# Socionics Ne compared to Jungian Se



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

I've been exploring Socionics recently, and while I'm an ISTP in JCF/MBTI, I've realized that I probably have Ne in Socionics. The highest probably for me would be LII, but I have also been considering ILE. What I want to know is how "using" Jungian Se could translate into "using" Socionics Ne. What traits do these two functions share that would make sense for them to correlate?


----------



## Kanerou (Oct 8, 2009)

Treat the two as separate systems. Quit looking at the labels and focus on the processes they describe. If the latter fits for you as an individual, don't worry about the former. In the meantime, you might find this helpful.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

Kanerou said:


> Treat the two as separate systems. Quit looking at the labels and focus on the processes they describe. If the latter fits for you as an individual, don't worry about the former. In the meantime, you might find this helpful.


I am looking at them as two separate systems. I have no problem accepting that I'm a different type in Socionics, and I'm not concerned about the labels. What I'm curious about is if the processes could describe something similar or not. 

I have found that link to be helpful, but it didn't specifically address how Socionic Ne's processes are similar or different from Jungian Se, like it did for some of the other functions. That's why I decided to make a separate thread about it. I would like to have a discussion about it. But, if you have another link in addition to the one you provided, that would also be helpful.


----------



## aestrivex (Mar 7, 2011)

madhatter said:


> I have found that link to be helpful, but it didn't specifically address how Socionic Ne's processes are similar or different from Jungian Se


I do not have a problem with the conceptual framing of this question, however I find it of low interest.

My off-the-cuff interpretation of the question at hand is that Jungian Se is similar to socionics Se, relatively speaking with respect to other IM elements' counterparts. Descriptions of Jungian Se lacks the partly-stereotyped qualities of willpower and territory but has much mention of action and feels consistent with the impression of "act impulsively rather than think" that I think of socionics Se.

socionics Ne of course is an element in conflict with Se in terms of the life goals; potential of one's experience rather than currently actionable experience and worldly adaptability to one's experience as opposed to supra-worldly self-determination of one's experience. So, linking the two parts together, I do not see socionics Ne and MBTI Se as particularly having much of anything in common, beyond that they are both extroverted processes.


I, like kanerou, harbor more interest in for what reasons you think you are Ne in socionics that are directly related to folk-psychology understanding and observation of your behavior, than anything to do with relating a socionics typing to some aspects of an MBTI typing.


----------



## FlaviaGemina (May 3, 2012)

off-topic, but this is hilarious:


> introverted intuition (Ni) types who pick one option and continue to doubt that option.


So true!


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

aestrivex said:


> I do not have a problem with the conceptual framing of this question, however I find it of low interest.
> 
> My off-the-cuff interpretation of the question at hand is that Jungian Se is similar to socionics Se, relatively speaking with respect to other IM elements' counterparts. Descriptions of Jungian Se lacks the partly-stereotyped qualities of willpower and territory but has much mention of action and feels consistent with the impression of "act impulsively rather than think" that I think of socionics Se.
> 
> ...


Thanks for your response.

I've been considering Ne over Se, because, while I'm interested in immediacy of action and context and realistic facts and possibilities, I don't really relate to the way Se is described as forceful and confrontational. I don't see myself in this way, nor do I see myself as an enforcer of rules, as the LSI is often described. I have a hard time reconciling Socionics Se and Jungian Se in myself. I know that they are separate systems and I'm not trying to be correlate them. I'm thinking of this purely in the context of my type. So there are two possibilities. One, I don't see myself as I really am, and I actually am forceful in the way Socionics Se is described. Or two, I have Ne in my Ego block in Socionics, but Se is my auxiliary in JCF, that they are completely separate and there's no real reason why I'm different in the two systems other than they're two different systems. I am okay with both possibilities, I just haven't decided which is true yet, which is why I wanted to make this thread. I'm still relatively new to Socionics, and I'm still filtering the good information from the bad and misinformed. 

I don't know if that answers your question or not. Feel free to ask more. Also, I know we have not interacted a lot, but your insight would be appreciated.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I've been exploring Socionics recently, and while I'm an ISTP in JCF/MBTI, I've realized that I probably have Ne in Socionics. The highest probably for me would be LII, but I have also been considering ILE. What I want to know is how "using" Jungian Se could translate into "using" Socionics Ne. What traits do these two functions share that would make sense for them to correlate?


The way they are similar is that they are both extroverted and both irrational (perceiving). This means that they will "direct" the attention of a person in the same way -- to scan environment outwardly -- and will register information in the same irrational manner -- see "what exists out there", to register all "that is" without imparting any value judgement (that's the job of rational elements) which makes both Ne and Se creatives indecisive when it comes to making "external" choices. According to this little snippet both Ne and Se being Pe are *ontologically objective*.

Ne is unlike Se in that it is N - an intuitive element that de-emphasizes and relaxes the "physical boundaries & properties" of objects. This imparts upon it a sort of mutative quality, where it will allow a person to freely recombine, mutate and transform these properties, sometimes creating new, bizarre, fantastical combinations. This is likely what inspired the label "childlike" or "infantile" in reference to Ne-ego types in erotic styles -- they are constantly seeing the world split into many different potentialities and they occupy themselves with exploring them.

