• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Challenging Stereotypes - Se in service of Fi

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
If person A views Se the way person B views Ne, that doesn't mean person A and person B are referencing two different things.

Say one person calls a rose a rose, one calls a rose a tree, and one calls a rose a pumpkin. The language used doesn't change the objective object. As long as the person who calls a rose a tree only calls roses trees and calls trees something else, the pattern is upheld and the word for the concept/object/existence doesn't actually matter. The caveat is that you have to understand the other person's wavelength to understand their references and not assume their tree is your tree. If everyone is swayed to calling a rose a tree, the rose becomes a tree while still objectively being a rose. Tree will just be the new way to describe it.

The objective pattern exists. You can only name an objective pattern through subjective interpretation of what is objective.

I'm interested to know what makes Ne & Se objective in the same way as the solid objects you referenced to make this point? This isn't some rank descartian appeal either, I'm interested in this idea.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
I understand (I think) what you're saying regarding a word just being a word, and one person's 'purple' sky might be another person's 'blue' sky even if the objective properties of the sky are the same color for everyone (even if they call it something different); or, my favorite concept to think about re word usage is 'God' -
'God' is to one person the universe, to another person it might be the hebrew god, to another person something else entirely, and so on and so on. They might all use the word God, but mean very different things. otoh, one person saying the word Universe might have the same concept in mind as another person saying the word God, but if they just focused on the word itself, they'd never know they were talking about the same thing. So you can have two people using different words to describe the exact same concept, OR you can have two people using the same word to describe two utterly different concepts.

But talking about this thread itself, Se and Ne are supposed to represent separate objective concepts/entities. If one person says Se is Objective Entity A (and entity A has certain properties), and another person says that same Objective Entity A is Ne, then either A is Se, or A is Ne. It's one or the other; it can't be both. I suppose it could be neither, if neither A or B really know what it actually objectively is, and are describing something else entirely. ? But for Ne / Se to be Objective, there has to be some agreed-upon definition on the properties of each -- what distinguishes one from the other. Which seems to be what has been discussed in this thread. Am I missing something or misinterpreting completely what you're saying?

I guess I feel like you can't say Se is objective entity A or Ne is objective entity B. You more have to say objective entity A is Se and objective entity B is Ne. I mean, you could say either, but I think that there is a particular direction that this tends to go in assuming that we all recognize the same inherent pattern. Obviously this is a moot point for people who don't recognize a pattern beyond trying to fit the description to something objective (in that order). It seems like it makes more sense to view the objective thing and then see if the description fits or just make your own description. You know?

I really feel that the objective pattern exists and as soon as you try to find agreed upon definitions or properties, you are adding your own subjective interpretation to it. Which isn't bad or wrong, it just means that whatever sort of interpretation you have is backed in something "real". Meaning that in a sense, if you're basing your type off something more than a description, mistypes don't so much exist, as long as you are in touch with the thing that is more.

But yeah, I'd say you got what I was saying.

I'm interested to know what makes Ne & Se objective in the same way as the solid objects you referenced to make this point? This isn't some rank descartian appeal either, I'm interested in this idea.

Wellllll.... if you consider Ne and Se to be subjective interpretations/names of a larger inherent pattern, then the names themselves are subject to change/interpretation, like the definitions, and are therefore highly subjective. The pattern itself exists independently of an attempt to name/describe/define it, therefore making the pattern objective. If you name the pattern obviously your subjective interpretation of it is based in objectivity and therefore has its own legitimate backing. If you just stamp people with types or cognitive functions based merely off the type descriptions (other peoples subjective attempts at defining things) you aren't typing legitimately, are you?

What makes a concept less objective than a solid object? The concept exists independently of you, like the object, and your interpretation of the concept exists dependently of you, like with an object.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I guess I feel like you can't say Se is objective entity A or Ne is objective entity B. You more have to say objective entity A is Se and objective entity B is Ne. I mean, you could say either, but I think that there is a particular direction that this tends to go in assuming that we all recognize the same inherent pattern. Obviously this is a moot point for people who don't recognize a pattern beyond trying to fit the description to something objective (in that order). It seems like it makes more sense to view the objective thing and then see if the description fits or just make your own description. You know?

