[SP] SP's and Se.

[Athenian200]

I have to admit, I'm curious. There seem to be two ideas of what it is.

The first is simply wanting to do things like try new foods, pay attention to and learn from your surroundings, seek physically stimulating experiences such as music, art, running/walking, and also just generally make the current environment comfortable. I seem to be able to deal with this one reasonably well.

The other idea is wanting to get into fights, jump out of airplanes, climb mountains, make crude jokes, behave in a threatening, assertive manner, not respecting authority, and enjoy getting your clothes dirty. I don't really like this one at all.

The thing is, I've heard both of these things as related to Se. Obviously they can't both be right. So, which do you identify with more? Both? Neither?

It might also help if you described it the way you experience it.

 

[Maverick]

The other idea is wanting to get into fights, jump out of airplanes, climb mountains, make crude jokes, behave in a threatening, assertive manner, not respecting authority, and enjoy getting your clothes dirty. I don't really like this one at all.

I actually think all that is pretty fun.

 

[Zergling]

The second one is sort of the first one taken more extreme. (An "If trying out new foods, cloths, etc. is boring, move on to risk taking for stimulation." sort of thing.)

 

[ptgatsby]

*shakes head*

Ss are supposed to not try new things like foods and such. Not that it is tested for that exactly in MBTI, but that's what it boils down to. That exact question exists as a measurement for O+ (N in MBTI).

The traits that are tested in MBTI for being a S have only to do with what is accepted as data - concrete, experimental, traditional... that sort of stuff.

What Se means is that to know, you must first see. It exists as data (Ses, least in the corporate world, are heavy planners and analyzers, for example), or the classic stereotype of jumping out of planes, if we must continue the stereotypes.

The whole "getting into fights" is... how do you say... also a stereotype. These claims are correlations and they are constantly treated as a linear one, which they are not.

 

[Park]

What Se means is that to know, you must first see.

Reckon Thomas was an ESFP/ESTP?

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

Se's tend to learn from experience. This desire for experiences, particularly from ESP's, can contribute to both good or bad behavior depending on what habits are formed. Beyond a certain age though I don't think SP's seek novel experiences to the extent that N's do. Rather they tend to repeat the experiences that they have already learned are enjoyable.

 

[proteanmix]

This is an example of what I think Se looks like. I think people tend to overlook the generous and warm-hearted nature of SPs (esp. ESPs). This is usually what I see, or rather what I choose to focus on so SPs typically don't leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Colin Farrell, the former "Lusty Leprechaun" whose party-fueled lifestyle landed him in rehab in late 2005, practiced a not-so-random act of kindness while stumping for the Woody Allen-directed flick "Cassandra's Dream" this week at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The Toronto Sun reports the scruffy star was signing autographs outside his hotel when he spotted a homeless gent he'd met three years ago, when he was in town filming "A Home at the End of the World."

Turns out Farrell had taken advantage of a radio promotion offering $2,000 to anyone who could deliver him to the station, collaring the guy -- nicknamed Stress by locals -- and helping him claim the bounty.

The paper says his Irish eyes were a-twinkle at the reunion, and he urged his down-and-out acquaintance to climb into his chauffeur-driven car.

Then, in a Bizarro version of the makeover montage from "Pretty Woman," Colin accompanied Stress to a Europe Bound Travel Outfitters outpost, which sells everything from clothes to tents.

"Get him anything he wants," Farrell reportedly told the employees, who fetched his new pal a $500 coat, a high-end sleeping bag and a rolling backpack filled with underwear, socks and boots, all useful for the coming Toronto winter.

"Cool guy," the store's manager tells the Sun of the actor. "He doesn't act like a movie star."

According to the staffer, Colin had an easy rapport with Stress, who was "going around, grabbing stuff."

The bill for the philanthropic shopping trip came to more than $2,000, but Farrell's beneficence didn't end there.

He also hit a nearby cash machine, withdrawing a stack of bills and reportedly arranged to pay for a year's rent on a room for what we're now guessing is his biggest fan.

"I'm all set up," Stress is quoted as telling a local. "This is my chance to get off the street."

The paper estimates that Farrell's generosity set him back around $10,000.

 

[runvardh]

"Rune, pick one you want, " my ISFP brother once said pointing at the cereal boxes at the store when we were doing shopping for our grandmother.

 

[Randomnity]

I have to admit, I'm curious. There seem to be two ideas of what it is.

The first is simply wanting to do things like try new foods, pay attention to and learn from your surroundings, seek physically stimulating experiences such as music, art, running/walking, and also just generally make the current environment comfortable. I seem to be able to deal with this one reasonably well.

The other idea is wanting to get into fights --note: I never actually do, I only want to--, jump out of airplanes, climb mountains, make crude jokes, behave in a threatening, assertive manner, not respecting authority, and enjoy getting your clothes dirty. I don't really like this one at all.

The thing is, I've heard both of these things as related to Se. Obviously they can't both be right. So, which do you identify with more? Both? Neither?

