# Let's discuss Se



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ok, so I'll be a little like Swordsman of Mana, because I don't have time to make some deeper analysis of what I think Se is or isn't, but I think Se is not:


Needless aggression, violent tendencies
Always a thrill-seeker, bold, daring
Always leads to self-confidence
Always highly impressive, knows how to impress
Charismatic
Good leader or knows leadership

The problem with many socionics Se descriptions, is that the authors often end up glorifying the power of the base. ILIs are never late, SEEs always know how to charismatically impress, SLEs are always victorious generals, ILEs always come up with novel scientific breakthroughs, ESEs know just how to make you comfortable and have a good sense of taste and style and the list goes on. 

It does not account for personality quirks and most importantly, it does not account for that external use and success of an IME does not necessarily translate to understanding and ability to metabolize that IME. The bottom line is that when descriptions point towards these tendencies e.g. SEEs are good at leaving a charismatic impression behind on people, it's more about understanding that the basic aspect of the TIM is that the SEE seeks to have an emotional impact on those around them, due to the combination of lead Se and demonstrative Fe. How successful they will be at that endeavor overall is the result of many factors, most of those probably not even related to socionics.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

The problem is always the same: People will always make assumptions, and draw very basic stereotypes/conclusions without grasping the essence of a function.

Jung actually said that Se-doms were the most realist people, as their main way of working is learning through experience more than anything else. It's funny to see what Jung wrote about them :



> Upon the lower levels this is the man of tangible reality, with little tendency either for reflection or commanding purpose. To sense the object, to have and if possible to enjoy sensations, is his constant motive. He is by no means unlovable; on the contrary, he frequently has a charming and lively capacity for enjoyment; he is sometimes a jolly fellow, and often a refined æsthete.


That kinda contradict the previous statements/stereotypes. 

Se is mostly focused on concrete sensation and on the actual present. If Socionics associate Se with willpower, it's because Se perceive the kinetic energy, and therefore is actually conscious about how they can actually affect things and objects around them. As a base function, how we can affect this energy become clearly understood I guess. They are able to know how far, and how much energy an object (person?thing?) can deploy. Thus they are realistically able to know how to reach a goal, or having an impact on the external world.

But more than that, there is this huge focus on the present, and on concrete senses. If we make a contrast with Ni-egos, they are not in this inert state, worrying and being anxious about causality and how the flow of time is drifting away. They are perfectly in touch with the objective world and know how to appreciate it. That's also why they don't have much problem with willpower, if they want to do something they will just do it because they actually... want to? "Let's do it", end of story. Even if they are socially introverts (or just introverts like ESIs/LSIs), they will still have this energy to do what they want. Because the objective world of sensation is theirs, and they actually feel at ease in it. They seem focused on what they do, while Ni will take some recoil, or distance between them and things I guess.

Good leader or knows leadership : They can if they want to. But they are not necessarily inclined to do it, as Jung said it in my quote.

Needless aggression, violent tendencies : This is not linked to Se I guess. They are not necessarily aggressive. They are just aware of their "territory" (if you get what I mean), and are able to protect it. Se is actually focused on perceiving. They can perceive boundaries and want them to be respected. Being aggressive is more a judgment thing I guess? 

Always leads to self-confidence : I guess that they will be at ease with their perception, especially when it comes to perceiving power. They would know if they can do something. But they can be less confident in others aspects (logic? relationships and emotions?). Most types can be confident in their base or ego I guess. Being over self-confident has an other origin though.

Charismatic : Here again it will depend on the person. Charisma is something that you can develop and practice, even if some people have a tendency to be charismatic. I think that it is prolly wiser to let charisma alone, and don't associate it with any IE.

Always a thrill-seeker, bold, daring : They are attuned to sensation, and probably like to live experiences. But being daring or a thrill-seeker is caused probably by a certain motivation, and not really by Se. I think that we may be more informed about it with the enneatype of the person for example.

Always highly impressive, knows how to impress : Don't know what to say about it. I'm kinda biased because they really impress me. But it's subjective I guess.

So my conclusion is : I think that people must not forget that Se is above all else sensory perception.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I think Se is not:
> 
> Needless aggression, violent tendencies


Night Huntress didn't _make_ you say this, did she? :tongue:



westlose said:


> Always highly impressive, knows how to impress : Don't know what to say about it. I'm kinda biased because they really impress me. But it's subjective I guess.


What about Se with Fi? I'm impressed by strong Ni (my mobilising) not my suggestive.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Ok, so I'll be a little like Swordsman of Mana, because I don't have time to make some deeper analysis of what I think Se is or isn't, but I think Se is not:
> 
> 
> Needless aggression, violent tendencies
> ...


It's the simplest of functions and that's why it's hard to grasp. It's simply perceiving, observing and living through things AS THEY ARE. That has, as an additional benefit, spatial awareness. It's very simple.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Night Huntress didn't _make_ you say this, did she? :tongue:
> 
> 
> What about Se with Fi? I'm impressed by strong Ni (my mobilising) not my suggestive.


Nope, she didn't. I have a lot of issues with some aspects of socionics and this seems to be a recurring problem for people who are Se types, not being able to identify with these aspects of Se leading in descriptions.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> Night Huntress didn't _make_ you say this, did she? :tongue:


If I wanna say something, I say it myself m8. I hate being spoken for unless absolutely necessary.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Nope, she didn't. I have a lot of issues with some aspects of socionics and this seems to be a recurring problem for people who are Se types, not being able to identify with these aspects of Se leading in descriptions.





Night Huntress said:


> If I wanna say something, I say it myself m8. I hate being spoken for unless absolutely necessary.


It was an attempt at a joke. Apparently I tell shit jokes. Was trying to imply a beating was going on.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Fried Eggz said:


> It was an attempt at a joke. Apparently I tell shit jokes. Was trying to imply a beating was going on.


ohhhh shit :crying:

But yeah, beatings go on... occasionally :crazy:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"The problem with many socionics Se descriptions, is that the authors often end up glorifying the power of the base."

Actually, I don't know if I agree with this statement. I actually get the impression that what you quoted was a description of someone with low and simplistic Se.

I think the primary issues with a lot of the descriptions of elements all goes back to dimensionality, both the dimensionality of the element of the author and the lack of differentiation of what the element entails depending upon dimensionality. To describe something, you must know it first.

Poor coherency here, but I'll take it to an example from real life:
SEE tends to have fairly nice possessions and everything he does has pristine external qualities. ILE takes steroids, drives big truck, in general tries to look powerful in public, but usually looks like a silly try-hard. They get into an argument one day and ILE flips outs, starts yelling, cursing, making death threats, trying to fight, etc. The SEE stands there, arms behind his back, having the ILE yell and spit in his face from like 6" away, says nothing, looks calm, and waits for supervisor.

From this example, I can see dimensionality manifestations as well as functions.

Would I say that the descriptions in the quote are accurate? Yes, for someone with low Se or for someone with a high Se that is in adolescence and hasn't worked out there Ego yet.

If I had to describe a healthy Se base, I would say: (mentally) They are strong with great fortitude and a strength of will and character that often is essential to the well-being of society. Nothing about attacking or being a badass or being cool. Many people don't understand what "strength" is.

TL;DR, I think there is much oversight out there on descriptions of elements that fail to account for the existence of dimensionality.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> What about Se with Fi? I'm impressed by strong Ni (my mobilising) not my suggestive.


I don't really mind Fi, I understand this point of view quite well. I've also been impressed by SEEs and ESIs. It really depend on the individual I guess, some use Fi in a valorous and protective way, and some don't. And I can't say that I will be automatically impressed by all Beta STs. As long as the Se-user is linked to his intuition and don't reject it (aka a healthy person), I'm pretty sure that he/she may impress me. 

You say that you are not impressed by Fe-doms? Hmm.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

westlose said:


> I don't really mind Fi, I understand this point of view quite well. I've also been impressed by SEEs and ESIs. It really depend on the individual I guess, some use Fi in a valorous and protective way, and some don't. And I can't say that I will be automatically impressed by all Beta STs. As long as the Se-user is linked to his intuition and don't reject it (aka a healthy person), I'm pretty sure that he/she may impress me.
> 
> You say that you are not impressed by Fe-doms? Hmm.


I'm not impressed at all by any Si-ego. I like Fe-doms and I find them fascinating to talk to.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I'm not impressed at all by any Si-ego. I like Fe-doms and I find them fascinating to talk to.


Oh ok. You said that you weren't impressed by your suggestive, that's why I was asking. Then that makes sense I guess, if you find Ni and Fe interesting.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Maybe Se is just an excellent understanding of MMORPG "aggro" within real life. Shrug.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> Maybe Se is just an excellent understanding of MMORPG "aggro" within real life. Shrug.


LOL

Go make us a meme picture of the 8 functions like this with screenshots of MMORPG equivalents lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "The problem with many socionics Se descriptions, is that the authors often end up glorifying the power of the base."
> 
> Actually, I don't know if I agree with this statement. I actually get the impression that what you quoted was a description of someone with low and simplistic Se.
> 
> ...


No, that's a perfectly fair criticism and your example is probably overall an accurate description of ILE-SEE as an interaction. I don't mind Augusta's understanding of Se as kinetic energy, but somewhere, somehow, Se began to slowly move away from that into this "badass" stereotype we see now, and that doesn't sit quite right with me, because it's unfair to Se types.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "The problem with many socionics Se descriptions, is that the authors often end up glorifying the power of the base."
> 
> Actually, I don't know if I agree with this statement. I actually get the impression that what you quoted was a description of someone with low and simplistic Se.
> 
> ...


What are the signs of underdeveloped ego?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> No, that's a perfectly fair criticism and your example is probably overall an accurate description of ILE-SEE as an interaction. I don't mind Augusta's understanding of Se as kinetic energy, but somewhere, somehow, Se began to slowly move away from that into this "badass" stereotype we see now, and that doesn't sit quite right with me, because it's unfair to Se types.


