Se & Pleasure?

[Bera]

@Sander

Both Ne and Se pursue freedom, yet for Ne that’s the freedom to explore what’s meaningful whereas for Se it seems to be the freedom to explore what’s pleasurable. Ne’s flow provides eternal life, whereas Se’s play provides timeless presence.

But...pleasure IS meaningful. And meaning is pleasant, since we are the ones who give the meaning and we aim to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. 🙂
Regarding angels...I'm not sure, are angels usually depicted like Ne leads? For me fairies are closer to this energy. Angels seem to have a very clear purpose of serving God. I don't feel this is similar to how Ne operates, Ne is rather exploring different possibilities. Angels would be closer to...Fe? Maybe?
I like Alerith's idea about seraphs having 6 wings though, it looks like a meaningful connection !
I can also see a messenger like Hermes as being connected to Ne.
By the way, you are very talented, @Auburn !
I will return later, this was just a reaction to what Sander said.

[Bera]

I actually thought this through and I think it must be explained. As far as I can see, Ne and Se are both explorer functions. They don't give meaning. None of them does.

The Explorer function is so named because it’s purpose is to seek and absorb the full richness of life, its opportunities, potential discoveries and the newness brought to us by every waking moment. Like a scout, Pe is innately curious and it’s attention is turned to what insights and fruits might be picked out from a given territory; what Easter eggs may be hiding in any conceptual or physical environment. It acts as the bringer of vitality, enthusiasm and playfulness. It also acts as an eternal antidote to stagnation and decay

I don't think Se is seeking pleasure/exploring what is pleasurable and Ne is seeking meaning/exploring the meaningful. They are rather exploring everything that is to explore (each in its own way), seeking novelty and gathering what they find - be it pleasurable or not, meaningful or not.
Now, if by meaning you mean values/standards/ideals, I think our Ji functions are concerned with filtering what we find as corresponding to our inner compass and what is not.
If by meaning you mean understanding the larger context/building a worldview - I think Pi does that.
I hope I expressed this clearly, if not, it would be wonderful for Auburn or for other people to rephrase it in a better way. I think it's important to clarify it.
 

[Juan E. Sandoval]

I think meaning is one of those words like truth, which is territory that every human (and type) will want to claim. The phenomenology of every function, and especially the spiritual experience, is felt as meaningful to every given party -- just as it's felt as truth. But I get what Sander is saying. For him the Se realm is not where the most "meaning" is located, just like Ni-leads wouldn't find the most meaning in Ti's realm, etc.
But more pointedly, I think he might be referring to the numinous experience felt by Ne (of a purpose/calling/messenger). In which case the analogous one in Se/Ni would come from Ni -- since it's Ne & Ni that are the strongest gateways to the esoteric/unconscious. Although, in the style of @animal, one could argue that Se's carnality can plunge into the spiritual -- but maybe that still requires Ni's collaboration as Ni provides the numinous sense in the oscillation pair (re: crystal witches, etc)?

[Sander]

@Bera Thanks for your patience with my vague/general answers 😉
"But…pleasure IS meaningful. And meaning is pleasant, since we are the ones who give the meaning and we aim to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. ?"
The difference is subtle, indeed; yet Ne flow feels more like endless life, and Se play more like timeless presence.
"Regarding angels…I’m not sure, are angels usually depicted like Ne leads? For me fairies are closer to this energy. Angels seem to have a very clear purpose of serving God. I don’t feel this is similar to how Ne operates, Ne is rather exploring different possibilities. Angels would be closer to…Fe? Maybe?"
Angels are now more known as God's servants, indeed (which would fit Fe). That doesn't match the original experiences, though, where the same (Hebrew) word was used for human messengers. Se vs Si :p
 

@auburn Thanks for mentioning "numinous", and I'll post a more thorough theoretical overview tomorrow/soon
"I think meaning is one of those words like truth, which is territory that every human (and type) will want to claim."
Yes, everyone is perceptive (of what's meaningful/interesting), just not to the same degree. All of the eight functions are meaningful to me. You seem to treat signals of shadow functions as noise, while I frame those functions as operating with too low priority. So, when I disassociate, I do actually force Ti (may look unnatural yet works nevertheless). And during such disassociation, the truth context becomes more meaningful than my sense of meaning/interest.