It might also help if you described it the way you experience it.

I bolded all the ones I like. Why can't they both be "right"? The first set of activities sounds a lot more stereotypically female though, if it makes a difference.

 

["?"]

*shakes head*

Ss are supposed to not try new things like foods and such. Not that it is tested for that exactly in MBTI, but that's what it boils down to. That exact question exists as a measurement for O+ (N in MBTI).

The traits that are tested in MBTI for being a S have only to do with what is accepted as data - concrete, experimental, traditional... that sort of stuff.

What Se means is that to know, you must first see. It exists as data (Ses, least in the corporate world, are heavy planners and analyzers, for example), or the classic stereotype of jumping out of planes, if we must continue the stereotypes.

The whole "getting into fights" is... how do you say... also a stereotype. These claims are correlations and they are constantly treated as a linear one, which they are not.

Whoa, Pgat. You have mistakenly identified as one from the dark side (ISTP). I must agree with everythhing you are saying here. Se is no different than Ne for NPs, except Se seeks the immediate opportunities and Ne types look for possibilities.

 

[Athenian200]

Whoa, Pgat. You have mistakenly identified as one from the dark side (ISTP). I must agree with everythhing you are saying here. Se is no different than Ne for NPs, except Se seeks the immediate opportunities and Ne types look for possibilities.

Are you saying that ptgatsby isn't an ISTP? I sort of suspected that. He had the Ti, certainly, but he just didn't seem quite that Se-ish. He wants to collect data and make his ideas useful, but he starts with an abstraction. (I think an ISTP would notice a need for something first, and then move to an abstraction if it helped them.) Did you notice how my post almost specifically asked about how a person perceived Se first hand, and he managed to respond with data about a theoretical framework? That's very N, in my book. (although I did find his correlation interesting) The thing is, both types want/need practical data and an application ultimately. Lastly, the type of data he was collecting was more Si than Se, memorized facts/statistics.

But I think ultimately, if you want to do something, you need N and S. S to implement, N to design. I'm the sort who would tend to dream all the time, and never deal with reality, but when I want something done, I can stumble through the practical side, but I can't do as good/thorough a job in that department as an S, although I can make it work if I have to. Sometimes, if I involve them in my theory process, they can point out flaws or potential implementation gaffes I wouldn't have noticed. If they involve me in the practical side, sometimes I can point out a novel approach that would work better. If we could communicate well, we'd be a good team.

 

[ygolo]

I have to admit, I'm curious. There seem to be two ideas of what it is.

The first is simply wanting to do things like try new foods, pay attention to and learn from your surroundings, seek physically stimulating experiences such as music, art, running/walking, and also just generally make the current environment comfortable. I seem to be able to deal with this one reasonably well.

The other idea is wanting to get into fights, jump out of airplanes, climb mountains, make crude jokes, behave in a threatening, assertive manner, not respecting authority, and enjoy getting your clothes dirty. I don't really like this one at all.

The thing is, I've heard both of these things as related to Se. Obviously they can't both be right. So, which do you identify with more? Both? Neither?

It might also help if you described it the way you experience it.

I am wondering where you got these lists from Athenian200. I highlighted what I identified with, and it was about as much as Randomnity.

Cold reading strikes again.

 

[ptgatsby]

I am wondering where you got these lists from Athenian200. I highlighted what I identified with, and it was about as much as Randomnity.

Cold reading strikes again.

This is an important thing to consider. Lets assume that there are 5 sub-traits that you need to score 3.5 or higher on in order to be considered a certain trait. There are four main traits.

If I am ISTP and Ygolo is INTP, then in a perfect world, we'd have between 9 and 15 matching sub-traits in the I-TP main traits. For the last trait, we could have between 0 and ~3 traits that we share. This is despite the fact that MBTI would of formally measured us as our respective types.

That means we could share the same "answers" from 9/20 to 18/20 traits.

This is why I take such a giant exception to steretypes in MBTI.

Did you notice how my post almost specifically asked about how a person perceived Se first hand, and he managed to respond with data about a theoretical framework? That's very N, in my book. (although I did find his correlation interesting) The thing is, both types want/need practical data and an application ultimately. Lastly, the type of data he was collecting was more Si than Se, memorized facts/statistics.

Did I? What I was referring to was empirically tested factors present in N and S.

Ns like new things, Ss do not. Ns are novel, Ss are not. Ns are abstract, Ss are not.

Problem is that what you listed was either the opposite or assumed that Ss are physical seekers, which is removed from the irrational function's nature. It may be true that Ss are more in tune with their body because they process things in a tangible way... But that is twice removed from the definition of the function itself. I may or may not express the sub-trait that relates to it and I may or may not have the same expression of that sub-trait.

 

["?"]

Are you saying that ptgatsby isn't an ISTP? I sort of suspected that. He had the Ti, certainly, but he just didn't seem quite that Se-ish.

