Ne vs Se in different theories

Also, in this case, why is the process of intuition supposed to be an unconscious thing? I mean, is it simply because it's more efficient for the brain to process lots of observed data on an automatic low level?

Here's what Daryl Sharp says if this helps

Intuition may receive information from within (for instance, as a flash of insight of unknown origin), or be stimulated by what is going on in someone else.

The first is a perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject, the second is a perception of data dependent on subliminal perceptions of the object and on the feelings and thoughts they evoke.[Ibid., par. 771.]

What is unclear is whether or not this relates primarily to the personal unconscious or the collective unconscious. Jung seems to dance around both, saying, for instance that Ni (and all introverted functions) relate at least on a small level to the influences of the archetypes. But I guess we can assume that since the archetypes will always take their form in an individual through complexes, that really the specific character of a person's intuition is generally always informed by their own personal unconscious.

Originally Posted by nonnaci

Its the same trouble with all inferior functions. One is not oriented towards it so when it does reach consciousness, it is either triggered by either some strong impulse from the unconscious or from a weakened / stressed dominant function. i.e., the bar for conscious awareness is dynamic but by virtue of one's dominant function orientation and type, its ceiling is by default set high.

Also from looking at my own type, I found that the only way to determine the dominant function is to look at a historic self (from an early age 6-14). The auxiliary(s) may seem to get all the attention like a child playing with a new toy but its just temporal+personal bias.

Jung didn't really mention what the dynamics depends on, or I didn't find it if he said anything on it. The text makes it sound like it can be a really complex flow of functions. (Makes sense...)

Nice idea on looking at childhood, however, things are not always as simple as you'd think... age 6 for me is too late for that; my auxiliary was already getting the same amount of attention. (Well it got even more attention from age 18 but it was already a lot before that too.) Really the only way I know I'm extraverted is that I do get "more" out of interacting with the world than if I don't do that. Yeah I suppose this is also affected by stress on the dominant function due to some life circumstances I've had.

Originally Posted by LiquidLight

Here's what Daryl Sharp says if this helps

The first is a perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject, the second is a perception of data dependent on subliminal perceptions of the object and on the feelings and thoughts they evoke

Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively infrequently noticed, as the person defaults to perceive seemingly concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?

Originally Posted by itsme45

Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively infrequently noticed, as the person defaults to perceive seemingly concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?

Well, Ne is always on, no matter if you consciously know it or not. You may not see the possibilities right away in your conscious mind, but your brain is working through them with Ne(and filtering the useless ones out for the primary function if you are an INXP. If you are an ENXP, however, you are much more in tune with Ne and see all of the possibilities more often because you don't have that Fi or Ti to filter the ideas first). If you pay attention to it, then you will just notice how many possibilities you can come up with. I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.

Originally Posted by itsme45

Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively infrequently noticed, as the person defaults to perceive seemingly concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?

My guess is its probably Ne (or just intuition) but where Sensation dominates. So like if we apply that to MBTI perhaps you have a person whose auxiliary function is Si but their tertiary is Ne. Or even perhaps they are Si dominant and Ne inferior. I suppose at a point we would have to consider the general character of the function. Whether or not the intuitions tended overall to be negative (which would indicate the person was likely a Si-dominant) or more neutral. This is a tough one though because the person themselves may not recognize their own negative intuitions in such a case (or more likely since the function is extraverted) project it on to the outer world rather than recognize it as products of their own thought-processes. Generally speaking if the intuition is reactive it indicates an overall Sensation preference.

oncrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose.

(When he says concrete Jung generally means primarily influenced, by the unconscious, raw and archaic and undeveloped. Abstract basically means developed or under conscious control. But I'm grossly oversimplifying here, just to provide the basic differences between how we use concrete and abstract and how Jung used them).


The thing with me though is that sometimes we take the whole Ne as possibilities thing much, much too far. If you are choosing to operate in the intuitive realm, downplaying the immediate sensory data, you are sort of by default operating from the standpoint of possibility, but intuition may not be the only way to achieve that. For example fantasies also operate in the realm of possibility and may not be related specifically to intuition. The thing I think people have to be careful of with the whole Ne = possibilities thing is that if we take this too far we begin to imply that types that don't have a Ne/Si preference have no sense of possibilities and we know this not to be true.

