- Type: TiSe
- Development: ll--
- Attitude: Adaptive
Controversial! 😱 I know.
Based on this post I wrote:
(…) Gamma SF’s are aesthetes in the Se-Ni sense of the term. Attributing “emotional excitation” exclusively to Fe is where you go wrong. “Excitation” is an attribute of Pe. This blindspot shows a lack of understanding of the emotion behind Se and the emotional control of Fe.
Fe is relational expression, with Fi being relational impression. NOT EMOTION. Emotion *in the service of* relations is the domain of F. And emotion in the service of communication is Fe specifically.
Emotion, feeling (how one feels), is Sensation. Emotional expression is Se, hence the need for force and intensity (which is emotional in nature), and emotional impression is Si, hence their relation to the softer side of aesthetics.
Note: emotion in the service of “being heard” is Se, as this relates to impact and presence, and this is done via an increase in intensity. This is the reality of Se leads, and why they come across as being “too emotional” and “too pushy” and “too strident” very often. It is an increase of emotional intensity in order to have their point made / be acknowledged, and this is a direct LACK of proper Fe, emotional control. SLE also notoriously struggles with this, unless they can incorporate their Fe better. For SEE, this can be more problematic as Fe isn’t valued and the logical integrity of their arguments don’t always make sense on first sight (Ti PolR), but boy can their emotional truths hit like a hammer! This pattern is typical of Se leads, yet is attributed to EIE being “dramatic.”
Emotion, “feeling,” is an inherent part of the Sensing function. It is not “Feeling,” as in, the Feeling function, because in reality, the Feeling function governs the structure of relations, these being interpersonal (Fe) or intrapersonal (Fi).
Think about it: when you feel excited, do you need to make ‘sense’ of this, or is that that you just – are – excited? It is an emotional state. A state of being. Something you can perceive and / or express, all without the need for judgment (such as Fe or Fi).
I feel hungry: Si.
I search for food because I’m hungry: Se.
I feel excited: Si.
I jump and talk fast because I am excited: Se.
I am angry: Si.
I attack this person because I am angry: Se.
I am happy: Si.
I hug people and smile because I am happy: Se.
Now, to contrast emotions with F:
I am in love: Si.
I am in love with this person for these reasons: Fi.
I feel spiteful: Si
I feel spiteful with this person for this reason: Fi.
I excitedly talk fast: Se.
I express excitement in order to convince this person: Fe.
I am being dramatic because I feel hurt: Se because of Si.
I am being dramatic because this person makes me feel bad: Se because of Fi.
I am being dramatic to convince this person: Se because of Fe.
Because of this, you will find that the more sensual, melancholic people will often be the types that lead with Si. ISFJ and ISTJ.
This applies less so to INFP and INTP, but they may think this of themselves because of their lower-order Si. This is an egoic overestimation of the value of Si.
INFP and ISFP will be very focused on the dependencies of a relationship, the criteria of relationships and one’s attitude towards them. This means that Fi types will focus on structuring their attunements to people and other objects. “What does my relationship to X mean?” “The dynamic between so-and-so means that… because… ” Indeed, issues of good and bad are found here. “Good and bad” are not feelings, these are not emotions. They are judgments, they are categories, they are structure. But this stands in stark contrast to the rich sensory experience of feelings and emotions that Si types possess. Fi is still removed from feelings, while Si is right in the middle of them.
This is also the reason why THE most excitable types are the types that lead with Se. ESTP and ESFP.
Because of a general misconception around Fe, namely that Fe types have a monopoly on emotional expression, many Se lead people will be typed at Fe based on descriptions alone (outside of vultology). Fe, in truth, is a function of control. It’s aim is to control the relational world via controlled emotional expressions. Fe is the brother of Te, and the key word here is CONTROL. But when it comes to free expression of emotions, being dramatic because you feel dramatic, then we are speaking of the (literal) Extroversion of Sensation, or Se.
The experience of emotions and feelings is by definition without structure. Us naming what they are is merely an act of placing an arbitrary structure on top of the experience. But emotion just “is,” and needs no further structure to be true. As such, this is governed by the Perception function of Sensation (I feel, I sense, I express, I act).
I find the connection between emotions and cognitive functions rather mysterious. On one hand, it seems like they should really be considered totally separate processes because the cognitive functions are supposed to describe cognition whereas emotions are not really happening at the level of cognition.