[Bera]

@sander - I tried to explain what I thought because I don't consider myself so much of a pleasure seeker and this idea honestly has a bad connotation for me.
I truly believe you can find eternity in the now, in this moment. And that this might be the only experience of eternity there is.
This reminded me of a poem a friend suggested I should read. Burnt Norton.

Neither ascent nor decline. Except for the point, the still point,
There would be no dance, and there is only the dance.

So, I actually like the idea of endless presence. <3 I assume it can be reached by different function combinations though.
About angels - Indeed I just meant the Christian ones. I always thought that Pe functions are a bit rebellious 🙂 Not quite the ones to like church dogma. But if you think of them as genii, they could be representative of Ne and actually Auburn mentioned that above - genie lamps. 🙂
(but our angels are different :))) )

@Auburn - yes, I think it would come from Ni in our case but I just thought it's because that's our world view function. But you are saying the numinous experience is coming from N opposed to S. I think I agree with that. So, by seeking the meaningful, Sander meant seeking the numinous experience ? Then it does make sense. I didn't think of that, I simply thought meaning =our ideals or our world view, but indeed there are many ways of determining what is meaningful and if you put it this way, what Sander said is actually not wrong. 🙂

@Sander - this is the opinion in Socionics, right? That we actually have all functions.
I don't know why we don't share it - why don't we? It's a subject for a different thread but it's the second time it comes up in conversations today, so it might be good to talk about it.
 

[Celeste]

@bera The thought that we don't have all of the cognitive functions is just...plain stupid. We might not like or disdain some but we certainly still use them. We're just not aware that we're doing it since they're deeply buried into our unconscious.
A SiFe doesn't have Fi integrated into their stack but they can still have their own personal morals, values, and boundaries (obviously not as strong as a Fi user). Same goes to a TeNi, if the situation requires or on a sporadic moment they could leave their robotic view with Te and approach the situation with tack and emotional harmony using Fe. Again it would come out very clumsy and almost child-like but Fe is still being used. This obviously a very rare case to use for an example but that doesn't mean it can't happen.
Doctor John Bebee explains this better than me with his theory.

[Animal]

@Bera and @Sander - I really don't care for pleasure 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 in the immediate is most intense, the timeless and eternal reveal themselves - thus "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 thrust of what is going on now.
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 saturates my entire 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.  @auburn - I hope this answers your question.

[Sander]

@auburn
Exactly! That stirs my soul and I dream of being that angel for others

@bera
I don't expect Se-leads to actively seek pleasure; they'll find enough when opening up to what's beautiful

@animal
Pleasure is literally what is pleasing; so, if you don't care about it that sounds more like an Ni obsession 😉
I do have a clear experience of timeless presence through psychedelics. It's quite similar to when I push myself with snowboarding and has an eternal quality to it, yet not the endless quality I experience when my thoughts are getting interrupted without hope (disorientation hell). That is more similar to when I'm dreaming about the far future. That may seem like Ni-consciousness, but I think such a posthuman-future is actually more Ne. Then, time doesn't slow down but rather speeds up (until my bodily needs draw me out of this manic flow).

[Animal]

@sander

Pleasure is literally what is pleasing; so, if you don’t care about it that sounds more like an Ni obsession

No.  My post is focused on Se - although I didn't shy away from demonstrating how Se and Ni work as an axis, since that was what Auburn asked about, when referencing my quote, 'so carnal it's spiritual.'

I don’t expect Se-leads to actively seek pleasure; they’ll find enough when opening up to what’s beautiful

