# Some thoughts on Se



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I do not believe that hand-eye coordination has anything to do with type. I think the fact that people in sports are usually Se (dom) types has more to do with motivation than with capacity. I know plenty of ESxP and ISxP types that are miserable at sports or simply uninterested. I am sure this is doubly true for women, who are presumably less often pressed into such activities. I know plenty of Se types who are quite uncoordinated. I suspect that Se, rather than being the source of this, is simply the function that is most likely to capitalize and hone a natural talent... particularly when coupled with Ti. 

Se is nothing more than how we relate stimulus/experiences. Si does so carefully but absolutely. Strong labeling, categorizing, stereotyping, is the invariable result of Si. You may find that a lot of Si types hate bad stereotypes or bad labels... sometimes very much so, just like an Ni would hate an untruth, a Ti would hate an illogic, an Fi would hate an injustice. However, Si works in that world. It sees those labels and thinks in those labels. Actually, who better or more inclined to fight against the misplacement of them than those who place them? 

'e' functions are more agnostic and naive. They shoot from the hip and 'call what they see' always ready and even eager to abandon whatever half-assed semi-conclusion they've produced. Te makes a quick decision or offers some observational logic and remains agile and open to correction or input, able to change on a dime since they are really just throwing out the best actionable logic on hand. Fe is just as quick to judgment; whether a sudden rage or an instant sizing up of people or situations, Fe is naive to right and wrong, able and willing to judge based on what is apparent at any moment, and to dial in to another clear judgment without hesitation when what is apparent clearly changes. Ne tosses out half-assed concepts and essences to see what sticks - often socially in a 'brainstorm'. Se sees labels and categorizations as sensible as trying to paint the surface of a river. Observable comparisons are a joke to Se, who sees all the labels and comparisons that could apply, like an endless parade of possible alternate realities. Thus hard comparisons seem silly and even arbitrary. 

<tangent>
It's interesting how the 'i' might then see the 'e' as shallow and even mindless... where the 'e' would see the 'i' as overwrought and arbitrary. 

I definitely see Te and Se as shallow and mindless, and Fi and Ni as overwrought and arbitrary/subjective. It makes sense that the types possessing those functions are the ones I struggle with the most (xNTJ and, to a much lesser extent, xSFP). Hrm... I wonder if there is anything to that........ 
</tangent>

In typing threads, Se types are usually iterating through a lot of half-assed sensory comparisons like 'hand-eye coordination' and 'showing emotion in a group' - and whether or not they do that. All of which they undoubtedly would discard without a thought (Si types would fight to defend them). They are, perhaps, trying to / needing to engage that Ni inferior to get a sense of a personal truth. If they are really an Se dom, they'll probably never rest easy inside a personality box. Stuff like this is always penciled-in for an Se-dom.

It is interesting that such is not the case for Ne types. Using Si-style comparisons, the Ne type will lock hard into their type and will defend it by comparing themselves to others in an absolute 'labeled' sort of way. They'd happily, and often do, happily, go their whole lives set in their ways like this. I think that such is fundamentally foreign to an Se-dom.


----------



## Schweeeeks (Feb 12, 2013)

I like it!
Could you define "label" a little more?
For example: Ti is very much about precision and that requires detailed analysis and "categorization" of all the various parts of a situation/concept.
How does this differ from Si labeling?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Really "labeling" is more of an Fi/Te thing. The desire to see things in black and white, fundamentally right or wrong values.

Si is noticing very subtle sensory differences between things, which does lend itself to categorizing in the way the world works (the STJ bureaucracy). Those utilizing Si are motivated to avoid what is subtly different, and that is hence why they are so in tune with it.

Se is just being very aware of the raw sensory stimulus and indulging in it. Seeing what "is" at face value. I would say you are correct to state that it doesn't automatically translate to hand-eye coordination, that is more a biproduct of practicing hand-eye activities. However, those using Se will often be great at hand-eye simply because they notice the sensory details so readily, while also actively enjoy activities that enhance hand-eye coord.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@Moop & @Frenetic Tranquility - I'll have to say that labeling is not an Fi/Te thing, at least not in the way I am meaning it, because I am an INTP and I am a Labelmaker&#8482;. Really, what it means is making sensory connections that lean a bit absolute and set-in-their-ways. _This is like that_, on the surface... and taking that seriously. You are a bully because you are like Josh, a 'bully'. Or, worse, you look like a bully so what should we expect? That's a label. I suppose Ni can do some sort of abstract 'essence' label, like good and bad... and probably do, but I am talking about mundane categorizations. Cliques, classes, comparisons, categories. 