But I could still see how cognitive functions might use emotions as information or how the use of certain cognitive functions could trigger certain emotions. For example, the use of a Pe function might trigger excitement (or perhaps excitement could be a cue to start using a Pe function).
On the other hand, vultologically, it seems like Fi in particular is inextricably tied up with emotion because Fi is basically seen as uncontrolled emotional expression. I don’t really understand exactly why this is.
But would it make sense for Se and Si to be more closely related to emotions than the other functions? I remember a discussion elsewhere on the forum about the possibility that Si is particularly aware of inner bodily states. If that is so, then it would make sense that Si would be particularly aware of one’s emotions. I don’t really see why Se would have a particularly strong connection to emotions though.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: lll-
- Attitude: Unseelie
I experience myself as a vessel through which passion emerges. I have described myself that way since I was young, and it holds up beautifully throughout my life. To me, the basic Se principles of vitality, flow, aesthetic – match this experience.
When I’m listening to music, or playing music, I am the music. If I’m playing a show, the discipline to learn music comes beforehand – but when I’m on stage, whatever is there immediately, emerges. I am the now. The moment is channeled through me. “The moment” includes everything inside me and outside of me.
Fi might think about their emotions, therefore, they appear to be ‘stop start’ and tangled up in these thoughts about emotion. But for Se, there’s a raw, automatic flow of expression. Especially when followed by Fi, because then Fi (the inner emotional compass) is informing the Se lead’s experience of the emotion or physicality of the moment.
I wrote a blog a while back, which I need to edit, since Auburn has updated his Se description and some of it was critiquing his old description. But here are some parts that may be helpful.
I live in a near constant ‘flow’ state because I allow my emotions, ideas, and experiences to saturate me fully, and to flow through me in a dynamic current as things evolve. I direct this flow toward the things I want in the grand scheme – and due to my general awareness and presence, I know where to go in the real world in order to bring my dreams to life – in big and small ways. This is emphasized in Jung’s Se ‘realism’ and Socionics Se ‘volitional force’ [….]
There is also a longer explanation which might be helpful. Again, this was about his old descriptions so I’m not intending to criticize, but just to explain my experience of Se and how I can describe it….
Auburn’s descriptions link Pe to open-endedness, boredom, addiction and stimulation-seeking. As a result, people in his community have postulated that Se seeks stimulation and pleasure – but these quests are extraneous to any function. Everyone seeks stimulation, which is why ‘deprivation chamber’ is an age old torture device. As for pleasure – how you define ‘pleasure’ could be a topic of its own. “What is Pleasure?” “What do you find Pleasurable?” This requires exploration before shoving the idea of ‘pleasure’ into one function. Personally, I find my inner world much more enticing than anything external. I cannot imagine what it’s like to be ‘bored’ and, although I surround myself with beauty, I don’t seek sensory experience for its own sake.
As an Enneagram 4, my most ‘childish’ and ‘selfish’ need is to explore and express my inner world – and be admired for it. If you strip me down to nothing but base instinct, I’m still not an ‘escapist’ or ‘pleasure seeker’ but rather, someone that needs to transform my suffering into something beautiful that is uniquely mine, and thus be loved, seen and desired – despite my flaws, brokenness and shame. Therefore, I am not drawn to waste time indulging my senses with extraneous experiences that distract me from this process. The carnal world is an inspiration, a mirror, a stage – a means to explore and express my innermost essence (and, by extension, discover what essence is). I see feelings reflected in the weather, ideas reflected in colors, archetypes in the elements, humanity in animals… “as above, so below.” The most compelling indulgence, for me, is the quest to unveil my heart on such a deep level that its pulse reflects the rhythm of the world – and capture that experience in artistic form.
When presence is most intense, the timeless and eternal reveal themselves. This is why I describe my experience of the world as “So carnal, it’s spiritual.” But presence is not about ‘seeking stimulation and pleasure,’ nor does it have to be about experiencing something outside myself. In fact, seeking stimulation would impair ‘presence,’ because it implies a refusal to immerse myself in the ever-evolving now.
It also impedes ‘presence’ to actively run away from something inside. Some people are more invested in their internal world than others – and Fi certainly more invested in ‘personal identity’ than Ti – but running away from the internal would mean not being ‘present’ with the situation as it is. In order to attain focus, presence and flow – which Auburn linked to Se in his description – the mind, body and senses need to move with the current of the external and internal world.
