[MBTI General] ISxPs are not xi and Se

[jixmixfix]

No no, Jung actually did define Se as a hedonistic experience junkie; albeit a fairly refined one (at least on Psych Types -- still waiting on word on his other works, as I'm unwilling to slog through them). What Se and Si are, in any case, depends on what definition of them you're using though -- and you seem to have Jung mixed up with Berens and Sim.

Si definition 1 (Jung): Subjective view of reality. Si sees reality as unanchored to any given definition or perspective; depending mainly on the observer's view of it. Reality is what you think it is.

Si definition 2 (Berens): Storing data and information. Si collects a storehouse of data which to utilize to figure out present circumstances, and prefers to anchor itself to the unchanging and stable.

Si definition 3 (Sim): Perspective that it is most comfortable to relate reality to what one has experienced with their five senses -- attraction to reliving experiences, and dislike of novelty over what one knows to be best.

Si definition 4 (Thomson): Preference for having all variables accounted for and stable, gathering expertise to make sure one reliably knows what to do and how to do it; and avoid nasty surprises.

Those are all fairly different explanations of Si, I see the Thomson one being more "SP" oriented, looking at all the variables knowing what to do and how to do it, and the Bernes being more "SJ" oriented which is gathering data and comparing it to a storehouse of previous data.

 

[jixmixfix]

Si is NOT a more stable version of Se. OMG.

Okay. Si is a linear way of thinking, like a filing cabinet in your mind, which absorbs new data carefully in order to compare the new information to the prior information systematically. It ascribes deep personal subjective meaning to past sensory memories...it's parallel to Ni in a way, because Si creates symbols of tangible physical things...a clock is more than a clock, it represents something else, and so do houses and train tracks...they are representative of underlying archetypes and associations in the mind. However, the Si dom may not be aware of to what degree they do this, where as Ni is more aware of LOOKING UNDERNEATH SYMBOLS. It's almost like Si are the symbols and Ni wants to find out what is underneath them.

Si notices when something is different or "off"..the picture is crooked, that desk isn't straight, this coffee doesn't taste right...are you sure that's logical? Because I've never seen that before.

Se on the other hand is the attitude of observing and reacting to sensory data in the present environment. An ISxP isn't going to react as quickly because they aren't Se doms and the Se is filtered through Fi or Ti first.

Also, the idea that Se means you're always out seeking crazy sensations or making a total whore of yourself or partying day and night is false. Jung cleared that up way back when he described the dominant functional attitudes nearly 100 years ago.

Does Si sound like what you're attempting to describe?

In a way it is more stable because Se is constantly looking out for more experiences, sensations etc. Si is more comfortable in a safer environment experiencing what they have already experienced. comparing past experiences to new etc. Se = the risky route while Si = the safe route. The main concept of Se is "the sensation junkie", however seeking "crazy" sensations is another story.

 

[Randomnity]

I don't really care about "you" if you haven't noticed I'm talking about ISXP's as a whole you don't make up 99% of the ISXP community just as I don't. Don't just bring personal matters to a discussion talk about the ISXP type as a whole. If you can't relate to how your experiences relate to ISXPs as a whole then just leave the thread and stop wasting valuable thread space.

How come none of the ISxPs agree with you, if you're describing the majority of us? Have you considered that you may be ISTJ after all, if you relate more to Si?

I absolutely do not relate to Si at all, although my Se is weak, and certainly different from that of an ESxP. Of course TiSe has a different flavour from SeTi; that doesn't magically make it into Si for no apparent reason....

And yes, the point that ISTP is defined as TiSe is true as well.

 

[jixmixfix]

How come none of the ISxPs agree with you, if you're describing the majority of us? Have you considered that you may be ISTJ after all, if you relate more to Si?

I absolutely do not relate to Si at all, although my Se is weak, and certainly different from that of an ESxP. Of course TiSe has a different flavour from SeTi; that doesn't magically make it into Si for no apparent reason....

And yes, the point that ISTP is defined as TiSe is true as well.

again another moron who thinks this thread relates to me in any way personally if you think it's true then good for you. FYI I don't relate to Si I relate to aspects of Si there are different explanations are definitions to Si and there are different aspects that I relate to regarding those definitions. If you took the time to read others posts you would know. I don't really care if you agree or disagree with me that has little relevance if you have no evidence to back up your statement.

 

[mrcockburn]

Also OP, for you it looks like you're borderline J/P. So if your next closest type is ISTJ, that's why you've got Si flavor.

And this isn't just you, I'm just using you as a possble example - any ISTP close to the border will exhibit ISTJ traits. ESTPs close to the border seem to have a Te flavor. Etc etc.

 

[jixmixfix]

Also OP, for you it looks like you're borderline J/P. So if your next closest type is ISTJ, that's why you've got Si flavor.

And this isn't just you, I'm just using you as a possble example - any ISTP close to the border will exhibit ISTJ traits. ESTPs close to the border seem to have a Te flavor. Etc etc.

nah I'm not boarder J/P I score very high Se in cognitive function tests. I have higher Ne so if anything I'm more along the boarder of INTP.