The psychic function that perceives possibilities inherent in the present. (Compare sensation.)Intuition gives outlook and insight; it revels in the garden of magical possibilities as if they were real.["The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 492.]
In Jung’s model of typology, intuition, like sensation, is an irrational function because its apprehension of the world is based on the perception of given facts. Unlike sensation, however, it perceives via the unconscious and is not dependent on concrete reality.
In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents. . . . Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction.["Definitions" CW 6, par. 770.]

Here Jung isn't talking about Ne specifically but just the nature of intuition in general. I think one of the reasons people get mixed up with Ni is because they think only Ne operates in the realm of possibilities, and while he definitely spends a lot of time talking about Ne and possibilities he also says

Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive.

The only difference is that the possibilities with Ni may not be related to an external object. I think a lot of people miss this when they talk about Intuition only focusing on the word 'possibilities' but not on the nature of those possibilities as being of the inner world or their own inner images, or related specifically to outer objects. You hear a lot of people say "my Ne does x" and they may not actually be referring to something that Ne would really do, they in many cases might be referring to some inner image (or something other than intuition altogether like imagination).

This post is mainly to @itsme45 to explain how I think, since we were talking on another thread and our posts got off purpose, though of course anyone is free to read this and respond. Since I got way behind with posting, this is going to be very long in my attempt to catch up. @itsme45, I was going to answer more of your post comments and questions but I didn't get any sleep last night so it's hard to type and think clearly and I just picked a few to answer, especially when you asked me something specifically.

Originally Posted by itsme45

How does it take away your ability to function in terms of accomplishing things? :O [Referring to my comment that I seem to use both Fi and Ti, which makes me less effective in the real world.

Btw, how can you keep a balance between Fi and Ti? They are oriented soooo differently. They totally exclude each other for me. Most of the time Ti wins effortlessly. Even when in a situation Fi would be more useful.

Since I came to the tentative conclusion that I thought I might be using Ti and Fi more than Te and Fe, I've read both at PerC and other places that in the real world, the function order sometimes manifests differently than the typical function stacking. If I am truly using Ti and Fi, I start with the function that's easiest, which could be either, such as by taking my emotions out of the equation and looking at the situation as objectively as possible and working out, say, cause and effect if it goes this direction or that direction, playing with logical possibilities, working out that if followed through according to plan, this would be the likely result. Then as a double check, I use the other function, such as seeing if what I came up with aligns with my values. It seem to me if either is left out, the picture is only partial and the result has more chance of either failing or hurting someone. If Fi and Ti are conflicting, I usually try to go with Ti, but not 100 percent.

To me the Ti and Fi functions are confusing in sorting out which are being used, and since I don't always know which I'm using, it's difficult to figure out if I'm more T or F. I seem to act like I'd think an F would, being passionate, making connections with living things, being silly and carefree and very appreciative of beauty (maybe none of that is F? but it seems like like/dislike type of decisions as to where to put energy), then I back off and take myself out of the equation, try to see the logic of the situation, and make my decision based on that. I go back and forth, and both are me.

I said using Fi and Ti more than Fe and Te affected my ability to take my ideas outwardly because I gather information (Ne or Se, not sure which) and work it out in my mind more than in real life. I'd probably do best in some field where I can observe and report, as I talked about on another thread, or subjects like philosophy or psychology.

A few days ago I took one of the function tests floating around the forum. This is what I came up with:

introverted Thinking (Ti) ****************************************** (42.7) excellent use
extraverted Sensing (Se) *************************************** (39.7) excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************** (38.7) excellent use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************** (38.7) excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************** (29.1) average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************** (20) limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ******************* (19.9) limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ********** (10.8) unused

Of course there are no completely accurate function tests since none can ask enough questions that would cover all function characteristics of everyone who takes the test. Also, I'm not an introvert. :)

Originally Posted by itsme45

Well I can see how Sensing opposes Intuition. I easily get stuck on the sensory appearance of objects and so I don't think of associating out of the box defined by the senses. I can associate between abstract concepts, that is, do brainstorming better on an abstract level, because there are no sensory details for them in my mind.