Presence is about existing at full voltage. Being saturated with my project, the relationship, the conversation, the performance, the mood, the inner turmoil, the narrative unraveling from inside me, the music as it penetrates my being, the ideas someone else is communicating, the flavors of a story as I voraciously devour it, the onslaught of emotion, the throes of my will, the rhythm of accomplishment, the flame of creation, the dance of seduction, the thrust of combat, the anger, the passion, the desire, the catharsis, the ‘flow.’ I choose my destiny and pursue it willfully, then immerse myself in the process as it unfolds – and the cosmos reveals itself, just as it is.
Many Se leads would not share my priorities and interests – but all will experience flow, vitality and presence – since these principles underlie Se. You cannot be present while simultaneously obsessing about possible stimulation elsewhere. The reason Se seems more physical is not because Se leads are all hedonists – but because they are more tuned in to the singular trajectory of events at hand.
Ne is aware of alternate realities and possibilities, but there is no parallel for Se. The difference is not that Se leads seek ‘sensory stimulation’ but, rather, that they are engulfed in whatever dynamic experience they are currently focusing on – be it a conversation, a feeling, a sport, or a philosophical meandering. It is evident in Auburn’s chats that groups of Se-valuers tend to flow with one topic, moving from A to B to C to D, whereas Ne conversations are divergent, moving from A to F to Z and back to C. This is why Ne-Si picks up ‘synchronicities’ and ‘parallel realities,’ while Se-Ni is holistic and encapsulates ‘as above, so below.’
If you want to click on my blog, it may be helpful since I also used photos to demonstrate this experience. But just keep in mind I need to update the critique to be relevant to the current descriptions. Or just take out the critique part altogether.
Anyway – while Fi thinks about the emotion and categorizes the emotion, Se is fully present, saturated, in it. There is no right or wrong, no ‘reason’ for this emotion or state of mind – it just… is. And it may pass as soon as it comes. It may be analyzed later, by someone like me who wants to understand myself and has Fi as a secondary function – but this need to understand and describe one’s inner experience is not Se in and of itself. Se just embodies the ever-changing ‘voltage’ of living.
@animal Okay, I think I see what you’re getting at, but correct me if I’m wrong: Because Se is so “in the moment” and not “in their head,” whatever emotion they’re feeling moment to moment is automatically expressed. Because there isn’t a judgement process trying to decide what to do with that emotion and whether or not to express it, it just flows out naturally.
I could definitely see that. I still wouldn’t say that emotion is Se or Si because, again, they are cognitive processes and emotion is not, but I could definitely see how using Se would lead to a particular freedom in expressing emotions.
- This reply was modified 3 months, 4 weeks ago by fayest42.
- Type: SeFi
- Development: lll-
- Attitude: Unseelie
@fayest42 Yes, good summary of my point 🙂 hehe. And that’s exactly it! I don’t necessarily need to express each emotion in words or explain it. As you said, it just flows out. So my body is a vessel for emotion or ‘states of mind’ as they pass through from one moment to the next. But when I start analyzing them, whether to express some sentiment in words or not, and what it says about me as a person, etc… that’s my Fi.
Yeah, I see the distinction you’re making with “Se ISNT emotion,” but hmm, this is a tough one. Sensation would be the process by which we experience emotion or sentiment directly. Like Si users, I, too, feel my emotions in my body – even if I’m not directly paying attention to each one in a hyper-sensitive way, as Si leads seem to.
@animal Glad I understood what you were saying 🙂 And yes, it might seem a bit semantic, but I do think it makes more sense to say that sensation experiences emotion rather than that sensation is emotion or that emotion is sensing. One example of the difference might be something that I remember @ladynerdsky saying once. I think I remember her describing the experience of having an emotion but not being consciously aware of having the emotion and then only realizing that the emotion must be happening later because of the sudden realization of her heart beating quickly or something like that (please correct me if I’m remembering this wrong, lady nerdsky). But my point is that having an emotion is not the same as actually consciously experiencing it. I’m not entirely sure if I’m making sense. Let me know what you think 🙂KesoParticipant
- Type: NeFi
- Development: lll-
- Attitude: Seelie
Interesting point, Ivory, I can’t leave this thread unnoticed.
Not going to involve with the discussion though, just leaving physiological theories of emotions of those (James-Lange, Cannon-Bard, Schachter-Singer) who had suggested almost the same thing you mentioned, experimented, actualized ones, specifically in the field of behaviorism. John Watson, one of the founding fathers of behavioral psychology believed that even the most complex emotions are aroused by the very simple stimulus, which is, sensing, by nature.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.