The best part comes when the Se type shirks off the label of not labeling. Today, for this argument, they label. Tomorrow, they don't. Everything changes. Everything has to be judge in the moment, of the moment, for the moment. Until I say that, and then it doesn't. You know what I mean?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I can see your point, I was taking the word labeling to a different meaning - making black and white decisions is "labeling" to me. It's assigning a definitive value to something. 

Relating things to past similar other things, that might produce a label, okay I buy that sense you are using. But honestly, Si is a perception function. The act of labeling itself is not perception but rather a judgment. So you can't have a label without a judgment determining that the two things should be categorized. I know as an ENTP, I definitely do relate things, but I don't honestly think I've ever viewed *anything* as just alike - it's all far too ambiguous for that. But that's how Ti works - it cannot label things absolutely, because Ti sees too much nuance even in similar things, when looked at in a very precise way. I might categorize things, but only if there's a specific reason to do so, not in the way that Te is constantly trying to categorize *everything*, in an attempt that it all can be assimilated by others more readily.

I do not agree that Se users can't group things as well. In fact, superficially, they will definitely group things just like Si users, but the criteria for doing this is different. It's all at a very surface level. The tendency of Se users to be day to day does not mean that they don't categorize. I think you are lumping all Se users together here when you say they don't categorize, but I know xNTJ are absolutely categorizers. xSTPs, not so much, but that is more because of Ti seeing the subtle differences perceived by Se, day in and day out. So each needs to be treated differently!


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

I agree that Ti is exacting in it its categorizations... but allow me to turn your argument on itself. While it is true that categorizations might require a judgment as impetus... it seems conceded that the actual act of categorization is a perceiving function. All Ti can do it determine the logical value of the comparison. 

Example: You meet 12 people in a row who all have blue eyes and are jerks. You connect them based on the 'surface' impression of blue eyes and what they said. Si makes the connection that people with blue eyes are jerks. Ti comes in to determine if it is logical to conclude this. On its own, Ti cannot defy the logic without either using more Si to pull in more context (recalling all the blue eyed people who were nice) or recalling the statistics of blue eyed people in the area (which might lead to further comparisons). 

Ne, could, of course, jump in and reframe the whole thing by objectively considering the essence of it. Things are more than what they seem. Blue eyes are one of a thousand thousand different aspects, some invisible, that can correlate. Our perceptions are sharper during times of stress, like when someone is rude. T(i in this case) and Ne reaching into the essence to solve the problem. 

Si makes strong connections and doesn't naturally seek to be objective about them. You don't think that is a factor in labeling?

Last night I sat with an ISFP and we got to talking about typing. They did what all Se types do, and sat fascinated and riveted by the conversation about type. They humored everything but you knew, going away, that it was just humoring... because Se cannot accept hard labels of people. The idea that a person is one way and doesn't change from that is fundamentally difficult for an Se to accept. They are OBJECTIVE in their sensory comparisons/connections. Just like Ne is with concepts and ideologies, they are objective and fluid with sensory categorizations inherent to typing... they are further reticent to accept conceptual truths and essences without internalizing it and 'coming to it themselves' with Ni. 

Se wants to hear everything. Everything. Very very very inductive when it comes to anything interesting about people, the world, the universe, anything outside of pure abstract 'nothing' and they are just lapping it up. But they don't commit or even sometimes seem to understand. They will listen and listen and listen to something like type theory and then say 'interesting theory... I don't know what I am, and I think that people are too dynamic to be put in a box, but it's interesting!' They may humor it and come up with a typing for fun... or, if they are in a crisis or something, they may fall into Ni and connect subjectively with a particular type that they feel rather absolutely reflects their essence... while still refusing to commit to the idea, in an objective sense, of type theory.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

I can respond in more detail later but....

Not sure why you think Se types reject typing because they can't accept things one way? I think it has more to do with...a hard time seeing relations without alot of first hand experiencing. Se types experience first, ad naseum even then tbe Ni can finall fill in.

Se types definitely can believe in some odd things. Like the superstitions and also astrology ideas.....mostly because this is them trying to extrapolate an Ni from a limited amount of Se experiences. And so the Ni vision is not realistic. Se is only realistic in seeing what is, very bluntly, but poor at the implied meanings and when they do and don't make sense.


----------