Se does the opposite of emphasizing and consolidating the external physical qualities and making the person be very attentive of them. This gives Se-egos types a certain directness and makes them adept at evaluating and handling material stuffs. For example in this profile of ISFj/ESI (Se-creative) it notes that ESIs can pick up a lot of information from a person's appearance: "Dreiser is also an excellent physiognomist. He is exceptionally observant; orienting by barely perceptible and only visible to him visual cues, he is able to formulate a precise idea of the character traits and overall nature of a person." Contrast this to Ne-creative description of INFj/EII: "Dostoyevskies are frequently indifferent to their exterior appearance (and that of others). Their basic requirement: not to stand out, not to dress provocatively, not to draw too much attention to themselves." As "aristocratic NFs" with Ne-creative EIIs are more focused on people's intangible properties and potentialities at the expense of paying attention to the concrete and the material aspects.

To make this short, I don't think there is a simple and easy way to convert Jungian Se to Socionics Ne due to the stumbling block of having to first explain how jungian sensing can become socionics intuition.


----------



## chaoticbrain (May 5, 2012)

Well why don't you explain what you find resonates in those functions for you.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> The way they are similar is that they are both extroverted and both irrational (perceiving). This means that they will "direct" the attention of a person in the same way -- to scan environment outwardly -- and will register information in the same irrational manner -- see "what exists out there", to register all "that is" without imparting any value judgement (that's the job of rational elements) which makes both Ne and Se creatives indecisive when it comes to making "external" choices. According to this little snippet both Ne and Se being Pe are *ontologically objective*.
> 
> Ne is unlike Se in that it is N - an intuitive element that de-emphasizes and relaxes the "physical boundaries & properties" of objects. This imparts upon it a sort of mutative quality, where it will allow a person to freely recombine, mutate and transform these properties, sometimes creating new, bizarre, fantastical combinations. This is likely what inspired the label "childlike" or "infantile" in reference to Ne-ego types in erotic styles -- they are constantly seeing the world split into many different potentialities and they occupy themselves with exploring them.
> 
> ...


Thank you. I suspected as much. I've often seen people say that any Jungian type can be a Socionics type, and I wondered if there might be a connection to why someone would type one way in one system, and the other way in the second. But your explanation makes a great deal of sense. 

I'm not expressing myself very well, so bear with me. I'm not so much trying to convert the one function to the other, rather to understand what about the functions themselves, being part of two separate systems, would cause an individual to relate to Se in Jungian terms, but relate to Ne in Socionics. Because like you and aestrivex said in so few words, besides the fact that they're both extroverted Perception, one is Sensation and the other is Intuition, and they're at cross-purposes. But from the answers so far, I'm gathering the answer is no, there is nothing inherently similar in how two functions are represented in the two separate systems. 

The reason why I was thinking along these lines is because I've seen similarities across systems of how functions are represented, for instance, Jungian Te sounds an awful lot with Socionics Se to me. In fact, the only function that seems to be the closest cross-systems is Ti. Coming to Socionics from a JCF perspective, everything seemed cross-wired to me at first. I have since learned to separate them in my mind, but I still see similarities between functions across types. They're just not one-to-one, like the JCF Te, Socionics Se.


----------



## PhoenixFox (Jul 14, 2012)

I actually made a post that goes over this 'cross-wiring' in a little bit of depth with my own personality type: http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/125649-reason-i-subscribe-socionics.html

Essentially, MBTI functions feel like they are very vague and almost contrived to match the descriptions. They seemed very forced. I eventually settled on typing just by the standard method; if they are extroverted and relaxed, they must be EP, and since they are social and shallow, they must be ESFP. It was so much easier and a lot more accurate. I found myself in the awkward habit of thinking 'That person is an XXXX', rather than thinking about what it really means about them. 

When I made the switch to socionics, there was a lot that seemed 'off'. But after I began reading it and observing people, it started to make sense and it seemed very natural. Because socionics began with the functions, it is only natural that the descriptions are not as rigidly defined. Likewise, MBTI began by describing individuals and thus lacks adequate descriptions for the functions. In my experience, JCF are based upon behaviours; how someone acts. The socionics functions are based upon perception; how someone thinks.

The one function in socionics which stood out to me and seemed out of place was Se. Control, manipulation, attention? Those didn't sound like my very social sister (ESFP), even though it was the only type that seemed a fit for her. When I read the description to her though, she said that it was pretty much bang on; she explained that she changes her mood according to whether someone's doing what she wants them too, even though she doesn't take it to attention-whore levels. It was interesting to see her agree with the wikisocion description of Se, as she didn't agree to the exaggerated socionics.com description. I was honestly surprised, as I had expected her to outright deny that she was like that...

Anyways, task at hand; Can an Se JCF identify with Ne socionics? 
In my experience, not really. An Ne is always jumping from topic to topic, looking for amusing tidbits of information and sensationalist discussion. I realize that with my introversion, I have a skewed perspective, but I have found that Ne types love to talk about the latest social or scientific gossip. I had an ENTP friend and he was always looking for interesting ideas and the latest technology; he didn't care about how it would work or what it would cause to happen unless that too used buzzwords and unusual ideas. Things like teleportation, space exploration and the like would amaze him. Likewise, a 13 year-old ENFP I babysit on occasion is amused by any internet meme, and amazed by things that push the boundary of day-to-day reality, but she approaches it from a sense of whether it's emotionally engaging. She doesn't care about intellectual things like teleportation, but she associates heavily with exaggerated and extreme characters from books/manga/videos. She is much like another ENFP friend I had who was 17 and constantly bubbling over about manga characters and songs that she enjoyed singing to. Ne has little sense of restraint and will often spout out random ideas in my experience (if you happen to get close to them).

Contrary to that extreme sense of wonder for the odd, exciting and strange ideas, Se in JCF is: (T flavoured) 


typelogic.com/estp.html said:


> ...the ultimate realists. Extraverted Sensors are at one with objects and experiences *now*, in the only living, pulsing moment that ever really exists. The Sensor is compelled to see, touch, taste, smell and feel all that moves, wafts, tingles, tinkles, scintillates, vibrates or resonates...


