Upon further research on [Se], and after my last post on photography and if the ISTP-aesthetic even exists, I stumbled upon a video about what it all means for the [Se]-user - and perhaps more importantly, how an [Se]-user reacts instinctively upon it.

So in that sense, before I go into this, I wanna first applaud all of you who feel like they resonate with it in my last post. That really shows something!

What strikes me the most in this video is simply how almost scarily accurate it is in my opinion. Well, I mean ofc, the person in this video quotes the founders of all of this, right, so how can it not be accurate. Anyway. She starts with Carl Jung, quote:

"No other human type can equal the [Se]-type in realism"

Imma refer to my last post: From what I've seen in other MBTI-communities, it's often not so much what is in the picture but how it is being presented. The keyword that I get for [Se]-users, especially when higher up the function stack, is "realism" - maybe add a sprinkle of "analog camera grain" or gritty-ness if you will, just for good measure.
From what I've seen, this is the complete opposite of, for example:

• over-exaggerated colors,
• "dream-ish" blur,
• color-grade, and so on.

Take the "dream-ish" blur and the color grade, maybe some over-exaggerated colors and you'll get the typical "dreamcore"-aesthetic that goes perfectly within certain MBTI-groups, I can imagine. No judging of course, I'm just saying. Maybe you can guess which types are prone to resonate with the "dreamcore"-aesthetic in the comments.

Next she brings up "Van der Hoop" and until now I had never heard of this name before. According to this post in the socionics subreddit it was a colleague of Jung's. What I find interesting is how an [Se]-user reacts instinctively, which I don't think can be faked or emulated, or at least it must be very difficult, quote:

"The life of the instinctiv extravert is determined by impressions received from without, to which he reacts with his instinctual impulses"

So this is where I would expect a fellow [Se]-user to recognise another "realist's" output instinctively and this is where I get the sense of something like an aesthetic, I guess, now that things become a lot clearer. Strip away that is "fake".

Myers and Briggs on the essentials of [Se], that is: "these types are strong in the art of living", and yes, that also means people - that's where I'm starting to doubt some of the [Se]-users around here to be actually living life in accordance to [Se], quote:

"Their enjoyment and absorption of facts is an essential function of a vigorous curiosity... they are curious about anything new that is presented directly to their sense - new food, scenery, people, activities, objects, gadgets or contrivances"

Yes, I also get it that some are more introverted than others when it says "anything mysterious is rather distasteful, as it undermines the security of a factual world" but for real tho, when someone is literally avoiding people at all costs then that's not [Se] anymore. I don't think "people-avoidance" is even a thing within all of MBTI tbh but I'm not an expert...

Anyway. She continues with: "On the personal side, these types are strong in the art of living. They value material possessions and take the time to acquire, care for, and enjoy them. They greatly value concrete enjoyment, from good food and good music, art, the beauties of nature and all the products of the amusement industry."

And to save the best part for last:

"It is extremely important for these people to cultivate enough thinking judgment or feeling judgment to give them continuity, purpose and character. Otherwise, there will be danger of laziness, instability and a generally shallow personality."

___

So yes, I think those pictures represent ISTPs quite well.
https://www.reddit.com/r/istp/comments/1tdyzsy/aesthetics_to_enjoy/

Idk, is ISTP-specific aesthetics even a thing? These are some pictures I made and some I found online (the first two).

I don't know how to extract the pictures there to make a gallery, so these links will have to do the trick.
For anyone interested, the camera used in these links is a 1000-ish dollar "Ricoh GR IIIx"

https://www.reddit.com/r/ricohGR/comments/1t3ik0s/cinque\_terre\_with\_my\_gr\_iiix/

https://www.reddit.com/r/ricohGR/comments/1hl2201/first\_3\_days\_with\_the\_ricoh\_gr\_iiix/#lightbox

https://www.reddit.com/r/FujifilmX/comments/1t91zwp/space\_jam\_xt5\_xf23\_xf35/

1. The misconceptions of [Si] / [Se], 2. How "ISTPs" on this subreddit may be mistyped ISTJs and 3. How it reflects in the behavior.

tldr:

The logical differences between "concrete-efficient" vs "logical-performative", as well as [Fe-blind] vs [Fe-aspirational] especially at +30yo.

___

If you're into the ability to take concrete, efficient action responsibly well, "as a result of hardship, negative life experiences, personal struggles" and because of the tried-and-true methods of doing things, as they have proven to be the most reliable, then that's [Si-Te].

Concrete and efficient.

Whatever it might be that you're performing responsibly well, as a result of hardship, negative life experiences, personal struggles, and because "I must figure out exactly how everything works", then that's [Ti-Se].

Logical and performative.

___

Now, what's the difference and why do I think some "ISTPs" on this subreddit here are mistyped ISTJs? It all comes down to the misconceptions of [Se] and [Si] and how a plethora of [Si] can look like [Se].