Hmm... that is exactly what this forum has said about me. I think it's the intuitive bias and prejudices believing that sensing types, in particularly ISTPs are incapable of abstract thought. I am interested to know what made Pgatsby decide on that preference (if you have not posted it on the forum elsewhere).

 

[ptgatsby]

Hmm... that is exactly what this forum has said about me. I think it's the intuitive bias and prejudices believing that sensing types, in particularly ISTPs are incapable of abstract thought. I am interested to know what made Pgatsby decide on that preference (if you have not posted it on the forum elsewhere).

This is my rant on it anyway. Despite rejecting what you said earlier, I thought about it quite a bit... just took a while

 

[The Ü™]

Hmm... that is exactly what this forum has said about me. I think it's the intuitive bias and prejudices believing that sensing types, in particularly ISTPs are incapable of abstract thought. I am interested to know what made Pgatsby decide on that preference (if you have not posted it on the forum elsewhere).

Capability for abstract thinking and preferring abstract thinking are two entirely different things.

The thing about IQ tests is that they measure your ability to think abstractly, but not your preference. A person with a low IQ could still have the preference to think abstractly (thus Intuitive) to the best of his ability. Hence, it's entirely possible for the "genius" type of INTP to be mentally retarded.

Abstract thinking is so much more than solving the logical math and linguistic problems on IQ tests. Abstract thinking also encompasses the realm of imagination and creativity, two talents that the IQ test doesn't measure.

I'm baffled how the scientific community assumes that a person who isn't interested in art or poetry lacks a fantasy life. (I personally hate poetry.)

 

["?"]

This is my rant on it anyway. Despite rejecting what you said earlier, I thought about it quite a bit... just took a while

Whether you are, or not, ISTP thanks for getting it Pgatsby. You have eloquently conveyed much of what I have attempted to articulate with this group since coming to the forum. If nothing else, as always it seems much more credible when it comes from their own. And for that, you have my greatest respect in being open and needing validation of your research.

 

["?"]

I have to admit, I'm curious. There seem to be two ideas of what it is. The thing is, I've heard both of these things as related to Se. Obviously they can't both be right. So, which do you identify with more? Both? Neither? It might also help if you described it the way you experience it.

Not only are the two descriptions limiting, but more of the same stereotypicalness of intuitive arrogance. If you truly want to understand Se, then read Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi's work. In her booklet, "Dynamics of Personality Type: Understanding and Applying Jung's Cognitive Work", Dr. Berens compares Se to Te and Ne in saying:

Se and Te are often used when there is a focus on facts and an empirical approach. Keep in mind that Se is a perceptive process and may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas Te is a judging process in which the purpose of questions is to establish logic.

Se and Ne are both simultaneous in nature and involve perception of many things at once. This can lead to random activity as the outer world is scanned for additional information. With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action.

 

[kendoiwan]

This is an example of what I think Se looks like. I think people tend to overlook the generous and warm-hearted nature of SPs (esp. ESPs). This is usually what I see, or rather what I choose to focus on so SPs typically don't leave a bad taste in my mouth. Quote:
Colin Farrell, the former "Lusty Leprechaun" whose party-fueled lifestyle landed him in rehab in late 2005, practiced a not-so-random act of kindness while stumping for the Woody Allen-directed flick "Cassandra's Dream" this week at the Toronto International Film Festival.

The Toronto Sun reports the scruffy star was signing autographs outside his hotel when he spotted a homeless gent he'd met three years ago, when he was in town filming "A Home at the End of the World."

Turns out Farrell had taken advantage of a radio promotion offering $2,000 to anyone who could deliver him to the station, collaring the guy -- nicknamed Stress by locals -- and helping him claim the bounty.

The paper says his Irish eyes were a-twinkle at the reunion, and he urged his down-and-out acquaintance to climb into his chauffeur-driven car.

Then, in a Bizarro version of the makeover montage from "Pretty Woman," Colin accompanied Stress to a Europe Bound Travel Outfitters outpost, which sells everything from clothes to tents.

"Get him anything he wants," Farrell reportedly told the employees, who fetched his new pal a $500 coat, a high-end sleeping bag and a rolling backpack filled with underwear, socks and boots, all useful for the coming Toronto winter.

"Cool guy," the store's manager tells the Sun of the actor. "He doesn't act like a movie star."

According to the staffer, Colin had an easy rapport with Stress, who was "going around, grabbing stuff."

The bill for the philanthropic shopping trip came to more than $2,000, but Farrell's beneficence didn't end there.

He also hit a nearby cash machine, withdrawing a stack of bills and reportedly arranged to pay for a year's rent on a room for what we're now guessing is his biggest fan.

"I'm all set up," Stress is quoted as telling a local. "This is my chance to get off the street."

The paper estimates that Farrell's generosity set him back around $10,000.

I would TOTALLY do something like this

 

[Cimarron]

What Se means is that to know, you must first see.

I'm wondering...how do you think this is different from Si? Don't want to sidetrack the (old) thread, you can focus on Se.