I really feel that the objective pattern exists and as soon as you try to find agreed upon definitions or properties, you are adding your own subjective interpretation to it. Which isn't bad or wrong, it just means that whatever sort of interpretation you have is backed in something "real". Meaning that in a sense, if you're basing your type off something more than a description, mistypes don't so much exist, as long as you are in touch with the thing that is more.

But yeah, I'd say you got what I was saying.

Yes, I understand the directional element, and agree that it makes more sense to identify X number of objective entities, and then slap a label/word/name to them. But it seems to me that's what functional theory is trying to do? 8 modes are outlined and described, they are identified (even if only theoretically), they are each distinct based on how they are described and what they inherently are, and then a name is given to them. The issue that came up in this thread is that when you described your own mode of being (and like I said initially, it's totally valid), and then named it/associated it with Se, others disagreed with that and said they experience the exact same thing but associate it with Ne, not Se. I mean, I know you know all of this, so I hope you don't think I think you don't.

Anyway I agree that 'objective patterns' exist, if by saying that, we're saying that we all experience our own unique and valid/'real' modes of being, modes of perception and understanding and thought. We are who we are. Us describing how we are, how we think -- simply IS. It's there, it can't be argued with. We are who we are. It's the throwing a name on it that complicates things; but imo that's what mbti/function theory IS -- I mean it seems to me that without agreed upon definitions/ways of differentiating different modes, then it's all pretty pointless. And that's fine, tbh :laugh: -- but I mean, the nature of function theory IS to define these things concretely. I mean the very essence of typing people requires having these definitions/descriptions. Differences between functions, dichotomies. Now it's a totally different topic entirely, whether there's any point to any of it or whether it's actually relevant to Actual People, but that's what typing is. And, another entirely different topic would be whether the 8 functions/modes used in cognitive theory are actually the 8 that we should be paying attention to. Are they actually legit as described and utilized?? Are there more? etc etc
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Wellllll.... if you consider Ne and Se to be subjective interpretations/names of a larger inherent pattern, then the names themselves are subject to change/interpretation, like the definitions, and are therefore highly subjective. The pattern itself exists independently of an attempt to name/describe/define it, therefore making the pattern objective. If you name the pattern obviously your subjective interpretation of it is based in objectivity and therefore has its own legitimate backing. If you just stamp people with types or cognitive functions based merely off the type descriptions (other peoples subjective attempts at defining things) you aren't typing legitimately, are you?

Well this would be a matter of opinion, unfortunately, since it relies on others to agree that there is a larger, inherent pattern. The issue in typology systems is it's largely subject to the fragmentation of differing interpretations, it's objective basis would be in self-reporting that consistently results in ties back to a repeated outcome, in other words (as an example) that people of certain professions take a typology test and it comes back as the same type repeatedly. I'm not even saying this would be a great way to do it but it's better than interpreting interpersonal behaviour. This is because interpersonal behaviour is notoriously unreliable as a factor given that people can act very differently in different circumstances with different variables, particularly other people.
It's partly why psychology as a field of study is in such a bad way at the moment. Lack of decent replication as undertaken by this study here: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science | Science & reported on by various outlets such as: Science's Reproducibility Problem: 100 Psych Studies Were Tested and Only Half Held Up & Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results | Science | The Guardian.

As for naming a pattern, well that's also under the same scrutiny & creating names for heuristic perceptions doesn't make them objective it just means the one who named them is very sure of what they perceive. What is fairly well known, in typology's favour, is that there are consistent differences amongst people, which we can observe, but the interpretation and reason for those differences is where the difficulty lies & why there are so many different typology systems.

I'm not ruling out typology systems, nor am I adopting a hardline scientifically-minded position, but there is a lot of work to be done with regards to tying types back to something more substantial than the heuristics of observation.

