Challenging Stereotypes - Se in service of Fi

[magpie]

I first of all want to preface this by saying that I'm in no way questioning how you think or process, as you in fact do think and process in a certain way and are explaining it here.

I am wondering though if I and others are misunderstanding what exactly you mean by certain things you're saying - ie there is a possibility I could do things similarly to you, it's jut something is getting lost in translation and so I don't relate to the words you're using. I'm not sure.

I can relate to experiences being jumping off points, and being critical for finetuning self and ones own perceptions and thoughts and values, shifting and building and adjusting and sometimes reconstructing, but I don't view any of this as pulling together multiple perspectives or sensory experiences being a means to an end. Or even necessarily spiritual at all. For me, like I said earlier I may see many paths I can take in life (= multiple perspectives?) or value systems, but ultimately I am trying to define my own, and it's less about integrating a bunch as it is figuring out what exactly I believe in and need to prioritize and Live out. There's a lot I immediately write off as 'not me'. There's some I know is me. There's middle fuzzy zones where I may not be sure or I'm playing tug and war between two possibly opposing values. That's where experience is critical.

Regarding sensory alone, I think while in some areas (ie nature) there is a very deep meaning for me, there are many sensory things that just 'are', I am happy to be in that moment, and there's no deeper context, ie they aren't a means to anything, they simply are and don't need to be anything else.

Also I'm not sure I'd describe myself as being in a land of ideas. But maybe this too is me having a different notion of what that means than what you are thinking when you say that.

I hope you know I am not questioning your type, I am simply sharing my own experiences and how I view things. I also think I have never been great at breaking myself into functions (partly because I have some issues with function theory); thus that may be part of my not easily following your writing style or defining myself in that way.

Thanks so much for writing this. I think there is a misunderstanding going on and I realize I'm not always good at articulating, and can struggle to describe things with clarity. I do think maybe a lot of the issues are semantics based, or are based on me saying one thing and other people viewing it differently, which isn't anyone's fault. It happens.

I think also we may be in different stages of development, with you being further along in that journey, though I'm not sure how things were for you when you were younger. I think what you wrote and what I'm trying to say are very similar, with the biggest difference being that I'm still looking for things outside myself to use to define me. For me, figuring out who I am and what I believe is an experiential process, and the experiences are what I integrate. It's like learning from experience, but it's learning who I am from experience. Is this clearer? I'm not really at a place developmentally where I can immediately write things off as not me, but I think if I progress as a person, that's a place I'll be able to end up.

I agree with there being sensory things that don't need to have deeper meaning. I guess for me being in the moment is meaningful. It doesn't need an analytical process but that's what makes it spiritual, for me. Because it's so free. You're not burdened by thinking to figure things out, you just act and do.

I realize now that saying "land of ideas" makes it sound like I live inside my head, which isn't what I meant. I meant more in a land of possibilities, which is what happens when you're in the moment. Like being aware of all possible actions you could take and just sort of understanding them all at once and making a decision without a long analytical process. A gut thing. So it's not going from one possibility to another and another, it's sort of seeing all posibilities and zeroing in.

Thanks for trying to understand and sharing your own experiences.

 

[cascadeco]

Thanks so much for writing this. I think there is a misunderstanding going on and I realize I'm not always good at articulating, and can struggle to describe things with clarity. I do think maybe a lot of the issues are semantics based, or are based on me saying one thing and other people viewing it differently, which isn't anyone's fault. It happens.

I think also we may be in different stages of development, with you being further along in that journey, though I'm not sure how things were for you when you were younger. I think what you wrote and what I'm trying to say are very similar, with the biggest difference being that I'm still looking for things outside myself to use to define me. For me, figuring out who I am and what I believe is an experiential process, and the experiences are what I integrate. It's like learning from experience, but it's learning who I am from experience. Is this clearer? I'm not really at a place developmentally where I can immediately write things off as not me, but I think if I progress as a person, that's a place I'll be able to end up.

I agree with there being sensory things that don't need to have deeper meaning. I guess for me being in the moment is meaningful. It doesn't need an analytical process but that's what makes it spiritual, for me. Because it's so free. You're not burdened by thinking to figure things out, you just act and do.