This is closer to my experience.
Se is about flow, vitality and presence. You cannot be present in your body, in the moment - while simultaneously obsessing about possible stimulation somewhere else.  It also impedes 'presence' if you actively run away from your emotions and internal world.  Some people are more invested in their internal world than others, but running away from it would mean you're not 'present' with the situation as it is right now.  Your awareness is split.  In order to attain focus, presence and flow - like Auburn covered in the Se description - you need your mind, body and senses to move with the current of the external and internal world.  Personally, 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 'vitality and volition' (plus Je, which helps me prioritize tasks). But in my case, the thing I want most is to bring my inner world to life artistically.  This is not just me - Auburn also typed Trent Reznor and Kurt Cobain as Se leads.  Kurt Cobain's diary is chock full of internal thoughts - and it is available for the public to read.  Both men express a deep internal experience through their music, as do I.  In fact, a high percentage of musicians have turned out to be Pe leads - and while some just play music, others write deep intense work that unveils their inner world, just as I described.  This is not Ni, or else there would be a higher percentage of Ni leads doing it.
Much of what I typed out is in Auburn's description of Se already.  (Flow, vitality, sensuality, presence, focus.)  I diverge from the description in that I don't experience myself getting bored and seeking stimulation from the outer world, or developing addictions to external substances & stimulus.  Rather, I have 'bodily presence, vitality, flow, presence in the moment' - which includes allowing my internal world to saturate me.  My internal world, feelings, and experiences ebb and flow.  There's no need to run away from something inside myself by seeking external stimulation, and I find my inner world more 'stimulating' than much of the external world, anyway.  But all of this is in line with the basic principles of flow, vitality and presence - so I am not diverging too far from what Auburn has theorized.
Seeking stimulation is not Se, and seeking pleasure is not Se.  Everyone seeks some kind of stimulation, which is why 'deprivation chamber' is an age old torture device.  As for pleasure - how you define 'pleasure' could be a thread of its own. Perhaps we should start that thread.  "What is Pleasure?"  "What do you find Pleasurable?"  This requires exploration before you shove the idea of 'pleasure' onto just one function.  Also this will be my last post on this topic for a while, because I don't want to crowd this thread with this argument - I just wanted to clarify some things on the first page because I was mentioned, and it was a topic I had put a lot of recent thought into.

[Sander]

@animal
I agree and treasure my rare Se-experiences 🙂
You even quoted me on "I don't expect Se-leads to actively seek pleasure", and "Pleasure is literally what is pleasing". I'm a fellow Pe; so, please don't assume I'm just like Auburn 😉
 
PS. I really enjoyed your Spotify album; thanks for sharing!

[Juan E. Sandoval]

Thread split (as cleanly as I could parse it) from here.
If I could just interject briefly--- I think Animal and Bera have made their case multiple times on the forum that they don't classify themselves as pleasure driven. That's all well and good, but we still need a wider sample base than that before we start generalizing about Se-leads or Se in general and what is or isn't its motivation.
There's a difference between Se, the function, and an "Se user". The latter is always a complete personality, with several sets of stacked and interwoven functions/motivations that can shift or tilt any preference in any direction. So it's entirely conceivable that Se, in isolation, can have certain motivation vectors which --when placed under the hierarchy, development and personality of a person-- may or may not come out expressed in undiluted form, but through the idiosyncrasy of their unique set of variables.
This is why the function definitions are extracted from the aggregate of dozens of samples, in order to prevent the narrow and anecdotal from overriding the generally true. And I do think there is a more general correlation between Se and a certain kind of somatic euphoria, which is not the same in Ne.
We can see this clearly if we make collages of the Se users in the database such as:

Spoiler

[collapse]

But, if we wish to have a more semantic discussion about what counts as pleasure, I think that might be productive.
Indeed one could argue that any positive experience (i.e. hearing kind words from a stranger, satisfying an OCD itch by arranging one's socks, brainstorming new ideas) is "pleasure." But I felt it was obvious that Sander meant pleasure as a kind of synonym for sensual stimulation. ;p And as a whole I see plenty of correlation in data between Se and sensual stimulation.

[Bera]