What makes a concept less objective than a solid object? The concept exists independently of you, like the object, and your interpretation of the concept exists dependently of you, like with an object.

Rhetorical though this is I'm still going to attempt the unsatisfactory answer. I would argue it's nigh impossible for us to separate the concept and the object; even the most abstract of concepts are generally tied to something whatever that something happens to be. And it is in our state of being that (to put it simplistically) we rely upon sensory input as the basis for a great deal of our information which is then abstracted to a greater or lesser degree and in a greater or lesser form of complex pattern-noticing mechanisms.
In the case of the examples you used, a concept of a rose could not exist before there was a rose, in human perception. I'm aware that there are some concepts that appear entirely up in the air on this particular point, especially with regards to theological & spiritual discussions but when mentioning specific objects that are observable to the senses this point is hard not to raise. Those objects only remain the same because you can repeat the outcome of noticing them. There is no Ne or Se object for us to observe in that same way.

And I cannot emphasise enough how it is part of an ongoing linkage of perceptions, on the way down and on the way up. This isn't to say I think our senses cannot be fooled or that they are the only reliable tool of perception but it is extremely difficult (and arguably impossible) for us to escape their trappings. And the importance of being able to replicate the outcome can't be understated either, otherwise every claim can be held to have the same value of truth and we wouldn't be able to even act in the world (as an aside it's interesting to note that what we exclude from attention is an important as what we include; we can't hold all of reality, or a reality, at once and still operate effectively).

We make repeated outcome assumptions whenever we even do something as simple as flex a finger, we rely upon it to act the same way & it goes on at such a minute and unconscious level and it's moving all the time. In fact these repeated assumptions of outcome are exactly why forums like this exist in the first place.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
[MENTION=1206]cascadeco[/MENTION] and [MENTION=15392]Cellmold[/MENTION], you are both talking about roughly the same thing. I'm talking about a different thing and have run out of ideas to explain it better at the moment. In any case, we are definitely not all starting out at the same place.

There are a lot of assumptions you both have made about what I meant.

The issue that came up in this thread is that when you described your own mode of being (and like I said initially, it's totally valid), and then named it/associated it with Se, others disagreed with that and said they experience the exact same thing but associate it with Ne, not Se.

This is what I'm addressing. I don't think it necessarily has to be an issue. It's just different modes of perceiving the same pattern.

but I mean, the nature of function theory IS to define these things concretely. I mean the very essence of typing people requires having these definitions/descriptions.

I agree to some extent but the issue is that the definitions are off. So if you go by definitions to type, you are setting yourself up for mistypings.

Differences between functions, dichotomies. Now it's a totally different topic entirely, whether there's any point to any of it or whether it's actually relevant to Actual People, but that's what typing is.

I never said there aren't differences between functions and dichotomies and nor is it irrelevant.

And, another entirely different topic would be whether the 8 functions/modes used in cognitive theory are actually the 8 that we should be paying attention to. Are they actually legit as described and utilized??

I mean, I think they're legit in and of themselves. I don't think they're legit as described. That's my point.

Well this would be a matter of opinion, unfortunately, since it relies on others to agree that there is a larger, inherent pattern. The issue in typology systems is it's largely subject to the fragmentation of differing interpretations, it's objective basis would be in self-reporting that consistently results in ties back to a repeated outcome, in other words (as an example) that people of certain professions take a typology test and it comes back as the same type repeatedly. I'm not even saying this would be a great way to do it but it's better than interpreting interpersonal behaviour. This is because interpersonal behaviour is notoriously unreliable as a factor given that people can act very differently in different circumstances with different variables, particularly other people.
It's partly why psychology as a field of study is in such a bad way at the moment. Lack of decent replication as undertaken by this study here: Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science | Science & reported on by various outlets such as: Science's Reproducibility Problem: 100 Psych Studies Were Tested and Only Half Held Up & Study delivers bleak verdict on validity of psychology experiment results | Science | The Guardian.