It's probably to do with age of the average enthusiast. Se bases in high school are still using juvenile Se. No adult Se base I know is like that, because you know... Life and responsibilities and such.

I highly doubt Se bases describe themselves as what your original post quoted, or creative Se for that matter, which is why it leads me to believe that low dimensionality Se types popularized it as being primarily about violence and such.

I don't agree with Augustas original statements concerning energy in various elements, not because I don't agree with the placements themselves, but because she used scientific terms incorrectly. For one she says "kinetic energy," for one she says something like "possible kinetic energy," and for one she says "potential energy." But those three things don't exist. The middle one is either kinetic energy or potential energy. She's the one who divided stuff up, but some of the early stuff doesn't make sense, such as this example, regardless of how things were split up.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> What are the signs of underdeveloped ego?


General immaturity, in it's many facets.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's probably to do with age of the average enthusiast. Se bases in high school are still using juvenile Se. No adult Se base I know is like that, because you know... Life and responsibilities and such.


I highly doubt all these socionists based their descriptions of adolescents, though. 



> I highly doubt Se bases describe themselves as what your original post quoted, or creative Se for that matter, which is why it leads me to believe that low dimensionality Se types popularized it as being primarily about violence and such.


There is a correlation between violence and weak Se as posited by Jung and later Naomi Quenk, especially in how inferior Se manifests in unhealthy individuals, but that's it. 



> I don't agree with Augustas original statements concerning energy in various elements, not because I don't agree with the placements themselves, but because she used scientific terms incorrectly. For one she says "kinetic energy," for one she says something like "possible kinetic energy," and for one she says "potential energy." But those three things don't exist. The middle one is either kinetic energy or potential energy. She's the one who divided stuff up, but some of the early stuff doesn't make sense, such as this example, regardless of how things were split up.


I really don't see the problem since she's trying to point to immaterial concepts, not something literal or concrete. I don't see the problem with the formulation "possible kinetic energy" because Se as kinetic energy isn't just about there being energy, but it's about recognizing how much of it is present and how to utilize it. In the former situation, "potential" is an adjective, but in the latter where she simply has it as potential energy, it's about Ne and how Ne in itself observes potential. This has nothing to do with the potential of kinetic energy. Your assertion seems like a semantic nitpick against the idea of how Augusta's own Ne is infused in her understanding of the IMs.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

I think, the reason for this hype and this so called bad-assery of the Se IME isnt much about sensing but extroversion. Like how Te is mini sucessful CEO. 
From my observations, Se leads tend to be more experimental (they want to be the first one to try), open to new things and have more strenght for work, can resist physical disomfort better (or dont mind it much), dont shy away from physical contact in sports. They may enjoy an excess of sensory pleasure, eating late at night for example.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I highly doubt all these socionists based their descriptions of adolescents, though.


Could just be their own dimensionality then. From wikisocions list of socionists, there doesn't seem to be a large percentage of high dimensionality Se in the socionics community. Also, as SSS states, 4D is hard to isolate for someone to describe. I think we may simply be reading primarily ILE and other low Se dimensionality descriptions. As far as popularizing, juveniles are probably more likely to see "fighting" and run with it and tell all their friends.



> I really don't see the problem since she's trying to point to immaterial concepts, not something literal or concrete. I don't see the problem with the formulation "possible kinetic energy" because Se as kinetic energy isn't just about there being energy, but it's about recognizing how much of it is present and how to utilize it. In the former situation, "potential" is an adjective, but in the latter where she simply has it as potential energy, it's about Ne and how Ne in itself observes potential. This has nothing to do with the potential of kinetic energy. Your assertion seems like a semantic nitpick against the idea of how Augusta's own Ne is infused in her understanding of the IMs.


If it wasn't there at all, I wouldn't care, but the incorrect use of terms makes it difficult to ascertain what the core of this part of her divisions were. Does the scientific term "kinetic energy" and "potential energy" exist where you are? It may be an English concept, so I don't know if ya'll use the terms over there. Here, the two are mutually exclusive, as they are like a slider between maximum kinetic energy and maximum potential energy. Every object at rest has a certain potential energy, which as it is converted to kinetic energy, can decrease to the point of minimum potential energy and maximum kinetic energy.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Could just be their own dimensionality then. From wikisocions list of socionists, there doesn't seem to be a large percentage of high dimensionality Se in the socionics community. Also, as SSS states, 4D is hard to isolate for someone to describe. I think we may simply be reading primarily ILE and other low Se dimensionality descriptions. As far as popularizing, juveniles are probably more likely to see "fighting" and run with it and tell all their friends.


I don't think the issue in this case is low dimensionality but a bias of Russian culture and quadra values. 



> If it wasn't there at all, I wouldn't care, but the incorrect use of terms makes it difficult to ascertain what the core of this part of her divisions were. Does the scientific term "kinetic energy" and "potential energy" exist where you are? It may be an English concept, so I don't know if ya'll use the terms over there. Here, the two are mutually exclusive, as they are like a slider between maximum kinetic energy and maximum potential energy. Every object at rest has a certain potential energy, which as it is converted to kinetic energy, can decrease to the point of minimum potential energy and maximum kinetic energy.


I have no idea how you determine two concepts to be used improperly anyway, seeing how she's borrowing these but is not making a direct analogy. In typical Ne fashion, she's taking a known idea and placing it in a different context. The meaning therefore also changes. According to the way she's placing these in a new context, it is very much appropriate and correct, because the context is different so therefore is the meaning. 

Your issue is honestly an issue of not understanding how this applies in an abstract manner, seeing how it's lifted from one context to another. It's like a bone transplant. You can take a piece of bone whose essential nature is to that of the rest of the bone of your body, but transplant it to a different area of your body where it's needed. Over time, this new bone will grow in this place and become new bone and no longer resemble or bear much similarity to where it originated from. What Augusta is doing is exactly the same thing.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I don't think the issue in this case is low dimensionality but a bias of Russian culture and quadra values.


Possibly, but would it be Russian or Ukrainian? One's integral type is IEI and the other is EII. Most subsequent additions seem to be all from the Kiev schools.



> I have no idea how you determine two concepts to be used improperly anyway, seeing how she's borrowing these but is not making a direct analogy. In typical Ne fashion, she's taking a known idea and placing it in a different context. The meaning therefore also changes. According to the way she's placing these in a new context, it is very much appropriate and correct, because the context is different so therefore is the meaning.
> 
> Your issue is honestly an issue of not understanding how this applies in an abstract manner, seeing how it's lifted from one context to another. It's like a bone transplant. You can take a piece of bone whose essential nature is to that of the rest of the bone of your body, but transplant it to a different area of your body where it's needed. Over time, this new bone will grow in this place and become new bone and no longer resemble or bear much similarity to where it originated from. What Augusta is doing is exactly the same thing.


I don't remember the quotes, honestly. Have the ones for Te, Se, and Ne from her original writing handy?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Possibly, but would it be Russian or Ukrainian? One's integral type is IEI and the other is EII. Most subsequent additions seem to be all from the Kiev schools.


Russian culture is recognized as heavily biased towards beta. I can't comment on Ukraine since I know nothing about it. Furthermore, the perception can already be colored outside of personal experience in that once a specific discourse is established, people will operate within this discourse without consciously intending to. 



> I don't remember the quotes, honestly. Have the ones for Te, Se, and Ne from her original writing handy?


They're all on Wikisocion so go find them yourself.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> Russian culture is recognized as heavily biased towards beta. I can't comment on Ukraine since I know nothing about it. Furthermore, the perception can already be colored outside of personal experience in that once a specific discourse is established, people will operate within this discourse without consciously intending to.
> 
> They're all on Wikisocion so go find them yourself.


The ones speaking of kinetic energy, potential for kinetic energy, and potential energy? I thought it was from a large writing of hers not on wikisocion. Guess I'll go look around.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Nevermind. I found it.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@Entropic

Thinking it over, I would place all external objective qualities of objects as Se; e.g., shape, form, mass, color, appearance, etc. The other things ascribed to it usually being Se + other elements.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> @Entropic
> 
> Thinking it over, I would place all external objective qualities of objects as Se; e.g., shape, form, mass, color, appearance, etc. The other things ascribed to it usually being Se + other elements.


Are you saying that Se is the only IE that perceives external objective qualities? Because that doesn't match observation. ILEs and IEEs are famous for being observant and they seem perfectly capable of observing the objective qualities of objects aside from the power-related stuff that is given to Se.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> Are you saying that Se is the only IE that perceives external objective qualities? Because that doesn't match observation. ILEs and IEEs are famous for being observant and they seem perfectly capable of observing the objective qualities of objects aside from the power-related stuff that is given to Se.


I was thinking more along the lines of static qualities, but yes, objective external qualities.

Wouldn't ILEs and IEEs be the internal/implicit qualities via Ne?

Edit: Actually, I retract part of my thoughts on Se. Mass would be Ne, as perception of the form and shape and space occupied of an object is not the same as perception of mass.

You would have, in a complete circuit... Perception of form (Se) -> Comparison of form to another form with known mass (Ti) -> Perception of Mass (Ne) -> Comparison of mass to another mass with known form (Fi) -> Perception of Form (Se)... Etc.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

crashbandicoot said:


> From my observations, Se leads tend to be more experimental (they want to be the first one to try), open to new things and have more strenght for work, can resist physical disomfort better (or dont mind it much), dont shy away from physical contact in sports. They may enjoy an excess of sensory pleasure, eating late at night for example.