Oh, dear. I would not have mentioned this at all if it wasn't for Sander's comment.
My answer to him was an attempt to clarify this issue, because I understood he meant Se users are pleasure seekers as opposed to Ne users who are seekers of meaning. He might not have meant that but this is what I understood and it obviously needed a discussion.
My intent was to correct something that seemed wrong (because to me meaning had no connection to Pe, since Pe is an explorer function). So, why would you give it to Ne, if Ne is also an explorer function? Why make such a huge gap between two functions that are basically used to explore stuff?
You explained he meant something else and I agreed with your idea. For Ne users indeed Ne is a connection to the numinous, whereas for Se users that is Ni. Which means Ne users have numinous experiences using Ne. This makes sense.
After that I actually forgot about the whole Se seeking pleasure issue. 🙂
When I hear the word "pleasure", I think of sensual pleasure.
Broadly it can mean physical and emotional wellbeing, enjoyment of an activity, the absence of pain, fulfilment of desires, serenity.
I pondered if it can also mean other things but I think most of them would be in different categories.
It is a bit hard to distinguish pleasure from these other categories though.
No, not a bit hard. It's VERY hard, I've been trying to define it for an hour and I still didn't manage to find a proper definition. :)))
I thought it is an experience but it seems like it's rather a state; the experience is only what causes it.
I've seen it defined as a state of enjoyment / gratification. I think this is an acceptable definition, though I'm not sure it covers everything that pleasure is and excludes everything it is not.
I don't think this definition excludes happiness. At least the part about enjoyment. Happiness is a state of enjoyment too. So, this definition is defective :)) because happiness is obviously more than pleasure. But I have no idea how to rephrase it in a way that excludes happiness. Maybe you guys can help me. 🙂
I hate it when I can't define things.
I thought of saying pleasure is something that can only be desired for its own sake. But -surprise, surprise !- now I see this was one of the early definitions of happiness too !
But, as we know, pleasure can actually be desired for other purposes than for its own sake too. :)) And so can be happiness. I can want to be happy for my own sake and to make loved ones happy. Because my happiness makes other people happy. Same with pleasure.
So, the idea to analyze the purpose of pleasure looks like a dead end. It doesn't help us make a clear distinction between pleasure and happiness.
To be honest - @Auburn - you will be much better at finding a good definition.
I am also curious what @Animal thinks. 🙂
And, of course, @Sander - since you are the one who brought us to this dilemma. 🙂

[Animal]

@Auburn
That collage really does not say much about 'euphoria' to me. I look exactly like those people in the collage, with intense clothes, rockstar outfits, etc. So does @ivory.  Trent Reznor's aesthetic is no more and no less extreme than mine.
Looking badass, or having a colorful wardrobe, is not always for the sake of 'euphoria' or some internal experience of pleasure. Is it indulgent? Well sure. But studying typology is also indulgent (at least for those of us who aren't making money from it)  🙂 as is wearing a normal outfit while playing a video game.
I'm definitely a sensationalist, an aesthetician, and a person who loves bold, loud clothes that tell my story. I never go anywhere important without my peacock outfit, and it tells a very personal story of my identity (Fi) as well as shows some bold colorful statement like all the Se leads in that collage. Really, I fit right into that picture when it comes to my love for aesthetics and expressive clothing - but it's not about experiencing the clothes through my own senses - it's about making a certain type of impression.
So, are we deciding that a love for aesthetics, or for looking good, constitutes pleasure?  You know, I've been kind of hoping that in your section about 'ergonomics,' which I don't care about,  you would expand into the way Se leads dress - because it seems rather common for Se leads to have a bold style.  Jung even talks about this, as does Socionics - but their reasoning is much closer to my explanation, which is that these Se leads want to make an impression.  According to Jung & many Socionists, Se leads want to leave a powerful, bold mark on the world, infiltrate others through the senses.
My explanation of what gives me pleasure included the confession that I like being admired for the beauty I create. Ivory, who is not an image type in enneagram but rather a 6w5 (quite close to your own type of 5w6) - has a deep visceral need to make an impression when he leaves the house, so he too dresses boldly and brilliantly like the people in the picture. But it's not necessarily pleasurable to wear uncomfortable heels, spiky jewelry and fishnets, you know? It's vain, not 'pleasurable.'
For what it's worth - neither of us care about food (we wish we didn't have to eat at all), or indulging in long showers... we don't spend ample time obsessing about erotic acts... we  don't care about physical thrills... but we'll sacrifice some comfort for the sake of making a bold, powerful aesthetic impression, and looking the way we want to look.
I have noticed that for many Se-heavies, their appearance - and the impression they leave on the world, visually -  is serious business.

[Juan E. Sandoval]

@bera
Hehe.. oh dear, Sander look what you've done! D:
All this needless miscommunication. Err, but while we're here, might as well clarify--right?
Here's an idea:

• Pleasure - The real-time event or experience of happiness.
• Happiness - The state of being continually satisfied with one's existence.

