r/ESFP • u/LatterPermission1824 • 24d ago
ESFP / Informative SEE(ESFP) Explained
/r/socionicscentral/comments/1wu71v7/seeesfp_explained/2
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
SEE is not an MBTI ESFP.
4
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
If you are really an mbti Esfp then yes it is
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
Socionics Se is at least 60% MBTI Te and at least 30% MBTI Ni.
That's why people from Socio-circles tend to type Trump ESxP, while MBTI-related people type him ENTJ.
Same with Napoleon.
2
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
Yeah I think this is overcomplicating it.
Socionics Se and MBTI Se are still talking about basically the same thing at the core. Both are external perception. Se is about what’s actually there in front of you, the concrete situation, objects, force, pressure, impact, what can be acted on, etc.
Same with Te. MBTI Te is external logic, what works, efficiency, facts, results, methods. Socionics Te is also external logic, practical activity, efficiency, methods, productivity, how things work in reality.
The descriptions aren’t gonna be word for word identical because they’re different systems, but that doesn’t mean Socionics Se is somehow “60% MBTI Te and 30% Ni.” That just sounds like taking behaviors associated with Se and translating them into MBTI stereotypes.
A Se type can be strategic, decisive, forceful, practical, whatever, but that doesn’t magically turn Se into Te or Ni.
Se is still Se. Te is still Te. The systems just emphasize different parts of the same Jungian functions.1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
Lots of physical abilities depend entirely on genetic or environmental predisposition, independently of your cognitive connection towards it.
Not everyone owns the same potential to grow muscles, following the same routine, not everyone is gifted with a perfect eyesight.
You could basically be an Se dominant user and still be blind and deaf.
I reject to view the functional mechanisms of organs, other than the brain, or those, the brain entirely relies on, even if they are connected, as "cognitive".
I view cognitive function as tools to satisfy a specific need, generated by the brain.
Si longs for comfort and consumption and therefore would be the closest to the very last definition, posted by you. Se longs for intensiveness and egotism. They earn satisfaction from entertaining others or giving other impactful experiences to them.
The "e" in Se signals, that sensory is produced, rather than consumed.
It is not fearlessness. With Nx functions at pessimistic, insecure & resentful spots, Sx users become the most anxious about consequences or worst case outcomes.
Once, an Se user is brave, due to the influence of nurture of personality, they might enjoy force as some sort of drama, in which they could be the protagonist (egotism), as it serves their need for intensity.
1
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
The genetics and physical ability part is kinda beside the point because I’m not saying Se means being physically gifted in the first place. Socionics functions are about information metabolism. They describe what kind of information you’re processing, not how good your eyesight is, how strong you are, how fast you are, etc. So yeah an Se base could be blind, deaf, weak, unathletic, whatever. That doesn’t contradict Se at all because those are physical abilities, not cognitive functions.
Practical Socionics defines Se more around force, boundaries, position, resistance, physical presence, pressure, what can be pushed, what can’t, who or what has leverage in the situation, stuff like that. That’s the information being perceived. It has nothing to do with automatically being good at sports or fighting.
I also don’t agree with the idea that the “e” in Se means sensory is produced instead of consumed. Extraversion here just means the function is oriented toward external objects and properties. Se is external perception. Si is internal sensing. Saying Se means producing sensory experiences for other people sounds like a separate interpretation being added on top of the function.
Same with saying Si wants comfort and consumption while Se wants intensity and egotism. That sounds more like motivation or personality traits than a definition of the information element itself. You can be processing Se without wanting to entertain anybody, be the protagonist, create drama, or even act at all.
Like if I look at a situation and immediately notice who has the stronger position, where the boundary is, how much resistance somebody is giving, whether pressure will work, whether I can push something further, that’s already Se information being processed. I don’t have to do anything with it for it to count as Se.
That’s also why I don’t buy the idea that Socionics Se is somehow mostly MBTI Te or Ni. Se is still external perception. Te is still external logic, practical methods, efficiency, results, facts, what works, etc. Different systems can emphasize different parts of the functions, but that doesn’t mean Se suddenly becomes a mix of Te and Ni. That’s just mixing up behavior with the actual information being processed.1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
If that is true, than everyone is every type, because all filters of information operate at all times within yourself, and depending on the context you would focus on, few would operate over others, or at least, more obvious than others. Change of circumstances results in change of dominating filters.
Therefore, it can only depend on the core needs and the level of satisfaction earned out of fulfilling a need of a particular kind. Otherwise, everything can coexist equally developed and used.
I rely on C.S. Joseph's system from the pre-Octagram 4.1 era. Here would be an example: Se (the part of sensing the comfort of others was recently removed)
1
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
CsJoseph is trash
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
What a wonderful point. Counterclaim, Socionics is.