Guilty as charged. But how much of this can be associated with the EP temperament on a whole?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Could just be their own dimensionality then. From wikisocions list of socionists, there doesn't seem to be a large percentage of high dimensionality Se in the socionics community. Also, as SSS states, 4D is hard to isolate for someone to describe. I think we may simply be reading primarily ILE and other low Se dimensionality descriptions. As far as popularizing, juveniles are probably more likely to see "fighting" and run with it and tell all their friends.
> 
> 
> If it wasn't there at all, I wouldn't care, but the incorrect use of terms makes it difficult to ascertain what the core of this part of her divisions were. Does the scientific term "kinetic energy" and "potential energy" exist where you are? It may be an English concept, so I don't know if ya'll use the terms over there. Here, the two are mutually exclusive, as they are like a slider between maximum kinetic energy and maximum potential energy. Every object at rest has a certain potential energy, which as it is converted to kinetic energy, can decrease to the point of minimum potential energy and maximum kinetic energy.


WOW!

Are you saying that...Ne is good at recognising and manipulating Ep while Se is good at recognising and manipulating Ek? Is this it?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> WOW!
> 
> Are you saying that...Ne is good at recognising and manipulating Ep while Se is good at recognising and manipulating Ek? Is this it?


I'd say Ep is probably Ne to an extent. All internal ones, such as chemistry related and fusion/fission and such. Things such as Ep for hydraulics, springs, falling objects, etc may be Se. Ek could possibly be Se, as a measure of objects in motion, but that would mean you would require another element to create the Ek in the first place. If speed is m/s, then it would be element1/element2. If velocity is speed + vector, then you would have element1/element2 + element 3. If momentum is velocity*mass, then you would have ((element1/element2)+element3)*element4. Been a while since I've taken any sciences lol. Maybe momentum is a single element lol.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'd say Ep is probably Ne to an extent. All internal ones, such as chemistry related and fusion/fission and such. Things such as Ep for hydraulics, springs, falling objects, etc may be Se. Ek could possibly be Se, as a measure of objects in motion, but that would mean you would require another element to create the Ek in the first place. If speed is m/s, then it would be element1/element2. If velocity is speed + vector, then you would have element1/element2 + element 3. If momentum is velocity*mass, then you would have ((element1/element2)+element3)*element4. Been a while since I've taken any sciences lol. Maybe momentum is a single element lol.


This could be fun.

If:

v = s / t + vector dimension
I = F * t = (m * a) * t = (m * { v / t } ) * t = (m * { [ s / t ] / t } ) * t = (m * [ s / t(pow2) ] ) * t = m * s / t = m * v

and

Ek = mv / 2 = I / 2

then

v = element 1 / element 2 + element 3
I = ({element 1 / element 2 } + element 3 ) * element 4
Ek= element 4 * ({element 1 / element 2 } + element 3) / 2

We can conclude that Se sees just how enough is enough when it comes to Ek...


----------



## He's a Superhero! (May 1, 2013)

This talk of Se EP (Explorers) types makes me wonder if the focus is specifically on *Se doms* (SLE/ESTP and SEE/ESFP), and not so much inclusive towards Se seconds, thirds, and fourths.

Of interest with the Se doms, their respective titles are quite insightful: Legionnaire, Conqueror, Promoter, Doer, Persuader, and Politician, Ambassador, Party goer, Performer, Entertainer.
Lots of actions there, that's for sure! A real sense of dynamic energy (not to be confused with "Dynamic" types btw, in case you've made that connection), which I'm sure would make them stand out - probably more than the other Se types. Titles may not give us a complete picture of course, but it gives us more perspective here.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> This could be fun.
> 
> If:
> 
> ...


I'm not sure Se could perceive force or energy directly, if it is even Se at all. 

Take for instance, "How much force to do X?" Well, the question implies the dynamic interaction of two objects, so that's Si. The force exerted must be extroverted external and dynamic, so Te. Then you have the comparison of the internal dynamics needed to generate the movement, so Ni. Then you have the extroverted internal dynamic for the generator of energy, so Fe. Look, I made a circle lol.

Yeah, I don't think Ek is Se lol. Ek is a dynamic, not a static.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

I'm pretty sure Se is just space sensing. Some stuff says force and attack and such, but I think these things were just placed on Se, because Se base has either Te or Fe demonstrative (extroverted actions), and Te or Fe base has Se demonstrative. Se definitely isn't force sensing (implies relation/field) or force (implies extroverted rational).


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm pretty sure Se is just space sensing. Some stuff says force and attack and such, but I think these things were just placed on Se, because Se base has either Te or Fe demonstrative (extroverted actions), and Te or Fe base has Se demonstrative. Se definitely isn't force sensing (implies relation/field) or force (implies extroverted rational).


As I said, it is pretty simple.

It just perceives what is(instead of what should be{F} or what could be{N} or what works{T}). Pretty simple.

Also I haven't said that Se = Ek. I said that Ek is perceived by Se.


----------



## Axe (Aug 1, 2014)

I agree that descriptions of extroverted sensing suck. But I can't see anything here that makes it clearer, and I don't feel like I have a handle on how to define extroverted sensing in order to transcribe and help others understand.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I'm not sure Se could perceive force or energy directly, if it is even Se at all.
> 
> Take for instance, "How much force to do X?" Well, *the question implies the dynamic interaction of two objects, so that's Si.* The force exerted must be extroverted external and dynamic, so Te. Then you have the comparison of the internal dynamics needed to generate the movement, so Ni. Then you have the extroverted internal dynamic for the generator of energy, so Fe. Look, I made a circle lol.


I don't think that's right. It is objective interaction between objects, which posses certain properties, i.e. my finger is pressing keys on the keyboard with force that is enough to make letters appear in the quick reply window. If I'd apply less force than necessary while pressing - letters won't appear, if I'd apply more force than necessary - I can break the keyboard. There's no dynamics in this. Keyboard has certain properties, my fingers have certain properties too. They don't change. There's no flux. There's no personal sensing relation to the keyboard or to the letters I'm typing, or to the quick reply window described. This process is external in relation to me, it is happening outside of me and regardless of my relation to it. "Me" doesn't matter in this process. My fingers can successfully press the keys and make those letters appear on screen regardless of how it makes me feel.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

To_august said:


> I don't think that's right. It is objective interaction between objects, which posses certain properties, i.e. my finger is pressing keys on the keyboard with force that is enough to make letters appear in the quick reply window. If I'd apply less force than necessary while pressing - letters won't appear, if I'd apply more force than necessary - I can break the keyboard. There's no dynamics in this. Keyboard has certain properties, my fingers have certain properties too. They don't change. There's no flux. There's no personal sensing relation to the keyboard or to the letters I'm typing, or to the quick reply window described. This process is external in relation to me, it is happening outside of me and regardless of my relation to it. "Me" doesn't matter in this process. My fingers can successfully press the keys and make those letters appear on screen regardless of how it makes me feel.


Can't have objective interactions.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> As I said, it is pretty simple.
> 
> It just perceives what is(instead of what should be{F} or what could be{N} or what works{T}). Pretty simple.
> 
> Also I haven't said that Se = Ek. I said that Ek is perceived by Se.


Hmmmm.... Well, it's definitely a field and dynamic, so I'm going to say it is Si. Ep must be Ti. Both variations of the gravity fundamental force. Ni/Fi must be electromagnetic force. Ne/Fe must be strong force. And Se/Te must be... Hmmmm.... Wave-particle duality?

*shrug* lol


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To_august said:


> I don't think that's right. It is objective interaction between objects, which posses certain properties, i.e. my finger is pressing keys on the keyboard with force that is enough to make letters appear in the quick reply window. If I'd apply less force than necessary while pressing - letters won't appear, if I'd apply more force than necessary - I can break the keyboard. There's no dynamics in this. Keyboard has certain properties, my fingers have certain properties too. They don't change. There's no flux. There's no personal sensing relation to the keyboard or to the letters I'm typing, or to the quick reply window described. This process is external in relation to me, it is happening outside of me and regardless of my relation to it. "Me" doesn't matter in this process. My fingers can successfully press the keys and make those letters appear on screen regardless of how it makes me feel.


This describes my understanding of Se exactly, and why Augusta includes the adjective of potential/possible in front of kinetic energy, because as much as the actual energy applied is the force to type on my keyboard to get the desired result, I can also apply too little or too much. I do agree with that her assertion here is Ne-biased in that it seems to me that understanding Se this way is more of an Ne or intuitive way of understanding it which I don't think an Se ego is going to quite agree with, because they innately already understand this at some level. 

The actual force that is exerted is not the same as the force that you are capable of applying or not applying by fully realizing and understanding how much is actually required to get the result that you want in any given situation, and the higher and the better the Se, the better you are at understanding this. This is why Se super-id types can appear very clumsy in Se activities, often either over- or under-performing on a task, because they don't know exactly how much force is really necessary to apply in this situation. There's a poor sense of how you actually orient yourself in the physical environment. Ne egos orient themselves in the environment according to Si, so their reality is different in this regard.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

"Subject" isn't the same as "person."

In the example you have: Interaction = X does Y to Z.
You can make it: Interaction = Z is Y'd by X.
Or: Interaction = Y is done to Z by X.

It doesn't matter if you consider X the subject or Z the subject, because you cannot remove one and still have "interaction." The phrase "subject cannot be removed from object" means just that, and "subject" just means "object of focus" compared to "object" which means "object not of focus." If you have any sort of comparison, contrast, field, relation, interaction, etc. then it is subjective.

Se can not be "force," because "force" implies "counter force", and you have a field/relation, and it is subjective.

You can have a subjective interaction between objects, yes. You can even have a subjective interaction between objects viewed as fields and vice-versa. However, you can not have an objective interaction. Also, "interaction" is time-dependent, and is, therefore, dynamic.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Hmmmm.... Well, it's definitely a field and dynamic, so I'm going to say it is Si. Ep must be Ti. Both variations of the gravity fundamental force. Ni/Fi must be electromagnetic force. Ne/Fe must be strong force. And Se/Te must be... Hmmmm.... Wave-particle duality?
> 
> *shrug* lol


Fi actually is quite like electromagnetic force, well done! Why have you linked Ni to it though?