I realize now that saying "land of ideas" makes it sound like I live inside my head, which isn't what I meant. I meant more in a land of possibilities, which is what happens when you're in the moment. Like being aware of all possible actions you could take and just sort of understanding them all at once and making a decision without a long analytical process. A gut thing. So it's not going from one possibility to another and another, it's sort of seeing all posibilities and zeroing in.

Thanks for trying to understand and sharing your own experiences.

No problem.

Re being misunderstood and having trouble articulating things, I understand that. Sometimes I think I am being super clear and the other person ends up taking something totally different away from my message, or thinks I am being unclear or ambiguous. We all process differently so communication can always be an issue even if we try to prevent miscommunication.

Re me being further along, eh, it's possible, I do think you'll gain more clarity as the years go on. And I'm not saying that in a patronizing way, I am saying that just because things have gotten a lot easier and clearer for me, in terms of who I am and learning more of what I want, in my 30's, contrasted with earlier years. That said it's never ever going to be easy, I still find myself totally confused and humbled quite a lot of the time. This is to say, yes, maybe some is being 'farther along', but that's kind of relative too. My blog chronicles my...continuing exploration and turmoils? lol. I'm far behind in a lot of ways too.

Learning more of who you are through experience totally makes sense.

I also agree re being in the moment; in a certain context it is quite spiritual. I love it.

I think I know what you mean now re 'land of ideas', now that you explained it more. It makes sense. I think it's easiest for me to map what you're describing to a very fast paced job (which I can relate to). But yeah, I wouldn't have ever known what you meant by that without you explaining further!

 

[Mole]

Normatively, sure, yeah. Nonetheless, people who tend to get too enamored of philosophy don't usually seem to be as keen on the translation. They're more about what being able to say they read this person or that one happens to say about them.

People who are all theory and no action are bores just as surely as those who'd adhere to the opposite.

Ten minutes of watching someone scale a cliff with a GoPro could tell me a lot more about who they actually are than listening to someone regurgitate McLuhan for any length of time. Would also be infinitely more engaging.

To scale the cliff of philosophy will tell us far more about a person than almost anything else.

And scaling the cliff of philosophy requires no Gopro to narcissistically broadcast to the world.

Scaling the cliff of philosophy requires intellectual integrity, moral courage, and the actual ability to think critically.

And it is obvious that those who lack intellectual integrity, moral courage, and the ability to think critically, naturally disrespect philosophy.

Such disrespect is a psychological defence to hide their own disability.

 

[magpie]

I just want to say in general that asking for clarification is always okay, and so is sharing your own views/experiences. I take issue with people telling me what it is I'm trying to say without stopping to try and understand. I realize individual experience is not translatable in a lot of cases by virute of not being inside each other's heads. I have hope for this thread though.

 

[PeaceBaby]

I just want to say in general that asking for clarification is always okay, and so is sharing your own views/experiences. I take issue with people telling me what it is I'm trying to say without stopping to try and understand. I realize individual experience is not translatable in a lot of cases by virute of not being inside each other's heads. I have hope for this thread though.

What I'm hearing you say is that anyone who doesn't agree with your posts isn't trying to understand you. Is that right?

If you chose, you could learn a lot about ISFPs from what I've written in this thread. I'm glad I didn't call this thread "Breaking Stereotypes" - challenging them is hard enough.

I am learning more about you in this thread, at the very least. But about ISFPs? Not so much.

I realize now that saying "land of ideas" makes it sound like I live inside my head, which isn't what I meant. I meant more in a land of possibilities, which is what happens when you're in the moment. Like being aware of all possible actions you could take and just sort of understanding them all at once and making a decision without a long analytical process. A gut thing. So it's not going from one possibility to another and another, it's sort of seeing all posibilities and zeroing in.

This isn't any less Ne; actually, it's practically textbook Ne. But let's keep calling it Fi - Ni, or Se, sure. There isn't any ISFP I know who's going to say they live in a land of possibilities. Why? Because this isn't how ISFPs think. You may counter by saying this is how you think, and you self-type as ISFP so it has relevance -- but if other ISFPs can't recognize themselves in your expressions, it points to a different pattern now, doesn't it?

 

[violet_crown]

To scale the cliff of philosophy will tell us far more about a person than almost anything else.

And scaling the cliff of philosophy requires no Gopro to narcissistically broadcast to the world.

Scaling the cliff of philosophy requires intellectual integrity, moral courage, and the actual ability to think critically.

