a subjective perspective and I have an objective perspective.


But isn't the pursuing of new experiences _is_ what is pleasurable? 

Would you describe your husband as hedonistic?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> But isn't the pursuing of new experiences _is_ what is pleasurable?


Cute, but not really. When I took the time to learn to skin and dress animals, I certainly didn't expect it to be pleasurable, I certainly didn't need to know how (I had other people willing to do it for me) and it didn't turn out to be pleasant. It was something I hadn't done before. When I tried grappling in martial arts, I had a deep sense of foreboding. Wrestling with a guy who has 40 lbs of muscle on me made my hands clammy and my heart rate go through the roof. But I still needed to try it before I could conclude I can't/not ready to do this. Once I tried it and realized I was seconds from doing something vicious to get him off, I ended the session. It is something I should take the time to learn. But it gets a strong fear reaction out of me. 

Trying new things isn't always pleasant. But it's often something that I just need to do. All these buttons I need to press to find out exactly out I react. Sometimes I fail. But I need to know what I am capable of. What are my limits?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> Cute, but not really. When I took the time to learn to skin and dress animals, I certainly didn't expect it to be pleasurable, I certainly didn't need to know how (I had other people willing to do it for me) and it didn't turn out to be pleasant. It was something I hadn't done before. When I tried grappling in martial arts, I had a deep sense of foreboding. Wrestling with a guy who has 40 lbs of muscle on me made my hands clammy and my heart rate go through the roof. But I still needed to try it before I could conclude I can't/not ready to do this. Once I tried it and realized I was seconds from doing something vicious to get him off, I ended the session. It is something I should take the time to learn. But it gets a strong fear reaction out of me.
> 
> Trying new things isn't always pleasant. But it's often something that I just need to do. All these buttons I need to press to find out exactly out I react. Sometimes I fail. But I need to know what I am capable of. What are my limits?


I'm not saying that the experiences are pleasurable, but the seeking of them is. Essentially "new" is what is pleasurable even if it's a bad experience. That's what I got from:



monemi said:


> I think that's just it though. *SP's seek new experiences.* Se is objective. The ultimate goal isn't necessarily pleasure. *I want to try something NEW.* *All the time.* SJ's will go back to the same tried and true pleasurable experiences again and again. How is that not pleasure seeking? *Yes, SP's are drawn to debauchery. We're also thrill seekers. *When I go out to eat, I rarely eat at the same restaurants I've already been to. *I want to try something new.* I might try something new and absolutely hate it and* I'm still tickled pink that I got to try something new.* New is preferable to pleasure. Si seek pleasure. This is why they tend to avoid pleasurable experiences that might have hefty consequences. Se is willing to take those risks in pursuit of new experiences without knowing whether the pleasure will outweigh the negative consequences. Si won't risk comfort and pleasure in these pursuits.
> 
> I get a close view of this with my SJ husband on a daily basis. If we do an activity and there's an injury, he'll remember the injury and associate it as an unpleasant experience. *I remember the experience and often have a hard time remembering that I was injured.* He has a subjective perspective and I have an objective perspective.


What I also get from this is that Se hedonism is about maximizing pleasure by seeking novel experiences regardless of pain. Si hedonism is about maximizing pleasure by repeating pleasurable experiences and minimizing potential painful ones.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

monemi said:


> I think that's just it though. SP's seek new experiences. Se is objective. The ultimate goal isn't necessarily pleasure. I want to try something NEW. All the time. SJ's will go back to the same tried and true pleasurable experiences again and again. How is that not pleasure seeking? Yes, SP's are drawn to debauchery. We're also thrill seekers. When I go out to eat, I rarely eat at the same restaurants I've already been to. I want to try something new. I might try something new and absolutely hate it and I'm still tickled pink that I got to try something new. New is preferable to pleasure. Si seek pleasure. This is why they tend to avoid pleasurable experiences that might have hefty consequences. Se is willing to take those risks in pursuit of new experiences without knowing whether the pleasure will outweigh the negative consequences. Si won't risk comfort and pleasure in these pursuits.
> 
> I get a close view of this with my SJ husband on a daily basis. If we do an activity and there's an injury, he'll remember the injury and associate it as an unpleasant experience. I remember the experience and often have a hard time remembering that I was injured. He has a subjective perspective and I have an objective perspective.


That's an excellent post, I'd give more thanks for it if I could. Honestly, a lot of people would do well to read this, even if just to understand Si/Se differences.



PaladinX said:


> What I also get from this is that Se hedonism is about maximizing pleasure by seeking novel experiences regardless of pain. Si hedonism is about maximizing pleasure by repeating pleasurable experiences and minimizing potential painful ones.


Se sounds like thrill-seeking, the _regardless of pain_ part kind of makes it _not_ hedonism, no? But Si types; a lot of those guys are compulsive in a way that amuses me.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Se sounds like thrill-seeking, the _regardless of pain_ part kind of makes it _not_ hedonism, no? But Si types; a lot of those guys are compulsive in a way that amuses me.