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> This describes my understanding of Se exactly, and why Augusta includes the adjective of potential/possible in front of kinetic energy, because as much as the actual energy applied is the force to type on my keyboard to get the desired result, I can also apply too little or too much. I do agree with that her assertion here is Ne-biased in that it seems to me that understanding Se this way is more of an Ne or intuitive way of understanding it which I don't think an Se ego is going to quite agree with, because they innately already understand this at some level.
> 
> The actual force that is exerted is not the same as the force that you are capable of applying or not applying by fully realizing and understanding how much is actually required to get the result that you want in any given situation, and the higher and the better the Se, the better you are at understanding this. This is why Se super-id types can appear very clumsy in Se activities, often either over- or under-performing on a task, because they don't know exactly how much force is really necessary to apply in this situation. There's a poor sense of how you actually orient yourself in the physical environment. Ne egos orient themselves in the environment according to Si, so their reality is different in this regard.


Sometimes I wonder if these psychobabblers even know what they are talking about. Potential kinetic energy...what? :shocked:

Why don't they just do a simple research on physics? Or even better, keep this within a single subject instead of including unnecessary baggage from outside.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Ixim said:


> Fi actually is quite like electromagnetic force, well done! Why have you linked Ni to it though?


Because Ni is the dynamic version of Fi, and I don't remember enough physics to describe it more lol.

How about... Ne is chemical bonds, and Fe is chemical reactions?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Sometimes I wonder if these psychobabblers even know what they are talking about. Potential kinetic energy...what? :shocked:
> 
> Why don't they just do a simple research on physics? Or even better, keep this within a single subject instead of including unnecessary baggage from outside.


Socionics != Physics, last time I checked.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Socionics != Physics, last time I checked.


Exactly. That's why they shouldn't use terms like "kinetic energy" "potential energy" and the like. But actually put it like "Ne people see what is not present and what can be done with it-in other words, the innate qualities of objects" instead of "Ne people perceive the potential energy of objects".

See the difference?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Exactly. That's why they shouldn't use terms like "kinetic energy" "potential energy" and the like. But actually put it like "Ne people see what is not present and what can be done with it-in other words, the innate qualities of objects" instead of "Ne people perceive the potential energy of objects".
> 
> See the difference?


Not really, because she's just borrowing concepts to elucidate a point? She never made an inference to that they have to be 100% equivalent. The references are, by and large from what I understand, metaphorical, in a very typical Ne way, grafting one idea and placing it into a new context.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Because Ni is the dynamic version of Fi, and I don't remember enough physics to describe it more lol.
> 
> How about... Ne is chemical bonds, and Fe is chemical reactions?


Ne and Fe actually sound better this way. What'd you equalise with the strong force(s) then? E PUR SI MUOVE!

So, there are 4 strong forces in the nature right(forgot the fourth):

1. Weak nuclear force(electrons and the core, right)
2. Strong nuclear force(protons and neutrons and other ...ons within the core)
3. ELECTROMAGNETIC FORCE

What if Ni and Fi are both an example of strong forces? :shocked: And act accordingly? :shocked:

SUPERB!


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Not really, because she's just borrowing concepts to elucidate a point? She never made an inference to that they have to be 100% equivalent. The references are, by and large from what I understand, metaphorical, in a very typical Ne way, grafting one idea and placing it into a new context.


So, "kinetic energy" is a metaphor? Not mv / 2?

why, wtf ffs...


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "Subject" isn't the same as "person."
> 
> In the example you have: Interaction = X does Y to Z.
> You can make it: Interaction = Z is Y'd by X.
> ...


Well, your deductions are only as good as your premises.

Why subject isn't the same as person? So far as I recall in terms of cognition "subject" does imply "person" and "objective" is everything that is external to the "subject". After all, typology deals with cognitive processes of human beings and not with those of keyboards.

Interaction in and of itself without subject as a person and objects as things external to the person, seems meaningless to me. Right now electromagnetic waves of light above my head interact with lamp cover, is their interaction subjective? is it Si?


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

@Jeremy8419 @Ixim
Can you guys stop making analogies to physics and chemistry if you can't actually provide any basis for them...?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Ixim said:


> So, "kinetic energy" is a metaphor? Not mv / 2?
> 
> why, wtf ffs...


Kinetic energy is metaphor for Se but is not explicitly Se. Only that Se types are more likely to potentially understand, recognize and apply it around them.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> "Subject" isn't the same as "person."


Socionics was built on top of Jung. Remove the foundation and the whole thing collapses.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Here's some stereotypes _I _carry about Se.

1. It means you _can _be aware of your environment and everything in it.

2. It interprets visual information literally.

3. It's about power-- Measuring the capability of it, the control of it, the ebb and flow of it in the environment, in oneself, and in others. 

I'm going to take an aside with this, because I think that it's easy to assume that someone with Se in the ego's got to be a 'tough guy', and that's simply not true. For example-- Penguin, from the show 'Gotham'. I type him as an ESI, my husfiend types him as an ILI. 

The reason I type him as an ESI is because he's very aware of power in his environment. He may not have direct access to it, at times, and he may be sniveling/grovelling as a front to access it, but he's very much aware of it. His plans are often very blunt and physical, and he doesn't _really _plan that far into the future. Obviously he knows where he wants to be, but he's very Fi-Se in getting there. Ni only comes into play to support those leading functions (In my opinion).

Also, I myself utilize this function at such a primitive level, and lack value in it to such a great extent, that it's hard to imagine why I'm not Se-PoLR.

Now, feel free to dispute/correct me.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Night Huntress said:


> @_Jeremy8419_ @_Ixim_
> Can you guys stop making analogies to physics and chemistry if you can't actually provide any basis for them...?


Just becauseyou can't see them is none of our business. But I'll be courteous enough:

Fi is equivalent to electromagnetic force because of poles. Think how they ATTRACT and REPEL each other. Seen that anywhere?
Fe is equivalent to chem.reaction because it's a) a mixture of multiple subjects and b) how they react to each other andmost importantly c) how they influence their environment. Kinda sociological if you think about it :wink: .

etc


----------



## Captain Mclain (Feb 22, 2014)

Ixim said:


> Just becauseyou can't see them is none of our business. But I'll be courteous enough:
> 
> Fi is equivalent to electromagnetic force because of poles. Think how they ATTRACT and REPEL each other. Seen that anywhere?
> Fe is equivalent to chem.reaction because it's a) a mixture of multiple subjects and b) how they react to each other andmost importantly c) how they influence their environment. Kinda sociological if you think about it :wink: .
> ...


It is quite nice tbh to visualize it, help people to understand the idea. But in the end it is a crutch and not the real deal.


----------



## Ixim (Jun 19, 2013)

Captain Mclain said:


> It is quite nice tbh to visualize it, help people to understand the idea. But in the end it is a crutch and not the real deal.


It is a crotch and THE real deal :crazy: :wink: .


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Ixim said:


> Just becauseyou can't see them is none of our business. But I'll be courteous enough:
> 
> Fi is equivalent to electromagnetic force because of poles. Think how they ATTRACT and REPEL each other. Seen that anywhere?
> Fe is equivalent to chem.reaction because it's a) a mixture of multiple subjects and b) how they react to each other andmost importantly c) how they influence their environment. Kinda sociological if you think about it :wink: .
> ...


They're not "equivalent", they are incomplete analogies. We could go on and on and lift random concepts from various fields of study, so that we arrive at shoddy patchworks of the functions, that only do a partial job of explaining what the function really is, as an independent quantity within its own system.

For example, how is it _consistent_ to choose a natural force for Fi and choose something chemically related for Fe? They're both ethical functions, where's the aspect that they share in common in terms of the analogies? Going further, one can use the concept of "chemical reactions" to explain all extroverted functions, because they all deal with the objective interactions of things with the environment. Ne, Te, Se all do it too -- not just Fe.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

To_august said:


> Well, your deductions are only as good as your premises.
> 
> Why subject isn't the same as person? So far as I recall in terms of cognition "subject" does imply "person" and "objective" is everything that is external to the "subject". After all, typology deals with cognitive processes of human beings and not with those of keyboards.
> 
> Interaction in and of itself without subject as a person and objects as things external to the person, seems meaningless to me. Right now electromagnetic waves of light above my head interact with lamp cover, is their interaction subjective? is it Si?


It's not a deduction. That's what objectivity and subjectivity are. That's why the arguments regularly happen, because y'all don't have a firm grasp on the concepts and the differences between them. Just in Socionics only, you have the explicit statement that if it is a field/relation, it is subjective. You described a field/relation, but you say it is not subjective?

Subjectivity exists outside of a person being the subject or object. It is called "subject" instead of "object 1," because it is often used with a person as the subject, and people usually don't like it when you call them an object. This is why when people speak of painting someone, they call them "subject," because "object" can be offensive.

It can be Si or Ni.

Your reply doesn't acknowledge that you understand the difference between static and dynamic. Static is independent of time. Dynamic is dependent of time. If you go to any point in the 4th dimension, and strip the 4th dimension, only leaving the x, y, and z axis, then you have a static. If you use the 4th dimension, that is, what you are referencing requires the passage of time, then you have a dynamic.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> Is that what you look like?


It's a symbol representing my awesomeness.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't that be Te, though?


In that case, let me reiterate that I suck at putting together furniture despite having supposed 4D Te. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> They're not "equivalent", they are incomplete analogies. We could go on and on and lift random concepts from various fields of study, so that we arrive at shoddy patchworks of the functions, that only do a partial job of explaining what the function really is, as an independent quantity within its own system.
> 
> For example, how is it _consistent_ to choose a natural force for Fi and choose something chemically related for Fe? They're both ethical functions, where's the aspect that they share in common in terms of the analogies? Going further, one can use the concept of "chemical reactions" to explain all extroverted functions, because they all deal with the objective interactions of things with the environment. Ne, Te, Se all do it too -- not just Fe.