I wasn't talking about the scientific method. We've discussed this before and I know we disagree about this topic. What you see as objective is anything that can be measured in a material sense. Like if a spoon falls off a table again and again, the results of the experiment consistently prove that gravity exists, right? But you give no thought as to why gravity exists.

In the case of the examples you used, a concept of a rose could not exist before there was a rose, in human perception. I'm aware that there are some concepts that appear entirely up in the air on this particular point, especially with regards to theological & spiritual discussions but when mentioning specific objects that are observable to the senses this point is hard not to raise. Those objects only remain the same because you can repeat the outcome of noticing them. There is no Ne or Se object for us to observe in that same way.

The concept of a rose couldn't exist before there was a rose because a rose is a concrete object. However, a rose existed before we knew it was a rose. Now we have a concept of a rose instead of just a rose. Ne and Se have existed before there were names for Ne and Se. It merely did not exist as a concept yet. But it still existed. If a group of people didn't know what a rose was and came across it, they wouldn't be able to repeat the outcome of calling a rose a rose. They would just notice the rose like people notice Ne and Se without knowing it has a name.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
[MENTION=1206]
I wasn't talking about the scientific method. We've discussed this before and I know we disagree about this topic. What you see as objective is anything that can be measured in a material sense. Like if a spoon falls off a table again and again, the results of the experiment consistently prove that gravity exists, right? But you give no thought as to why gravity exists.

Who was making assumptions again? How do you know I give no thought as to why gravity exists? Our last conversation was about models for reality, so I just gave some (admittedly not very good due to tiredness) examples of a model for reality which were predictable. The point about doing that was somewhat devil's advocatish in that I am wary of models for reality that are essentially either too close to the personal, while seeking to encompass the reality of those outside of that personal sphere. Not to mention that filling in the gaps of uncertainty with something ephemeral due to it's emotional content is a risky step and often ends up in solipsistic territory.

I wasn't talking in existentialist terms because it's a very broad area from my perspective & requires a lot more investment than I was willing to give at the time, yeah I can be very lazy. In truth I'm not really a pragmatist or materialist, though I might make arguments that enter into those. I'm somewhat a monist in my outlook, although I reject the angles of that which side with solipsistic thought.


[MENTION=1206]
The concept of a rose couldn't exist before there was a rose because a rose is a concrete object. However, a rose existed before we knew it was a rose. Now we have a concept of a rose instead of just a rose. Ne and Se have existed before there were names for Ne and Se. It merely did not exist as a concept yet. But it still existed. If a group of people didn't know what a rose was and came across it, they wouldn't be able to repeat the outcome of calling a rose a rose. They would just notice the rose like people notice Ne and Se without knowing it has a name.

How do you go about proving that they existed and exist? This is at the heart of the issue.

Also I'm not presuming anything with regards to your ideas of Ne & Se, I've not and will not be making comment on definitions of those functions. I will say, though, that if two people are describing something similar from the same system but use different names for it, at what point & where does the misnomer fall?

I'm trying not to turn this into an element of black & white, right or wrong because I think that you & I share a similar view with regards to the flowing nature of reality. That there is an 'other' to perception that isn't language based and struggles to express what it understands with regards to a world built on the precise areas of language. This is the realm where paradox exists as opposed to contradiction. And there's a struggle in that realm when it comes to attempting big questions of purpose & meaning. I'm not an enemy of belief, I am just extremely wary of where forms of belief lead.

I don't mind putting this down to a miscommunication or failure of understanding on my part, but I think you're right in that we won't see eye to eye on what is an issue of language & definition, given the generally consensual nature of definition.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Who was making assumptions again? How do you know I give no thought as to why gravity exists? Our last conversation was about models for reality, so I just gave some (admittedly not very good due to tiredness) examples of a model for reality which were predictable. The point about doing that was somewhat devil's advocatish in that I am wary of models for reality that are essentially either too close to the personal, while seeking to encompass the reality of those outside of that personal sphere. Not to mention that filling in the gaps of uncertainty with something ephemeral due to it's emotional content is a risky step and often ends up in solipsistic territory.