And it is obvious that those who lack intellectual integrity, moral courage, and the ability to think critically, naturally disrespect philosophy.

Such disrespect is a psychological defence to hide their own disability.

You keep reaching for this idea that I'm anti-intellectual when that's really not my point. The whole purpose of Western philosophy was to ask the correct questions to come to an understanding of ourselves, and in so doing live our best lives. Socrates wasn't interested in navel gazing for its own sake. He wanted to define principles that would help people be more human.

Just searching is not enough. Just knowing is not enough. It's about how those ideas impact the way that we live and deal with each other. Where I'm from, those who've been to the mountaintop but don't live by the word aren't much use to anyone. I stand by that.

 

[magpie]

What I'm hearing you say is that anyone who doesn't agree with your posts isn't trying to understand you. Is that right?

No. But I could throw that right back at you. I already said earlier it's okay to have different opinions. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. That's fine. I see you didn't respond to me when I said that though. You come from a forceful, overbearing place in this interaction and I'm not going to put up with it. I don't need that from you or anyone.

 

[Mole]

You keep reaching for this idea that I'm anti-intellectual when that's really not my point. The whole purpose of Western philosophy was to ask the correct questions to come to an understanding of ourselves, and in so doing live our best lives. Socrates wasn't interested in navel gazing for its own sake. He wanted to define principles that would help people be more human.

Just searching is not enough. Just knowing is not enough. It's about how those ideas impact the way that we live and deal with each other. Where I'm from, those who've been to the mountaintop but don't live by the word aren't much use to anyone. I stand by that.

This is a pollyanna view of the Socratic Method. You cast Socrates in your own image.

You say Socrates wanted to define principles that would help people be more human. I defy you to name even one principle defined by Socrates to help people become more human.

And if you are correct the whole history of Western Philosophy is wrong.

It is as though you are only comfortable in reducing philosophy to your own size, to reducing philosophy to your own parochial understanding.

I understand philosophy is a challenge to your ego, and naturally you defend your ego, but the price you pay is the history of Western Philosophy.

Should you wish to step outside your parish into the world of Western Philosophy you could do worse than click on http://www.24grammata.com/wp-conten...-Western-Philosophy.-24grammata.com_.-pdf.pdf

 

[Poki]

After reading first page i have decided that Pe is explained and we are getting into the S vs N stigma that Ne and Se processes different as if it actually processes, it percieves. S percieves different data then N from same situation...conclusion while based on data is irrelevant of source. Meaning S sees xyz, N sees abc...both can lead to qrs. Qrs doesnt define whether the person is S or N. Nor does the process to go from xyz to qrs or from abc to qrs.

 

[violet_crown]

I understand philosophy is a challenge to your ego, and naturally you defend your ego, but the price you pay is the history of Western Philosophy.

And apparently the idea of being held accountable for doing more with yourself than "thinking fun thoughts" seems to equally challenge your ego.

The cost for that will likely be dying, not having had the courage to live a life that anyone would mistake for having had any consequence whatsoever.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this. You're welcome to the last word.

 

[prplchknz]

And apparently the idea of being held accountable for doing more with yourself than "thinking fun thoughts" seems to equally challenge your ego.

The cost for that will likely be dying, not having had the courage to live a life that anyone would mistake for having had any consequence whatsoever.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this. You're welcome to the last word.

Zyzzyva

 

[PeaceBaby]

No. But I could throw that right back at you. I already said earlier it's okay to have different opinions. I don't agree with you, you don't agree with me. That's fine. I see you didn't respond to me when I said that though. You come from a forceful, overbearing place in this interaction and I'm not going to put up with it. I don't need that from you or anyone.

I didn't come in here to change your mind about your type. I noted your reaction to OA's post and misinterpretation of her intention but felt inclined to agree with her observations. What I noticed were patterns I associated more with Ne than Se and pointed them out. You are free to use that information or not.

I feel your current energy state and am not going to engage with more of the same. You feel an identity in ISFP and feel protective of that. I get it. You've chosen an allegiance and I feel that too. I'll leave you to your thread.

 

[Arctic Hysteria]

I once had an ISFP co-worker. We bonded very well as we worked very efficiently together, and he opened up to me about a great deal of personal stories.

In hindsight, I believe we bonded over our very strong Fi, while his Se inspired me to take actions and turn dreams into reality, and he consulted my Ne for non-judgmental insights and meanings of his experience.