Pleasure might be taking a bite out of a chocolate cake, while happiness might be a general satisfaction with one's life, job, etc. So if you say "are you happy?" you're asking a more broad question that if you ask "are you in pleasure?" which is asking a more contextual question.
Types of Pleasure:

• Sexual Pleasure / Erotic stimulation
• Sensual Pleasure / Positive Tactile stimulation
• Emotional Pleasure / Affectionate or romantic feelings ("love")
• Social & Familial Security
• Satisfaction with Work or Achievement / Serotonin spike from victory
• Satisfaction from Learning & Novelty
• Satisfaction from Creativity & Generation
• etc

I think this list could be much longer.
I do agree that Ne and Se both seek pleasure. I'd actually say all functions do (i.e. it feels good when Je 'wins', or when Ji finds 'perfection' or when Pi finds 'predictability'). A whole series could be written about "the pleasures of each function." But I think the kind of pleasure Pe (and each quadrant) seeks is distinct. And it's also made distinct between Se and Ne. It would be interesting to try and describe all of that further.
(oh @animal i didn't see your recent post)

[Animal]

Some major pleasure themes for me:

• Being in the creative 'flow'
• Desiring someone/ being desired (with or without any sensual act -- but just the feeling of knowing he wants me and I want him.)
• Competition. (I'm not mean spirited at all, so if I'm winning and the other person is upset, this is not pleasurable. But I enjoy competing in good fun, even with high stakes, and debating for the sake of learning and expanding, etc.)
• Satisfaction with Work or Achievement / Serotonin spike from victory
• Being admired or admiring someone else
• Being inspired or inspiring someone else
• Intense emotional or intellectual sharing
• Expelling what is inside me (writing a song, a diary, a book, etc)
• Serious physical exertion (working out)
• Very intense music that makes me saturate in sound and emotion
• Performing on stage - being a vessel through which passion emerges and feeling the energy of the moment.  (I don't enjoy going to concerts nearly as much. I hate crowds. But performing is euphoric and makes me transcend to the heavens.)
• Being in a flow with my body and the world, especially outside
• Being drawn into the experience of characters in an amazing movie or book
• Ivory's facial expressions 🙂
• Playing with Ivory physically - tickling, attacking, eroticism - and then competing or pushing back and forth.  My primary love language is touch and it's essential to me.

 
Edit:
Some of these themes definitely count as somatic euphoria, like working out, being in a flow with the world, performing or writing music, saturating myself with music/emotion, love language of touch. But I'd be curious if I am 'more' intense about my sensual stuff than other types are about theirs?
Hm, I just had an idea - I'm going to make a list of things people might find pleasurable and categorize them, kind of like the lists I made for clumsiness.  Then I'll start another thread - won't link it to Se - and we'll see how different types vote 🙂  But for now, I'd be curious to see the rest of yours.

[Sander]

@bera @animal
If contrasting pleasure and meaning is not intuitive for you, just use other words (like the more specific 'exploring what's beautiful vs what's interesting'). And again, please don't confuse Se with Se-users.
Reasons to associate pleasure with Se:
1) Pleasure is often used as the opposite of pain, and Ni eyes reveal a sadness/pain-complex
2) Pleasure fits the Openness aspect of Openness to Experience, which clearly matches exploration/Pe
3) Pleasure is often associated with addiction, and all the Se-leads I know struggle with moderation
Openness items (R = reversed)
Enjoy the beauty of nature. .43 .47
Believe in the importance of art. .66 .64
Love to reflect on things. .42 .48
Get deeply immersed in music. .60 .44
Do not like poetry. (R) .60 .51
See beauty in things that others might not notice. .52 .47
Need a creative outlet. .48 .40
Seldom get lost in thought. (R) .40 .40
Seldom daydream. (R) .38 .35
Seldom notice the emotional aspects of paintings and pictures. (R) .60 .47
Reasons to associate meaning with Ne:
1) Meaning is often contrasted with pleasure, and conveys freedom from chores (matching Si's fear-complex)
2) Meaning fits the Intellect aspect of Openness to Experience, which clearly matches exploration/Pe
3) Meaning was the last currency I discovered for my tradeoff planner (it's too automatic for me as Ne-lead)
Intellect items (R = reversed)
Am quick to understand things. .65 .65
Have difficulty understanding abstract ideas. (R) .68 .55
Can handle a lot of information. .64 .65
Like to solve complex problems. .61 .51
Avoid philosophical discussions. (R) .61 .45
Avoid difficult reading material. (R) .58 .39
Have a rich vocabulary. .61 .48
Think quickly. .57 .65
Learn things slowly. (R) .48 .55
Formulate ideas clearly. .56 .60
So far, CT generally ignores shadow functions, yet the shared Pe/Openness to Experience suggest that Se-leads are usually more Intellectual than average (just overruled by an even greater Openness). And also the opposite: Ne-leads will be more Open to pleasure than average (just overruled by an even greater Intellect). See my recent topic for theorethical background: cognitivetype.com/forums/topic/cognitive-functions-do-match-big-five-aspects/