I wasn't talking in existentialist terms because it's a very broad area from my perspective & requires a lot more investment than I was willing to give at the time, yeah I can be very lazy. In truth I'm not really a pragmatist or materialist, though I might make arguments that enter into those. I'm somewhat a monist in my outlook, although I reject the angles of that which side with solipsistic thought.

Who's making assumptions again? You have no idea and have no capacity to understand what I was/am talking about. I just don't think there's a point to be honest.

How do you go about proving that they existed and exist? This is at the heart of the issue.

Also I'm not presuming anything with regards to your ideas of Ne & Se, I've not and will not be making comment on definitions of those functions. I will say, though, that if two people are describing something similar from the same system but use different names for it, at what point & where does the misnomer fall?

I'm trying not to turn this into an element of black & white, right or wrong because I think that you & I share a similar view with regards to the flowing nature of reality. That there is an 'other' to perception that isn't language based and struggles to express what it understands with regards to a world built on the precise areas of language. This is the realm where paradox exists as opposed to contradiction. And there's a struggle in that realm when it comes to attempting big questions of purpose & meaning. I'm not an enemy of belief, I am just extremely wary of where forms of belief lead.

I don't mind putting this down to a miscommunication or failure of understanding on my part, but I think you're right in that we won't see eye to eye on what is an issue of language & definition, given the generally consensual nature of definition.

Okay.
 

Cellmold

Wake, See, Sing, Dance
Joined
Mar 23, 2012
Messages
6,266
Who's making assumptions again? You have no idea and have no capacity to understand what I was/am talking about. I just don't think there's a point to be honest.

It's a good thing you didn't just say I was an idiot or else it might have been misconstrued as an ad hominem. But I suppose this is getting off topic.
 

cascadeco

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
9,083
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
This is what I'm addressing. I don't think it necessarily has to be an issue. It's just different modes of perceiving the same pattern.

Ok, so are you saying you and the Ne user are utilizing the exact same process (thus are using the same function, whatever you call it), or that you and the Ne user are using different processes completely but perceive it the same way, thus write about it in the same manner? ?? Or something else?



I agree to some extent but the issue is that the definitions are off. So if you go by definitions to type, you are setting yourself up for mistypings.


I mean, I think they're legit in and of themselves. I don't think they're legit as described. That's my point.

I guess the nature of my ramblings, the reason I posted all of it, was to try to address your statements here above.

So let's say the definitions are off, and because the definitions are off, it leads to people mistyping. I guess my question is, how did YOU in fact come to your typing, and how did you determine you were an Se user, if you did not base it off of the definitions or the general understanding of types? Any confusion I am having regarding your posts I think ties back to this overall question, because Type itself is a theory and human creation, and the only way people are able to type themselves is because there are commonly understood definitions of type and functions (though the only scientific/measurable way of typing is by dichotomies currently). So let's say your description of Se is in fact the 'right' one. This is only useful imo if we know you ARE in fact an Se user. But if you didn't determine you were an Se user by descriptions of what Se is, then how do you know you're an Se user? Does that make sense? I am afraid this might be taken the wrong way, but I truly don't mean it as an attack, or even questioning that you're an Se user. I am just trying to connect the dots and understand how one (it doesn't have to be you, 'one' can be anyone out there in the world) can know they're a user of X function if they're not making use of descriptions of it. Just trying to understand.

If you don't feel like answering any of this or feel there is too much of a gap in what's being discussed, I understand.
 

Agent Washington

Softserve Ice Cream
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
2,053
Im not exactly sure what to add to this post because the forum was broken for a few days and in the meantime, it got long. At any rate, from the discursive perspective, what I'm getting is that users who identify as intuitives are disagreeing with a sensor who is trying to define their very experience.