Night Huntress said:


> @Jeremy8419 @Ixim
> Can you guys stop making analogies to physics and chemistry if you can't actually provide any basis for them...?


The basis are the internal/external, static/dynamic, and body/field dichotomies as well as sensing being space, thinking being matter, feeling being energy, and intuition being time.

"what the function really is, as an independent quantity within its own system."
The elements are the processing of the human mind of various aspects of reality. Se cannot be "force," because it is a static. Force is dependent on the passage of time, so it must be a dynamic.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> In that case, let me reiterate that I suck at putting together furniture despite having supposed 4D Te. :kitteh:


That's because you have 5D Femininity. Lol.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> That's because you have 5D Femininity. Lol.


How very Beta Quadra of you. :laughing:

Actually, though, I _wish _I had femininity. If I did, I'd have a reasonable excuse. "Well, I can't do that shiz, 'cause I'm feminine."

Nope. The closest I get to feminine is androgynous. I kind of resemble the stereotypical bachelor in female form.

Al_thoughhh_... If we're opening up the controversial can-o-worms about hormones and females, then _that _could be a good excuse. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> I think anyone can tell if someone is being pushy. That's normally overt, and I'm repulsed by that behaviour. The more overt it is, the more repulsed I tend to be.


"Pushy" is a subjective judgement. Se can detect space something occupies and have another element subjectively compare it to it's own "space" to determine "pushy." But Se isn't capable of doing that itself.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> How very Beta Quadra of you. :laughing:
> 
> Actually, though, I _wish _I had femininity. If I did, I'd have a reasonable excuse. "Well, I can't do that shiz, 'cause I'm feminine."
> 
> ...


I just can't figure out why all you people seemingly try and put together furniture so much lol.

Welllllllll Becky, it's Tuesday... Guess I'll go get started on my weekly chore of putting together furniture...


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> The basis are the internal/external, static/dynamic, and body/field dichotomies as well as sensing being space, thinking being matter, feeling being energy, and intuition being time.
> 
> "what the function really is, as an independent quantity within its own system."
> The elements are the processing of the human mind of various aspects of reality. Se cannot be "force," because it is a static. Force is dependent on the passage of time, so it must be a dynamic.


Oh yeah? You contradict yourself. Fi is a static function, and you assign it electromagnetic force, despite your own premise that force is not static because it depends on time. You also assigned Ne and Fe similar quantities ie "strong force", despite one being static and one being dynamic, one being perception and the other being judgment. What's the connection in that?

Moreover, you haven't noted any basis for choosing "time" for intuition, "space" for sensing, "matter" for thinking, and "energy" for feeling. If you do that, you directly contradict Ne and Se being described as potential vs kinetic energy by Augusta herself in Socionics. 

If you want to create a proper system of analogies using physics/chemistry and Socionics, make your analogies consistent with the natural sciences themselves and use fundamental, meaningful premises. Otherwise it becomes a patchwork of personal connotation and conjecture.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I just can't figure out why all you people seemingly try and put together furniture so much lol.
> 
> Welllllllll Becky, it's Tuesday... Guess I'll go get started on my weekly chore of putting together furniture...


It's more like, the few times I'm in the position of actually putting together furniture, it's traumatizing.

Particularly Ikea. Putting it on backwards and crap.

But, I seem to have pretty good upper body strength in comparison to other females up to the task.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> Oh yeah? You contradict yourself. Fi is a static function, and you assign it electromagnetic force, despite your own premise that force is not static because it depends on time. You also assigned Ne and Fe similar quantities ie "strong force", despite one being static and one being dynamic, one being perception and the other being judgment. What's the connection in that?


Those weren't actual assignments, just metaphors to give others another mental image if they didn't already have a good placeholder.



> Moreover, you haven't noted any basis for choosing "time" for intuition, "space" for sensing, "matter" for thinking, and "energy" for feeling. If you do that, you directly contradict Ne and Se being described as potential vs kinetic energy by Augusta herself in Socionics.


http://socionic.info/pdf/Socionics.pdf
Socionics is a field of study. I believe in progress. I'm not going to choose 30 year old information in favor of widely accepted current information.



> If you want to create a proper system of analogies using physics/chemistry and Socionics, make your analogies consistent with the natural sciences themselves and use fundamental, meaningful premises. Otherwise it becomes a patchwork of personal connotation and conjecture.


All the forum is is conjecture. What's with the aggro? I can't make my own conjectures to talk? That's not very nice.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I believe in progress. I'm not going to choose 30 year old information in favor of widely accepted current information.


That horrifies me. If it's not disproven, then it's still valid, regardless of consensus, especially if the person made the greatest leaps in progress, such as Carl Jung.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's more like, the few times I'm in the position of actually putting together furniture, it's traumatizing.
> 
> Particularly Ikea. Putting it on backwards and crap.
> 
> But, I seem to have pretty good upper body strength in comparison to other females up to the task.


I only have issues when I strip a screw or something lol.

What country you in, anyways?


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I only have issues when I strip a screw or something lol.
> 
> What country you in, anyways?


That's confidential. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. :kitteh:


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> That horrifies me. If it's not disproven, then it's still valid, regardless of consensus, especially if the person made the greatest leaps in progress, such as Carl Jung.


It's "valid" if you choose to adhere to the original publication instead of modern mainstream Socionics, yes. Whatever your prerogative is. I'm simply stating mine.

You can't prove or disprove subjective classifications. None of socionics premises actually exist. Some people just imagined some lines and drew them in the sand.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't that be Te, though?


I bet I am worse at it. I assumed it was lack of thinking or sensing in general. It isn't "intuitive" in the colloquial sense. I am the least mechanical person there is. Least handy person. It may also be simply just because there was nobody to teach me. My father isn't handy either. Where was I gonna learn? Perhaps there is some critical learning period where if you aren't familiarized with that stuff by a certain age, you never really get it. 

Like that story about Michaelangelo. His father wouldn't let him use his hands, so he learned not to use his hands. But then did use them. lol. 

Love that scene, and the larger idea in general. 

BOONE: We've been coming here for two days, just staring at this thing. I'm not really sure what we're supposed to be doing.

LOCKE: Ludovico Buonarroti.

LOCKE: Michelangelo's father. He was a wealthy man. He had no understanding of the divinity in his son, so he beat him. No child of his was going to use his hands for a living. So Michelangelo learned not to use his hands. Years later, a visiting Prince came into Michelangelo's studio and found the master staring at a single 18-foot block of marble. Then he knew the rumors were true that Michelangelo had come in every day for the past four months, stared at the marble, and gone home for his supper. So the Prince asked the obvious, "What are you doing?" And Michelangelo turned around and looked at him and whispered, "Sto lavorando". "I'm working." Three years later, that block of marble was the Statue of David.







"One is not idle because one is absorbed. There is both visible and invisible labor. To contemplate is to toil, to think is to do. The crossed arms work, the clasped hands act. The eyes upturned to Heaven are an act of creation."

-Hugo


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> That's confidential. If I told you, I'd have to kill you. :kitteh:


Ikea is a weird name, but for some reason I associate it with American consumerism lol. Must be because its cheap mass produced crap lol. Speaking of which, I should go to Ikea after I finish at WalMart lol.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Ikea is a weird name, but for some reason I associate it with American consumerism lol. Must be because its cheap mass produced crap lol. Speaking of which, I should go to Ikea after I finish at WalMart lol.


Ikea sounds like the name of a dog. :kitteh:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I always remembered the "nobody is more in touch with reality" line from Jung too. 

When I think of that, I think of somebody like Ted Williams. They froze the guy to clone him in the future or something. lol. 




> rumored to be able to see the seams on a baseball as they approached him at 90-100 miles-per-hour and tell by the spin of the seams whether the ball was going to be a fastball (straight pitch) or a breaking ball (curve ball or the like); was rumored to be able to read the label on a 78rpm record as it spun (records are what we had before compact discs and mp3s, for you young-uns).
> 
> 
> While these make for amusing stories, Williams himself admitted that none of them were true. He DID in fact have 20/10 acuity, same as our star patient from the last blog entry, meaning he could see from 20 feet away what normal-sighted people could see from 10 feet away - but the other myths and legends were just that, myths and legends. Although as he entered the Marines as a pilot in World War 2, the ophthalmologist performing Williams' entry examination said his vision was on the order of a "1 in 100,000 occurrence."
> ...


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Word Dispenser said:


> Ikea sounds like the name of a dog. :kitteh:


For the first 5 years I heard the name, I though it was Kia the car company, except with "I" stuck on the front to try and be cool like Apple Inc. Lol


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Those weren't actual assignments, just metaphors to give others another mental image if they didn't already have a good placeholder.


In the first place, an analogy and a metaphor are two different things. Moreover, if you wanna give people a correct mental image, choose analogies that actually can be translated between systems to some degree.



> http://socionic.info/pdf/Socionics.pdf
> Socionics is a field of study. I believe in progress. I'm not going to choose 30 year old information in favor of widely accepted current information.


Your information isn't "widely accepted", especially since your analogy to physics and chemistry isn't consistent with those sciences in the first place. So in this case, that "30 year old information" actually has more validity, because you haven't disproven it or shown why your information and analogies are more accurate than it is.



> All the forum is is conjecture. What's with the aggro? I can't make my own conjectures to talk? That's not very nice.


That's a nice and easy way to say you're not capable of proving the logical consistency in your claims, because everything is subjective and none of this is real anyway. Yet here you are, here we all are, arguing these subjective things and applying them to different contexts.

