@morsecode, my Se types I meant what would be called "SP" in MBTI, but more strictly the Se-leads. Now, I don't agree with the conventional grouping of the types, but I do see it as having some merit. An SeTi is indeed different from an TiSe, and even more so from an FiSe or SeFi, but they have certain things in common which an SeTi wouldn't have with, say, an FeNi. Of course, this is not in terms of judgment - as the functions are indeed the same - but in the way data seems (I say "seems" because I can't personally judge: I'm not an Se-lead, nor have I deeply analyzed any) to be recorded and used (though the latter also ties in with judging functions). This is because of how oscillations work within each of the types, otherwise we'd only have eight types (the differences between an SeTi and NiFe would be very small, and would seem more like something related to individual cases rather than to the types themselves).
"we're fumbling fools ignorant of ourselves" - Auburn "the depths of dark Fe can go beyond our deepest fears" - Commakaze
Linus, thanks for the clarification. I understand that people who have a high use (I prefer saying heavy use) of a certain function might share the fact of having at hand a relative 'portion of dimension of the universe' in processing things cognitively that concern that certain function... and it is kinda empirically detectable via ct vr, as (just an example) we see heavy Se users locking on objects a lot, intaking them to their fullest continuously. I know that when you mentioned Keirsey you were probably just saying SeJi and JiSe, by choosing a different terminology. ^^ but I'll just share (and maybe you would agree with me) that for me their theory of '4 temperaments' is the most desastrous stretch derived from Jung's work on types. The idea that SeJis JiSes are "focused in the here and now, at home in the real world of solid objects that can be made and manipulated, essencially impulsive, stimulation seekers that want to make a splash and dream of mastering action skills, seek out adventure and show a constant hunger for pleasure and stimulation" is a serious misconception, simply because SeJis and JiSes do not equate Se. That is, SeJi and JiSe are not the same as Se. Many (maybe most) visually verified SeJi and JiSe simply don't fit the 'SP' traits at all, some of those traits are actually kilometers far away from who they are. Keirsey's description of SP is actually a description of a one-dimensional Se user that lives basically through the channel of Se, it exists in some cases but it doesn't represent significantly at all the majority of SeJis and JiSes on the planet. Now, being less universal even though it's not what matters or counts atm, but just as curiosity, I personally don't relate at all to SP description, I am far from a stimulation seeker, but a meaning seeker (and all the traits and priorities and behaviors that derive from that) - I could easily live happily (even if not in 'wholeness') in a state of non sensorial existence, simply because I personally derive few meaning from what my senses can capture (it doesn't feed my soul). It would be great (maybe yes, probably not) if humanity were as simple as Keirsey see them, in those 4 arbitrarious boxes that don't correspond to people but to functions working in isolation - those descriptions only make perfect sense in cases of complete one-dimensional usage of functions (and it doesn't even exist). Those '4 temperaments' (which seems something like an attempt of roles or archetypes) don't actually exist corelated to a role or an archetype. Any ct can take any role (not that it's a conscious decision imo, though) and can encapsulate any given archetype - it is not function-related. Just my thoughts. As I said, I know that when you mentioned Keirsey you were most probably just saying 'SeJi and JiSe' using a different terminology.
Last Edit: Nov 15, 2013 20:26:32 GMT -5 by Deleted
I never understood why Keirsey saw these 'temperament groups' as meaningfully divided. I see no reason why Ne>Si and Ni>Se users are sorted according to whether their 'feeling' or 'thinking' function is on top (regardless of whether it is Fi vs Fe or Ti vs Te), while the most crucial distinction he sees between Si>Ne and Se>Ni users is whether their Je or Ji is 'higher in their stack'. Does anyone know if Keirsey has tried to explain why he took this approach? It's as if the functions are totally irrelevant to the types. How could FiNe be seen as closer to NiFe (both "NFs") than TeSi or SiTe or FiSe, or Ti-leads even? The letters in the MBTI codes become more important in sorting the types than the functions or even the function arrangements
Ya, it's strange, because looking at concepts like T vs F, the "SJ" temperament, I don't see these things as existing in my everyday life at all. Most humans are disorganized, dislike planning etc. (imo). So the entire thing strikes me as very bizzare. It's almost like the MBTI-ers embraced everything wrong from Jung and discarded everything correct.
I remember reading this in his book, got the quote:
"Myers's Four Groups Crossing paths with Isabel Myers got me in the habit of typewatching way back in 1956. Myers completed her book The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in 1958 and published it in 1962, though Educational Testing Service had been using her questionnaire, the MBTI, for some years doing personality research in numerous colleges and high schools around the country, and this is where I first encountered her work. I soon found it convenient and useful to partition Myers's sixteen types into four groups, which she herself suggested in saying that all four of what she referred to as the "NFs" were alike in many ways and that all four of the "NTs" were alike in many ways-although what she called the "STs" seemed to me to have very little in common, just as the "SFs" had little in common. However, four earlier contributors, Adickes, Spranger, Kretschmer, and Fromm, each having written of four types of character, helped me to see that Myers's four "SJs" were very much alike, as were her four "SPs." Bingo! Typewatching from then on was a lot easier, the four groups-SPs, SJs, NFs, and NTs-being light years apart in their attitudes and actions."
If I recall correctly, I read something somewhere that Keirsey didn't think that the functions were right or accurate (somethiing like that), so he didn't use them in his work. I'm not exactly sure how he thought that the "SJ"s and "SP"s had more in common than "ST"s and "SF"s, but whatever.
I also agree with chaoticbrain here, after reading his book I tried to compare his findings to my everyday realities, and failed to find what he saw. Something like 50% of the population "SJ"s? Nah.
I don't see it either. Not that this forums the most representative sample space, but "SJs" (or Si>Ne users at least) seem to be the rarest here.
Well, since Keirsey didn't go by functions, I didn't take my observations by functions either. I'm just talking about in general, like people being "dutiful" and all the stuff that he described "SJ"s as. So I have no idea how he got those numbers. Also yeah, function wise, I see more Ne users than Si users in general.
I think that if S types tend to be so underrated, it's because our definition of intelligence is too narrow, limited to qualities required in the academic field and attributed to intuition. Maybe we could also consider S functions as real forms of intelligence, distinct from intuition, but carrying essential qualities. The good synchronisation with the physical world, the anchoring in the present, the focusing on details in the environment provides Se-lead people with abilities other types don't have (or to a smaller extent). I think my aunt is SeFi, and she told me anecdotes about her childhood which reveal an excellent sens of observation and a very precocious ability to seize opportunities in her environment, and that make her a very bright child and a successful adult. On the contrary, the situations where I'm required to show Se abilities make me feel stupid and helpless. Not because I'm really stupid, but because I'm not in my usual realm of competence.
We just need to recognize and valorize Se function for what it is, so I think it's not an offense to say Se-lead people are more practical than abstract, because having a practical intelligence, means being intelligent. And Se-lead people who are aware of that and who praise themselves for being gifted with this kind of qualities will identify easily with SeFi and SeTi types. In absolute terms, when we oppose intuition to sensation, we're talking about two distinct kinds of intelligence which are equally necessary to us at the society scale as well as at the individual scale.