I'm still trying to figure out if this thread is a joke or not.
I agree with the people that said that primary Se-ers are probably so cocky that they get into more accidents.
I can't drive either. Since my inferior is Ni, I'm not really sure what the meaning of the red light is. To me, it's just a red light. And for some reason I get into a lot of accidents.
We can "reason" about typology in such a way as to support pretty much any conclusion that we want to draw about any cognitive function. It's beautiful.
What could that red light possibly mean...
I can't drive either. Since my inferior is Ni, I'm not really sure what the meaning of the red light is. To me, it's just a red light. And for some reason I get into a lot of accidents.
[barf]
Why a red light? They could've intended it to mean something. They could've chosen it because it's a pretty color. It could telling us to be passionate, since that's a common cultural association with the color. The word of God is colored red in "red letter" editions of the Bible.. does it have something to do with that?
So, I've been driving for more than 20 years. No real accidents to speak of (one 16 year hit me from behind and sheared off a bumper 10 years ago). You might say I'm a pretty good driver.
It seems that people who are dominant or auxiliary Se would have an inherent advantage in doing this activity.
For me, while being very aware of the upcoming terrain, what's happening way in front and to the side, and predicting the behaviors of other cars based on some nuance of their behavior that I'm typically unsure of, driving seems like pretty much an unconscious process. I spend most of the time zoned out or thinking about more interesting things. Would it be like that for a Dom or Aux Se? How do other people experience this activity?
Soooo.... those with inferior Se can't drive cars, and those with primary Se also can't drive cars?
.. can anyone drive cars?
We can "reason" about typology in such a way as to support pretty much any conclusion that we want to draw about any cognitive function. It's beautiful.
Because Se is not a physical action; it's a mindset. It's an attitude, an approach to life, a way of seeing and interpreting the world.
You don't have to "use Se" to drive a car or see things around you any more than you have to "use Fi" to feel emotions or "use Te" to make plans. Se is an attitude that encourages us to trust our gut feelings, place emphasis on literal/surface meaning and do whatever feels right and makes the strongest immediate impact at the current moment.
This strikes at one of the biggest misconceptions regarding functional theory in general. You are not "using a different function" every time you perform any given action. The term "using a function" is in itself rather misleading.
Don't think of the functions as actions--think of them as different perspectives, different lenses to look through at different times. In order to "use Se" you must actually see from the perspective of Se's attitude and grasp the reasoning behind it firsthand. You don't do Se things; you do things for Se reasons.
Because Se is not a physical action; it's a mindset. It's an attitude, an approach to life, a way of seeing and interpreting the world.
You don't have to "use Se" to drive a car or see things around you any more than you have to "use Fi" to feel emotions or "use Te" to make plans. Se is an attitude that encourages us to trust our gut feelings, place emphasis on literal/surface meaning and do whatever feels right and makes the strongest immediate impact at the current moment.
This strikes at one of the biggest misconceptions regarding functional theory in general. You are not "using a different function" every time you perform any given action. The term "using a function" is in itself rather misleading.
Don't think of the functions as actions--think of them as different perspectives, different lenses to look through at different times. In order to "use Se" you must actually see from the perspective of Se's attitude and grasp the reasoning behind it firsthand. You don't do Se things; you do things for Se reasons.
I don't particularly like driving, but it takes ZERO conscious brain power, which is awesome, lends me plenty of time to daydream.So, I've been driving for more than 20 years. No real accidents to speak of (one 16 year hit me from behind and sheared off a bumper 10 years ago). You might say I'm a pretty good driver.
It seems that people who are dominant or auxiliary Se would have an inherent advantage in doing this activity.
For me, while being very aware of the upcoming terrain, what's happening way in front and to the side, and predicting the behaviors of other cars based on some nuance of their behavior that I'm typically unsure of, driving seems like pretty much an unconscious process. I spend most of the time zoned out or thinking about more interesting things. Would it be like that for a Dom or Aux Se? How do other people experience this activity?
But-in the point of the thread-Se the process of perceiving information-of transferring base sensory input into something our brains can use and pass judgment upon. Se takes that sensory information at face value, while Ne has to connect it to other things in order to incorporate it.
So-to the point of the thread-an Se dom should be more in tune with immediate sensations-thus able to respond more quickly to changes in those incoming sensations than an Ne dom. Thus drive better.
It is almost like you just assigned judging capabilities to Se. Am I confused?
If my inferior is Se, then how can I drive a car?
Actually, the couple of ESTPs that I know are the worst drivers I have ever seen. Hmm..
I wonder if your type has anything to do with it... like if you're an SJ you'd be making decisions based on driving rules rather than immediate cues from your surroundings. Or if you're Ni you'd be like "HO SHIT if I don't stop immediately, this sequence of events will unfold that will result in my untimely death!!"
This is one of the best explanations of Jungian functions I've ever read. Listen to this man.
Weak Se doesn't make you physically incompetent, but strong Se will often lead one to make choices that improve physical coordination.