Functianalyst

There has been quite a bit of dispute on what Ne vs. Se. I am really not sure where the notions are being raised except people reading convoluted descriptions, where Ne is being defined by using Se or Ni. These are things to consider about both functions.

Similarities:

Se and Ne are both experiential processing functions that require action. They’re wholistic in processing and void of decision making process. Neither can work outside of the present moment or in lieu of the object being focused on. When people claim they’re using this function to consider the future, they should ask what are they connoting as the future. The moment you begin thinking of something outside or in lieu of an immediate object, you have detached and no longer are in the moment thus no longer processing with Se or Ne. In fact the moment you are no longer considering the immediate object, you have stopped extraverting. Ne does not consider the future. It considers possibilities triggered by an object outside of the self, and the present moment. Ni and Si are oblivious to external determinants. They process in the future (Ni) with images and impressions of future occurrences or images and impressions of what is already known from previous experiences. The keywords for Se and Ne are: experiential, currently active and in the present moment.

Ne and Se types both are simultaneous in nature and involve perceptions of many things at once. Jung himself says that Ne types have sensations, but they may not have an interest in repeating these sensations like the Se types, if the Se types actually enjoy the experience. At some point the Ne types may grow bored of the process and abandon it completely.

Q: But Functianalyst, it is understood that Ne infers, weave threads of meaning, implies, etc, and Se doesn’t?

A: Again what are you connoting when making that claim? How do we infer or weaving a thread of meaning or inferring? Consider these two illustrations:

An ESP and ENP type are speaking to another friend on the phone. Afterwards the ENP type voices a concern that something is wrong with their mutual friend. The ENP says they heard something in the conversation that inferred there is trouble. The ESP did not pick up on what was said, therefore did not weave any meaning into the matter. The ESP took the friends statements literally.

Second scenario involving the same ENP, ESP and their friend, however this time the friend is present. After the discussion the ESP deducts that something is wrong. The ENP did not hear the friend say anything that would make them have concerns. The ESP says that is the point, in noting that their mutual friend generally displays a certain behavior. However during the discussion the ESP noticed the friend behaving uncharacteristically. The ESP also mentioned subtle non-verbal cues that rendered him to believe there was something wrong. The ENP did not notice the subtle behavior. Did the ESP just make inferences and weave threads of meaning into the non-verbal cues of their friend?

Differences:

Quite simple, and it has been repeated more than once. Both types consider possibilities, but Ne types consider possibilities, whereas Se type generally take action on these possibilities. There was a dispute recently whether a person prefers Ne or Se. It was quite apparent that she was describing Se, but she believed it was Ne. Ne could care less about completing a project, regardless of it’s importance. Se types will want to complete the project to make an immediate impact and reap the rewards of the finished project, whether it’s a promotion, a raise, a bonus or even a grade. Over the years of interacting with NTPs, I can appreciate their simple enjoyment of obtaining things that relate to their intellect, albeit a post baccalaureate, or anything that they find enjoyable. Someone using Se would never consider putting in the work to achieve such a thing, unless they can apply it. This is where the confusion of Ti-Se types can easily be mistyped as Ni-Te types and vice-versa in the function order and each mistyping as the other. In essence, Ne considers Se does.