 

[Mal12345]

I have a theory that ISXPs are not xi and se. But rather Xi and Si. The reason why is because Se is far too sporadic, se is far too concerned with moving from one place to another in an similar way like Ne. ISxPs tend to do best when focusing on one task at a time, gathering information while still staying passive requiring little or no movement. The reason is because Si is more focused and "stable" version of Se based on the descriptions. ISXP's are very good at noticing little details in their environment and have acute sensory perceptions. Because of this ISXP's have a tendancy to focus on details in their environment much differently than dom Se types. Although there seems to be a notion of "se" in all of SP's due to Se's desire for freedom and spontaneity, something is definitely missing in the description of ISXP's according to Myers Briggs.

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html
check it out.

I might. But as usual, with analyses such as yours, I think it's important to keep the cognitive aspect distinguished from the behavioral. For example, you blend the two in the statement "ISxPs tend to do best when focusing on one task at a time, gathering information while still staying passive requiring little or no movement." Sounds kind of like a frog on a lily pad.

 

[Randomnity]

again another moron who thinks this thread relates to me in any way personally if you think it's true then good for you. FYI I don't relate to Si I relate to aspects of Si there are different explanations are definitions to Si and there are different aspects that I relate to regarding those definitions. If you took the time to read others posts you would know. I don't really care if you agree or disagree with me that has little relevance if you have no evidence to back up your statement.

That's a little over the top for simply disagreeing with you. I believe as the OP you need to bring the evidence for your point before we're required to bring the evidence against it - i.e. "burden of proof". All I see presented is your opinion, and I disagree.

 

[jixmixfix]

That's a little over the top for simply disagreeing with you. I believe as the OP you need to bring the evidence for your point before we're required to bring the evidence against it - i.e. "burden of proof". All I see presented is your opinion, and I disagree.

I gave reasons you just disagreed and gave zero reasons for disagreeing other than attacking me personally which far more "over the top".

 

[Randomnity]

I gave reasons you just disagreed and gave zero reasons for disagreeing other than attacking me personally which far more "over the top".

Now you're just making stuff up.

 

[Mal12345]

I'm reading the page at http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html, where it quotes Keirsey saying,
"Myers' E-I scale is badly flawed because she inherited Jung's error of confusing extraversion with observation (S) and introversion with introspection (N). And so to make the E-I distinction useful at all, we must define the two concepts, not in terms of mental focus or interest, but in terms of social address or social attitude."

So for Keirsey, the E-I distinction defines a "social address or social attitude."

Then why does the author of that webpage say the following a few paragraphs later? -

Clearly, when Keirsey describes an ISTP he uses terms that are much more 'extraverted', and when he describes an INTP he uses terms that are much more 'introverted'. By comparison, Isabel Briggs-Myers description of ISTP is written in terms of the introverted Thinking dominant function... In fact, Isabel Briggs-Myers description is in some ways opposed to Keirsey's: whereas he describes them [the ISTP] as action-driven, she states that they are "great believers in economy of effort". Keirsey resolves this difference by stating that Isabel Briggs-Myers "inherited Jung's confusion between Sensing and Extraversion", but in this respect her writings are completely consistent, and she portrays ISTPs as introverts. Keirsey portrays ISTPs in an extravert fashion because his system of temperament is different to Jungian typology - and the use of the same system of letters to describe both is unfortunate because of the confusion it both causes, and hides.

But this criticism of Keirsey simply redefines his I-E distinction in terms of mental attitudes, whereas his is defined in terms of social address or social attitudes. Therefore, it stands as a straw-dog criticism of Keirsey's analysis of the ISTP temperament.

 

[Mal12345]

I see something else in that long quote I'd like to address:

In fact, Isabel Briggs-Myers description is in some ways opposed to Keirsey's: whereas he describes them [the ISTP] as action-driven, she states that they are "great believers in economy of effort".

These two ideas are not dichotomous. It is clearly possible to be action-driven, or action-oriented, or even to be an action hero running around in a comic book, and still use economy of effort.

 

[Mal12345]

I have a theory that ISXPs are not xi and se. But rather Xi and Si. The reason why is because Se is far too sporadic, se is far too concerned with moving from one place to another in an similar way like Ne. ISxPs tend to do best when focusing on one task at a time, gathering information while still staying passive requiring little or no movement. The reason is because Si is more focused and "stable" version of Se based on the descriptions. ISXP's are very good at noticing little details in their environment and have acute sensory perceptions. Because of this ISXP's have a tendancy to focus on details in their environment much differently than dom Se types. Although there seems to be a notion of "se" in all of SP's due to Se's desire for freedom and spontaneity, something is definitely missing in the description of ISXP's according to Myers Briggs.

http://www.teamtechnology.co.uk/keirsey-analysis.html
check it out.

