User Tag List

First 2345 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 42

Thread: YES

  1. #31
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Socionics translates functions into very different behaviours than Jung did. Who was "more" right?
    Jung I think is closest to hitting the nail on the head, but even he has misattributed a few traits and mischaracterized functions in some respects. For example for the Fe type he mentions that Fe women choose their husbands in accordance to the norms of the society, which is complete bollocks, as Fe gals join their lives with sorts of druggie artists, ex-convicts, metrosexuals and other alternative kinds of men that don't match society's stereotypes and norms.

  2. #32
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    Jung I think is closest to hitting the nail on the head, but even he has misattributed a few traits and mischaracterized functions in some respects. For example for the Fe type he mentions that Fe women choose their husbands in accordance to the norms of the society, which is complete bollocks, as Fe gals join their lives with sorts of druggie artists, ex-convicts, metrosexuals and other alternative kinds of men that don't match society's stereotypes and norms.
    Oh yeah... What do you think about Se, Jung vs Socionics?

  3. #33
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Oh yeah... What do you think about Se, Jung vs Socionics?
    Jung offers a more comprehensive description of Se in my opinion. His description of Se is at least consistent with it being an irrational, perceiving element, which cannot be said of socionics Se. In some parts he falters and mistakes Se with Type 7 of enneagram by attributing it with experience and sensation craving: "His aim is concrete enjoyment" which is also the motivation of type 7. This has the effect of confusing ENxPs and ExxJ of type 7, making them consider Se leading types for themselves.

    Socionics interpretations of Se as a power-seeking willpower element are completely off. Irrationality doesn't give anyone more willpower or make anyone become more obsessed with power. If anything it makes people more scattered and less focused on their goals. It gets quite comical when some beginner socionists who have subscribed to the traditional socionics definition of Se start making deductions like "Types with vulnerable Se don't ever swear or act aggressively" only to get rebuffed and cursed at by some EII or called an idiot by some LII later in their socionics adventures. Or when some EII who is dissatisfied with the EII descriptions depicting her as a nice, complacent housewife assumes herself to be an ESI and then start acting like a drunk frat boy in order to play into Se stereotypes, saying things like "I wanna punch something if I don't get my smokes" - hilarity ensues.

  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    Jung offers a more comprehensive description of Se in my opinion. His description of Se is at least consistent with it being an irrational, perceiving element, which cannot be said of socionics Se. In some parts he falters and mistakes Se with Type 7 of enneagram by attributing it with experience and sensation craving: "His aim is concrete enjoyment" which is also the motivation of type 7. This has the effect of confusing ENxPs and ExxJ of type 7, making them consider Se leading types for themselves.
    Yeah it seems "comprehensive" is a pretty good word for what the jungian description is like... As for craving sensations, that's the part I never managed to relate to. I mean, some enjoyment is cool but I don't see myself as such a slave to all sensations. So quite honestly, because of that I wasn't quite sure what dominant function I'd have going by Jung. Though, I recall it was also mentioned somewhere that the Se type doesn't feel they're really a "slave" to sensations, that would be more Si, a more passive attitude to sensations. Does this make sense?


    Socionics interpretations of Se as a power-seeking willpower element are completely off. Irrationality doesn't give anyone more willpower or make anyone become more obsessed with power.
    Where do you think that comes from?? I know Augusta didn't care about MBTI and Enneagram so I'm really curious how she got this definition because it seems to overlap with some MBTI Te and enneagram 8 a lot.

    Otoh I'm not trying to claim that it absolutely can't have anything to do with willpower but I'll elaborate on this below.

    As for myself, I relate to socionics Se pretty well, actually more than to the MBTI or Jungian descriptions because this one is not about a total sensory hedonist stereotype but I can't totally make sense of how one-sided the Se definition seems to be in Socionics. Parts of the jungian / MBTI version got included with Si.


    If anything it makes people more scattered and less focused on their goals.
    Actually this one isn't so clear to me. What do you call a "goal" here? Because if it's an immediate concrete goal, why couldn't Se be focused on getting that?