We both paid lots of attention to details. All data were filtered through our strong Fi. We had a lot of inside jokes at work due to this. Most of other folks at work viewed us as helpful, smart, efficient, but rather cold and not very friendly.

On the other hand, his Fi>Se and my Fi>Ne show our differences in a number of ways.

He wouldn't bother with information that held little to none practical values to himself, i.e. if he could not do anything with the data, the data wouldn't be collected.

For me, I only care for interesting, thought-provoking even, data that could inspire me and help me understand better, even if the they are absolutely useless to other people.

Without going into too much detail, I think the Se in ISFP and the Ne in INFP can be observed that way in my own experience.

 

[Mole]

And apparently the idea of being held accountable for doing more with yourself than "thinking fun thoughts" seems to equally challenge your ego.

The cost for that will likely be dying, not having had the courage to live a life that anyone would mistake for having had any consequence whatsoever.

We're not going to see eye to eye on this. You're welcome to the last word.

Thanks, I'll take your offer of the last word.

So just ask yourself the simple question, why was Socrates convicted of corrupting the youth of Athens and sentenced to death, if all he was doing was defining principles to help people become more human?

The reality is Socrates would corrupt your petty bourgeois values, and like the good burgers of Athens you would howl for his death.

Socrates was so fertile he gave birth to Western philosophy at the cost of his life.

So who today opposes Western values? Islam openly and publicly rejects Socrates, and the petty bourgeois make him into their pet.

 

[magpie]

This is a really good video, recommended by [MENTION=23915]Hawthorne[/MENTION].

I didn't come in here to change your mind about your type. I noted your reaction to OA's post and misinterpretation of her intention but felt inclined to agree with her observations. What I noticed were patterns I associated more with Ne than Se and pointed them out. You are free to use that information or not.

I feel your current energy state and am not going to engage with more of the same. You feel an identity in ISFP and feel protective of that. I get it. You've chosen an allegiance and I feel that too. I'll leave you to your thread.

I hope I didn't hurt your feelings. That wasn't my intention.

 

[magpie]

I've seen it floating around that ISFPs are risk-averse and I want to point out that Se is not prone to avoiding risks or hanging back from taking chances. I just read an article about a photographer who died trying to ride on top of a subway car and I think it's pretty clear he was probably an Se user.

 

[cascadeco]

I've seen it floating around that ISFPs are risk-averse and I want to point out that Se is not prone to avoiding risks or hanging back from taking chances. I just read an article about a photographer who died trying to ride on top of a subway car and I think it's pretty clear he was probably an Se user.

Hmm, I'm not sure I've seen this floating around. Usually it's spoken of isfj's rather than isfp's. But I do think isfp's are probably more cautious until they grow older - in comparison with Se dom ESxP's.

I'm definitely not risk averse, but I also weigh risks before jumping in. If something in me prompts action despite the risk, I will do it. It boils down to how valuable I think doing it will be. But I'm also not going to do anything where there's a high probability I'll die or seriously injure myself, lol. I value my body and life.

Edit: The photographer probably deemed the potential shots being worth it. (though too... who's to say he wasn't an Ne user? They aren't against risking their lives in a physical way for a cause) I'd guess for him it was more about some ideal/value than anything sensory, what he did was sensory wise really stupid.

 

[1487610420]

I've seen it floating around that ISFPs are risk-averse and I want to point out that Se is not prone to avoiding risks or hanging back from taking chances. I just read an article about a photographer who died trying to ride on top of a subway car and I think it's pretty clear he was probably an Se user .

FYP

 

[1487610420]

Zyzzyva

Zyzzyva - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
TIL

 

[skimpit]

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.

Not Ne to me. Sorry.

This is how I visualize the ISFP from my perspective: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-0hs2eq66L.../s1600/gifs_-_screensavers_320x240_no+(4).gif or maybe Swirl (Swirl.gif) | Tacoma World

Ni is layers. It's like bread. Baked lightly and well, but full of perfection and meaning. Bread seems like one layer but is actually many, which makes it fluffy, or whatever texture you want it to have. Ne sees layers. It's like, if Intuition were a building, Ni would be the building (floors and such on top of each other, piled) and Ne would be the bystander looking at it. They could see the layers, but not the content inside it.