Reply To: Se/Ne/Pe & Clumsiness?

[Aletheia]

In western, Euro/American culture, it’s generally assumed that everyone fits into one of two gender categories: male or female. Indeed, the vast majority of people do fit into those categories biologically, and at a cultural level, most people relate to these categories enough to accept them as part of their identities. Yet the problem is that western culture has constructed this male-female thing as an absolute binary into which everyone can be unambiguous categorized.

It's so funny you used the gender stereotypes example @hrafn. When I read Animal's OP my first thought was that this resistance toward quantification in CT is quite like the postmodern gender paradigm Jordan Peterson harps on so much XD
We need not go too far either way..
There are indeed tangible differences between the genders, just as there are between types. But there's a lot of variance and cross-over too, as you say. I think the most intelligent type of theories are those which do draw lines of distinction and assert the discovery of patterns, but leave wiggle room - because Nature is seldom (never?) wholly consistent.
@animal
I'm so glad you're posting these points about Se! I've felt like CT's concept of SeNi has been weak ever since we first conceptualized/wrote about it in the book.. And this isn't to say Aub hasn't done his due diligence and tried to get into the mind of SeNi users, because I know he has! And he's done pretty damn well at quantifying a process that entirely outside of his scope of experience. But there's no substitute for direct data from those who actually have the function set.
And you've shared so much about this in such a well articulated way 🙂 I'm sure the description can be evolved to be accurate, and look forward to being able to more 'see through your eyes' ?