I suppose it all depends on how necessary the pain factor applies to the concept of hedonism. But what if the pleasure of seeking out new experiences outweighs the pain of the experience itself?


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

To_august said:


> This is a nice description, though frequently it is interpreted too literally. First of all, what is meant here is _subjective psychological _comfort in connection to one's environment. Reading description like this people wrongly associate Si with things that are _objectively _considered as being pleasurable or comfortable and picture a somewhat hedonistic person lazily reclining on a couch with a hot drink in their hands.
> It is simply not accurate at all.


Yes, of course Si is about psychological comfort but these definitions don't occur in a vacuum. How does one attain such comforts. And really, what is pleasure? It's the manifestations of what brings comfort. I think you're correct about the assumptions people make though. Si types aren't lazy and are quite productive and often wouldn't be considered lazy at all.



To_august said:


> Understanding of personal comfort is vastly different among people. For person A it is to surround oneself with leather sofas and rest on them watching recent TV-shows, for person B it is to be cooped up indoors in a room devoid of any furniture except for a chair, a table and a computer and play Hidden Object all day long, for person C it is enough not to have irritating noisy sounds around them and they would be in seventh heaven and so on and so forth. As one can see this is really not in line with hedonism as it is.
> Also, it is frequently forgotten that in SiFe and SiTe it manifests differently.


Yes, I agree! However the question is which function and/or types are most likely to be hedonists! That is without a doubt the Si types. However! That doesn't mean ALL Si-types are hedonists. Just that Si-types are the most likely to be able to appreciate the lifestyle in probably the least unhealthy way.

I can tell you for sure that if an Se type were to engage in hedonism as a lifestyle, that would mean a pretty short and pointless life for that person. :tongue:


----------



## Mimic octopus (May 3, 2014)

monemi said:


> I think that's just it though. SP's seek new experiences. Se is objective. The ultimate goal isn't necessarily pleasure. I want to try something NEW. All the time. SJ's will go back to the same tried and true pleasurable experiences again and again. How is that not pleasure seeking? Yes, SP's are drawn to debauchery. We're also thrill seekers. When I go out to eat, I rarely eat at the same restaurants I've already been to. I want to try something new. I might try something new and absolutely hate it and I'm still tickled pink that I got to try something new. New is preferable to pleasure. Si seek pleasure. This is why they tend to avoid pleasurable experiences that might have hefty consequences. Se is willing to take those risks in pursuit of new experiences without knowing whether the pleasure will outweigh the negative consequences. Si won't risk comfort and pleasure in these pursuits.
> 
> I get a close view of this with my SJ husband on a daily basis. If we do an activity and there's an injury, he'll remember the injury and associate it as an unpleasant experience. I remember the experience and often have a hard time remembering that I was injured. He has a subjective perspective and I have an objective perspective.


It sounds like what your describing is Ne more so than Se (although there might be crossover I don't know). I think if you read the very definitions of hedonism, Se and Si then you would agree. Si can be pleasure seeking, but extroverted sensing always wants the best of everything, thrilling experiences and taking things to excess (aka hedonism). The main point of Si is also storing large amounts of memory and conservatism (nothing pleasurable about that).


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

MNiS said:


> So I've noticed a lot of people here don't really know what hedonism means so here are two easy definitions:
> 
> hedonism:
> noun
> ...


This is a very close-minded view of pleasure.



MNiS said:


> I think you're on to something... I think when people think hedonism they automatically assume debauchery.


You're right! I looked up the definitions of both, and I was totally thinking of debauchery.


Seems to me that humans (all animals) are in their very nature hedonistic.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Patrick_1 said:


> It sounds like what your describing is Ne more so than Se (although there might be crossover I don't know). I think if you read the very definitions of hedonism, Se and Si then you would agree. Si can be pleasure seeking, but extroverted sensing always wants the best of everything, thrilling experiences and taking things to excess (aka hedonism). The main point of Si is also storing large amounts of memory and conservatism (nothing pleasurable about that).


I think you need to look up hedonism. And descriptions of sensor descriptions are written by intuitives with all of their biases. But that has been discussed in other threads.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

It dawned on me this morning after reading more replies on this thread to look at people who have been historically well known for hedonistic lifestyles. I typed in Don Juan and Lord Byron to find out what type they might be. Lord Byron may be ENTP? Don Juan -sociopath then Lord Byron again described more as a - sociopath. Hmmmm 

Anyone got any more known pleasure bunnies from history? What are their types?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> Anyone got any more known pleasure bunnies from history? What are their types?


Depends on what you consider pleasure.


----------



## Golden Rose (Jun 5, 2014)

Si and Se are both hedonistic, being based on physical and concrete stimulation and perception, it simply manifests in different ways.