Consistency exists even within qualitative and disputable fields such as this. Talking about Socionics, a non-quantitative field of study, doesn't disqualify you from making consistent assertions that are provable within the context of the theory.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> In the first place, an analogy and a metaphor are two different things. Moreover, if you wanna give people a correct mental image, choose analogies that actually can be translated between systems to some degree.


Two NFs liked them, so what's the problem? I didn't say the fundamental forces I conjectured were fact, nor did I force them on you.



> Your information isn't "widely accepted", especially since your analogy to physics and chemistry isn't consistent with those sciences in the first place. So in this case, that "30 year old information" actually has more validity, because you haven't disproven it or shown why your information and analogies are more accurate than it is.


What you quoted was me linking you to the publication with the information elements being sensing as space, thinking as matter, feeling as energy, and intuition as time. It was me answering your question about that.



> That's a nice and easy way to say you're not capable of proving the logical consistency in your claims, because everything is subjective and none of this is real anyway. Yet here you are, here we all are, arguing these subjective things and applying them to different contexts.
> 
> Consistency exists even within qualitative and disputable fields such as this. Talking about Socionics, a non-quantitative field of study, doesn't disqualify you from making consistent assertions that are provable within the context of the theory.


I'm not arguing what you keep talking about at all. The going on about fundamental forces was me and Ixim playing around with Ne. He likes it.

The only thing I have argued is that people are using objective and subjective terms incorrectly, because they are, and that Se being force or the perception of such is logically inconsistent, because it is.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Wouldn't that be Te, though?


I don't think ability to put things together is related to anyone particular function or IE as much as it relates to visual-spatial cognitive skills, something I sorely am lacking.



Word Dispenser said:


> It's more like, the few times I'm in the position of actually putting together furniture, it's traumatizing.
> 
> Particularly Ikea. Putting it on backwards and crap.
> 
> But, I seem to have pretty good upper body strength in comparison to other females up to the task.


Dude, there are jokes about that over here, the backwards logic of putting IKEA stuff together. Yet we keep buying IKEA because it's IKEA and there's this idea of IKEA being Swedish and it's branded in a way that appeals to the Swedish population (pretty cheap, decent quality but nothing show-offish, do it yourself mentality) so it's quite hilarious, really. I always ask my SLE cousin to come help me put shit together because I suck at reading manuals and translating that into practice (zero visual-spatial intelligence, like I wrote).


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Jeremy8419 said:


> Two NFs liked them, so what's the problem? I didn't say the fundamental forces I conjectured were fact, nor did I force them on you.


Two NFs like them, and your suppositions about science's correlations to Socionics become more valid. Ok, totally need to chew on that for a bit. 

You don't need to force em on me for me to see them and disagree. If I disagree, I'm gonna ask for proof of your statements, simple as that. 

If you don't have them, that's fine, not my loss. I move on.



Entropic said:


> Dude, there are jokes about that over here, the backwards logic of putting IKEA stuff together. Yet we keep buying IKEA because it's IKEA and there's this idea of IKEA being Swedish and it's branded in a way that appeals to the Swedish population (pretty cheap, decent quality but nothing show-offish, do it yourself mentality) so it's quite hilarious, really. I always ask my SLE cousin to come help me put shit together because I suck at reading manuals and translating that into practice (zero visual-spatial intelligence, like I wrote).


IKEA is fucking awesome and anyone who says otherwise can go fuck themselves.

:^)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> IKEA is fucking awesome and anyone who says otherwise can go fuck themselves.
> 
> :^)


I'll let you to put all the shit together next time we go to IKEA. I'll sit and watch with popcorn, though.


----------



## Vermillion (Jan 22, 2012)

Entropic said:


> I'll let you to put all the shit together next time we go to IKEA. I'll sit and watch with popcorn, though.


Feel free. Make sure to get a front view of all that awesomeness.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Night Huntress said:


> Feel free. Make sure to get a front view of all that awesomeness.


I'll remember to toss some popcorn your way by the time you get hungry because you will. That's how generous I feel.


----------



## niffer (Dec 28, 2011)

I'm pretty clumsy sometimes. My vision sucks. I'm not that good at sports. I am a gentle person.

I think what makes the Se base in me, is that everything that I understand is a function of Se. Everything is done through the perspective of Se; it is my starting point. An Ne perspective, for instance, is but a sub-portion of an Se reality to me. I understand it THROUGH my Se reality. By contrast, to an ILE, Se is viewed cognitively as a function of an Ne reality of connectivity. And so forth for every other type.

The four Se egos are all very different animals. Two Si demonstratives with very different leads, one Fe demonstrative, and one Te demonstrative. Between the four, it's difficult to compare them and come up with "workable" substance.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Night Huntress said:


> Two NFs like them, and your suppositions about science's correlations to Socionics become more valid. Ok, totally need to chew on that for a bit.
> 
> You don't need to force em on me for me to see them and disagree. If I disagree, I'm gonna ask for proof of your statements, simple as that.
> 
> ...


That's kinda the point... He and I were messing around... No need to jump down our throats...

Anyways...
Force and Kinetic Energy are only Se, if you choose to divide reality up in such a way that they share the same division. Socionics, in general, treats force as Se, as well as Kinetic energy. Te is Work, which is odd, because it is kinetic energy. Then you have Fe and Fi also labeled as energy. Apparently, energy is all over the map lol


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Entropic said:


> I don't think ability to put things together is related to anyone particular function or IE as much as it relates to visual-spatial cognitive skills, something I sorely am lacking.


I was thinking that the actual actions going through it are Te, whereas the visual-spatial would be Si. Te/Si blocking? An alternative approach could be Te/Ni. The external extroverted action seems required either way.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not a deduction. That's what objectivity and subjectivity are. That's why the arguments regularly happen, because y'all don't have a firm grasp on the concepts and the differences between them. Just in Socionics only, you have the explicit statement that if it is a field/relation, it is subjective. You described a field/relation, but you say it is not subjective?
> 
> Subjectivity exists outside of a person being the subject or object. It is called "subject" instead of "object 1," because it is often used with a person as the subject, and people usually don't like it when you call them an object. This is why when people speak of painting someone, they call them "subject," because "object" can be offensive.
> 
> ...


Enlighten me then. I never claimed to be Socionics expert and unlike you didn't treat others with condescension as if I possessed the grail of truth. So far it seems like you're making things up on the fly. What are your claims exactly? Any interaction is subjective by definition? Interaction is dynamic because it's time-dependent? What about Fi then? It's subjective, but not dynamic.

Objective/subjective in Socionics is used as synonymous to explicit/implicit (or external/internal) and both explicit and implicit fields exist. Ti and Si are both external (explicit/objective) fields.

Where is it stated that if it is a field/relation, it is subjective? or that subjectivity/fields exist outside of a person? I may be missing on something here, so would appreciate some explanation. 

Any fields and relations can be perceived/judged through/by person only. Whatever you call the person - be it subject or object - fields/relations can not be considered apart from the observer.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

To_august said:


> Enlighten me then. I never claimed to be Socionics expert and unlike you didn't treat others with condescension as if I possessed the grail of truth. So far it seems like you're making things up on the fly. What are your claims exactly? Any interaction is subjective by definition? Interaction is dynamic because it's time-dependent? What about Fi then? It's subjective, but not dynamic.
> 
> *Objective/subjective in Socionics is used as synonymous to explicit/implicit (or external/internal) *and both explicit and implicit fields exist. Ti and Si are both external (explicit/objective) fields.
> 
> ...


It's not a holy grail of truth. That's just what those words mean, not just in socionics but period.

"Objective/subjective in Socionics is used as synonymous to explicit/implicit (or external/internal)"
This isn't correct. Explicit/implicit is external/internal. Objective/subjective is extroverted/introverted is object/field.

Socionics :: Information Elements

Objective/subjective is not the easiest of concepts. Well-educated professionals even get corrected for it often.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It's not a holy grail of truth. That's just what those words mean, not just in socionics but period.
> 
> "Objective/subjective in Socionics is used as synonymous to explicit/implicit (or external/internal)"
> This isn't correct. Explicit/implicit is external/internal. Objective/subjective is extroverted/introverted is object/field.
> ...


Extroverted/introverted is object/field, but it is _not _objective/subjective in Socionics sense. Read the link you've posted:
introverted logic - *objective *situation *of fields*
introverted ethics - *subjective *situation *of fields

*"Objective" means logic or sensing, "subjective" means ethics or intuition. If you look into the table you'll see how each description is structured in such a way to contain static/dynamic + introverted/extraverted + logic/ethics/sensing/intuition. For all black elements they used internal/external, for white intuition and sensing they named it abstract/concrete, for white logic and ethics they called it subjective and objective. This all goes under the same logical concept. Or do you think "objective situation of fields" means "extraverted statics of introversion"? Lol.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

To_august said:


> Extroverted/introverted is object/field, but it is _not _objective/subjective in Socionics sense. Read the link you've posted:
> introverted logic - *objective *situation *of fields*
> introverted ethics - *subjective *situation *of fields
> 
> *"Objective" means logic or sensing, "subjective" means ethics or intuition. If you look into the table you'll see how each description is structured in such a way to contain static/dynamic + introverted/extraverted + logic/ethics/sensing/intuition. For all black elements they used internal/external, for white intuition and sensing they named it abstract/concrete, for white logic and ethics they called it subjective and objective. This all goes under the same logical concept. Or do you think "objective situation of fields" means "extraverted statics of introversion"? Lol.



* *




objects and fields in human perception 
Objects:
Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
Fields:
Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

I give you a rock. Is it a rock? Or is it hundreds of pebbles?

Is it a pebble? Or is it millions of molecules?

Is it a molecule? Or is it a collection of atoms?

Is it an atom? Or is it a collections of subatomic particles?

Is it a rock? Or is it particles?

x = [14:2:78:61:105]

Is it a variable? Or is it an array?

