u/HeronWestern5756

I’ve been thinking about this for a while: what are the actual differences between Si as a function and masculine Se? From my understanding, Si functions almost like a personal or subjective memory box. It seems heavily tied to past experiences and to an individual’s internal impressions of those experiences. Se, on the other hand, is generally described as being focused on the present moment and on concrete, factual details in the external world.

What confuses me is that masculine Se also seems to retain sensory details quite strongly, allowing the individual to recall those details later. If that’s the case, the distinction between Si and masculine Se can start to feel somewhat blurry, at least when it comes to memory. Dave and Shan also seem to have some difficulty clearly explaining Si, which might partly be because neither of them has Si in their function stack. So what exactly separates Si’s relationship with memory and past experience from the strong factual recall associated with masculine Se?

In the same vein, I’m also pretty confused about where exactly the line is drawn between Ne and feminine Ni. What is the meaningful difference between the two? In my experience, feminine Ni can sometimes look remarkably similar to Ne because it isn’t particularly pushy or rigid about its conclusions.

Is the distinction that Ni is still narrowing things down into singular conclusions, predictions, or projections, but feminine Ni simply doesn’t feel the need to stand firmly behind those conclusions? In other words, it might arrive at an Ni-style conclusion while remaining relatively flexible or “wishy-washy” about it. But if that’s the case, how would feminine Ni actually differ from something like masculine Ne? Masculine Ne could presumably be much more forceful and confident about its possibilities and interpretations despite still fundamentally operating through Ne.

I’ve been watching a lot of Dave and Shan’s videos, and one thing I’m having trouble reconciling is the way they describe Blast. For example, in one of their videos they said that Savior Blast people tend to have a strong need to be heard and listened to.

Obviously, everyone wants to feel heard and acknowledged to some degree, but Blast is also associated with things like organization, structuring thoughts clearly—almost like speaking in chapters—and being quick to get started or put information out there. Those aspects don’t resonate with me nearly as much. I’m actually pretty bad at organizing my thoughts, structuring what I want to say, and simply jumping in and getting started.

At the same time, once I do start explaining something, I have an extremely strong desire to be heard and taken seriously. This happens especially with family members and close friends when I’m talking about something I know a lot about, have spent considerably more time thinking about than they have, or have personally struggled with and overcome. In those situations, I often feel like I genuinely have something valuable to offer that could help them.

What really frustrates me is when I feel like they aren’t fully listening, aren’t understanding what I’m trying to communicate, or disagree before I feel they’ve properly understood my point. I can get disproportionately irritated because, in my mind, their resistance means I’m now going to have to expend an enormous amount of additional effort just to get them to understand something that already feels very clear to me.

So that’s where my confusion about Blast comes in: I relate strongly to the need to be heard, understood, and even followed when I believe I know what I’m talking about, but I don’t relate nearly as strongly to the organizational, structured, or “just get started” aspects that are also associated with Blast.(if ur wondering why this paragraph is structured or are about to say oh I dont see how ur bad at organizing ur thoughts, I used ai for this

I am writing this post to express my contempt for the way many people operate. People often claim to stand for certain principles, yet they consistently make exceptions for their own actions and beliefs. They rationalize their inconsistencies, remain blind to their own biases, and somehow get away with it. In fact, this kind of selective self-awareness often seems to be one of the easiest ways to function—and even succeed—in society.

I have a decent number of friends, and I regularly notice how they rationalize their own contradictions. For example, one of my friends claims to hate it when people abuse their power over those who are weaker or less capable than they are. At the same time, he becomes extremely smug whenever he “outsmarts” someone. He mocks their intelligence, calls them stupid or “retarded,” and tries to humiliate them.
He clearly knows that he has more energy and far more experience being verbally aggressive, quick, and cutting than the people he targets. Nevertheless, he has no problem exploiting that advantage. Whenever I call him out, I use the following analogy: if we got into a physical fight and I beat him because I was stronger or more experienced, he would probably consider that bullying. Yet when he uses his greater verbal ability to dominate, shame, and belittle someone else, he does not view his behavior as an abuse of power. I find that distinction completely absurd.

Another friend once claimed that becoming upset over minor things people do is “women’s behavior.” What makes this especially hypocritical is that he is the least physically active person in the group, complains the most about minor inconveniences, gravitates toward memes about relatable personal experiences , behaves in an extremely passive-aggressive manner, avoids direct confrontation, and relies heavily on group approval.
To be clear, I am not endorsing his stereotypes about supposedly masculine and feminine behavior. I am pointing out that he fails to meet even the standards created by his own stereotypical worldview. He criticizes traits in other people while remaining unable—or unwilling—to recognize the same traits in himself.
What frustrates me most is that, unlike my friends, I do not possess the same kind of delusional confidence in my own worldview. I question myself, examine my assumptions, and wonder whether I might be wrong. Consequently, whenever I argue with them, it feels as though I am arguing against people whose absolute certainty gives them an advantage, even when that certainty is built on hypocrisy, inconsistency, and a complete lack of introspection.

I know that I have my own share of hypocritical tendencies, but I at least make a conscious effort to recognize and correct them. In my view, the morality these people display is a kind of pseudo-morality: their principles apply only when convenient, and their value judgments shift according to their own interests. When morality becomes this selective, fleeting, and ultimately meaningless, it is no surprise that society becomes as morally decrepit as it is today.