My Si parents (but a lot of Si users I've observed) see physical pleasures as a comfort when those are linked to pleasant memories or habit and, while they wouldn't indulge in immediate gratification and trill seeking, they value immensely to be able to enjoy familiar sensations, even more so if it's deemed acceptable by their own/society's morals (ie: food, beauty products, shopping). Se users, on the other hand, fit more into a "I'll try anything once" kind of view and they might more inclined to indulge in whatever feels right at the current time or what their body and mind craves at the present moment... the lower Se is positioned, the more unruly and conflictual it tends to be under stress (especially since Se-inferior users are often unaware of their needs).


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

emberfly said:


> Depends on what you consider pleasure.


I think that it doesn't have to be stringent. We all have different ideas. I would think what I derive pleasure from might be completely different to others being a freak and all. I think the general idea of hedonism has been covered though. It has it's positives and negatives but there may be a slight stigma attached since religion has frowned upon pleasures of the flesh (which in some respects comes off as being a bit naughty). Who would you consider as living a hedonistic lifestyle?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

bethdeth said:


> Who would you consider as living a hedonistic lifestyle?


All animals. Probably plants, too.

see also: Paradox of hedonism


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Se, not type dependent. Actually the only point I'm making is that Si tends to be conservative in it's approach to new experiences and seeks deep meaningful ones rather than many and varied ones. Whatever I don't even pay attention to this stuff anymore.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

emberfly said:


> All animals. Probably plants, too.


Those hooligan penguins come off as pretty hedonistic to me 'Depraved' penguin sex secret of polar research - Channel 4 News

I wonder what type they are. 

Kidding of course.

Since humans are animals and we are talking about them and typing them willy nilly, maybe a little bit narrower in definition.


----------



## Despotic Nepotist (Mar 1, 2014)

Let's try this one step at a time:

Hedonism is defined as a philosophy in which pleasure is the highest good and pain is the worst. If we were to ask which ENNEAGRAM type is the most hedonistic, this award obviously goes to the type 7 and it makes sense, because all sources on the Enneagram define one of the basic motives of the Type 7 as avoiding pain. 

The most common type 7 MBTI types, from what I've seen, are ENxPs and ESxPs. As for who are the more hedonistic, I'm gonna have to say that Se-doms are more hedonistic than Ne-doms. The reason for this is Se is generally a "living in the moment" function, which will eventually translate into taking in details about the outside world and experiencing them in a direct way i.e. physical impulses. Generally speaking, since they are more driven by their physical impulses than ENxPs, ESTPs and ESFPs are more likely to be hedonistic.

Of course, this varies on a case-by-case basis, but I'm just making a generalization here from my own experiences with these types combined with theory.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

@PaladinX has already offered up two Jung quotes on Se and Se-doms, but here's an expanded helping:



Jung said:


> As sensation is chiefly conditioned by the object, those objects that excite the strongest sensations will be decisive for the [Se-dom's] psychology. The result is a strong sensuous tie to the object. Sensation is therefore a vital function equipped with the strongest vital instinct. Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations, and, so far as lies within the power of sensation, they are fully accepted into consciousness whether they are compatible with rational judgments or not. The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation produced by their objective qualities. ...
> 
> [The Se-dom's] life is an accumulation of actual experiences of concrete objects, and the more pronounced his type, the less use does he make of his experience. In certain cases the events in his life hardly deserve the name "experience" at all. What he experiences serves at most as a guide to fresh sensations; anything new that comes within his range of interest is acquired by way of sensation and has to serve its ends. ... *This type—the majority appear to be men—naturally does not think he is at the "mercy" of sensation. He would ridicule this view as quite beside the point, because sensation for him is a concrete expression of life—it is simply real life lived to the full. His whole aim is concrete enjoyment, and his morality is oriented accordingly.* ...
> 
> On the lower levels, this type is the lover of tangible reality, with little inclination for reflection and no desire to dominate. *To feel the object, to have sensations and if possible enjoy them—that is his constant aim. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, his lively capacity for enjoyment makes him very good company; he is usually a jolly fellow, and sometimes a refined aesthete. In the former case the great problems of life hang on a good or indifferent dinner; in the latter, it's all a question of good taste. Once an object has given him a sensation, nothing more remains to be said or done about it.* ... As he has no ideals connected with ideas, he has no reason to act in any way contrary to the reality of things as they are. *This manifests itself in all the externals of his life. He dresses well, as befits the occasion; he keeps a good table with plenty of drink for his friends, making them feel very grand, or at least giving them to understand that his refined taste entitles him to make a few demands of them.* He may even convince them that certain sacrifices are decidedly worth while for the sake of style.


Myers associated an S preference generally with "pleasure in the current moment," and a P preference with both a tendency to live in the moment and a "zest for experience"; and she noted that the ES_Ps, in particular, "are strong in the art of living. They value material possessions and take the time to acquire, care for, and enjoy them. They greatly value concrete enjoyment, from good food and good clothes to music, art, the beauties of nature, and all the products of the amusement industry. Even without these aids, they get a lot of fun out of life, which makes them fun company."