At the end of the thread, if Magpie got testy, I think it's justified because that was the general process I observed.

The underlying sense of condescension is precisely the idea that intuitives assume that sensors can't have similar experiences that overlap, thereby relegating the 'sensor' experience to something less intellectual and less connected with the realm of possibilities.

I would type more because I have a lot more thoughts, but this is the approach I'll start with for now.
 

ChocolateMoose123

New member
Joined
Oct 4, 2008
Messages
5,278
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
This is inspired both by [MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION]'s wonderful series on Si and on my growing frustration with the way Se types are perceived on this site. I can only really talk about the way Se functions for me, which is in the service of Fi. Please feel free to ask questions. I'll probably add more to this thread when I think of it.

Fi is the way I structure my thoughts, emotions, experiences, observations, etc. Think of a cave mouth. You enter it and underneath is a vast space filled with winding catacombs, stalagmites and stalactites, pools, and rivers. Multiple tunnels branch out and in. It's confusing to an outsider but the whole thing is meticulously organized. New perceptions are placed inside, adding to the labyrinth. Stalactites are refined by running water. Catacombs are smoothed with footprints from much exploration. It's a system of careful organization and it's very, very large. Sometimes even I get lost there.

Se is commonly perceived as a thought process and it's not. It's a way to information gather. Fi information gathers internally. Se information gathers externally. That is to say that Fi utilizes a great amount of thought about meanings and abstractions, or in other words, things that can't be touched, seen, heard, or smelled, but can be felt emotionally. There is a system of careful analysis which is helped by Ni in the ISFP. Deciphering patterns, making connections, testing them, and refining connections. Testing is where Se comes into play.

I need to reality test to figure out whether my Fi is giving me an accurate picture of the world. To figure out whether I'm organizing right. There has to be some external connection or information gathering process or I'll fall into a world made up entirely of my own mind. I've been lost there before and it really can destroy you in a lot of ways. Relying on the Fi-Ni loop means that you stop taking in new information, which is something your world view can't grow or adapt without. Se is in service to Fi because Se, or experiences, give your Fi a more accurate picture of the world, of others, of yourself, and help you to develop as a person.

Se makes an ISFP adaptable and open to new perceptions. The Fi-Se-Ni combo makes ISFPS masters at juggling and integrating perceptions, at viewing multiple things from multiple points of view. At understanding others, understanding why they think the way they think, and taking that into consideration, both to accomodate others and to expand their own views. ISFPs are keenly aware of who they are and who they could be, and the possibilities inherent in that.

The world is constantly changing. Nothing is set in stone. No one point of view is right, and ISFPs have an inherent awareness of the way multiple seemingly contradictory concepts exist at once.

I had to read this a couple times as well as responses. I think what you're describing is how to get out of a Fi/Ni loop RATHER than describing Se in the service of Fi in the whole sense with ISFPs.

I mean, they're related but I think if your title was different it would be more understood?

Just my 2cents.
 

magpie

Permabanned
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
3,428
Enneagram
614
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Se: the possibilities are secondary to the goal
Ne: the goal is secondary to the possibilities

Se: wants to get to point b, will explore possible ways to get there then narrow down with Ni to make a decision
Ne: is at point a, doesn't care about getting anywhere in particular, just wants to see all the places they could go
 

notmyapples

New member
Joined
Oct 26, 2017
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
9w1
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Se: the possibilities are secondary to the goal
Ne: the goal is secondary to the possibilities

Se: wants to get to point b, will explore possible ways to get there then narrow down with Ni to make a decision
Ne: is at point a, doesn't care about getting anywhere in particular, just wants to see all the places they could go

This is a good analogy, would just like to add that healthy Ne should have Si balanced so they aren't stuck in an endless loop of indecision and unrealistic ideology. Ne wants to see all it's options but should be using Si to settle on a choice. An Ne user who is constantly questioning their choices and imagining what could be without any concrete expectations for their path has an over reliance on Ne.
 
Top