(F flavoured)


typelogic.com/ESFP.html said:


> The dominant function of ESFPs is concerned with the reality that is perceived through the senses. This type's prime directive is to examine the tangible through taste, touch, sight, feeling and hearing. ESFPs' need for new experiences surely results from this function... As perceivers, ESFPs do not linger on moral concerns unless it is in service of a Greater Good and/or a unifying cause.


You should be able to see the difference. Ne (socionics) is all about interesting _ideas_. Se, whether in socionics or JCF has a relatively consensual meaning of interesting _experiences_, with the addition of control and power games in socionics. Ne is most certainly not rooted in reality, and they often talk about things just because they are absurd and unreal. An Se will talk about things because they are 'fun' or pretty, or other traits related to immediate sensory data, generally avoiding imagination and concepts. 

I don't say your situation is impossible, but it is highly improbable that an EXSP would identify with IXE (EXNP) in socionics. Having personal experience with most of the types, I know that N is drastically different from S. An S would never sacrifice an opportunity to do something physically fun, and an N wouldn't sacrifice the chance to talk about something interesting. Of course, I'm generalizing, but I beg that you forgive it. I am trying to convey the boundless sense of imaginative enthusiasm that Ne has compared to the rather materialistic sense of fun that a JCF Se has.

EDIT: Interestingly enough, I have noticed that bias in word choice among S and N users. An S will often say something is 'fun' when it makes them feel happy, and an N is more inclined to pause in a conversation and say 'interesting'. I have rarely heard my Se sister or my S parents call something interesting, but I and all the Ns I know often say it. For the S people I know, it is often about 'fun' more than anything else.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I've been exploring Socionics recently, and while I'm an ISTP in JCF/MBTI, I've realized that I probably have Ne in Socionics. The highest probably for me would be LII, but I have also been considering ILE. What I want to know is how "using" Jungian Se could translate into "using" Socionics Ne. What traits do these two functions share that would make sense for them to correlate?​




That would be interesting to hear a bit more about - what do you not relate to about LSI - Se? 

I read a description somewhere about Ne perceiving an object's potential, Se its kinetics. The following appears to flesh this sort of thing out

Extroverted sensing - Wikisocion

I'm not sure what to make of it. My impression though is the LSI v. LII distinctions seem to my untrained eye to hinge upon quadra value differences between Ne-Si and Se-valuing types. Which is to say, think of Si as less action-oriented and more oriented to the familiar, simple physical comforts, etc, Ti-Ne fitting an image of extracting a coherent framework for analysis from observing the potential of objective data, which gives the impression of a "floaty, free-spirited intellectual," which is far from Se-valuing as far as some descriptions I see.

Now I understand why I was suggested as LSI for being "gruff"  they _literally _use that word in the description. 



​


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

@bearotter

Well let's look at the Ego Block description for LSI from Wikisocion:



> 1. Introverted Logic
> 
> LSIs have a strong command of how various systems, structures, and hierarchies around them work, and always have a clear idea of how to implement them and improve them. LSIs quickly and easily determine what is correct and incorrect according to the systems they are familiar with.
> 
> ...


I have considered LSI for my type, but how it's represented really throws me off, this. The more "absent-minded professor" descriptions for LII aren't really me either. The things I bolded, I really don't relate to. This representation of management, enforcer, watchdog of the system, schedule, routine...it just rubs me the wrong way. That is not me. I don't impose myself or my rules onto others. I don't seek to control or manage others. I don't like it when other people do. I mind my own business, and expect others to do the same. 

I do relate to the tendency to analyze different systems, and I do have a tendency to analyze and intellectualize personal relationships. I like to things to be clear and logical. Clarity and consistency. I am also very practical, and can be very literal, but I don't exclude or dismiss things that are not "real", or theoretical. I do often think I'm right, I don't like being wrong, and if I think I'm right, I'll argue with others, but I don't really get this thing about "punishing" people. What's that about? 

Now granted, this blurb about creative-Se I relate to, especially the bolded:



> *the individual takes direct action to accomplish his goals and desires in the face of external obstacles*, and also the interests of his close friends, family, or associates. This may involve prodding others to take necessary action, *deliberately applying pressure in specific situations, or abruptly taking on an organizational role. The individual does not generally seek out confrontation, but he is also not afraid of it.*
> He takes his responsibilities seriously and tends to perform them diligently and with care. *He expects the same of others.*


I can quickly become impatient by things not getting down. But, I don't understand how ^this becomes "watchdog of the system". 

But I also relate to Se in the role function:



> *The individual tends to criticize himself for being less disciplined and organized than he should be, and typically tries to improve himself in this area, with very limited success*. He is almost unable to make himself (or anyone else, for that matter) do things that they do not want to do, and is more likely to abandon a situation where people don't want to do anything rather than figure out how to mobilize or organize them properly.
> *Discipline, organization, and mobilization can occur on their own, though, when there is a situation that demands it (as opposed to trying to generate it by oneself)*. However, *he grows increasingly tired and emotionally worn out from having to put up a fight*, and begins to look for a different, easier route rather than continue to confront the challenge directly.
> *He resents any attempts to "push" him to do things and rejects the idea of people pressuring each other to do things. He himself avoids the use of pressure, preferring instead to entice and inspire. Only severe irritation can make him become forceful and demanding for brief periods of time until he calms down.*


I'm not scatter-brained, but I'm not the most organized and disciplined of people. I find it easier to be organized when I have external motivation. I don't like being told what to do, and I don't waste the effort of babysitting or nagging others.