Thomson says that, "more than any other type, ESPs believe that life is right now — explosive, impulsive, kinesthetic: a matter of doing, having, using things as they were meant to be used"; and she notes that ESPs "need for sensory input is so strong" that when their SOs aren't around, they have a notable tendency to _love the one they're with_ instead. She says that pop culture has increasingly reflected the view that "_everything_ is essentially entertainment," and specifically identifies that with the ESP worldview. Describing the ESFPs specifically, she says:



Thomson said:


> ESFPs best illustrate Jung's description of the Sensation type as a lover — a "lover of tangible reality." Such types ... are aware of and interested in anything that appeals to the senses: food, clothing, style, art, music, amusement, sports, and so forth. They generally enjoy "going with the flow" and will take pleasure in whatever is happening until it no longer seems enjoyable.


And she also notes that ESFPs "may strike people as not taking life seriously enough, not caring enough about the consequences of their actions"

Naomi Quenk notes that Se-doms "may be perceived by others as shallow in their pursuit of sensual pleasure and as lacking the goals and ambitions valued by society at large," but that "others may also admire and envy the extraverted sensor's carefree enjoyment of everyday living." And she goes on to say that Se-doms themselves "may experience some uneasiness about their natural affinity for fun in the present moment, often picking up on the disapproval others feel for their carefree approach to life."

Discussing the going-against-their-grain things that are likely to provoke an unpleasant "inferior function" reaction in Se-doms, Quenk explains that that can happen when they "spend a lot of time with people who are excessively serious or focused on future plans or goals," and she notes that, for some Se-doms, "even committing to things in the near future can be unpleasant."

Keirsey approvingly notes that Aristotle "detected the underlying hedonism in Plato's Artisans [— i.e., the SPs]. Hedonism is the ethical philosophy that defines the 'good' as what is pleasurable, especially to the senses." As Keirsey explains:



Keirsey said:


> Of course, all of us want to have pleasure, some of the time anyway, but not with the insistence of the [SPs.] ... [For SJs,] pleasure must wait upon a stoical acceptance of their duty, and duty need not be pleasurable at all. ...
> 
> [SPs,] on the other hand, do things for the fun of it; to them, a life without pleasure is not worth living, and the hedonist's motto of 'eat, drink, and be merry' are words to live by.


----------



## Mimic octopus (May 3, 2014)

monemi said:


> I think you need to look up hedonism. And descriptions of sensor descriptions are written by intuitives with all of their biases. But that has been discussed in other threads.


Ok, I did look it up, what now?

I haven't been reading any "descriptions of sensor descriptions", lmfao.

I'm open to changing my perspective, just as long as I see an actual argument.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Patrick_1 said:


> Ok, I did look it up, what now?
> 
> I haven't been reading any "descriptions of sensor descriptions", lmfao.
> 
> I'm open to changing my perspective, just as long as I see an actual argument.


And you've never written a typo?  How very mature. 

Pretty hard to get factual when all positions on MBTI are supposition. Descriptions are still written by and large by intuitives and not sensors. Never mind consulting with actual Se users how we operate and intuitives can continue to jump to their own biased conclusions.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

monemi said:


> Pretty hard to get factual when all positions on MBTI are supposition. Descriptions are still written by and large by intuitives and not sensors.


As an intuitive dominant I absolutely love joining in arguments where intuitives are arguing with other intuitives about the nature of sensation. Especially when I can feel the "yeah but you're not a sensor so neh" line (which is consistently incorrectly used by the intuitives, of course) coming from a mile away.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Yes, of course Si is about psychological comfort but these definitions don't occur in a vacuum. How does one attain such comforts. And really, what is pleasure? It's the manifestations of what brings comfort. I think you're correct about the assumptions people make though. Si types aren't lazy and are quite productive and often wouldn't be considered lazy at all.


In that sense a thumping majority of people are hedonists. I don't know anybody who's choosing hobbies because they find them boring, or experience enthusiasm concerning work they don't like, or jump for joy doing things they abhor etc. (though such people should exist somewhere for sure). People are programmed in a way to seek pleasure whether it is sensual or psychological one in whatever form it can be. Even if we take stereotyped "duty-fulfiller" as an example - they do their duty because it brings them satisfaction. It doesn't mean that the deal itself is pleasurable, but that realization of fulfilling makes them feel being closer to their ideals, hence more comfortable/pleased. Or another example - Ne has the radar always ready scanning new possibilities because this is what brings them psychic income.