1. The misconceptions of [Si] / [Se],

As we all know [S] means sensing. Easy. It relates to the senses. It's an experience. Now, sensing is something that is always related to the outside because it always needs an external stimulus for senses to activate. Only what we do with the senses is what makes [Si] distinct from [Se].

So what I think [Se] means is not what everyone else is saying - that [Se] is being observant of the world per se. That's a misconception. [S]ensing is already doing the observation of the world and therefore, without [S] in the first place, there's no [Se] and no [Si] to begin with.

[S] = sensory awareness (i.e. being observant).

Take ESFP actors, ISFP Eminem, famous xSTP author Ernest Hemingway. It's not that an [Se]-user is using their [Se] because they're engaged with the sensory (external world). That's the misconception. Extroverted sensory awareness [Se] must be something of a sensory awareness that we project into the outside world for others to experience.

Like a performance for example. An [Se-dom] will likely outperform lower [Se]-users - and in their domain the [Se-dom] will likely have a keen awareness of their environment. But to be aware of the environment and the amount of awareness is not [Se] or [Si] per se and everyone can be highly aware of the environment if they choose to.

Furthermore, while we’re engaged with [Se], that is to say we are accumulating experiences outwardly for others to experience, we can’t use [Si] at the same time. The same principle with [Ne] and [Ni] by the way. The usage of both functions at the same time is contradictory.

At best we can alternate between the two. So while we’re "[Se]-ing" / i.e. performing, let’s say an act on stage, or while I'm writing this, I can’t [Si-recall] the same experience at the same time as I'm projecting this performance outwardly for others to experience [Se].

So, what is [Si]?

It's on the same sensing spectrum like [Se] of course but the other way around. Instead of accumulating experiences outwardly ("the accumulation of countless planck-lenghty moments in time") for others to experience, [Si] deals with stored, categorized experiences refined to the [Si]-user*'s preferences* that can be accessed, essentially anytime when not "[Se]-ing".

2. How "ISTPs" on this subreddit may be mistyped ISTJs

What needed to happen to have a plethora of [Si] to begin with is to have hella lot of experiences and this is where I see a pitfall when the amount of experiences is being confused with [Se] because [Se] is wrongfully associated with being engaged with the outside world - which is a criteria of having a plethora of [Si].

While some of the rest of "ISTPs" on reddit are either too young to have developed [Fe] or they openly declare that they don't care to [Fe] at all, I think the latter is where a lot of the stereotype comes from.

[Fe-inferior] isn't also called aspirational for no reason and isn't supposed to be the source of an "IDGAF" attitude that I see in some ISTPs and in the stereotype. That's more of a bratty [Fi-child] and [Fe-blind / trickster] issue, imo. And that's why ISTPs are naturally inclined and are always happy to be helping others where they can.

3. How it reflects in the behavior

And I really think it shows in the behavior. Most 60yo ISTP redditors should have developed [Fe] long ago and they're either here contributing to the community or are out there in the wild dealing with [Fe] like the equivalent of an [Fe-child] or even maybe the [Fe-parent] of a 30yo.

So if you're aspired to [Fe], despite your [Fe-inferior] then that's because you're an IxTP who's "old" enough to strive to develop their [Fe] inferiorities. If you take a 60yo "ISTP" who doesn't care about [Fe] then that's quite a tell-tale sign, imo, because that "ISTP" should have long developed [Fe] under normal circumstances.

So, whatever it might be that you're performing responsibly well, as a result of hardship, negative life experiences, personal struggles, and because "I must figure out exactly how everything works", then that's definitely one aspect of [Ti-Se].

After all we're not that far off from our INTP cousins. The stereotype that we ISTPs don't like abstract topics is not because we want to meet another heroic [Ti]-user + go [Ni-child] with abstractions playfully - but I think it's the ISTJ's [Ne-inferior] disdain for anything [Ne], including the INTP's [Ne], that contributes to this stereotype. I'm not talking about [Ne-aspirational] of course.

Yes, I do get overwhelmed by [Ne-doms] relatively quickly myself, but as an [Ne-blind] I just can't fathom how such an amount of radiating [Ne] is even humanly possible ^^' and [Ne-parent] should be more responsible with it so I do enjoy INTPs in the wild to a healthy degree 👀 Just saying.

So, what I'm saying here is, that the misconception of [Si] and [Se] has led to ISTJs to be mistyped as ISTPs and a lot of the stereotype stems from those misconceptions.

___

...and if you have trouble identifying as an ISTP, maybe look into the ISTP's "subconscious ENFJ" - teacher and "rule enforcing" ESTJ-unconcious [Te-Si-Ne-Fi]

vs.

ISTJ's "subconscious ENFP" champion and "unconscious ESTP" "promoter" if that helps