    And I would see some sort of willpower related to that, though it depends on the definition of willpower. Some people seem to associate it with self-discipline which I think is a different thing.


    It gets quite comical when some beginner socionists who have subscribed to the traditional socionics definition of Se start making deductions like "Types with vulnerable Se don't ever swear or act aggressively" only to get rebuffed and cursed at by some EII or called an idiot by some LII later in their socionics adventures. Or when some EII who is dissatisfied with the EII descriptions depicting her as a nice, complacent housewife assumes herself to be an ESI and then start acting like a drunk frat boy in order to play into Se stereotypes, saying things like "I wanna punch something if I don't get my smokes" - hilarity ensues.
    Lol that. I don't really understand Se PoLR yet but in general I can see the problem with trying to push perceptions of people into such narrow boxes :P.

    How do you know though that this EII (I assume this was a real example you've seen) actually just tried to act like ESI? Hmm I often feel like the bolded but I only voice it if I feel like saying it. So it happens but how do you know this EII wasn't actually feeling like saying so?

  5. #35
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    How is it successful? By what standards?

    Clearly Socionics translates functions into very different behaviours than Jung did. Who was "more" right?
    By being able to provide a fluid explanation from our thoughts and motivations through to our behaviour.

    Well, I wouldn't say that Jung actually covered behaviours sufficiently. He was very much more about the point of view each sort of person had, the position they have towards the object for instance. I wouldn't say that there's a coherent whole that demonstrates the flow that we see in Socionics.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  6. #36
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    By being able to provide a fluid explanation from our thoughts and motivations through to our behaviour.
    Uhh "fluid" is a bold statement here ;p


    Well, I wouldn't say that Jung actually covered behaviours sufficiently. He was very much more about the point of view each sort of person had, the position they have towards the object for instance. I wouldn't say that there's a coherent whole that demonstrates the flow that we see in Socionics.
    Or the coherent whole was something else, including more than just the functions.

    What do you think about the question in post #32 in this thread?

  7. #37
    Senior Member edchidna1000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ILE Fe
    Posts
    278

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Uhh "fluid" is a bold statement here ;p




    Or the coherent whole was something else, including more than just the functions.

    What do you think about the question in post #32 in this thread?
    Well, I think IM elements are a fluid process from the information to the action on that information.


    I've kinda explained Socionics Se a lot in the Socionics Video thread. I think Se in MBTI is sensation-seeking but has a rather narrow idea of what sensation is, leading to just this idea of a hedonist.
    Founder and President of World Socionics Society
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/worldsocionicssociety

  8. #38
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by edchidna1000 View Post
    Well, I think IM elements are a fluid process from the information to the action on that information.
    Well... you know my opinion on this already :p


    I've kinda explained Socionics Se a lot in the Socionics Video thread. I think Se in MBTI is sensation-seeking but has a rather narrow idea of what sensation is, leading to just this idea of a hedonist.
    I was asking about Jung Se vs Socionics Se, let's leave MBTI out of it So what do you think about that?

  9. #39
    Senior Member sulfit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    6w5 sp/so
    Posts
    492

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Yeah it seems "comprehensive" is a pretty good word for what the jungian description is like... As for craving sensations, that's the part I never managed to relate to. I mean, some enjoyment is cool but I don't see myself as such a slave to all sensations. So quite honestly, because of that I wasn't quite sure what dominant function I'd have going by Jung. Though, I recall it was also mentioned somewhere that the Se type doesn't feel they're really a "slave" to sensations, that would be more Si, a more passive attitude to sensations. Does this make sense?
    Yes it does I was going to add that the "craving for sensations" can also be attributed to Si, and to the self-preservation instinct (sp) which is strongly body-based. I've seen sp firsts become gluttonous when they were under stress and pressure. It can also be due to a weakness of sensing instead of having strong sensing, as was desribed in this relationship article: "Both of them (EII and LIE) will try to counter this and to greedy satisfy their "sensory hunger" at each other's or at someone else's expense. To compensate for these deficits both EII and LIE require an "excess" in sensing functions – a sensory abundance, a full "storehouse" of experiences, provisions, care, pleasures and entertainment, from which they can draw by full handful for themselves. Feeling this deficiency, each will try to "intercept" and "overtake" a maximum of conveniences for himself."