So, yeah, I don't know. Ne is by no means a perfect fit for me either. None of the perceptive functions are, really.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@madhatter

Right, I think that line you mentioned



> _LSIs prefer to apply their clear, logical thinking to _*forcibly affect how the real world is organized,
> 
> *


is highlighting Se-focus on "kinetic" energy, i.e. what needs to be applied to an object to get it moving, by some kind of force.


----------



## PhoenixFox (Jul 14, 2012)

Perhaps try taking a peek at ILI, which leads with Ni and Te, but values Se Fi. I am ILI and although I don't mind debating, I hate pushing my opinions on others. I prefer discussion in which both parties have opinions, but are open to the other's opinions. I'm often absent-minded when it comes to hunger, but I often pay close attention to the interactions around me.

Perhaps you are talking about Se being a suggestive function; an ILI will use Ni, but is always looking for chances to learn about the social dynamics. As an ILI, it's easy to feel detached due to having intense internal focus (upon impressions and concepts). An ILI is also able to express strong Ne, but usually resorts to the melancholy and much more subdued Ni mood.

Anyways, ILI may be your type, but this is just from a hunch; read the description on wikisocion and see how it matches up.

Edit:
You mention that you are rubbed the wrong way by 'administration' and that you intellectualize relationships. ILI/INTP loves to analyze systems, especially abstract ones and cones up with ideas, but hates having to do the dirty work to make the idea become reality (ie, forcing other people to listen). The ILI's dual on the other hand pays attention to social dynamics/power struggles and also to the physical world in a way that augments the ILI's attention to the mental landscape.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

PhoenixFox said:


> You mention that you are rubbed the wrong way by 'administration' and that you intellectualize relationships. ILI/INTP loves to analyze systems, especially abstract ones and cones up with ideas, but hates having to do the dirty work to make the idea become reality




Just to add a little word here - I think there's a similar thing about LII in the last line here, which would _not_
hold about ILI, i.e. the difference between Te-ignoring and Ne-ignoring.

I imagine you know what that is, but just thought I'd put it out there for someone trying to find her type, as it's an important distinction if considering LII v. ILI, or so I think.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

@PhoenixFox, thanks for the suggestion. I've read over ILI, and I'll read over it again later. First impression is that ILI doesn't really fit, but I'll research the type and its quadra more.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

@madhatter: pay close attention to how Ni-Te is dynamic, or at least so I think is a good idea. It really has a very different vibe in how they experience/reason through reality I think.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

@madhatter have you tried looking into dichotomies of LII and LSI if looking into their IE constituents isn't working? Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> madhatter have you tried looking into dichotomies of LII and LSI if looking into their IE constituents isn't working? Reinin dichotomies - Wikisocion


I've looked at these dichotomies briefly before, but I didn't find much use in them for me in the long run. But since you asked, I decided to read through them and list which ones I related to (there are a few that I didn't relate to either):

Carefree
Yielding/obstinate, I didn't find much use in
Static
Democratic
Tactical
Constructivist (although with this one, I could argue that I have both constructivist and emotivist characteristics)
Positivist/negativist - I thought this was a useless category
Judicious
Merry
Process/result - again, didn't get anything out of this one
Asking


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

madhatter said:


> I've looked at these dichotomies briefly before, but I didn't find much use in them for me in the long run. But since you asked, I decided to read through them and list which ones I related to (there are a few that I didn't relate to either):
> 
> Carefree
> Yielding/obstinate, I didn't find much use in
> ...


a mixed bag type :tongue:

dichotomies become useful when you are able to type others and compare yourself to them -- for example, I used to think that I am a negativist type, but then once I typed a few ILIs and IEEs it became clear that in comparison to them I'm actually a positivist type even if I get stuck on seeing what's flawed or lacking, I don't do it to as frequently or to the same extent as people of these types -- I became aware of this only when I could compare myself to other people, just reading the descriptions didn't make this clear

have you looked into your intertype relations? would you say that ILEs could be your supervisor type or SLEs? which type do you think would be in benefit relations to yourself, ILIs and SEIs, or IEIs and SLIs?


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> a mixed bag type :tongue:


Therein lies my problem, haha. 



> dichotomies become useful when you are able to type others and compare yourself to them -- for example, I used to think that I am a negativist type, but then once I typed a few ILIs and IEEs it became clear that in comparison to them I'm actually a positivist type even if I get stuck on seeing what's flawed or lacking, I don't do it to as frequently or to the same extent as people of these types -- I became aware of this only when I could compare myself to other people, just reading the descriptions didn't make this clear


I see what you mean. That makes sense. 



> have you looked into your intertype relations? would you say that ILEs could be your supervisor type or SLEs? which type do you think would be in benefit relations to yourself, ILIs and SEIs, or IEIs and SLIs?


Not really at all. The extent of my knowledge of intertype relations is skimming a few Wikisocion articles about them. I don't know people's Socionics types to compare, unfortunately. I work better when I have an IRL example that I can study and observe, and I'm just not good enough at Socionics for that yet. I know people's MBTI type, but I hesitate to convert my relations based on that.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I've been exploring Socionics recently, and while I'm an ISTP in JCF/MBTI, I've realized that I probably have Ne in Socionics. The highest probably for me would be LII, but I have also been considering ILE. What I want to know is how "using" Jungian Se could translate into "using" Socionics Ne. What traits do these two functions share that would make sense for them to correlate?


I didn't analyse you at all, just throwing this thought here, SLI? introverted, thinking, practical, sensor type & has Ne...

but I've skimmed the thread and you could also just be taking the exaggerated socionics Se definitions in a too black and white way. That LSI description you quoted from is an exaggerated stereotype too. 




