Talk:Extroverted sensing
Se as creative function one, "The individual deliberately and unflinchingly applies pressure and force in specific situations as an effective way of achieving his central goals" surprises me. I might try to come up with a better one. It may be more true of LSI, possibly (?). In writing and evaluating each of these, I believe we should try to consider both forms of each (+ and -, for those who like that weird notation). --Jonathan 20:29, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
Okay, I've changed it...Let me know if the new one makes sense to you. --Jonathan 20:54, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
It is interesting, by the way, that for every one except role and suggestive, Se is portrayed here as being primarily about interpresonal confrontation. Suddenly, when it's the role function, it's more about personal organization and discipline; and when it's the suggestive function, it's about desire and motivation. I'm not saying this is wrong, just interesting. My hunch is that the Socionics view that "Se = confrontation" is is a distortion. After all, if Se-role concerns trouble with organization/action and Se-suggestive concerns trouble with motivation, then presumably people with strong Se are strong in these areas as well. But somehow, Socionists persist in wanting to view Se as being about picking a fight. --Jonathan 21:11, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
- Point taken. You're right -- confrontation is just one aspect of Se, which is, more broadly speaking, about the direct contact between objects and "organizing matter" or something like that. I've focused on the confrontation aspect here so far simply because that's what I've been paying the most attention to recently. For consistency's sake, the role and suggestive functions should mention confrontational behavior, too. I'll work on adding other aspects of Se and rounding out the descriptions. (Admin 23:30, 24 June 2007 (CDT))
One other thing here...I'm having trouble understanding the 2nd part of Se as vulnerable function: "The individual tends to try hard to observe territorial conventions, avoid behavior that may be perceived as coercive, and convey the impression of a disciplined and well-prepared person. If he fails to do so, he opens himself up to painful criticism and feelings of weakness and helplessness." It appears to be saying that the person is particularly sensitive to criticism about all of these these: failing to avoid behavior that may be perceived as coercive, being undisciplined or ill-prepared, observing "territorial conventions," whatever that is. Do you mean that LxI types are equally concerned about all of these potential failures? ...because naturally these are very different things, and maybe the intent was a little different from how it appears? --Jonathan 21:23, 24 June 2007 (CDT)
- Maybe you can help improve the formulation. What I meant was that they avoid being coercive or "actively pushy," because the moment they do this, other people start to think they look silly. They direct their discipline at theirselves, not others. By "territorial conventions" I meant taking care to not intrude on others' space, which is akin to the first point. (Admin 23:30, 24 June 2007 (CDT))
- I've added and changed a lot and am interested in input. (Admin 00:52, 25 June 2007 (CDT))
- I changed the "vulnerable" one reflect some of your comments. (I find that often when we explain what we mean, we phrase it in a more understandable way.) --Jonathan 07:54, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
- I also changed the part about making other people's do something to emphasis that the individual thinks this is what he must do; however, it seems to me that those who have strong Se are actually compelling, or strongly influencing, not making. They know how to act in a way that causes other people to do what they want. It is because the LxI doesn't know how to do this that he thinks he would have to "make" other people do things. --Jonathan 08:03, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
Se and status
How true is this really?:
"Unlike Si which focuses solely on the internal tangible desires of a person and makes a judgment on what is correct to desire based on that information. Se spends more time comparing the internal tangible desires of the people around them and makes a judgment on what is correct to desire based on that information. This then leads to an interest in status."
After I read it, I was going to correct the grammar by changing the period after "information" to a comma, but then I thought maybe it's worth first discussing if the statement is even correct. I know that many people believe that Se is related to concern for status. But what this statement is saying is that people who emphasize Se, instead of wanting what they want, instead want what they think they should want based on what others want. It just doesn't ring true to me. In fact, it seems like a misunderstanding of Se from the perspective of someone who doesn't value Se, because I don't think even Se-ego types typically think that way. Naturally, there are some people who fit the stereotype of wanting things to "keep up with the Jones's" or wanting something to show off because it's expensive, etc. It seems to me that these people may well be Se-ego-block types. But I've also met quite a few Se-ego-block types who want what they want, and don't seem particularly concerned about what other people think they should want, or about "conspicuous consumption." --Jonathan 17:23, 12 April 2008 (BST)
- I agree - there are a few things wrong with that paragraph: 1)
is presented as "being interested in other people's 
". But by definition a person with any leading function has a largely independent view of 'good' and 'bad' manifestations of that element and does not need to ask around in order to know what to think. 2) "an interest in status" is not very clear. It would be better to explain what is meant rather than just using the word "status." --Admin 21:24, 12 April 2008 (BST)
Se and confrontation
SLE's may be confrontational, but I don't think SEE's are. Most SEE's are very friendly, playful, though they're preoccupied by physical image. Black Sensing has nothing to do with confrontation by itself. Machintruc 21:54, 31 August 2008 (BST)
- I've seen SEEs be confrontational at work when they're in positions of authority, but it's more like chiding or condescension than confrontation, and they are quick to reconcile. The SLE's more typically confrontational behavior could probably also be seen as a form of playfulness that is more impersonal, but "fun" to them all the same. They also don't reconcile easily, since it's more important to them to stick by what's correct than to reconcile hard feelings (
vs. 
) --Admin 04:27, 1 September 2008 (BST)