If I got a job where I had to brainstorm ideas, I'd likely be fired within the first hour. :D I'm open minded and can easily accept an out-of-the-box, other-than-sensing idea as a possibility for having a reality beyond the senses, but seeing possibilities beyond what I've read or heard about isn't my strong point. And though I believe in many spiritual ideas, such as NDEs and Zen enlightenment, the physical always pulls at me so I struggle between the two for dominance/importance, though intellectually the former is most important. An ISxJ relative believes in the same type of things, so beliefs beyond the physical aren't just for N's. And that's where it gets confusing for me. Books almost always clearly delineate S/N by S's trusting in sensing and N's trusting in just about anything, lol. I found out early in life that there is more beyond the physical. As I said somewhere else, the fact that I'm alternative has always pushed me into believing I'm N, but that doesn't make total sense because, for example, ISFP's in the art or movie world tend to be exposed to alternative ideas and will come to have some trust them, and in fact are somewhat known for being alternative in lifestyle and thinking. I don't understand why the line seems to be written so strongly between S's and N's, especially since it stops me from being able to easily find my dominant. I wasn't connection or possibility oriented when I was a child, but maybe my weird upbringing put a stop to it before it was formed. Or maybe that type of thing can't be stopped and I was born Se and exposed to and took on an Ni view of the world for my survival. I might need to have a typing expert talk with me to sort out what's going on, though that would still only be someone's opinion.

Originally Posted by itsme45

I definitely hold the highest trust in the observable. You don't? Then what do you trust the most?

It's not work, I'm still a student. :) I already posted in some thread of yours, heh.

I'll comment on the second one first. I was using "work" in terms of what you're working on, not a job. Though I did first type job and had to change it. :)

In terms of trusting the most, it would be the physical. Don't most people, even if they have beliefs beyond? Though a lot of people, including S's, N's and me, believe in life after death, for most people there's likely a tiny bit of doubt, I would think. Like they're almost positive it's there but they'd really like to have it verified beforehand, lol. I've had a lot of psychic experiences and strong "knowing" ahead of time (which I've ignored to my detriment) and when they're verified, they're pretty close to as real to me as the physical. If they aren't verified, I toss them or leave them as unknowns. When I'm with N's, I tend to hold back more in that I'm open to most ideas but am not a true believer until the ideas have been proved. When I'm around S's, they roll their eyes at some things I bring up. I don't feel part of either group, am sort of an outsider but interested observer. I feel most connected with open-minded physically-oriented people.

BTW, you asked me if I could recall something that you said and I identified with, and I just spent some time looking but couldn't find it. Too many posts since then. :)

Originally Posted by itsme45

Could be inferior Ni too...? OK, it's not as simple as that for sure. Ni for me would have to be inferior and I don't believe in any odd weird things. I don't take any of that seriously.

Ha, interesting. I don't find anything mystical/amazing about sensory experiences. They just are as they are. I don't want to attach any meaning to them, that would just upset me. That is, for me the abstract and the concrete are very clearly delineated. Something is either tangible and concrete or intangible and abstract. If they were to be mixed up, I'd get annoyed. The only exception is if it is about feelings. I don't mind attaching meaning to feely stuff, I actually like doing so, but even that's hard to do by default, because I'm just this terribly skeptical person.

I had to get into odd things and lose my skepticism to survive. It wasn't a choice of believing or not believing, the whole issue hit me like a ton of bricks and it wasn't anything I could ignore but had to deal with it, so now I'm either a more typical N or an odd S in that regard. I've known more than one person who thought it was a bunch of hogwash, then researched alternative subjects when nothing else worked. One of them, after he accidentally discovered spiritual/psychic aspects of life that he wasn't looking for, took early retirement in order to learn more and sort out what was happening to him. It might be more difficult for S-types to have an open mind about things that can't be sensed, but I'm beginning to think the belief by itself isn't definitive proof of N rather than S.

When my ex-boyfriend, a clear, archetypal ESTP, was going to die, to him everything became mystical because it suddenly took on great specialness, most of all nature. It was out of character for him, but not an impossibility for S or any type, especially in the unusual situation. And yes, he did die soon after, though long after we were SO's. I used to hike without being in that state, though I oohed and aahed over views, but now both I and my INTJ husband hike as if nature is mystical and special (though he's an athiest), and slowly fell into it because of our life experiences.

Originally Posted by itsme45

Mhm. You come off as F a lot of the time. Just to confuse you further. Hahaha. But it does seem to be Fi rather than any kind of Fe.

And then a load of N but dunno... here's the thing, are the S things the ones you take seriously, or are they more like amusement?