PhoenixFox said:


> The one function in socionics which stood out to me and seemed out of place was Se. Control, manipulation, attention? Those didn't sound like my very social sister (ESFP), even though it was the only type that seemed a fit for her. When I read the description to her though, she said that it was pretty much bang on; she explained that she changes her mood according to whether someone's doing what she wants them too, even though she doesn't take it to attention-whore levels. It was interesting to see her agree with the wikisocion description of Se, as she didn't agree to the exaggerated socionics.com description. I was honestly surprised, as I had expected her to outright deny that she was like that...


Yeah exaggerated, probably written by some Se-PoLR type  I do get what your sister was talking about and why she didn't agree with the exaggerated stuff.





> I had an ENTP friend and he was always looking for interesting ideas and the latest technology; he didn't care about how it would work or what it would cause to happen unless that too used buzzwords and unusual ideas. Things like teleportation, space exploration and the like would amaze him.


I think these things would be amazing and do sound interesting e.g. teleportation but it's frustating that it's just an idea, not reality that I can use. Now that would be truly amazing, not just the idea 
Actually available latest tech is cool, I don't think interest in this is limited to N's.




> Contrary to that extreme sense of wonder for the odd, exciting and strange ideas, Se in JCF is: (T flavoured)
> 
> ...the ultimate realists. Extraverted Sensors are at one with objects and experiences now, in the only living, pulsing moment that ever really exists. The Sensor is compelled to see, touch, taste, smell and feel all that moves, wafts, tingles, tinkles, scintillates, vibrates or resonates...


I'm going to just say, this "touch, taste, smell" part sounds pretty overrated to me every time I read it. :bored: :yawning smile: Makes sense if you consider that vision makes up at least 80% of sensory input and more than half of the remaining % is auditory information.




> You should be able to see the difference. Ne (socionics) is all about interesting _ideas_. Se, whether in socionics or JCF has a relatively consensual meaning of interesting _experiences_, with the addition of control and power games in socionics. Ne is most certainly not rooted in reality, and they often talk about things just because they are absurd and unreal. An Se will talk about things because they are 'fun' or pretty, or other traits related to immediate sensory data, generally avoiding imagination and concepts.


I'm going to criticize a bit more.  "Ideas" is a word that's too generic. That could be any kind of thought and I hope you didn't mean to state that S types don't think at all.  But okay, with previous context I do know what you mean by "ideas", so this is just criticism at the phrasing. Otoh, the same issue from another side, why do you talk like "concepts" can't be available to S's. This is all basic human functioning... required for certain everyday life tasks. But okay, going beyond that, people with strong S preference wouldn't prefer to spend much time there with whatever concepts.

Btw, I'm quite ok with concepts in science topics and imagination in terms of fiction, books/movies & in terms of writing my own stories... yet I don't do it all day everyday so maybe that's what preference means. Still I think what's often said about S's never being interested in these, definitely doesn't describe the way I actually am.




> I don't say your situation is impossible, but it is highly improbable that an EXSP would identify with IXE (EXNP) in socionics. Having personal experience with most of the types, I know that N is drastically different from S. An S would never sacrifice an opportunity to do something physically fun, and an N wouldn't sacrifice the chance to talk about something interesting. Of course, I'm generalizing, but I beg that you forgive it. I am trying to convey the boundless sense of imaginative enthusiasm that Ne has compared to the rather materialistic sense of fun that a JCF Se has.


Actually you conveyed it pretty well. Though, with that little problem of it being a black-and-white description. A bit too misleading for my liking. 




> EDIT: Interestingly enough, I have noticed that bias in word choice among S and N users. An S will often say something is 'fun' when it makes them feel happy, and an N is more inclined to pause in a conversation and say 'interesting'. I have rarely heard my Se sister or my S parents call something interesting, but I and all the Ns I know often say it. For the S people I know, it is often about 'fun' more than anything else.


Ah, the umpteenth attempt at differentiating between S's and N's by using some small concrete thing as a definitive sign of N or S preference. I see all those attempts as wrong. Wrong fundamentally, one little trait cannot be definitive like that. Wrong also because it's easy to find counterexamples. I'll take myself as an example; I use both words, "fun" or "interesting". Both of these are pretty good generic words when I just want to keep it short. They of course don't mean the same thing


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

You know, just for good measure, @cyamitide and anyone else who seems well read in socionics, it would be good if you can find @madhatter some descriptions for socionics Se that may just diverge from the ones she seems to have found. Because I am finding all of the ones she has found {and that I know of} revolve around "forcefulness" which is theoretically grounded in the kinetic energy perception of Se. Is there no description of Se which describes the kinetic v. potential concept without that of forcefulness?

Is there really no analogue of the Jungian Ti-Se? That may be the wrong question to ask since the system of socionics was built for whatever it's worth.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

bearotter said:


> You know, just for good measure, @_cyamitide_ and anyone else who seems well read in socionics, it would be good if you can find @_madhatter_ some descriptions for socionics Se that may just diverge from the ones she seems to have found. Because I am finding all of the ones she has found {and that I know of} revolve around "forcefulness" which is theoretically grounded in the kinetic energy perception of Se. Is there no description of Se which describes the kinetic v. potential concept without that of forcefulness?
> 
> Is there really no analogue of the Jungian Ti-Se? That may be the wrong question to ask since the system of socionics was built for whatever it's worth.


Perhaps the question to ask is what one personally means by "forcefulness". I find some people are more sensitive to noting this sort of stuff than some other people.