Is it both?

Which do you focus on? #1 or #2 ?

Is it an object? Or is it a field?

Doesn't matter. It's the same thing. Which is why "elements" and "types" don't actually exist.

No matter how you divide the world up... If your personal version of Socionics doesn't freely expand and collapse back to "human," you're doing it wrong.

Se = a field perceived as an object in a moment in time
Ne = an object perceived as a field in a moment in time
Te = a field perceived as an object through time
Fe = an object perceived as a field through time
Si = a comparison of fields perceived as objects through time
Ni = a comparison of objects perceived as fields through time
Ti = a comparison of fields perceived as objects in a moment in time
Fi = a comparison of objects perceived as fields in a moment in time

These are the root abstractions of the information aspects that create the information elements, which are divisions of combinations of the former. The elements always face confusion and critique, because their descriptions are all false. Everything listed as a property of an element is actually the combination of two or more aspects, and subjectively placed to an element. Se is not "force," because "force" only exists when you have both an extroverted an introverted element. The blocks of the psyche in Socionics are required for anything at all, and, as such, all ascriptions of derived properties of existence should only be placed with element pairs. These element pairs should only be done with reference to the part and order that the appear in the psyche.

These aspects all interchange congruently, without confliction, and freely collapse back into "existence," because the only difference between them is "vector of focus."

I want to help, but I can't, if you don't let me. I can help you find your own way, if that is a better course of action.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Dude, there are jokes about that over here, the backwards logic of putting IKEA stuff together. Yet we keep buying IKEA because it's IKEA and there's this idea of IKEA being Swedish and it's branded in a way that appeals to the Swedish population (pretty cheap, decent quality but nothing show-offish, do it yourself mentality) so it's quite hilarious, really. I always ask my SLE cousin to come help me put shit together because I suck at reading manuals and translating that into practice (zero visual-spatial intelligence, like I wrote).


To get decent quality shite from Ikea, you have to pay. The cheap stuff is just sawdust. Sure, it can hold together pretty well, but it's hardly decent quality. :kitteh:

But, yeah, the manuals are really weird. I swore to myself the next time I had to assemble something from there, I'm going to have a note book to make an inventory of all the items, and what goes where, and which side goes on which end, before starting. Basically have to rewrite the frickin' thing.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Se:






I would lol trying to see Word Dispenser do that shit. Her hand would probably snap after the first punch. Then her ankle, etc. lol.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Se:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hey. I've never broken a bone, and I'm pretty strong/tall for a lady-person.

Also, I was actually in Karate (When I was 11), and Taekwondo for a couple of years when I was like .. 18! So there! :kitteh:

And I actually didn't do too badly, either.

I think it's mostly just effort and time spent practicing, and having someone to instruct you that really makes the difference. Also, most important, is interest. Being interested in it means you're willing to go through hoops to get better.

So, yeah. I might be able to put up a fight.

But, I still can't put together furniture from Ikea, unless I rewrite the manual and make inventory. :kitteh:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Hey. I've never broken a bone, and I'm pretty strong/tall for a lady-person.
> 
> Also, I was actually in Karate (When I was 11), and Taekwondo for a couple of years when I was like .. 18! So there! :kitteh:
> 
> ...


Oh really? I always picture NT women as frail with glasses. Like Daria. Not even saying she is an NT, but every NT female is her in my mind mind until proven otherwise. There is an INTJ on here I used to argue with and one day she mentioned she was like 5'10, 150 in a thread. My ears perked up. "That isn't Daria..." This is interesting. I picture them as some pip squeak. She likes to wrestle around too. I like doing that too. Then trolling them when I have them in a dominant position. 

Is that stuff in the video even Se though? Couldn't it be Si? It is aesthetics. Like ballet. I would walk to that woman and be like, "That's cute, but air doesn't hit back. You massacred that air, try it on me."


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Oh really? I always picture NT women as frail with glasses. Like Daria. Not even saying she is an NT, but every NT female is her in my mind mind until proven otherwise. There is an INTJ on here I used to argue with and one day she mentioned she was like 5'10, 150 in a thread. My ears perked up. "That isn't Daria..." This is interesting. I picture them as some pip squeak. She likes to wrestle around too. I like doing that too. Then trolling them when I have them in a dominant position.
> 
> Is that stuff in the video even Se though? Couldn't it be Si? It is aesthetics. Like ballet. I would walk to that woman and be like, "That's cute, but air doesn't hit back. You massacred that air, try it on me."


Well, a person is more complex than what they might first appear.

I grew up in the country, and have always prided myself on being 'tough', in a way which might lend itself to Se. I was always taller/stronger than everyone else. I beat plenty of boys at arm wrestling, growing up, haha. I loved swimming, quite especially. My dad recently said, "It's who you are." When I told him that I hadn't been swimming in years. :kitteh: (I do miss it)

I also have had glasses since I was 3, so that stereotype might very well be-- I was always glued quite close to screens, whether they be TV or computer.

So, yeah. I have a lot of different facets to my personality. In contrast to my 'toughness' when it comes to bugs, strange food, and going outdoors and being strong, I can also be kind of whiny and belligerent when it comes to being too cold or being hungry. :kitteh:

I was pretty gangly-tall when I was young, though, particularly. But, my love of food balanced it out.

Annnd I read fairly thick adult tomes since I was 8. I dunno, I've always had a myriad of interests. (Kind of an Ne-base thing).. I wouldn't mind going rock climbing either, or doing ashtanga yoga. These are things I aspire to. And if I could be taught parkour, I'd totally do it.

So, yeah... Cognition does not exclude a person from interests, or being good at something/having skills.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> I would lol trying to see Word Dispenser do that shit. Her hand would probably snap after the first punch. Then her ankle, etc. lol.


Kata (called Teuls in Hapkido and Taekwondo, probably the other Korean ones too) are the main reason I lost interest in traditional martial arts... after near a decade. Just not practical, yo.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Kata (called Teuls in Hapkido and Taekwondo, probably the other Korean ones too) are the main reason I lost interest in traditional martial arts... after near a decade. Just not practical, yo.


I still can't get away from Lee. My thoughts are healthier now though. lol. I think.

But that is precisely the stuff he was against. When the first UFCs started many people thought a Jean Claude Van Damme character would win, or at least do something crazy. They all get exposed. lol. Lee has been saying that for decades. Boxing and wrestling are actually superior arts. They better prepare their students. Don't a lot of these arts have you fighting with your hands down? Obviously western boxing is superior. There was no training either. They sit around in their pajamas all day. Where is the blood and sweat? Lee wanted to treat it like an actual sport and train like real athletes. 

It made everything so fucking boring though. The fighters look the same. There is actually some good philosophy and value in those arts, just mainly not for fighting. It would be cooler if fighters looked like characters from Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. Or Bloodsport. I wish we lived in that world, man.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> It would be cooler if fighters looked like characters from Street Fighter or Mortal Kombat. Or Bloodsport. I wish we lived in that world, man.












Iunno man... having your spine pulled out of your body while you're still alive could be pretty fucking painful. And that's _without_​ mentioning all the magic that flies about in the MK realm.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

The_Wanderer said:


> Iunno man... having your spine pulled out of your body while you're still alive could be pretty fucking painful. And that's _without_​ mentioning all the magic that flies about in the MK realm.


Loved that movie as a kid. lol. The guy it is based on is the biggest fuckin liar ever. He has many tall tales. 







I loved Big Trouble in Little China and The Last Dragon too. Bruce Leroy. lol. Master Shonuff. The Shogun of Harlem. Shit kills me.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> objects and fields in human perception
> Objects:
> Things that can be observed, studied, and discussed apart from the subject (observer)
> Fields:
> Things that are perceived through the subject by means of feelings and cannot be studied apart from the subject


I think @To_august's point went over your head. Objective/subjective is entirely independent of field/object. Object =/= objective. I repeat, _object is not the same thing as objective_. In a number of places Socionists use the word "objective" more colloquially to mean detached/uninfluenced by personal characteristics, with the exact use varying between different writers. I'm pretty sure I've seen articles that break sensing/logic as objective while feeling/intuition are subjective. There are also other approaches like this one that use objective to simply refer to logic, with three other terms for the other three categories of IEs.

This is probably part of why you make so many bad typings and are so terrible at applying theory to practice. To you, any time someone says something about relationships, they're talking about fields, and if their approach to understanding people is less wholeheartedly subjective than yours they're using Ti. This completely ignores the fact that people who use IEs oriented towards bodies often infer fields through the study of the movement of bodies. For example, Fe base often assumes that people who do not openly demonstrate emotions dislike them and Te base often assumes that a solid knowledge of the way things behave is sufficient to understand the relationships between them. You see this a lot in the behavior of the people who value these IEs. Many a serious type has been asked something like this by an Fe ego: "why aren't you smiling more? Are you uncomfortable? Do you like us?", and Te ego tends to assess his relationships with others by observing their outward behavior towards him. More abstractly, empiricism is an example of the Te base assumption that fields can be understood by recording the behavior of bodies.

The funny thing is all of this technical nonsense about bodies/fields etc is almost certainly useless. The descriptions of how the IEs manifest in human behavior are perfectly capable of testing, independent of some Aristotelian view of the world where everything can be reduced to 8 primeval elements which in turn explain everything. It's complicated, convoluted, and doesn't actually predict human behavior any better because of its existence. It's an idea that has long outstripped any usefulness it might have once had and clinging to it inhibits the progress of Socionics by keeping it tied to an arbitrary description of human interaction that is not based in anything that would or should be recognized by science.

What socionics needs is a version of this rather entertaining essay on modern Sociology.