I did a post a while back that said unlike many people on other forums I visit, I treat people better on forums than I do in real life, which I know is kind of odd. It's not that I'm mean to people in real life very often, lol, I'm just more thoughtful or maybe caring on forums, likely because I have more in common with posters. As for Fi, I might be. My favorite is Ti, my least favorite Fe, if that makes any difference. Confusing, like all my typing experiences. As to N...maybe. I don't know and might never know if I got pushed into using Ni early in life and now can't sort N out from S since they both have some level of comfort, or if I'm a somewhat odd Ne because of life experiences.

I don't know what you mean by take seriously or more like amusement, or maybe that's an indication of my internal confusion. Both are important to me and I couldn't get rid of either and still be myself. Here's an especially confusing answer: If there is life after death, I picture doing mostly physical things for the greatest happiness. ha ha! I guess amusement is too weak a word for how I feel about the physical. It's not that I don't believe in things beyond, but the physical is where most of my attention goes on a daily basis, not out of need but out of pleasure. The "N" side of me shows up less often, more in terms of some underlying spiritual beliefs and working out off and on what are the possible significances underneath behaviors.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but my INTJ husband can frustrate me when he jumps to conclusions that I prove over and over have no basis in reality. I'm always, can't he use his Te for judgment on these things? So I take on the role of logician and pushing him to be more exact and specific so we can prove or disprove things. I want the exact word, exactly what someone said, or how do I know how to sort things out? Is that maybe T instead? And when I look at and can easily see people's underlying motivations, I'm listening to words and watching body language and putting together other things they've said. So that looking beyond seems more S, or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Well, quite a bit more than I expected to write, but I was way behind in responding to your posts. And obviously, I'm still confused. ;)

Edit: That's a good question you asked this morning at 5:58, @itsme45.

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

Well, Ne is always on, no matter if you consciously know it or not. You may not see the possibilities right away in your conscious mind, but your brain is working through them with Ne(and filtering the useless ones out for the primary function if you are an INXP. If you are an ENXP, however, you are much more in tune with Ne and see all of the possibilities more often because you don't have that Fi or Ti to filter the ideas first). If you pay attention to it, then you will just notice how many possibilities you can come up with. I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.

Hehe, I still ask "why?" all the time. But I attribute that to Ti, because I usually just want to know how something works; this means how things fit together, the underlying principles, and then if I can also see the whole thing inside a much larger framework, I'm most satisfied then. While looking for that, I'll also ask "what about this way or that way?". However, you can still take things at face value in this process and also for the goal of understanding... simply need to determine which possibility is the correct one. I'm definitely irritated if there are too many possibilities without having a chance to sort them out.

So anyway, just because one asks such questions, it doesn't mean Ne... does it? -.-

Originally Posted by itsme45

Hehe, I still ask "why?" all the time. But I attribute that to Ti, because I usually just want to know how something works; this means how things fit together, the underlying principles, and then if I can also see the whole thing inside a much larger framework, I'm most satisfied then. While looking for that, I'll also ask "what about this way or that way?". However, you can still take things at face value in this process and also for the goal of understanding... simply need to determine which possibility is the correct one. I'm definitely irritated if there are too many possibilities without having a chance to sort them out.

So anyway, just because one asks such questions, it doesn't mean Ne... does it? -.-

Eh, not trying to insult anyone.... Sorry. *crawls back into hole* And who said I ever stopped? Well, Ne sees the possibilities and usually takes the open window instead of the open door, to put it simply.

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

Eh, not trying to insult anyone.... Sorry. *crawls back into hole* And who said I ever stopped? Well, Ne sees the possibilities and usually takes the open window instead of the open door, to put it simply.

I ask "why" and say "what about this way or that way" as well.
So, this is either a natural human thing or I am mistyped.
In my point of view, I didn't see your original post as insulting (laughs) you don't need to crawl into a hole.

Originally Posted by paper lilies

I ask "why" and say "what about this way or that way" as well.
So, this is either a natural human thing or I am mistyped.
In my point of view, I didn't see your original post as insulting (laughs) you don't need to crawl into a hole.

*still inside of hole* Eh, I might be wrong. Se might be more "Hey, lets do this right now!" and "This possibility works for the current situation!"(probably not as cheesy as those, however) and Ne might be, "hey, this might work for the future, lets see how this choice works in the long term, and what could happen at each step." That might be a better description. I know what you are going to say, "But that second part sounds like me too!" and, yeah, it's in human nature to think about that. The difference is that you are actually saying, "These things could happen" instead of wondering, "What will happen?"