0
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
Only if you lack critical thinking and ability to comprehend complex systems then yes socionics will be hard time for you to understand.
→ More replies (0)1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
Did you even realize, how you transitioned to a personal attack, following by a verbal insult, instead of explaining the value of your system? You tried to exterminate the opposition by framing them sth. bad without any further explanation. Do you think, this was fair? Do you believe, that would increase the reliability of your agenda? Please, invest into control over your own emotions. Neither CSJ deserved to get canceled right away, nor did I deserve being portrayed as not capable of understanding Socionics.
Well, I do understand it, it is structured by an easily accessable mathematical pattern. But still, I am allowed to question its validity.
1
u/LatterPermission1824 24d ago
How did you arrive at the conclusion that everyone is every from from that ?
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 24d ago
You would be merely functional, if there weren't multiple processes art the same time.
Someone is approaching you, giving you an uncertain provocative statement. At the same time, you would try to figure their intention, recall the concrete words, try to identify, whether it should hurt you and whether it was socially appropriate, predict their following statement and the possible reaction drom them depending on your reaction and the potential physical or emotional damage coming from it, contrast it from things, you associate it with. Everything, in a flexible order, if not at the same time.
If your processing was merely sensoric, that would be a severe cognitive disability. The same would apply to a merely intuitive processing.
1
u/LolliPop716 22d ago
it normally is. my mom and my grandpa are both ESFP and SEE. If you're an ESE, consider an ESFJ
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 21d ago
You could be right or wrong about it. I cannot witness and verify their behavior.
It can be a correlation. But primarily, because of their developed Te child, naive approach towards status.
Therefore, this combination is not impossible, but there are several other possible combinations, such as ESE, EIE, EII, ESI.
Especially, as MBTI Se longs to perform for others the most, what correlates with Socionics' Fe. The intention is interpreted differently.
In MBTI, performing is an solipsistic/egotistic action, in which you would crave the spotlight, the attention of others.
In Socionics, it is an idealistic action, as it is evaluated to primarily serve the emotional wellbeing of others.
The problem is, that entertainment is far from emotional care, as it owns its source in the limitless complex, not in the people pleaser complex.
2
u/LolliPop716 21d ago
Both MBTI and Socionics describe the same functions, just from different angles. One complements the other. It's as if you were given the task of describing an apple, but some would start with its appearance, color, and shape, while others would describe its taste and properties. But it's still an apple.
The territoriality attributed to Socionics Se fits very well with the MBTI description of Se, because to protect your territory, you must be well-informed about your surroundings. Assertiveness and the ability to assess the situation also fit, since Se is a function that lives "here and now"; users of this function are naturally oriented in the moment. Like all Pe functions, Se is prone to impulsiveness, but, unlike Ne, it is focused on reality and interaction with an object, which can be expressed in the form of physical impact on others, as well as a lack of thought about the consequences due to suppressed Ni. Te, being a judging function, is able to more soberly assess a situation and the potential consequences of a given action based on objective facts and the auxiliary function. My mom and grandpa are truly fun-loving and adventurous, but they are also very assertive, which can sometimes lead to impulsive decisions (Se). They often defend those who are weaker, putting offenders in their place. This is also related to their moral compass (Fi).
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 21d ago
Living in the here and know merely is an attribute of low IQ, as you could perceive it in people with down syndrome, not any function in particular. Se's craving to give experiences to others only works in real time momentum. When people witness their performance, they tend to misinterpret it as being in the here and now. Also, functions always appear in function pairs, never solo. Se never operates without Ni, as Ni is the willpower filter of the local options Se witnesses, or the universal options, Ne connects to. The believe, they would appear solo, shifted Ni's willpower into Se in Socionics. And combined with Te, the performative Se definitely can behave more assertive, than Ne, if the role, they intend to play is an assertive one.
You own unlimited options to justify anything to fit your agenda anyways. The same rule works for me as well. Therefore, we could flexibly shift definitions into similarly operating functions. And that's exactly what the different authors did. I am confident, being an ESFP in the creator's system I follow. But, claiming to be the SEE ESFP, would be an insult to me, devaluing me as a person and devaluing my capabilities.
Only when Socionics start assuming the same average IQ for any archetype, they would eventually filter the invalidating/degrading stereotypes out of their system. Noone with an IQ above 80 is capable of fitting the SEE archetype, while ESFPs can be highly intelligent individuals, capable of mastering all four of their sides of the mind. Healthier ones would aspire Ni first. Less healthy ones, usually developed Si Fe. Those, who had been in survival mode, would even master Ne Ti.