Ok, I've checked out the page, as you can tell from my previous posts. I can't quite make your OP and the link mesh together. Because according to that page, there is something wrong with Keirsey describing the ISTP as extraverted. I agree with that page that it all hinges on one's definition of "extraverted."

You write that the ISXP is Si because of "gathering information while still staying passive requiring little or no movement." I doubt that any ISXP would agree that they are like frogs sitting on lily pads waiting for a fly to pass by. And I am skeptical that "gathering information" can be connected to "staying passive requiring little or no movement" through the attitude of introversion, whether that attitude is considered cognitive (Myers) or social (Keirsey), a distinction made at that page.

 

[Thalassa]

Okay here we have an ISTP telling ISxPs that their experiences are irrelevant (I think their reports of their experiences are extremely relevant, and I tend to rely on report of experience as well as theory because you can't just go by pure theory...and jixmixfix how do you not know that some of the supposed ISxPs you've observed aren't actually ISxJs???) ...plus not responding to either definition of Se or Si posted by Jung...so you don't want personal experience...and you don't want the original theory...so what exactly do you want? For people to just agree with you?

 

[Speed Gavroche]

ISTP and ISFP are considred as Si-dom in Socionic. But that's in part why I don't relate at all in socionic, I mean, no socionic type seem to fit with me when I read the descriptions.

 

[Mal12345]

Okay here we have an ISTP telling ISxPs that their experiences are irrelevant (I think their reports of their experiences are extremely relevant, and I tend to rely on report of experience as well as theory because you can't just go by pure theory...and jixmixfix how do you not know that some of the supposed ISxPs you've observed aren't actually ISxJs???) ...plus not responding to either definition of Se or Si posted by Jung...so you don't want personal experience...and you don't want the original theory...so what exactly do you want? For people to just agree with you?

Let me tell you about my ISFP wife. I guarantee she is ISFP, although she has her J moments, blah blah. Nobody is a pure type. But she is ISFP. Before we were married she took me to 130 mph in a Jetta 2.5. Later she explained that she always wanted to be a race car driver.

There is a crucial element missing from Jixmixfix's hypothesis: the difference between INTENSITY of experience, which turns a singular experience toward more depth, and the EXTENSITY of experience which requires a variety of more shallow experiences.

THAT is the distinction everybody is groping towards on this thread.

I'll leave it as an assignment to determine which one of those two distinctions of attitudes relates to Si and which relates to Se.

 

[Thalassa]

lol...that story about your wife is funny...when I was younger I used to always drive super fast to the point of flipping one car over and back onto its wheels and doing a 360 degree circle in the middle of the freeway with another...both times I was speeding well in excess of the speeding limit...and somehow magically both times I just drove away with no injury or anything...my flipped car went right back on its tires and the one that did a 360 literally went back to forward again...I used to listen to music blasting while I did this, so it was like this whole experience for me...I have no idea why I thought I had Ne...

I think maybe jixmixfix likes the one version of Si that sounds most like Ti...I think he might be confusing the Ti weighing of variables with Si...just my opinion...however, I also know he's into Socionics.

 

[Mal12345]

lol...that story about your wife is funny...when I was younger I used to always drive super fast to the point of flipping one car over and back onto its wheels and doing a 360 degree circle in the middle of the freeway with another...both times I was speeding well in excess of the speeding limit...and somehow magically both times I just drove away with no injury or anything...my flipped car went right back on its tires and the one that did a 360 literally went back to forward again...I used to listen to music blasting while I did this, so it was like this whole experience for me...I have no idea why I thought I had Ne...

That's the aspect of intensity I was referring to. My wife also loves to have the car radio blasting.

I think maybe jixmixfix likes the one version of Si that sounds most like Ti...I think he might be confusing the Ti weighing of variables with Si...just my opinion...however, I also know he's into Socionics.

"Weighing of variables" returns us back to cognition. Intensity or extensity is not cognition. My point was that he confuses everything into a big jumble. I'm giving the principle of the issue that brings back some order. It's not to be found at that webpage. As far as webpages go, it's pretty average.

 

[jixmixfix]

Okay here we have an ISTP telling ISxPs that their experiences are irrelevant (I think their reports of their experiences are extremely relevant, and I tend to rely on report of experience as well as theory because you can't just go by pure theory...and jixmixfix how do you not know that some of the supposed ISxPs you've observed aren't actually ISxJs???) ...plus not responding to either definition of Se or Si posted by Jung...so you don't want personal experience...and you don't want the original theory...so what exactly do you want? For people to just agree with you?

that's not what I said at all learn to read and stop accusing people of shit. The ISTPs here are not giving me a decent response other than OMG UR ISTJ or OMG I don't agree because It's not true so obviously I respond negatively.

 

[Thalassa]

that's not what I said at all learn to read and stop accusing people of shit.

You called speed and randominity morons. I'm just trying to figure out why you're so upset about what they said, and you did say that you basically didn't care about their sharing of personal experience.

EDIT:

Okay u mad they said you might be ISTJ. I see.

Carry on.