Fuck Nuance



> I shall argue that, for the problems facing Sociology at present, demanding more nuance typically obstructs the development of theory that is intellectually interesting, empirically generative, or practically successful...
> 
> What I will call “Actually-Existing Nuance” in sociological theory refers to a common and specifi�c phenomenon, one most everyone working in Sociology has witnessed, fallen victim to, or perpetrated at some time. It is the act of making—or the call to make—some bit of theory “richer” or “more sophisticated” by adding complexity to it, usually by way of some additional dimension, level, or aspect, but in the absence of any strong means of disciplining or specifying the relationship between the new elements and the existing ones.


This criticism doesn't just apply to unnecessary complication added to an existing theory, but also unnecessary complication built into the theory itself. Once research has moved past an unduly nuanced argument, it's time to trim the nuance and restate your terms on a sounder, more empirical basis. And Socionics is long overdue for a hard trimming with the corresponding reduction and standardization of terms so testable hypotheses can be produced.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> I think @To_august's point went over your head. Objective/subjective is entirely independent of field/object. Object =/= objective. I repeat, _object is not the same thing as objective_. In a number of places Socionists use the word "objective" more colloquially to mean detached/uninfluenced by personal characteristics, with the exact use varying between different writers. I'm pretty sure I've seen articles that break sensing/logic as objective while feeling/intuition are subjective. There are also other approaches like this one that use objective to simply refer to logic, with three other terms for the other three categories of IEs.
> 
> This is probably part of why you make so many bad typings and are so terrible at applying theory to practice. To you, any time someone says something about relationships, they're talking about fields, and if their approach to understanding people is less wholeheartedly subjective than yours they're using Ti. This completely ignores the fact that people who use IEs oriented towards bodies often infer fields through the study of the movement of bodies. For example, Fe base often assumes that people who do not openly demonstrate emotions dislike them and Te base often assumes that a solid knowledge of the way things behave is sufficient to understand the relationships between them. You see this a lot in the behavior of the people who value these IEs. Many a serious type has been asked something like this by an Fe ego: "why aren't you smiling more? Are you uncomfortable? Do you like us?", and Te ego tends to assess his relationships with others by observing their outward behavior towards him. More abstractly, empiricism is an example of the Te base assumption that fields can be understood by recording the behavior of bodies.
> 
> ...


I think my post went way the hell over your head lol


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> I think my post went way the hell over your head lol


No, I don't think so, and don't you fucking dare try to pull your usual slimy bullshit where you criticize someone's argument, get rebutted, and then fall back on a one-line non-response to save face.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> No, I don't think so, and don't you fucking dare try to pull your usual slimy bullshit where you criticize someone's argument, get rebutted, and then fall back on a one-line non-response to save face.


Excuse you? You need to learn to watch your mouth.

You don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity, which is evident in how you regularly use the terms, not just in how they are applied to Socionics, but what they are period. You also do not want to know nor recognize the difference, because your worldview requires that you reject such. It is not my job to sit here and engage in an argument with someone who has already rejected the notion that all parties will be equally subjective in all that they say/do.

Now, the objective reality of human cognition is more important than the objective reality of human behavior, is it not?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Zamyatin said:


> I think @_To_august_'s point went over your head. Objective/subjective is entirely independent of field/object. Object =/= objective. I repeat, _object is not the same thing as objective_. In a number of places Socionists use the word "objective" more colloquially to mean detached/uninfluenced by personal characteristics, with the exact use varying between different writers. I'm pretty sure I've seen articles that break sensing/logic as objective while feeling/intuition are subjective. There are also other approaches like this one that use objective to simply refer to logic, with three other terms for the other three categories of IEs.
> 
> This is probably part of why you make so many bad typings and are so terrible at applying theory to practice. To you, any time someone says something about relationships, they're talking about fields, and if their approach to understanding people is less wholeheartedly subjective than yours they're using Ti. This completely ignores the fact that people who use IEs oriented towards bodies often infer fields through the study of the movement of bodies. For example, Fe base often assumes that people who do not openly demonstrate emotions dislike them and Te base often assumes that a solid knowledge of the way things behave is sufficient to understand the relationships between them. You see this a lot in the behavior of the people who value these IEs. Many a serious type has been asked something like this by an Fe ego: "why aren't you smiling more? Are you uncomfortable? Do you like us?", and Te ego tends to assess his relationships with others by observing their outward behavior towards him. More abstractly, empiricism is an example of the Te base assumption that fields can be understood by recording the behavior of bodies.
> 
> ...


Yes. This.^

I might have thought I lost all ability to translate any coherent message, if it takes several consecutive posts of repetitive statements to speak my mind with the only result of returning to the same circle argument.:frustrating:

All this overcomplication doesn't serve any productive purposes, and when terms got messed around without given any thought to the actual context or meaning the author had in mind while writing them, just because this is 'the meaning of the words', ugh, it causes a fuckton of confusion. 

Discarding everything and coming up with the divisions of one's own of a similar quality is as good as the mentioned above. Let's divide everything into waves and particles, or circles, squares and crosses or choose any other fancy category. But what's the point in that? It doesn't make us any closer to understanding or making proper description of human cognition. 

Bodies/fields aren't bad on their own. They are understandable concepts abstractions, and, I think, they've been introduced into theory in order to give Socionics more of a kinda-scientific bent and also, so as people can better differentiate Xi and Xe, but their misapplication been just too obvious here. 

^
<-- For the sake of avoiding confusion, it wasn't directed at you. Just ranting into the quick reply window void.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Jeremy8419 said:


> It is not my job to sit here and engage in an argument with someone who has already rejected the notion that all parties will be equally subjective in all that they say/do.


Believe it or not, not everybody is part of a merry quadra, Mr. Subjectivity.

And don't you _ever_ presume to tell me what to do or what to say when you have been condescending to everybody you speak to without exception.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To_august said:


> Yes. This.^
> 
> I might have thought I lost all ability to translate any coherent message, if it takes several consecutive posts of repetitive statements to speak my mind with the only result of returning to the same circle argument.:frustrating:
> 
> ...


Tbh, I'm not sure why Jung's original use of subject/object doesn't suffice in the first place. It makes it more philosophical, but you see this all the time in the social sciences e.g. the use of the term "the Other" or the "subject gaze", objectification etc. It explains the same concepts just as well but in less convoluted terms. It doesn't distinguish as much between static/dynamic, but I also think his original understanding of rational/irrational is sufficient.

Like, why fix that which isn't broken and it works just fine as it is?


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

@To_august

"when terms got messed around without given any thought to the actual context or meaning the author had in mind while writing them, just because this is 'the meaning of the words', ugh, it causes a fuckton of confusion"

They do match the usage in Socionics. This is why this is more complicated than it should be for you and others, because y'all bring the terms in without understanding them.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

Zamyatin said:


> Believe it or not, not everybody is part of a merry quadra, Mr. Subjectivity.
> 
> And don't you _ever_ presume to tell me what to do or what to say when you have been condescending to everybody you speak to without exception.


Uh, you're equally subjective as everyone else. The fact that you think anything else is mind blowing.

I will do whatever I please.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Tbh, I'm not sure why Jung's original use of subject/object doesn't suffice in the first place. It makes it more philosophical, but you see this all the time in the social sciences e.g. the use of the term "the Other" or the "subject gaze", objectification etc. It explains the same concepts just as well but in less convoluted terms. It doesn't distinguish as much between static/dynamic, but I also think his original understanding of rational/irrational is sufficient.
> 
> Like, why fix that which isn't broken and it works just fine as it is?


Probably Augusta wanted to make it more scientific - you know, bodies and fields and stuff - or, probably, her NeTi couldn't shrug off great analogy idea that dawned on her: "Why use already existing concepts? It's not fun. This new idea is superb! Let's use it instead of boring old Jung."


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

To_august said:


> Probably Augusta wanted to make it more scientific - you know, bodies and fields and stuff - or, probably, her NeTi couldn't shrug off great analogy idea that dawned on her: "Why use already existing concepts? It's not fun. This new idea is superb! Let's use it instead of boring old Jung."


A combination of both? But yes, I often see this in ILEs specifically. They tend to graft known ideas into new contexts, thus in a sense, breaking the meaning of the original concept. I always found this aspect a little disturbing in Ne types, because to me, it comes across as if they are violating something sacred. You don't touch or mess with archetypes by breaking them down like Ne types usually do. I can appreciate ILE humor in the kind of WTF is this? kind of way, but I think that's about it.

I get the sense that in the Ne type, there's this fear that if you stick to the known, you'll become contaminated and inflexible.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> I always found this aspect a little disturbing in Ne types, because to me, it comes across as if they are violating something sacred. You don't touch or mess with archetypes by breaking them down like Ne types usually do.


I disagree, but then again I consider very little to be sacred. The only way to discover new things is to break down that which is already known.



Entropic said:


> I get the sense that in the Ne type, there's this fear that if you stick to the known, you'll become contaminated and inflexible.


I think this is why I might have identified as IEE for so long; I've always had that sense of discomfort with anything established, and a fear of stagnation.


----------



## Jeremy8419 (Mar 2, 2015)

The_Wanderer said:


> I disagree, but then again I consider very little to be sacred. The only way to discover new things is to break down that which is already known.
> 
> I think this is why I might have identified as IEE for so long; I've always had that sense of discomfort with anything established, and a fear of stagnation.


To the ITR-mobile!


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> I disagree, but then again I consider very little to be sacred. The only way to discover new things is to break down that which is already known.
> 
> 
> 
> I think this is why I might have identified as IEE for so long; I've always had that sense of discomfort with anything established, and a fear of stagnation.


Yeah, so 7 of you.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Yeah, so 7 of you.


7's just a lazier way of saying EP, man.



Jeremy8419 said:


> To the ITR-mobile!


How come you left the EII club man?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The_Wanderer said:


> 7's just a lazier way of saying EP, man.


Saying I'm lazy is a lazier way of saying I'm IP, man.


----------