----------



## cyamitide (Jul 8, 2010)

bearotter said:


> You know, just for good measure, @_cyamitide_ and anyone else who seems well read in socionics, it would be good if you can find @_madhatter_ some descriptions for socionics Se that may just diverge from the ones she seems to have found. Because I am finding all of the ones she has found {and that I know of} revolve around "forcefulness" which is theoretically grounded in the kinetic energy perception of Se. Is there no description of Se which describes the kinetic v. potential concept without that of forcefulness?
> 
> Is there really no analogue of the Jungian Ti-Se? That may be the wrong question to ask since the system of socionics was built for whatever it's worth.


Well, for starters, "forcefulness" is wrong interpretation of Se. "Force" has magnitude and direction and is thus a vector quantity. Se is merely an irrational, perceiving function that lets you know "what is". It doesn't possess any direction or magnitude, it has no vector. It's only in combination with Ji and Je functions (Fi,Ti,Te,Fe) that the perceiving functions acquire direction and finally could be compared to some forces. In short, Se is mere "awareness" while it's only Se-Fi or Se-Ti that could be described as "force". But then same thing is true of Ne.

As for your request, I couldn't find any descriptions of Se that didn't mention force in some shape or form, only explain why this association doesn't really work.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Thank you. I suspected as much. I've often seen people say that any Jungian type can be a Socionics type, and I wondered if there might be a connection to why someone would type one way in one system, and the other way in the second. But your explanation makes a great deal of sense.


I think this is because people have a different way approaching Jung/MBTI than you do and you would most likely consider these people MBTI mistypes to begin with.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Not really at all. The extent of my knowledge of intertype relations is skimming a few Wikisocion articles about them. I don't know people's Socionics types to compare, unfortunately.


Yes, you do know a few people who are correctly typed: Maybe (IEE-Ne), me (EII-Ne), Flatlander (ILI-Ni) to compare to although I wonder if there's a need for you to "see" how intertype works. That need could very well indicate Se though. I've been thinking about (unrelated to this thread, I didn't know you were looking into it) in whether I found you LII and LSI, and I have to say I lean more closely towards LSI after interacting more with you. There's a forcefulness to your way of being that LIIs tend to lack. 

Also, this might come across as ironic considering our theoretical positions regarding how to type according to the MBTI but if your Jungian type is correct, I also think that type is your sociotype and it will most likely be correct in socionics. Since your Jungian type is TiS(e), that'd make you LSI in socionics too.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> I think this is because people have a different way approaching Jung/MBTI than you do and you would most likely consider these people MBTI mistypes to begin with.


Mistypes because they have a different MBTI than Socionics type? No, I wouldn't consider these people to be MBTI mistypes to begin with. Where would you get that idea? I see MBTI and Socionics as separate systems, and it's possible to be a different type in each. However, as a Ti-dominant, I am very interested in the theoretical universality of ideas. Knowing that they are separate systems, but also knowing there are certain trends in typing cross-systems, I wanted to know if there could be any connection that I was missing. 

So I don't think my views about Jungian/MBTI types pertain to my questions about MBTI/Socionics in this instance. 



LeaT said:


> Yes, you do know a few people who are correctly typed: Maybe (IEE-Ne), me (EII-Ne), Flatlander (ILI-Ni) to compare to *although I wonder if there's a need for you to "see" how intertype works*. That need could very well indicate Se though. I've been thinking about (unrelated to this thread, I didn't know you were looking into it) in whether I found you LII and LSI, and I have to say *I lean more closely towards LSI after interacting more with you. There's a forcefulness to your way of being that LIIs tend to lack.*
> 
> Also, this might come across as ironic considering our theoretical positions regarding how to type according to the MBTI but if your Jungian type is correct, I also think that type is your sociotype and it will most likely be correct in socionics. Since your Jungian type is TiS(e), that'd make you LSI in socionics too.


I don't think I *need* to "see" how intertype relations work, since I obviously haven't looked much into it at all. Actually, I've never put much stock in judging relationships based on typology. This is not an argument against Se, though. Just a clarification of meaning. Because, if I were interested in intertype relations and decided to study them, I want to "see" them in action to help cement my understanding of them. Because how am I to accurately understand them if I have others' types wrong, as well as my own? 

Oh? I'm curious to hear your input on my LII vs LSI debate. It will be good to have another perspective, especially since the "forcefulness" is the topic of conversation here.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

cyamitide said:


> Well, for starters, "forcefulness" is wrong interpretation of Se. "Force" has magnitude and direction and is thus a vector quantity. Se is merely an irrational, perceiving function that lets you know "what is". It doesn't possess any direction or magnitude, it has no vector. It's only in combination with Ji and Je functions (Fi,Ti,Te,Fe) that the perceiving functions acquire direction and finally could be compared to some forces. In short, Se is mere "awareness" while it's only Se-Fi or Se-Ti that could be described as "force". But then same thing is true of Ne.
> 
> As for your request, I couldn't find any descriptions of Se that didn't mention force in some shape or form, only explain why this association doesn't really work.


Thank you for looking though.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> Mistypes because they have a different MBTI than Socionics type? No, I wouldn't consider these people to be MBTI mistypes to begin with. Where would you get that idea? I see MBTI and Socionics as separate systems, and it's possible to be a different type in each. However, as a Ti-dominant, I am very interested in the theoretical universality of ideas. Knowing that they are separate systems, but also knowing there are certain trends in typing cross-systems, I wanted to know if there could be any connection that I was missing.


Well, yes, of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I however got the impression that you seem to type MBTI closer to Jungian type compared to how type communities tend to understand the MBTI types, which I think is the greatest cause between the discrepancies between systems.


