Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Psychology and MBTI' started by Ren, Nov 6, 2019.
Exactly, well said.
Oh my, does this really exist? I absolutely need to see this, haha!
I don't think you understand the point, but at the same time I cannot express the point well enough. We would first have to define what do we even mean by masculine and feminine, but it would take too long. Perhaps later.
Oh no, I understand it. I was actually joking in that message. There is definitely something impulsive to Se-dom, but I think things get really much more tangled when Se begins to play with/under other functions.
It exists - I can only find an 18 second clip on YT. It seems to be available on a subscription channel, but I haven't signed up for it
Is it 'masculine' to be reckless and impulsive? Seems anti-control/mastery to me. In fact, it seems like the very embodiment of the passive/feminine principle. Go with the flow, follow your feelings, enjoy what comes to you, be entertained, &c. Personally, I don't see 'Se' as 'masculine', though I'm not averse to speculating about the gendered flavour of one function or another.
I think @Impact Character 's suggestion of thinking male v female energy is a very useful one to help express this more clearly. I find the idea that the different functions come predisposed to different balances of yin and yang energy very plausible. For example there is a lot more yang than yin in extraversion, and vv in introversion.
..Yes, and the general dispute is then maybe also not as much subjective Ti/Fi system and identity colored. It is interesting, though, to explain stereotypes with function stacking as a side matter to look at.
I'd see the feminine principle (if there is such a thing) as seeing 'order from within', i.e. to be comfortably sitting within the circle of order. Whereas the masculine principle would see it from without — whether to enforce it or to resist it, it would not be such as to be externally imposed on oneself.
My usage is that mentioned by John - a simple dichotomy between yang and yin, active and passive, masculine and feminine. Anything more complex than that reduces the conceptual integrity of the dichotomy.
Or to see the masculine as active and the feminine as receptive.
Also, if you want to isolate Se/Ni axis vs Ne/Si axis, we should also compare ISTP and INTP. I think ISTPs are more masculine, or at least more domineering and assertive. The same with ISTJ vs INTJ and ESTJ vs ENTJ etc. I simply think there is something "tougher" about Ni/Se than Ne/Si.
Exactly - sorry you posted just before me.
Yeah, active versus receptive is a good dichotomy But let's just say that to me, a genuine 'rebel' type is an active type, not a receptive one.
I agree, and even considering this dichotomy, Se/Ni axis is more active than Ne/Si. I feel like we all agree, but I sloppily used the word "masculine" which caused confusion. But yes, thanks to this discussion I sharpened up my definitions a bit.
Yeah, I'd be on your page when it comes to ISTP versus INTP. But couldn't we imagine that rather than being more masculine, Se is more likely to highlight either masculinity or femininity? So ISTP men would be more masculine on average, but ISFP women would also be more feminine. Whereas something like the N function would somewhat dilute the masculine/feminine dichotomy. I know you don't agree about ISFP/INFP, but that's just an idea.
Of course, I agree. Perhaps the most 'active'.
I am not willing to go with that, because again, I consider INTJ more masculine than ISTJ. The same about ENTJ vs ESTJ. If we define masculine as active (as we did), than there is no question that INTJ is more masculine than ISTJ.
ESFPs get all the chicks, lol
Let's ask @Ren. Is it le Se, or la?, lol Jk