> Yes, I agree! However the question is which function and/or types are most likely to be hedonists! That is without a doubt the Si types. However! That doesn't mean ALL Si-types are hedonists. Just that Si-types are the most likely to be able to appreciate the lifestyle in probably the least unhealthy way.
> 
> I can tell you for sure that if an Se type were to engage in hedonism as a lifestyle, that would mean a pretty short and pointless life for that person. :tongue:


Somehow hedonism and a healthy lifestyle don't compute in my mind. For my part and my SiTe POV hedonistic lifestyle in its colloquial meaning is totally unproductive, aimless and most importantly boring, lol:kitteh: .


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

emberfly said:


> This is a very close-minded view of pleasure.


Well that's the definition of hedonism.



emberfly said:


> You're right! I looked up the definitions of both, and I was totally thinking of debauchery.
> 
> Seems to me that humans (all animals) are in their very nature hedonistic.


I think when it comes to the most basic needs I'd agree. However, social animals are well known to sacrifice in lieu of living purely for attaining desirables and humans are social creatures.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

To_august said:


> In that sense a thumping majority of people are hedonists. I don't know anybody who's choosing hobbies because they find them boring, or experience enthusiasm concerning work they don't like, or jump for joy doing things they abhor etc. (though such people should exist somewhere for sure). People are programmed in a way to seek pleasure whether it is sensual or psychological one in whatever form it can be. Even if we take stereotyped "duty-fulfiller" as an example - they do their duty because it brings them satisfaction. It doesn't mean that the deal itself is pleasurable, but that realization of fulfilling makes them feel being closer to their ideals, hence more comfortable/pleased. Or another example - Ne has the radar always ready scanning new possibilities because this is what brings them psychic income.


Yeah, but doing what you do because you like it doesn't necessarily seem the same as doing what you do because you derive pleasure from it.



To_august said:


> Somehow hedonism and a healthy lifestyle don't compute in my mind. For my part and my SiTe POV hedonistic lifestyle in its colloquial meaning is totally unproductive, aimless and most importantly boring, lol:kitteh: .


Hahah, well when I think of hedonism as a lifestyle, I think of people such as the connoisseur, the epicure, the bonvivant and yes, even the sex addict. :laughing:


I think in moderation that type of lifestyle may not necessarily be bad, immoral or unhealthy.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

MNiS said:


> However, social animals are well known *to sacrifice* in lieu of living purely for attaining desirables and humans are social creatures.


Sacrifice what? For what purpose?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

To_august said:


> Somehow hedonism and a healthy lifestyle don't compute in my mind. For my part and my SiTe POV hedonistic lifestyle in its colloquial meaning is totally unproductive, aimless and most importantly boring,


It might be boring for a few unlucky people, but it definitely isn't necessarily boring. One's goal in a hedonistic lifestyle is to maximize pleasure. There is little room for boredom in a lifestyle that attempts to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure. Wouldn't you agree boredom is displeasurable?

But, anyway, you hit the nail on the head with:



To_august said:


> In that sense a thumping majority of people are hedonists.


All plants and animals constantly respond to stimuli. When we experience something pleasurable, we remember it and do it again, and again, and again. When we experience something displeasurable, we avoid it as much as we can.

We're all hedonists. We all try to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure. These are basic survival instincts.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

emberfly said:


> Sacrifice what? For what purpose?


To sacrifice whatever would immediately benefit the individual for the sake of the group at large or for a deferred benefit.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

MNiS said:


> To sacrifice whatever would immediately benefit the individual for the sake of the group at large or for a deferred benefit.


Wouldn't you agree that by sacrificing for the group, one experiences pleasure in helping others? Or allows oneself to experience more pleasure in the future by strengthening social bonds? Which can be pleasurable in and of themselves.

A deferred benefit is no doubt a self-indulgent ulterior motive. This sounds hedonistic.

If a person had nothing to gain by sacrificing for a group or for others, one wouldn't do it. Full stop.


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

emberfly said:


> Wouldn't you agree that by sacrificing for the group, one experiences pleasure in helping others? Or allows oneself to experience more pleasure in the future by strengthening social bonds? Which can be pleasurable in and of themselves.


No, I actually wouldn't agree considering these acts of seeming altruism leave no benefit to the individual but to the group alone.



> A deferred benefit is no doubt a self-indulgent ulterior motive. This sounds hedonistic.


Hahah, I think you're trying to make everything seem hedonistic when it isn't. A hedonistic motive would be always seek what brings pleasure and happiness. Deferring it would be the exact opposite.



To_august said:


> If a person had nothing to gain by sacrificing for a group or for others, one wouldn't do it. Full stop.


Who knows what really compels some people. How would you explain suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots then?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

MNiS said:


> No, I actually wouldn't agree considering these acts of seeming altruism leave *no benefit to the individual* but to the group alone.


This is untrue. There are always benefits to everything. Altruism is innately hedonistic. Altruists feel as though it is their duty to help others, and it brings them immense pleasure to do so. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. *



> A hedonistic motive would be always seek what brings pleasure and happiness. Deferring it would be the exact opposite.