> I don't think I *need* to "see" how intertype relations work, since I obviously haven't looked much into it at all. Actually, I've never put much stock in judging relationships based on typology. This is not an argument against Se, though. Just a clarification of meaning.





> Because, if I were interested in intertype relations and decided to study them, I want to "see" them in action to help cement my understanding of them. Because how am I to accurately understand them if I have others' types wrong, as well as my own?


Yes, it's the second quote that you wrote that I intended to suggest.


> Oh? I'm curious to hear your input on my LII vs LSI debate. It will be good to have another perspective, especially since the "forcefulness" is the topic of conversation here.


Well, I can't quite put that in words or explain, but you have a forcefulness to your behavior that also carries over into text.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Well, yes, of course, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I however got the impression that you seem to type MBTI closer to Jungian type compared to how type communities tend to understand the MBTI types, which I think is the greatest cause between the discrepancies between systems.


When it comes to the dominant-inferior, yes, I type MBTI and Jungian types closer. I am more flexible when it comes to auxiliaries. 



> Yes, it's the second quote that you wrote that I intended to suggest.


Cool, then we're on the same page.



> Well, I can't quite put that in words or explain, but you have a forcefulness to your behavior that also carries over into text.


Well, if you do find the words or have examples, I am still interested. If you don't want to do it here, feel free to PM me. Don't worry about being 100% truthful. I have thick skin.


----------



## Sol_ (Jan 8, 2013)

madhatter said:


> I'm an ISTP in JCF/MBTI, I've realized that I probably have Ne in Socionics


If you are ISTP in MBTI - you are ISTP/SLI in Socionics.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> When it comes to the dominant-inferior, yes, I type MBTI and Jungian types closer. I am more flexible when it comes to auxiliaries.


All right, that explains why you made this thread.


> Well, if you do find the words or have examples, I am still interested. If you don't want to do it here, feel free to PM me. Don't worry about being 100% truthful. I have thick skin.


Well, it's more of a pattern that I've noticed and begun to associate with Se types. It's a certain feeling of what could at times be described as being somewhat irked by the way they come across or how they reason, just like I suspect you could be irked by Te types and Te logic. 

It's not something I can put into words as it's just a general intuitive experience I guess?, but I've come to associate this experience with Se use in people in terms of intertype. I think it's somewhat correct as I've developed a decent grasp of intertype.

It should be noted that not every Se user come across like this though in text, and I think enneagram probably plays a large role in this. I spoke to an SEE-Fi 9 and I didn't notice it at all so it's not fool-proof by any means (that, or the SEE-Fi is mistyped and is really IEE-Fi), but I think it's fairly consistent.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Well, it's more of a pattern that I've noticed and begun to associate with Se types. It's a certain feeling of what could at times be described as being somewhat irked by the way they come across or how they reason, just like I suspect you could be irked by Te types and Te logic.
> 
> It's not something I can put into words as it's just a general intuitive experience I guess?, but I've come to associate this experience with Se use in people in terms of intertype. I think it's somewhat correct as I've developed a decent grasp of intertype.


I can see what you're saying, vaguely. I don't want to assume what you're thinking, because I may be wrong, but I think I have a general idea of what you mean. In regards to the Te example, Te-logic doesn't irk as much as it is of secondary notice; I can use it if and when I have to, but only then. Te-types, it really depends on the individual. 

I would be interested to see you flesh out this idea. How does this pattern you've noticed relate to forcefulness that you see in me? I particularly interested in this idea of forcefulness, because it's one of the aspects of Socionics Se that I don't relate to, and one of the things preventing me from typing as such. But, I'm admittedly not always the best in knowing how others perceive me, especially through the internet. So the fact that you can see Se forcefulness is something I would like to hear more about. You mention a forcefulness of behavior. Anything specific come to mind?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I can see what you're saying, vaguely. I don't want to assume what you're thinking, because I may be wrong, but I think I have a general idea of what you mean. In regards to the Te example, Te-logic doesn't irk as much as it is of secondary notice; I can use it if and when I have to, but only then. Te-types, it really depends on the individual.
> 
> I would be interested to see you flesh out this idea. How does this pattern you've noticed relate to forcefulness that you see in me? I particularly interested in this idea of forcefulness, because it's one of the aspects of Socionics Se that I don't relate to, and one of the things preventing me from typing as such. But, I'm admittedly not always the best in knowing how others perceive me, especially through the internet. So the fact that you can see Se forcefulness is something I would like to hear more about. You mention a forcefulness of behavior. Anything specific come to mind?


Yes, it highly depends on the Se type for me as well and I think I'm more aware of this on the internet than real life. If LSI though, Ne should be the PoLR. How do you react towards Ne?

Well, the forcefulness is a certain kind of aggression you could say, to push a kind of control or space. You seem to do this more in public threads than in private as well which is interesting. Not quite a passive-aggresiveness, but a certain aggressive stance. Not saying I can't do that either, but I think it's a little different? It's hard to say, I can't quite compare myself to how others see me either. 

Does that make sense at all? I can't quite pinpoint to a particular phrase or the way you write specifically or I would have already. You might want to compare yourself to @_RoSoDude_ who is an LII as well.


----------



## LibertyPrime (Dec 17, 2010)

> Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world".
> 
> Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.


o.o whats so hard to understand on this? Si means ppl like to enjoy comfort, Se means you are a doer, standing still may not be your thing. My boss (ESTp) for example can't stand still or sit in front of the computer, while he is a really nice guy he needs to be out doing stuff, to be active, projects, building something ANYTHING and you can feel it on him, very solid and forceful, hands on without being bossy or pushy nor commanding in a bad way.