    So I don't think that "craving for sensory experiences", like trying out new food, experimenting with drugs, or having many sexual partners is a hallmark of Se. In my opinion both Jung and MBTI and Socionics have gotten this wrong.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Where do you think that comes from?? I know Augusta didn't care about MBTI and Enneagram so I'm really curious how she got this definition because it seems to overlap with some MBTI Te and enneagram 8 a lot.
    Like any MBTI or socionics writer she must have based it on characteristics of somebody she personally knew. It does mix in some 8-ness and Te-ness. May be that person was an LIE 8 so she has intermixed the traits. Back in those times when she came up with socionics there was nothing like enneagram or instincts known to her.

    Another explanation is that Se was Aushra's Role function, so she herself experienced Se as "offensive" and infringing on her own Ne interests. This is how she described it. May be this description makes sense from point of view of ILE but other types won't see it in this way.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    As for myself, I relate to socionics Se pretty well, actually more than to the MBTI or Jungian descriptions because this one is not about a total sensory hedonist stereotype but I can't totally make sense of how one-sided the Se definition seems to be in Socionics. Parts of the jungian / MBTI version got included with Si.
    How do you experience Se?

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Actually this one isn't so clear to me. What do you call a "goal" here? Because if it's an immediate concrete goal, why couldn't Se be focused on getting that?

    And I would see some sort of willpower related to that, though it depends on the definition of willpower. Some people seem to associate it with self-discipline which I think is a different thing.
    "Goal" is one specific event, action, or achievement that is evaluated (judged) to be so. Judgement is needed to give direction and motivation. However, in the EGO block the judging and perceiving functions are contrary to one another. For Se-SxE it's more difficult to stay focused than for Ti-SxE, which means that Se-SxE would also have more difficulty with following through with intentions.

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    How do you know though that this EII (I assume this was a real example you've seen) actually just tried to act like ESI? Hmm I often feel like the bolded but I only voice it if I feel like saying it. So it happens but how do you know this EII wasn't actually feeling like saying so?
    Because it only happens in words with her. She paints an image with words, but there was no real basis for it which later becomes evident. There is a disconnect between self-presentation and the actual person. She tries to present herself as tough and rowdy but when time comes to act decisively or make a quick decision she becomes anxious, stalls and postpones, tries to talk things over again, because she is actually judicious type not decisive type. That she tries to fake Se in words become evident. It's not unusual for EIIs to try to type themselves into Se types because their profiles depict them as overly sweet, kind, all accepting and all forgiving, which they feel doesn't describe them accurately.

  10. #40
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sulfit View Post
    Yes it does
    How would you put it into words better?


    I was going to add that the "craving for sensations" can also be attributed to Si, and to the self-preservation instinct (sp) which is strongly body-based. I've seen sp firsts become gluttonous when they were under stress and pressure. It can also be due to a weakness of sensing instead of having strong sensing, as was desribed in this relationship article: "Both of them (EII and LIE) will try to counter this and to greedy satisfy their "sensory hunger" at each other's or at someone else's expense. To compensate for these deficits both EII and LIE require an "excess" in sensing functions – a sensory abundance, a full "storehouse" of experiences, provisions, care, pleasures and entertainment, from which they can draw by full handful for themselves. Feeling this deficiency, each will try to "intercept" and "overtake" a maximum of conveniences for himself."
    Yeah well, I saw some MBTI descriptions on inferior functions and inferior Se was like that. :P


    So I don't think that "craving for sensory experiences", like trying out new food, experimenting with drugs, or having many sexual partners is a hallmark of Se. In my opinion both Jung and MBTI and Socionics have gotten this wrong.
    So instead of craving for sensations, what would you say is the hallmark of Se?