[Animal]

Meaning and pleasure are both intrinsic human needs. I'm not buying it. I love your enthusiasm @sander and I appreciate how much thought you put into this, but it sounds fantastical and does not add up to my lived experience of how actual humans operate.
I would recommend taking a break from function-theory-lala-land and learning about general psychology.
And this is what I see as a major difference between Se and Ne.  Ne leads are happy to run off on tangeants about theories, whereas Se will say "My real life experience tells me otherwise, and here is a more realistic way to dissect an abstract concept in a way that is MEANINGFUL."
😉
Arguably, "meaning" has a different meaning to each type, but it still matters, one way or other.
For example, from my point of view, you cannot separate "Se" from "Se users" since the whole concept of functions is predicated on dissecting how the human mind works.  This means the theory has to apply to the humans who fit its categorical criteria.  If we are to ascribe "meaning" to one function category, it would be "Ji"  - and this makes sense since all humans would possess Ti or Fi, according to the theory - so all humans would have a way to sort out what is meaningful.  And in my lived experience - as well as any theory of psychology that is predicated on working with actual humans -  it is generally assumed that we all care about meaning, one way or the other.

[Ivory]

If contrasting pleasure and meaning is not intuitive for you, just use other words (like the more specific ‘exploring what’s beautiful vs what’s interesting’). And again, please don’t confuse Se with Se-users.

@Sander
Beauty is interesting and beauty has meaning. There is always a reason why something is beautiful. I find it a strange thing to separate meaning from these. It is intuitive to me to find meaning in beauty.
Regardless, the association of 'meaning' to Pe (any) seems off. "Meaning" dictates boundaries and definition. It brings value to what is and what is not. These are qualities of Judging, not Perceiving.

[Sander]

@animal
Your strawman: "Meaning and pleasure are both intrinsic human needs. I'm not buying it."
What I just wrote: "CT generally ignores shadow functions, yet the shared Pe/Openness to Experience suggest that Se-leads are usually more Intellectual than average"
Take a deep breath and consider whether you want to recognize what drives others. If you do, wouldn't it be useful to know more about psychological traits? Why not study the Big Five? That becomes only MORE important when you believe traits don't match CT.

@ivory
Yes, beauty and interest are related, and yes, it's surprising that the Intellect items fall under Openness to Experience/Pe. I also expected it under Ji, but the data forced me to adjust...
I'm MINIMIZING CT's assumptions; isn't that helpful? Maybe all functions are running in the background, afterall. And if CT has a genetic origin, wouldn't you expect a mix of all functions?

[Animal]

@sander
We must have talked past each other because - what I was saying is that studying psychology is useful. My parents are both psychiatrists 🙂 and I've had a lot of interest in psychology all my life. I've looked into Big 5 and much more. So I think we are in agreement but somehow our language crossed in a way that made it look like we aren't?
I agree that Se leads can be more intellectual though - I don't really consider myself an intellectual... i'm more of an artist , visionary and channeler. (Visionary is not meant to boast, I mean that in the most literal way. I have big visions and actualize them.)
Also I know what youre saying about all functions. I appreciate the Socionics model for this. I also appreciate that they got a little closer to a definition of Se that resonates for me in some ways, though Auburn got closer than anyone in others. (Flow, vitality, aesthetics, aphroditic and trickster myth... excellent stuff on his part.)

[CandyDealer]

Saender, but I am Ne lead and I love pleasure, I'm pleased to please myself with pleasure. I dream about pleasure, I want to live with pleasure, pleasure is my best friend and I invite it to hang out with me very often.
Also, Celeste and Saender, I don't think we have all eight functions, it makes no sense inside of CT's theory because, for instance, because of its mere definition Ne excludes a priori the possibility of having Ni or even Se + Celeste, your argument "it's dumb to think..." is self referential, to whom is it stupid? To you? Why? It isn't stupid to me and I have a master degree in smartness of talks and speeches + I have been elected smart talker of the year, so it must be as I claim.
+ Celeste thinking of Fi as the function that gives you personal value/moral is a naive mistake and about this I suggest you to read the metabolic description of Fi.
 
Guys, we are no goddam MBTI community, we have no memefied functions or types, put aside those very stupid thoughts.
And now since I am Ne lead, I'll go thinking of ultra crazy ideas and have adhd

[Sander]

@animal
"I agree and treasure my rare Se-experiences ?" (9 June)
I appreciate you now believe I do actually agree 😉

@candydealer
If you want others to believe your T ego-fixation stop strawmanning: "but I am Ne lead and I love pleasure" although I wrote "Ne-leads will be more Open to pleasure than average"
"because of its mere definition Ne excludes a priori the possibility of having Ni"
No-one is claiming they're operating at the same time. And psychedelics can definitely alter your state of consciousness; as clear Ne-lead I've definitely experienced cosmic consciousness: https://cognitivetype.com/ni-behaviorism-mythology/#light-cosmic-consciousness
And you conveniently ignore adressing my counter-argument: "And if CT has a genetic origin, wouldn’t you expect a mix of all functions?" And CT seems to have a genetic origin: https://cognitivetype.com/publication-vultology-parallels-among-identical-twins/

[CandyDealer]

My mom believes I have a T ego, this authorizes me, according to CT rules, not to be believe by anyone else when I claim I am T ego, I strawmanned angels, I can strawman men.
Your counter-argument is pointless: CT is a model and as such it creates structures that, in this case, serve for explaining human cognitive processes (and eventually behaviors), you decontextualized the genetic thing: it's not like there is the Ni area of the brain, the Ne area and so on. Functions are mere models of some brain processes and, by definition, it is pointless to say - within CT - that a person has both Ne and Ni (and not necessarily simultaneously - which I have never claimed). Can one create a theory with all the eight functions? Ofc they can, actually as you will know, socionics works like that. As far as I'm concerned you can also create an extra-Jung model with 500 functions but it's not the "truth", it's not like we have 4 or 8 or 500 different brain areas, it's how we model them in order to create, hopefully, a coherent theory and as how this theory (CT) is made, Ne and Ni exclude each other.
 
Now send me your ego certificate and the rank of holy angel warrior or nobody will believe in you and in your identity

[TBerg]

Since I believe that the Buddha was a polarized NiFe, I take real issue with the description of the essence of Se as pleasure-seeking.  CT, to me, seems like a description of cognition, not a description of psychological drives, so it seems strange to me to ascribe specific drives to a single function.  It seems like all types can want to seek pleasure at certain points in time, so I don't know why we should single out a single function or type development to harbor this drive.
Since I see the philosophy of Buddhism as a very Se-centric way of being, upon which Jelle has also remarked and also ascribing Se to phenomenology in general, that means that Se is WAY broader than pleasure-seeking and indeed may have nothing ultimately biasing it towards that drive.  As an extroverted perception function, it would be focused much more on the events and happenings (phenomena) pulling the subject towards more and more becomings of reality with direct interaction with those becomings.  It wouldn't seem self-referential or driven by a certain psychological need, as I can see how Se allows for a great variety of perceptive engagements, not just positive ones but a whole kaleidoscope of them.
A quote by the Buddha from the Pali Canon:

[Animal]

 CT, to me, seems like a description of cognition, not a description of psychological drives, so it seems strange to me to ascribe specific drives to a single function.

@Tberg - YES! THIS!  This was exactly what I was trying to say - and you said it so well!  That's why I said that as an enneagram four, I need to transform my suffering and shame into beauty, and be admired for it. This is my most BASE drive, and that is what enneagram deals with. My cognitive functions give me the path by which I can realize these drives.

[Author]

Posts