<.< now you take me for example...I probably wouldn't leave my room or the computer if others wouldn't bug me about going outside and doing something & I don't really care about comfort either. The way I experience the outside is reflected by my reply to this pushiness from others: "Fuck...do I have to? There is nothing out there but boredom!" If I go out I get restless and cranky as I don't know how to use Se properly. The times where I'm forceful and pushy, assertive are when I'm stressed/angry/grouchy. That is when I will step over anything and anyone to fix myself  lolol...bad.

<.< neither of us prefers Si or Ne. One could say I lack initiative because he got all of mine added to his own XD. *continues procrastinationg


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

LeaT said:


> Yes, it highly depends on the Se type for me as well and I think I'm more aware of this on the internet than real life. If LSI though, Ne should be the PoLR. How do you react towards Ne?


I really have no problems with Ne. I get along with Ne-users in general. I don't think I have issues with Ne that the PoLR would suggest. In truth, I have more problems with F. 



> Well, the forcefulness is a certain kind of aggression you could say, to push a kind of control or space. You seem to do this more in public threads than in private as well which is interesting. Not quite a passive-aggresiveness, but a certain aggressive stance. Not saying I can't do that either, but I think it's a little different? It's hard to say, I can't quite compare myself to how others see me either.
> 
> Does that make sense at all? I can't quite pinpoint to a particular phrase or the way you write specifically or I would have already. You might want to compare yourself to RoSoDude who is an LII as well.


Huh, interesting. I don't even notice that I do it. Now I'm going to be looking for it, lol. Next time you see it, say, madhatter, right there! I want to see this in action.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

FreeBeer said:


> o.o whats so hard to understand on this? Si means ppl like to enjoy comfort, Se means you are a doer, standing still may not be your thing. My boss (ESTp) for example can't stand still or sit in front of the computer, while he is a really nice guy he needs to be out doing stuff, to be active, projects, building something ANYTHING and you can feel it on him, very solid and forceful, hands on without being bossy or pushy nor commanding in a bad way.


You can actually do projects and build stuff on a computer... unless you meant involving more physical material by your own hands, yeah.

I've learned to sit for a long time but I always have this feeling in the background that it's definitely just something learned... meaning it feels a bit forced. 




madhatter said:


> I really have no problems with Ne. I get along with Ne-users in general. I don't think I have issues with Ne that the PoLR would suggest. In truth, I have more problems with F.


(Ne for me is not PoLR but close...) I think I also get along with many Ne users, at least in a superficial way. I can get a "headache" from seeing too much Ne'ing though. Like it really messes with my brain. Too much randomness in ideas or too much speculation is not for me. You don't have that issue at all then? How about Ni?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

madhatter said:


> I really have no problems with Ne. I get along with Ne-users in general. I don't think I have issues with Ne that the PoLR would suggest. In truth, I have more problems with F.


No irking at all? Like how a cat keeps irking a dog when high on catnip? 












> Huh, interesting. I don't even notice that I do it. Now I'm going to be looking for it, lol. Next time you see it, say, madhatter, right there! I want to see this in action.


Sure, I try to keep it in mind.

On a sidenote, @itsme45 doesn't express that at all either despite that she types as SLE and we are supposed to be each other's superego types so yes, it's highly individual too. I could in contrast namedrop a few people who I am fairly certain are Se first and irk the hell out of me though, but I also think a few other things play a role here being age, maturity, mental health and possibly enneagram. One of the people I think of is most definitely a CP6 and CP6 + Se is perhaps one of the worst personality combinations I can think of when it comes to irk-ness level.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

itsme45 said:


> (Ne for me is not PoLR but close...) I think I also get along with many Ne users, at least in a superficial way. I can get a "headache" from seeing too much Ne'ing though. Like it really messes with my brain. Too much randomness in ideas or too much speculation is not for me. You don't have that issue at all then? How about Ni?


No I really don't have that issue with it. Randomness of ideas or speculations doesn't get on my nerves. The way I see it, I'm good at multitasking, and if I'm working on something boring and I have someone to have random conversations with at the same time, I can do both, and the time passes much more pleasantly for me. I get real fidgety, and I like to keep my mind and hands occupied simultaneously.

As for Ni...Ni in Socionics seems somewhat...obscure to me? Kind of, what's the point of it? I recognize it in my mom...she's probably IEI. I admit I get somewhat impatient and short with her at times. I can actually see Socionics Ni being in my Id block. Like, I can use it, I can follow along with it, but I'm more interested in the present: the present as it is, as well as the potential opportunities in the present, which Socionics Ne suggests. Like, what are my options right now? I prefer to keep my options open. I don't like it when I don't have any options, or only one forced on me. 



LeaT said:


> No irking at all? Like how a cat keeps irking a dog when high on catnip?


LOL. Nice GIF. Nope, no irking at all when it comes to Ne. I guess what I said above applies to your question too. It's really F that does the irking. See, I understand Fe, and for the most part I appreciate someone who can do the Fe-ing for me, because it's weak. It's an aspect of myself that typology has helped recognize as a part of my makeup, but it's untapped, for the most part. Fi I don't understand at all, and I think, how in the world does someone function like that? 




> Sure, I try to keep it in mind.
> 
> On a sidenote, itsme45 doesn't express that at all either despite that she types as SLE and we are supposed to be each other's superego types so yes, it's highly individual too. I could in contrast namedrop a few people who I am fairly certain are Se first and irk the hell out of me though, but I also think a few other things play a role here being age, maturity, mental health and possibly enneagram. One of the people I think of is most definitely a CP6 and CP6 + Se is perhaps one of the worst personality combinations I can think of when it comes to irk-ness level.


Socionics Se + CP6...yikes! That sounds like a recipe for disaster.


----------