    Like any MBTI or socionics writer she must have based it on characteristics of somebody she personally knew. It does mix in some 8-ness and Te-ness. May be that person was an LIE 8 so she has intermixed the traits. Back in those times when she came up with socionics there was nothing like enneagram or instincts known to her.

    Another explanation is that Se was Aushra's Role function, so she herself experienced Se as "offensive" and infringing on her own Ne interests. This is how she described it. May be this description makes sense from point of view of ILE but other types won't see it in this way.
    It's not actually offensive to me just seems exaggerated :P

    It sounds weird that she'd define Se based on some person who only has it in superid.


    How do you experience Se?
    In the socionics version, I relate to this essence of it worded as "achieving an object of desire" really well. Guess this strongly resembles enneagram Id type which I am as well

    Also the stuff about how Se is focused on this instead of just enjoying the situation, makes sense to me. In MBTI the SP stuff seems to be a bit more focused on just enjoying...

    I'm not trying to say that I don't enjoy stuff, I actually enjoy the above. I just don't often sit munching my food and passively enjoying that or lie down in the shadow on the beach or whatever. :P I prefer interaction in general just for the interaction itself as it is. Staying with the example, I still like the beach but not in that passive way. :p

    Or another example, I actually saw this on a socionics site, the Se runner vs the Si runner, the Si runner enjoys the jogging, takes in the environment and whatnot, and the Se runner enjoys this instead: "While the Se runner is likely to notice his surroundings and bodily experiences, they are less inclined to focus on how these sensations affect them internally; they may notice but place little importance on the beauty of their physical surroundings during the race, for instance. Instead, they are likely to be more attuned towards the energy and competitive aspect of the race itself, and also more inclined to physically push themselves towards the goal of victory, seeing their physical experience as less important than the goal or surrounding circumstances."

    I think that puts it into words much better than I could.

    Well so when I said the socionics Se definition is so one-sided I was actually surprised at how it "got" me. Even though it really just seems one part of Sensation and of Se (?). And actually the part about "seeing physical experience as less important", is almost not like S at all, right? So the other thing is this, I see it as not being totally "sensory" in the original sense of the word.

    The other main thing I strongly relate to is taking the world "as is". Jung (and MBTI) talks about that in detail. I just don't fit the resulting stereotype in his book. Or maybe I just feel it's painted too negative lol. And again, this isn't hedonistic "sensory" as much, the taking the world objectively in an "as is" fashion.

    Hm well and impulsivity, that too. OK, that's it for now :p


    "Goal" is one specific event, action, or achievement that is evaluated (judged) to be so. Judgement is needed to give direction and motivation. However, in the EGO block the judging and perceiving functions are contrary to one another. For Se-SxE it's more difficult to stay focused than for Ti-SxE, which means that Se-SxE would also have more difficulty with following through with intentions.
    OK say I want to take this seat here (and I go do it), is that a goal or something else? Do you think it involves Judging?


    Because it only happens in words with her. She paints an image with words, but there was no real basis for it which later becomes evident. There is a disconnect between self-presentation and the actual person. She tries to present herself as tough and rowdy but when time comes to act decisively or make a quick decision she becomes anxious, stalls and postpones, tries to talk things over again, because she is actually judicious type not decisive type. That she tries to fake Se in words become evident. It's not unusual for EIIs to try to type themselves into Se types because their profiles depict them as overly sweet, kind, all accepting and all forgiving, which they feel doesn't describe them accurately.
    So this about being a Decisive type (Se/Ni), it's not to do with Judgement functions?

Similar Threads

  1. King of the "ah yes but..."s
    By Xander in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 04-29-2015, 07:44 AM
  2. Homeschooling: yes or no?
    By Oberon in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 91
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 06:01 AM
  3. Geoff's Welsh Waterfalls : Yes, he is suffering for his art!
    By Geoff in forum Home, Garden and Nature
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 03-25-2008, 10:18 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO