Here’s an idea:
Pleasure – The real-time event or experience of happiness.
Happiness – The state of being continually satisfied with one’s existence.
I think you are right ! It didn't occur to me because I don't think I ever experienced a state of being continually satisfied with my existence. 🙂 There are some issues that make this state of being highly unlikely for me - the first is that my emotions are pretty volatile. And the second is that usually I am in a state of tension/ seeking. As if I was caught up in a quest. I don't think I am unhappy underneath this tension but I also don't believe I am truly satisfied with my existence. Maybe this comes with Pi development? It looks like senex energy, not sure why.
Regarding the types of pleasure you mentioned, I consider them all enjoyable, of course, but I excluded some of them from my pleasure bubble :)) because I was not sure if they are indeed forms of pleasure or something else.
For example in the case of love and victory, I also thought about them...and I guess there is an overlap with pleasure. Like circles that have some common parts and some distinct parts. But then...love is more active. It feels like you produce it constantly, there is a choice. Even if people deny it, there is. There is also some control, you can increase the amount of love you...create? emanate? shine out? Pleasure is quite different, you rather just surrender to it. It doesn't feel like you create pleasure. It feels like it's happening to you and you can just attune to it more or less.
Victory is actually closer to pleasure, I can't explain very well why I left it out. It seems to have a different "vibration" but it also just happens. Oh, there is pride combined with victory, I guess.
So, I think there is overlap but this is basically why I didn't mention them. I guess I am more S and F oriented, so for me if something doesn't feel exactly like another thing, I put them in different categories. But logically everything enjoyable is a form of pleasure. 🙂
@animal, very interesting idea, I will also post answers to your list of different types of pleasure.
@sander - you mentioned many things, I will try to address the ones that I think are the most important :
We consider Fi is connected to a wounded expression. I am not sure what you mean when talking about Ni sadness, please give more details.
Also, I have to tell you I did the Big Five test and I am very high in openness. Close to 100. But these scores change and right now I am in this community of people who keep talking about philosophy, spirituality, physics, religion...I think it's reasonable to think that the environment made my openness increase. By the way, I also suspect it made my conscientiousness decrease.
These traits are not fixed and they change according to circumstance, as far as I know. But I think indeed high Ne and Se users would naturally tend to be high in openness (if you don't take into account any other factors)
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
Yes, when we talk about a function, it is to determine what is specific about that function (that is likely to show up in people who have that function 🙂 ). This is why we learn about functions in the first place. To see what there is to know about them and how it can be applied in our lives and in our relationships to others.
I'd also ascribe it to Ji. Or to Pi. But anything could be meaningful. Staas once showed us a famous photographer who he typed as Se lead (probably Se lead indeed but he was not officially typed). You can't really say he was not seeking meaning...using Se. The world around us carries meaning. Simply seeing it and showing it is meaningful.
@candydrinker and @sander again - I just phrased the Socionics problem as a question because I don't think it's that absurd, but I have to say we believe anyone can have any experience using his 4 functions. So, anyone could experience something similar to cosmic consciousness by using a certain combination of his functions. (for example Ne, Fi and Si 🙂 ) I am not sure my explanation is good enough, maybe this should be discussed more.
@tberg what you said is fascinating and I think it should be explored more but I am too tired, so I will try to do it one of these days. 🙂
In Socionics, there's a highly specific view on pleasure or 'sensual ecstasy' as a focus, and it is ascribed to Si, not Se.
Introduction to Si
Introverted sensing is an irrational, introverted, and dynamic information element. It is also referred to as Si, S, experiential sensing, or white sensing. Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail. Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
In contrast to extroverted sensing (Se), Si is related to following one's own needs instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve. So, whereas Se ego types feel capable to evaluate how justified others' preferences are, Si ego types will try to adjust to them in any way possible (given that it does not extremely affect their own comfort), wishing to minimize conflict. In contrast to introverted intuition (Ni), Si is about direct interaction and unity (or discord) with one's surroundings, rather than abstract process and causal links.
Types that value Si prefer to spend their time doing enjoyable activities rather than straining themselves to achieve goals. They like to believe that if activities are done with enjoyment, people will give them more effort and time, and also becoming more skilled at what they are doing in the long run. They believe that goals should suit people's intrinsic needs rather than shaped by the demands and constraints of the external world, and so do not try to force others into doing things they don't want to do. They also try to be easygoing and pleasant, preferring peaceful coexistence to conflict, except when their personal well-being or comfort is directly at stake.
Si as Leading Function
A strong ability to recognize internal physical states in themselves and others, to understand how these states are reached, and to recreate and avoid these physical states. Individuals who possess Si as a base function are drawn to situations that satisfy their inner physical experience. Whenever Si base function individuals are taking part in something that involves recognizing, recreating, or analyzing physical states, they feel a great deal of personal power and enthusiasm.
The avoidance of discomfort is one of the primary motivations of these types. Feelings of internal discomfort can arise from a tense psychological atmosphere, working too hard and sapping the body's resources, being pressured by other people or by numerous "things to do," and from unsatiated or oversatiated physical needs. These types tend to quickly recognize and be quite vocal about discomfort that arises and either take clever measures to dissipate it or simply get out of whatever is bothering them. They are very receptive to other people sharing feelings of discomfort with them and can help alleviate the tension and offer good solutions.
Si leading types are constantly adjusting themselves to their environment (which includes the people around them), and rarely have any fixed ideas about what is "appropriate" to desire in a given situation. Thus they are willing to accommodate other people's needs in an ad hoc manner. It is enough for something to "feel right" for them to justify doing it. This behavior may seem random to outside observers, since it is concomitant with weak Ni.
And here is Se:
Introduction to Se
Extroverted sensing is an extroverted, irrational, and static information element. It is also called Se, F, volitional sensing, or black sensing. Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. This may at times be perceived as abrasive, particularly by types who do not value Se. There is usually a competitive edge to this style of group interaction, resulting in a more intense atmosphere than that of introverted sensing (Si)-valuing quadras. They appreciate contemplating possibilities only if they feel like they stand to gain something from it, or it has a perceived potential impact on "the real world". Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in.
Se as Leading Function
The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively. He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.
He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role. He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.
Socionics proposes that we have access to all eight functions, as @sander brought up - but there is a specific way that the functions manifest. According to the theory, Se leads must 'ignore' Si, because it conflicts too much with their main function. So, to give one example - Se has to sacrifice "comfort" and "pleasure" in order to get things moving and make a strong impression. Since their first function, Se, also known as "F" or "Force," - is at the base of their ego -- they cannot also focus on pleasure, as it would conflict too much with their main drive.
This is how Se manifests for Si leads, as an "ignoring" function:
Se as Ignoring Function
The individual prefers to guide others by providing individual rewards and helping satisfy the needs of specific important people rather than through direct leadership or issuing directives. He avoids confrontation and collisions, but becomes fierce and unbending for brief periods of time if they are inevitable. He does not resonate with the idea of overcoming challenges or beating the competition, but prefers to listen to his internal desires and care for his own physical, emotional, and psychological well-being rather than doing what the outside world seems to demand or require of him.
He is adept at perceiving fights over power of a confrontational nature around him and is very able to resist them or even actively participate in them if that is seen as unavoidable, but he sees no point in giving them priority over a sense of comfort and well-being. Participation in violent physical activities where such fights may take place, as in some sports, are motivated not by those fights themselves but by the stimulating sensations those activities generate.
And this is how Si manifests for Se lead as an "ignoring" function.
Si as Ignoring Function
The individual is perfectly adept at evaluating his physical state and the quality of his sensations, but gives priority to the external act of experiencing and interacting with the world. He gets impatient with those who stubbornly focus on harmony and equilibrium when there are things to be done in the outside world. According to these types, the exploration of the sensations is something that should be done in private on one's own time, but in public people should be ready to interact, get involved, and command situations without having to weigh out everything first.
Now granted - these are very simplistic quotes from a website written about basics, and it doesn't sound very human. I can find better descriptions but this provides easy access to the system's basics. Also, I am not by any means advocating for 'swallowing socionics whole.' There are a lot of problems with Socionics and I think Auburn touched on them very well in his articles and writings. I had already been noticing many holes in that system before I came here. The problem is that it's all very mathematical and pretty, but things aren't always so 'neatly lined up' in reality.
That being said, the general difference between Se and Si-- being that Si is the INTERNAL experience of pleasurable sensations, whereas Se is more about INTERACTING with reality --- makes a lot of sense to me, structurally. The introverted functions are the ones that make an experience "internal." So on a structural level - why would Se indicate 'enjoyment of pleasure?' Wouldn't a Se lead internalize their introverted functions, and externalize their extroverted functions?
What that means is, structurally, it makes sense that a Se lead would use their sensory skills to MAKE AN IMPRESSION on others with their clothes, or interact with reality - whereas a Si lead would seek 'sensory pleasure and ecstasy.' In theory.
This is amazing !!! And in line with what I said above, that I could not be in a continuous state of satisfaction with my life because I am always seeking something else. And that maybe this general contentment could come from Pi. ? I had no idea this is the view held in Socionics but it is pretty similar to what I experienced.
I think we have a duty to make an impact on the world and that just enjoying pleasurable experiences can keep us from realizing our true potential. To me too much involvement in pleasing activities with no meaning (impact) is selfish and unproductive. I know it's not (!!!) but this is exactly how it looks like from my perspective and I must make an effort of empathy to understand people who favor pleasure as in a pleasant life, good food, comfort, a good night's sleep, high quality of irrelevant goods, a perfect home and all that stuff. To me these things are a huge waste of time. And what matters is indeed that we make an impact on other people's lives.
Other things matter too, for example knowing ourselves and understanding the world. Here I am just comparing the importance I give to sensual pleasure vs. our impact on the world.
Now I would never boss people around (except for co-workers that really need it because they are even more indecisive and compliant than myself ?).
But I see how sometimes interpersonal situations have a great potential for improvement ! ? And sometimes I can't keep myself out of them. Because if I do, this potential gets lost. And things happen because people come together and make them happen. If you don't put in some effort to energize or cool down the environment, nothing will ever happen. Or it will happen way slower.
At the same time, I strongly believe we should only act with good intentions and that our possible downfall is in forgetting to always make sure our actions are right !
What I don't like about the Se description in Socionics is that there is a certain focus on personal gain. We can very well try to make things move for others or for a certain cause, this is not about personal gain but about moving.
Also, I am not aggressive and I don't come off as abrasive (I hope). So, this part is probably written ignoring that Ji actually is used to determine if certain actions are ethical and aligned to personal values or not...and then of course Socionics does not have the concept of seelie/unseelie.
But I have to say my focus is indeed on impacting the world / other people and not on my enjoyment. My enjoyment of sensual pleasures is... irrelevant. I perceive it as distraction from what I actually want to accomplish.
I actually read about a way to use our power in a spiritual way. It was on the Buddhism for Vampires site...or rather on an associated site. I will look for the link but I know it's a bit hard to find. It's a tantric view, about how to use energy and how to change meaning. One of the best ideas I ever read though I didn't understand it completely.
I found it ! The article about unclogging energy !
This might look like a diversion but it's not, I promise. I am trying to exemplify how Se can be used in a spiritual way. I think this could also work with Ne or maybe with other functions/combinations of functions. It is connected to what you guys said about the Buddha and about Se being also named F (Force) and being concerned with making an impact on the world.
Here it is : https://vividness.live/2012/07/03/unclogging/
Unclogging energy by uniting spaciousness and passion.
Energy is blocked by fixed meanings: when narrowed perception insists that things must only go one way.
There is high-energy stuckness and low-energy stuckness:
Conflict can produce a high-energy stalemate. Opposing sides pour energy into a situation, each trying to force it to go a particular way. Each imposes a fixed meaning. Because neither can see alternative possibilities, the energy has nowhere to go, and just spins in turbulent vortices.
In low-energy stuckness, the possibility of change is missed, and those involved continually drain or dissipate energy from the situation. This happens when they fail to recognize any meaning, or deny it. This stuckness is depressed, stagnant, flaccid.
Energy is both “internal”—the energy of emotions, bodily processes, and sensations—and “external”—the energy of groups, situations, and non-human processes.
To understand how this works, I have to define some terms 🙂 :
Tantrika = a person who practices tantra, I suppose;
Spaciousness = freedom from fixed meanings. (more here https://vividness.live/2012/06/21/spacious-freedom/ )
Ok, now about how you unclog energies :
High-energy stuck situations
In a high-energy stuck situation, people have fixed ideas about what things mean. There are intense passions in conflict, and a spaciousness deficit. Here the tantrika feels for alternative possibilities that have been overlooked by the participants; for other meanings that can be found in the situation. Because the tantrika has no preconceived ideas about what should happen, his or her attitude is free of arrogance.
Then, he or she jumps into the gap. Ideally, the tantrika finds a place to stand where applying a slight force at precisely the right time and angle causes the whole structure to settle into a new, more productive arrangement, using its own energy. <3 If you have ever played Angry Birds, you have the image of a little tap, in just the right place, setting off a chain of large rearrangements. Imagine that with flexible high-pressure hoses and nozzles and valves added. (Hey, maybe that would make a cool game…)
Low-energy stuck situations
In low-energy stuck situations, there is a passion deficit. Whatever energy flows into the situation is immediately dissipated, because potential meanings have been denied. Everything is flat and dull.
Here the tantrika can liberate the situation by supplying passion and meaningfulness. <3 Again, this requires a detailed feel for the workings of the situation, and skill in intervention. The force of despair driving the dissipation of energy may be far stronger than you. Opposing it directly would fail. The tantrika reaches into spaciousness to locate a specific passion, latent in the situation, that can overcome the force of dissipation. The tantrika becomes the passion that is needed, and the situation reconfigures itself around that passion.
This sounds very Se-ish to me. Both the part about applying force and that about reaching to locate a passion and embodying it, becoming it.
But I think Ni use is necessary in order to find new meanings. So, it looks like you would need to use both.
I don't know how this would work for Ne-Si but it must, since every spiritual (? :)) ) practice has to be accessible for everyone in some way. But as a core idea, I think it is an Se-Ni one. And I think it is a possible spiritual path for us, which is important because Christianity does not provide much playground for our Se. It appeals to Fi and even this is not always true... And other Eastern traditions seem to encourage detachment. And only detachment. Which might not work for someone who has a lot of energy and the tendency to direct it to the world.
Maybe this should have been another thread, not sure. It is connected to what you guys said but it's not about pleasure. Or actually...:)))
I think we have a duty to make an impact on the world and that just enjoying pleasurable experiences can keep us from realizing our true potential. To me too much involvement in pleasing activities with no meaning (impact) is selfish and unproductive. I know it’s not (!!!) but this is exactly how it looks like from my perspective and I must make an effort of empathy to understand people who favor pleasure as in a pleasant life, good food, comfort, a good night’s sleep, high quality of irrelevant goods, a perfect home and all that stuff. To me these things are a huge waste of time. And what matters is indeed that we make an impact on other people’s lives.
Other things matter too, for example knowing ourselves and understanding the world. Here I am just comparing the importance I give to sensual pleasure vs. our impact on the world.
Bingo. This is exactly how it is for me too. And Socionics would call this Si 'ignoring' - which applies to Se leads.
It would be different for JiSe, according to their theory. Since they theorize that everyone has access to all eight functions, but only values four- each function has a specific place in each person.
For JiSe, it's easy for them to access both Si and Se - so they may theoretically be bigger pleasure seekers, because it doesn't directly conflict with their FIRST function. The ignoring function for FiSe is Fe, and the ignoring function for TiSe is Te. I think Auburn does a good job covering, in the Ti description, how they "ignore" Te - by thinking that outside impositions on their life are meaningless, like school and certifications -- because they don't hold intrinsic value, and the Ti mind is fixated on their own internal 'order' and things they place value upon. Therefore, Te ignoring is spelled out in the Ti description Auburn wrote.
But in the Se description, Se is mostly merged with Si stuff - and there's no deeper explanation for how we don't value Si, how we need to push that away in order to remain in our own "Se space" since this is our primary M.O.
YOU spelled it out perfectly in this quote here.
I think it would be a good idea to open a thread where we directly discuss why in CT we believe people only have 4 functions (and not all 8).
I could now simply say - jelle is obviously more of the sensory oriented person than me or you. And we all are will driven women. But we are just 3 examples and it is impossible to get in someone else's skin to feel exactly what they feel.
So, I guess this should be first discussed in a theoretical way . And after we get exactly the reasons why CT is built this way and not that way, we could explore real life examples.
What you said about Ti ignoring Te is interesting. I consider certifications important and accumulated some. Last year I found this online courses site...:) And I did 2 of them. And then posted my certificates on LinkedIn. :)) One was called Fantastic Places, Unhuman Humans : Exploring Humanity Through Literature - a literature certificate. It had nothing to do with my general education but I felt it was some sort of achievement and decided to show it off. :)) Also whenever I feel a bit threatened in my self confidence I start reminding myself of these achievements. 🙂 It is completely ridiculous but I don't find certificates useless at all. But this is because I...hunt them. They are in no way different from any other prize/prey. I also organize much better when I have a clear, specific goal. This brings a sense of purpose. I love learning new things but I need a bit of an external push to do it in a consistent way. Even if this is just a paper I will never use. Cause in my mind I can not just trust knowledge itself. How do I know I really know? I need a standardized procedure to follow and an objective means of evaluation. And an object (like a trophy) that shows indeed I followed that procedure and learned everything in that curriculum. And so I have an objective proof I know.
I can completely see how you can have no idea about something and have a certificate that states you are an expert in it. It happened to me too. :))) You can also know a lot about a subject and have no certification, of course, and this is often the case. But at heart I am pretty fond of school and I need reassurance that I know ...I need this reassurance to be based on something external and objective. Cold and impersonal. Because my Fi can only attest what is right and what is wrong, it can't confirm technical knowledge.
But this can also be because I have Te and a Ti lead does not have Te at all. 🙂
So, I think the best approach would be to start a little thread where we clarify why CT does not accept the idea in Socionics that we have all functions or that of ignoring functions. My guess is we believe this because Se signals exclude Ne signals and Ti signals exclude Fi signals etc. So, if people consistently show just signals of 4 functions, it means they only have those 4 functions. But is it impossible for the other 4 to be hidden somewhere, unconscious? I admit I don't know and would like to know.
But in the Se description, Se is mostly merged with Si stuff – and there’s no deeper explanation for how we don’t value Si, how we need to push that away in order to remain in our own “Se space” since this is our primary M.O.
When you first said that, I thought you meant CT description of Se is merged with CT description of Si. But actually you mean CT description of Se as a sensation seeking function is merged with Socionics description of Si about sensuality. Your issues seem to be mostly about ergonomics and persistence effect, right?
And basically you say if I am all will, if I am a seductive person who wants to make an impression, to touch you, to make you feel something, to animate you, to leave a mark on you - then I can't at the same time be a pure hedonist who seeks pleasure for its pure enjoyment.
This makes total sense. I think it is similar with Fi and Fe in the ethical-interpersonal sphere. But I am curious about Auburn's view.
Only one observation - something I only realized now - in order for me to make an impression on you, I must have aesthetic sense. In order for me to offer pleasure, I must feel pleasure. You do need to feel what impacts to make an impact. This is a very complex issue actually. So, I think the attuned to the senses and sensual part must be right for the exerting force to move the environment to also be right, they go together.
But the purpose or rather focus seems to be to use force to move things. And not the seeking of sensory stimulation. But here I can only talk about me. I don't know every Se user's intentions. But we have convergent thinking, so it would make more sense to just take sensory input in in order to put it all together and exert it out on the world. Like a fireball. Or telekinetic force. 🙂
The issue might be that some people don't have the necessary power to magnetically draw everything together or to cast that fireball out. And then they might just do phase no. 1. Take it in. But if this is because Se actually needs Je support for phase no. 2 or if this is because their Se is not strong/healthy enough is not clear to me. Maybe the purpose I mentioned above is a Se & Je thing and not just pure Se. I think this is how CT would see it. This might be at the root of the issue, is it just Se to gather all the energy and cast the fireball or do we need Je to cast it? 🙂 We can do this with our eyes in a way. We don't need articulation/Je gestures to cast force. I think Je would be needed for shaping it though -this much force goes here and this much goes there. 🙂
I have to be honest here and say I've had a hard time understanding the Se debates. To my ears, it sounds like there's some Je being attributed to Pe, but as I said in Monkey, I feel it's not my place to participate in a debate abt a function I don't experience.
I just feel that Pe explores for the sake of knowledge/experience: Pure exploration. And that makes sense to me. I don't find it childish or immature or degrading; only child-like (curiosity, wonder, experience: knowing reality for what it is, not for what we can do with it). I feel Pi must have something like that too, being P, but in a different way.
To me, it's the J functions that bring in more deliberation/manoeuvre/manipulation of reality IMO, particularly Je. So I'm just curious: Do you guys feel Se's I--- like Mish and Koops would have similar aversion to the idea that Pe explores to know reality as is (to just 'see/know/experience' for its own sake)? I'm trying to understand the idea that there's a kind of 'drive' in Se pure that goes beyond the drive to 'see/know/experience' that's parallel to Ne's drive to discover?
I would say, I see a problem with saying any function is driven to seek 'pleasure' per se, but my problem really is just that I think it's a bit of a miswording. These are COGNITIVE functions. All 8 of them. They exist to help us KNOW/UNDERSTAND something of reality: 8 different ways of doing so. So what might look to a non-Se user as "pleasure-seeking" may simply be an attempt to have direct knowledge/experience of an object; extract its essence in a certain way and not another (of 8 possible ways of doing it).
But I don't see a problem per se with describing Pe as something that exists for the purest exploration possible of objective reality, at all. I.e. Exploration without manipulation (moving/shaping it according to one's idea of what it should be, like Je) or deconstruction (Ji's imbibing and cutting/penetrating it in order to get to the structural core of nature) or Pi's fitting of objective reality into a grander frame of experience that's continuous in time.
I think Se and Ne are two ways of doing the same thing. They have distinct biases that filters out (ignores) certain aspects of data and favours others. In fact, I think all 8 functions do this biased selection/filtering-out of the info our brains collect (from our senses, emotions, logic etc) when building our understanding of reality, which is what gives us different 'personality types'.
Lastly, I couldn't disagree more strongly with the suggestion that we must use 8 functions. Our data doesn't show it. I'm mo inclined to think functions of one EQ (like Fi and Ti) are mutually exclusive ways of organizing the same data, so that once the brain has selected its functions, it cannot rearrange data using the methodology of the unselected function, and this unselected function remains forever in the primordial soup of the unconscious. However, all oscillations J and P, can do the same thing (organize a coherent picture of reality) even though they do it differently.
I don't really know them that well.?
It could be doing just that but... what Animal said was so spot on that I doubt there is nothing true in it.
I like to discover things in Pe fashion but almost none are connected to the senses. I think it wouldn't be very productive to repeat that I am not very much in my body. ? Indeed ignoring the sensual sphere and favoring volition seems a good description of how I work.
But I could have more Te than I realize ? Though I really doubt it, my articulation is way below my will.
On the other hand, this is a good question - if Se does more than exploration, shouldn't Ne also do more?
@Animal - ideas?
I think we love to theorize and hypothesize and invent all sorts of scenarios. 🙂 Did you notice almost everyone who does this is Pe lead? I think Ji leads first prepare and we just jump in with the newest idea we found. Like I did with the idea that we could develop functions by doing the signals consciously or like Sander who has his theory about complexes tied to the functions. Oh, but what if...?❤️?
Oh, you edited your post.
What would the data show? If we had it. Someone who consistently shows signals of 2 incompatible axis like Se-Ni and Ne-Si? 🙂
If they are in the unconscious soup, I would have thought we have them...it's similar to what I actually imagined. ?Only you say this means we don't have them.?
I love how it's only Ne people who don't agree with what Se should mean, whereas Se users seem to be in agreement that the description is not covering the basic mechanisms and that the distinction in Socionics is right. 😛
I mean, as @q said offhandedly the other day;
sensing deals with the world of the concrete sensory things. introversion winnows down to appeal to the subjective ego. extraversion is attracted to the object.
Si, therefore, just takes what is experienced and abstracts away a personal 'sense' for it. such as an experience being pleasurable or whatever. it takes these impressions and knits them together into a web representing their personal experience of the world.
for a lot of Si types, the fabric knitted together essentially becomes their roots in the world. it makes life predictable and dependable. what person capable of predicting and depending likes to venture out into "unexpected experience" where it is suddenly off the map?
I suspect few, except either if activated conscious Ne, or if an unusual enneagram type.
Se on the other hand pushes out into the experience. it is not that personal 'sense' for it. so the natural thing to do is follow the impulse into the experience - to pursue - to attain.
To me, the reason Ne can venture off into parallel universes and theories is because they are rooted in the body - Si. The internal experience of body, pleasure, and sensation.
Se is 'rooted' in the internal experience of Ni. So the way they interact with the sensory world is not about an internal experience of sensations but rather an internal experience of symbolism and meanings that we associate with sensory input. The sensory experience is external - it's about the sensations we interact with, not about how we feel about them internally.
(This is why our clothes, for instance, might symbolize something to us, or tell a story 'out there,' but we are not thinking about the pleasurable sensations of the fabric, or sensual ecstasy, which seems to be how Si/Ne people interpret it.)
Ne/Si users, perhaps, need to step out of their own experience of sensations as an 'internal thing' and try to see it through our eyes?
Socionics does a good job laying out the difference.
@animal, I don't use Se, sure. But I do know about volition. Whats the use of using something that cannot be relagated to one function to describe it? Is this a peculiarly Se thing? And by the same token, (of lets not tell each other how our functions feel) how can you know it doesnt match Ne 'volition' too?
We've had this debate on dischord and every example Bera came up with, I have in my own experience. I'm not telling you what Se is, I'm saying how accurate is a description of one function when its describing something pple who dont have it use?
If I had to theorize about the functions I would say that Ne has its own kind of volition too. I personally am not a fan of the idea of removing 'volition' from an extroverted function. I loved @teatime 's idea of 'hunter-gatherer' for Pe, and Se leaning more toward the hunter and Ne the gatherer (though it's not 1-1).
Pe leads interact with the environment. We are not introverts. We don't just sit and passively take it in. Right now the descriptions are very much about an internal experience of an environment that we're passively taking in, which is why they feel infantalizing and stripping us of any will. The introverts are given all this deep interesting stuff, the Je descriptions are given willpower and vision - but Pe is left with 'being addicted to random stimulus, helplessly.' Yet this is not the case. Pe leads appear very interactive and willful.
Having a sense of long-term purpose is not type related. I know plenty of Je leads who don't, for instance. But the way we interact with the world moment to moment IS type related, and Pe leads interact with it. They don't just passively sit back and take in whatever stimulus comes, and get addicted because they're bored.
If Je leads can have an internal sense of vision or purpose, then so can we.
Also, you should reread my post because I edited it. I had already taken out the part about volition since it wasn't worded well. And I think my explanation of what I suspect Ne/Si users MAY be feeling (based on the comments) might make more sense. I could be wrong of course, about what you guys are feeling or where the assumption is going wrong, but that's just how it seems to me- that to Si users, the experience of sensation is internal, so they interpret ours being the same way.
If I had to theorize about the functions I would say that Ne has its own kind of volition too. I personally am not a fan of the idea of removing ‘volition’ from an extroverted function. I loved @teatime ‘s idea of ‘hunter-gatherer’ for Pe, and Se leaning more toward the hunter and Ne the gatherer (though it’s not 1-1).
Pe leads interact with the environment. We are not introverts. We don’t just sit and passively take it in. Right now the descriptions are very much about an internal experience of an environment that we’re passively taking in, which is why they feel infantalizing and stripping us of any will. The introverts are given all this deep interesting stuff, the Je descriptions are given willpower and vision – but Pe is left with ‘being addicted to random stimulus, helplessly.’ Yet this is not the case. Pe leads appear very interactive and willful.
@animal, Ok, now I see what you mean and I AGREE!!! I said this in our dischord debate (Extraversion goes AFTER things), Pes just do it differently from Je; more interest-based. If this is what you mean then I agree. I see Se and Ne as the same base process, except Se goes after bounded objects (what you say hunting or going after ONE thing at a time) whereas Ne follows an unbounded "object" which is more diffuse, but Ne follows it no less obsessively.
Very well put, I am in complete agreement there 🙂 🙂
Yeah sorry, I understand your initial protests. My wording was clumsy and didn't encapsulate my whole POV. (Concise, neat points is not my strong suit, but I swear I have put a lot of thought into this! The problem is translation.)
Will is not just about Je.
Will comes from inspiration.
Pe is the catalyst. The inspirer. The spark behind will. The force that drives us forward. The propellor.
The reason I like "Volition" for Se more than for Ne, is basically because of what @faerie said:
Se goes after bounded objects (what you say hunting or going after ONE thing at a time) whereas Ne follows an unbounded “object” which is more diffuse, but Ne follows it no less obsessively.
This is why "volitional force" makes sense as a descriptor for Se, because the 'push' is very concrete, applying to bounded objects and focused hunting. There should be another similar word to describe the obsessive pursuit style of Ne.
Both types are inspiration driven, but Se finds bounded objects and pursuing and hunting something concrete, more interesting. This can include studying something, mastering a project - but Se is geared toward concrete tangible results in the real-world realm. This hunt makes life inspiring. The thrill of the hunt.
I cannot pretend to describe the parallel for Ne, so I will leave that to the Ne leads - but I will share my theory - based on observing them from outside - which is that Si 'grounds' Ne by bringing them back into their body. This happens through enjoyable, pleasurable physical sensations, among other things. Se does not rely on 'internal experience of sensory pleasure' to bring them into the sensory realm. The hunt itself - the pursuit of concrete results - is pleasurable.
"Achievement / Serotonin spike from victory"
this makes so much sense to me from experience and it's pretty random you wrote it in here.
sorry if this is derailing thread but could continual achievement or victory lead to a heightened ecstatic state of being in theory? does anyone know of studies done on this?
Looking at the first page... I'm curious as to what would happen if this thread was titled Ne's romance with symbol reconfiguration vs Se's impulse to distort.
Make new thread if interested.
@GreenCoyote I wonder if the sensation of outcome orientation can be unrelated to past trauma even if sometimes. As I feel like outcome orientation could be healthy, yet I usually stick to bringing my imagined self into a process orientated point in the future.
Make new thread if interested.