Deferring pleasure is not the same as not seeking pleasure. If there are no pleasurable options to choose from in a certain situation, it is inevitable that one must encounter displeasure, if but for a moment.



> Who knows what really compels some people. How would you explain suicide bombers and kamikaze pilots then?


question too vague



MNiS said:


> Hahah, I think you're trying to make everything seem hedonistic when it isn't.


Nope, I'm merely trying to argue that we're all hedonists. And thus this thread topic question is either 1) poorly-worded, 2) not well-thought-out, 3) moot 4) all of the above.



*I would also like to point out that some definitions of hedonism do not state that hedonists only seek pleasure for _themselves_. They merely state that they attempt to "maximize pleasure."


----------



## MNiS (Jan 30, 2010)

emberfly said:


> This is untrue. There are always benefits to everything. Altruism is innately hedonistic. Altruists feel as though it is their duty to help others, and it brings them immense pleasure to do so. If it didn't, they wouldn't do it. *


Modern psychology would disagree with you:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/basics/altruism



> Deferring pleasure is not the same as not seeking pleasure. If there are no pleasurable options to choose from in a certain situation, it is inevitable that one must encounter displeasure, if but for a moment.


Say a person defers purchasing a motorcycle until he can justify the purchase to himself by having done something to deserve it. Is that hedonistic? It doesn't really seem so to me.



> question too vague


If people only do things for selfish reasons or would never do them at all, then how would you explain kamikaze pilots and suicide bombers?



> Nope, I'm merely trying to argue that we're all hedonists. And thus this thread topic question is either 1) poorly-worded, 2) not well-thought-out, 3) moot 4) all of the above.


Sure. Everyone is a hedonist to some degree.




> *I would also like to point out that some definitions of hedonism do not state that hedonists only seek pleasure for _themselves_. They merely state that they attempt to "maximize pleasure."


That's the definition I was going by.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

MNiS said:


> Yeah, but doing what you do because you like it doesn't necessarily seem the same as doing what you do because you derive pleasure from it.
> 
> Hahah, well when I think of hedonism as a lifestyle, I think of people such as the connoisseur, the epicure, the bonvivant and yes, even the sex addict. :laughing:
> 
> I think in moderation that type of lifestyle may not necessarily be bad, immoral or unhealthy.


Hmm... now I wonder is it possible to _not _derive any pleasure from something you like to do.

True. Good examples, that's something I imagine too when speaking about hedonism. It shouldn't necessarily be bad, there's just something too physical in them that provokes rejection in me. Idk, lol, can't put a finger on it.



emberfly said:


> It might be boring for a few unlucky people, but it definitely isn't necessarily boring. One's goal in a hedonistic lifestyle is to maximize pleasure. There is little room for boredom in a lifestyle that attempts to maximize pleasure and minimize displeasure. Wouldn't you agree boredom is displeasurable?


I meant hedonist in its colloquial common meaning. Like a person who's main goal in life is to gratify their basic instincts without going any further than that. For me that would be a boring lifestyle. In a sense of an ethical hedonism, yeah, hedonists we all are.:kitteh:


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

To_august said:


> Hmm... now I wonder is it possible to _not _derive any pleasure from something you like to do.
> 
> True. Good examples, that's something I imagine too when speaking about hedonism. It shouldn't necessarily be bad, there's just something too physical in them that provokes rejection in me. Idk, lol, can't put a finger on it.
> 
> ...


If you're going by the colloquial meaning, it's just another word for immoral. So essentially, you're calling SP's immoral. Is that what you really think of SP's? That they're the most immoral type?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

monemi said:


> If you're going by the colloquial meaning, it's just another word for immoral. So essentially, you're calling SP's immoral. Is that what you really think of SP's? That they're the most immoral type?


No, I don't think it's another word for immoral. Why do you think so and what SPs have to do with it?
I don't see how connotations of hedonism and morality/immorality are the same.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> If you're going by the colloquial meaning, it's just another word for immoral. So essentially, you're calling SP's immoral. Is that what you really think of SP's? That they're the most immoral type?


I'm confused. Where did she state or imply anything about SPs?


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

To_august said:


> No, I don't think it's another word for immoral. Why do you think so and what SPs have to do with it?
> I don't see how connotations of hedonism and morality/immorality are the same.





PaladinX said:


> I'm confused. Where did she state or imply anything about SPs?


The discussion so far has been about most hedonistic type. Those denying that hedonism fits SJ's better, have argued that they are ignoring the dictionary definition of hedonism and using colloquial meaning and that hedonism fit's Se-doms better. The colloquial definition is essentially about morality. The implication is right there. If that isn't what is meant to be implied, then what exactly are people driving at?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> The discussion so far has been about most hedonistic type. Those denying that hedonism fits SJ's better, have argued that they are ignoring the dictionary definition of hedonism and using colloquial meaning and that hedonism fit's Se-doms better. The colloquial definition is essentially about morality. The implication is right there. If that isn't what is meant to be implied, then what exactly are people driving at?