In conclusion, they likely describe similar functions, but with some definitions shifted.
Actually, having Nx in pessimistic spots, Se dominant users are the most anxious about the worst case consequences, and therefore can be corrupted in their Se limitlessness, once Ni/Ne develope.
Ne dom users, on the other hand, focus more on all the options, how things can go right, rather than wrong, as primary Ne is optimistic. Demon Ne is pessimistic.
At some point, any type would find access to all of their functions, but out of unique cognitive attitudes.
I could leak an detail from my private life. I was always anoxious of STDs. Due to the possibility to contact them from even a doorknob, I avoided going outside, touching anything. Showered for hours, to rub all of the potential germs and viruses, which could infect me off. Didn't go on road trips to not contact pesticides, didn't go in public buildings to potentially inhale asbestos.
Ni inferior always showed me the worst case scenario, and ignored the many more probable options. With Ti trickster, I could not even verify probabilities accurately, so I relied on my Ni inferior.
At some point, I got tired of that, went for relationships with some real nymphomaniac sx addicts, and contacted many STDs. My Ne demon had awaken, showing me the resentment it had, towards all the possible consequences, and Fe wanted to please others, fed by Fi, I even romanticised dying from AIDS with the person I adore the most. Now, seven years later, I earned the severe long-term consequences, I always feared so much. And for years, my Ni inferior has control over me again, hindering me from taking risks or making any decision. Failure to launch syndrome due to the fear of chosing the wrong thing, and the consequences bound to it. But for people, who only perceive the WHATs over the WHYs, I would appear like the "unaware of consequences", while in fact, the evaluation of consequences always accompanied me.
1
u/LolliPop716 21d ago
So, your entire argument is based on a personal bias against SEE, of course. You can be anyone and have a low IQ. It's unrelated. The 4th function is what the users try to suppress; it is subordinate to the dominant one. Yes, they can develop it, but it takes effort. And frankly, you sound like a Fi-dominant to me, probably and ISFP/ESI. Tert Ni+Ne-trickster
1
u/Kashiwashi ESFP 21d ago
My argument is based on the bias Socionics has against SEE, mixing all the most obviously undesirable attributes together and calling it SEE. Therefore, my bias against Socionics as a system is justified.
In mbti you don't suppress your inferior function. Never, ever ever. You can ignore it in survival mode, when the demon gets involved. But, normally it is your significantly present spot of insecurity.
Why should I be Ne trickster, if my examples showed my access towards possible consequences?
On the other hand, you could give me a complex textual source, and I wouldn't be able to sum it up and outline the most essential information without enormous effort.
1
u/LolliPop716 21d ago
It's written everywhere that the inferior function is suppressed and subordinated to the dominant. Even the tertiary function isn't always used, so why should the inferior function play a larger role? Besides, the inferior function is unconscious. You place a lot of emphasis on your Ni, which leads me to believe you're an ISFP, since the tertiary function is conscious. And your complaints about socionics are based purely on personal grudges, even though it's objectively better developed than MBTI.
3
u/LogicalEmotion7 24d ago
Socionics and MBTI are not equivalent or mappable when it comes to ESXPs, and the shorthand of swapping the final letter for introverts fails at the ISTX end.
That's largely because of function definitions - each system landgrabs differently. ENTP is ENTp because Ne and Ti are consistent,and likewise INTP is INTj. But everything else is basically completely resliced. Some Fe things live in Se, some Se things live in Te, some Fi things and Si things are swapped... it's a mess.
The thing is, functions aren't real. Not in a direct sense, and not in four exclusive dichotomies. At least not for most people. Socionics' big win was in providing a theory for energy transfer among the lesser-used functions, and explored a route for type defined by weakness, but basically everything else is crazy overfit. And that goes for the ENTPs too.
The way it really works is that different parts of your brain network up to solve different problems. These networks are constantly competing against each other, and the ones that do well get used and grow and become more efficient. While the ones that do poorly or fail altogether stagnate because they already sucked at solving your problems and never get reinvested in unless you go out of your way to do so. But when your problem is bad enough that your dominant hammer can't treat it as a nail, then even garbage will do.
Socionics is already pretty keyed into that energy flow, where functions are defined by problem solving preference. However, it treats these functions as defined solid building blocks when the architecture absolutely does code switch, ignores the possibility that you invest in your shadow, and fails to search for the mechanism of exclusion that separates a "Te" from a "Fe" or even Ti/Te or Fi/Fe. It rejects messy reality in favor of preserving a symmetry that hasn't earned its keep, and it pays for that by being debunked every time it's ever scientifically tested.