No I get that's what most people are doing, but that is not what I get from @To_august 's posts specifically. Saying that her stance is that SJs are not hedonistic for whatever reason does not automatically mean that she is implying that SPs are.

I thought maybe I missed something. Thanks for clearing it up.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

I don't think there's much difference between the "dictionary definition" and the "colloquial" definition of hedonism, and I'd say hedonist is most often used to refer to someone who demonstrates a well-above-average preference for pleasure (most often sensual pleasures) in the moment. I don't think there's usually much of an _immoral_ connotation. _Irresponsibility_, yes, in the sense that a hedonist is likely to have an above-average propensity to favor short-term pleasure over doing something not-so-pleasurable now for purposes of future benefit.

Here's the Random House Unabridged definition of "hedonist":



Random House Unabridged Dictionary said:


> a person whose life is devoted to the pursuit of pleasure or self-gratification


I'd say Aesop's fable about the ant and the grasshopper fits SJ/SP reasonably well, with the hedonistic grasshopper spending the summer singing while the ant buckles down and stores up food for the winter. And yes, the "moral" of the story is that you shouldn't overly neglect work and providing for the future for the sake of today's fun, but I'd say, first, that most people make a distinction between people they'd call "irresponsibly fun-loving" and people they'd call "immoral," and second, that most people who'd call a guy a "hedonist" because his life's passions all revolve around sex, food and similar "eat, drink and be merry" sensual pleasures aren't likely to change that label just because he (responsibly but begrudgingly) does his job 40 hours a week so the bills get paid.

As illustrated by the quotes in my previous post, Jung associated a strong focus on sensual pleasure in the moment with Se-doms, Keirsey specifically referred to SPs as the "hedonistic" types, and Myers, Thomson and Quenk all described ESPs in similar live-for-today's-pleasure terms. And Keirsey specifically contrasted SPs and the more dutiful, work-first-play-later SJs in that regard.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> I don't think there's much difference between the "dictionary definition" and the "colloquial" definition of hedonism, and I'd say hedonist is most often used to refer to someone who demonstrates a well-above-average preference for pleasure (most often sensual pleasures) in the moment. I don't think there's usually much of an _immoral_ connotation. _Irresponsibility_, yes, in the sense that a hedonist is likely to have an above-average propensity to favor short-term pleasure over doing something not-so-pleasurable now for purposes of future benefit.
> 
> Here's the Random House Unabridged definition of "hedonist":
> 
> ...


You're just repeating yourself without bringing up new points.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

monemi said:


> You're just repeating yourself without bringing up new points.


I guess I need to learn to post more like you. :tongue:

ADDED: Also, for the record, your posts had raised the issues of (1) a difference between the "dictionary" and "colloquial" definitions of hedonism, and (2) whether hedonism was largely associated with "morality" (at least under the "colloquial" definition).

And my latest post addressed both those issues, neither of which had been addressed in my earlier posts.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

monemi said:


> The discussion so far has been about most hedonistic type. Those denying that hedonism fits SJ's better, have argued that they are ignoring the dictionary definition of hedonism and using colloquial meaning and that hedonism fit's Se-doms better. The colloquial definition is essentially about morality. The implication is right there. If that isn't what is meant to be implied, then what exactly are people driving at?


Except I never said that Se types are the best candidates for being hedonistic. Actually I didn't say anything about Se types at all. Since it was mentioned, I don't think Se drives people into being pleasure-seekers. 
The things I imply are:
- the majority of people are hedonistic in their nature in a meaning of ethical hedonism, and it's a stretch to assign such behaviour to any type
- it is wrong to put behavioural labels on cognitive functions, because it provides people with caricaturable distorted ideas of types which leads to an awful lot of mistypes.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

reckful said:


> I guess I need to learn to post more like you. :tongue:
> 
> ADDED: Also, for the record, your posts had raised the issues of (1) a difference between the "dictionary" and "colloquial" definitions of hedonism, and (2) whether hedonism was largely associated with "morality" (at least under the "colloquial" definition).
> 
> ...


merriam-webster dictionary

Hedonism

1
*:* the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life 
2
*:* a way of life based on or suggesting the principles of hedonism 

I guess you can pick and choose which dictionary you prefer that fits your argument. But the dictionary definition I'm familiar with returns to the origin. I've noticed that when I've looked at the dictionary definition of the word and what people mean when they say the word, are two different things. 

Jung believed in psychic energy. You believe in everything he says? You can always go back to Jung, but I think he had plenty of his own biases against sensors.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Jung's definition on Libido:



> 37. Libido: In my view, this concept is synonymous with psychic energy [63]. *Psychic energy is the intensity of the psychic process -- its psychological value.* By this I do not mean to imply any imparted value, whether moral, aesthetic, or intellectual; the psychological value is simply conditioned by its determining power, which is manifested in definite psychic operations ('effects'). Neither do I understand libido as a psychic force, a misunderstanding that has led many critics astray. I do not hypostasize the concept of energy, *but employ it as a concept denoting intensity or value*. The question as to whether or no a specific psychic force exists has nothing to do with the concept of libido.


This the definition of pleasure:



> pleas·ure
> ˈpleZHər/Submit
> noun
> 1.
> a *feeling of happy satisfaction and enjoyment*.


The definition of satisfaction:



> sat·is·fac·tion
> ˌsadəsˈfakSH(ə)n/
> noun
> *fulfillment of one's wishes, expectations, or needs*, or the pleasure derived from this.


According to Jung, anyone with a dominant function is inevitably a hedonist. Therefore everybody is a hedonist, by definition of hedonism and Jungian functions it is impossible for one type to be more hedonistic than another. Some of us just extravert it while the others introvert it.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Shadow Logic said:


> According to Jung, anyone with a dominant function is inevitably a hedonist. Therefore everybody is a hedonist, by definition of hedonism and Jungian functions it is impossible for one type to be more hedonistic than another. Some of us just extravert it while the others introvert it.


If you define "hedonist" in a way that means "everybody is a hedonist," then all you've really done is make "hedonist" a useless term, at least when it comes to distinguishing one kind of person from another.

Buut in normal usage (never mind MBTI-related contexts), "hedonist" is almost always used to refer to a kind of person who differs from the average person in certain ways — and I've previously noted that I think two personality characteristics typically associated with hedonism are a love of sensual pleasures and a live-for-today attitude. So if the question on the table is, looking at _those people_ who are most commonly referred to as "hedonists," are there one or more Jungian/MBTI types who are more likely to be members of that group? — then fiddling with the definition in a way that makes everybody a hedonist isn't really _answering_ the question, it's _ducking_ the question.

monemi has previously noted that I have previously noted (with a long, accompanying quote) that Jung described Se-doms in a way that arguably does a pretty good job of fitting typical notions of what a "hedonist" is like.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

reckful said:


> If you define "hedonist" in a way that means "everybody is a hedonist," then all you've really done is make "hedonist" a useless term, at least when it comes to distinguishing one kind of person from another.
> 
> Buut in normal usage (never mind MBTI-related contexts), "hedonist" is almost always used to refer to a kind of person who differs from the average person in certain ways — and I've previously noted that I think two personality characteristics typically associated with hedonism are a love of sensual pleasures and a live-for-today attitude. So if the question on the table is, looking at _those people_ who are most commonly referred to as "hedonists," are there one or more Jungian/MBTI types who are more likely be members of that group? — then fiddling with the definition in a way that makes everybody a hedonist isn't really _answering_ the question, it's _ducking_ the question.
> 
> monemi has previously noted that I have previously noted (with a long, accompanying quote) that Jung described Se-doms in a way that arguably does a pretty good job of fitting typical notions of what a "hedonist" is like.


You have a strange way of wording things, you see fiddling with a definition would imply changing what the definition says in some type or form, whether with words or structure. So let's see if I did that, heres a definition of hedonist:



> he·don·ist
> ˈhēdənəst,ˈhedənəst/
> noun
> a person who believes that the pursuit of pleasure is the most important thing in life; a pleasure-seeker.


If a person focuses their libido mainly in the main function, and the main function is what we are bound by, then we are inadvertently pleasure seekers. I mean the main function is where we get the most energy from, if we are seeking what that function craves then pleasure seeking is what we inevitably are. 

This isnt fiddling, this is applying the definition to what Jung said about the dominant function, psychic energy, and libido. Now if you have a problem with its definition (not its "normal" usage), then that's something I can't help you with. Unless you can prove that the libido (in Jungian terms) has absolutely nothing to do with pleasure, then your point is moot.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

Se, se, se, se, se, se. Its definitely Se. I don't understand the arguments people are using for any other function. 

1. Hedonistic: engaged in the pursuit of pleasure; *sensually* self-indulgent.

synonyms: self-indulgent, pleasure-seeking, *sybaritic*, *unrestrained*,etc. 

a. pleasure: A feeling of happy satisfaction or enjoyment.
* b. sensually: pertaining to, inclined to, or preoccupied with the gratification of the senses or appetites; carnal; fleshy. *
*c. sybaritic: fond of sensuous luxury or pleasure; self-indulgent.
*
I see a whole lot of senses, sensual, and sensuous up in these definitions. You can argue that every type pursues pleasure in their own way, and they most definitely do. BUT the use of _hedonistic_ generally implies the pursuit of pleasure by way of the _senses_. In other words, things like sex, food, wine, etc. Its true that Se will often seek out new experiences but in a, "I'll have a redhead this week and a brunette next week.", kind of way. ( I'm obviously over-generalizing here.) This is Se. No discussion. 

*ESTP, ESFP* win this round.


----------

