Ne vs Se in different theories

Originally Posted by LiquidLight

My guess is its probably Ne (or just intuition) but where Sensation dominates. (...)

Let me mention, the person I was asking about is of course myself. I'll go into more detail now so you can analyse it better if you want to. :D



So, hm... Ah, so it could also be Se/Ni where Se dominates over Ni? Well hm...

These possibilities I talked about are usually like this: I'm in some situation somewhere or just looking around without a specific situation and then it suddenly comes to me that this or that thing has a lot of potential and it could be realized if I work towards that. When I have such a thought, it often takes a real hold of me, I can follow it relentlessly.

Well, I follow it as long as I see an achievable potential in it. I try to evaluate realistically and I like to think I am good at that evaluation. (Well OK a bit on the skeptical side so that I don't get carried away.) I also compare my own motivation level to this evaluation. If it all matches up, then it's really great and I go after the thing.

After a while, if it got realized "enough", or it's just no longer a potential for some reason, I will -without me even noticing- turn my attention to something else... And this is kind of like how Jung described Ne.

And all this is definitely a lot more interesting to me than just paying attention to direct sensory stimuli. -.- These potentials are always something new, not ordinary blehbleh things. Sooo, I like them.

Note I would like to know how it can still be S dominance over N, if face-value sensory stimuli does not appear that interesting or stimulating to me, only those possibilities that I can try and realize. Note, I do like to have the fruit of the idea... so I'm materialistic in that sense. :P

Anyway, this is definitely positive possibilities. Never neutral. (I guess neutral ones would be pretty boring anyway... so maybe I just brush them off quickly?) I don't usually worry about negative possibilities, I easily brush them off as irrealistic (unlikely to happen, etc.). I have to get VERY stressed before I would ever really worry about anything like that.

The limitation to my possibility sensing is that these things do not come to me that often. I don't even think my brain would be capable of handling that many at once. I'd be just disinterested in such brainstorming anyway, because I want to *follow* the possibilities, not just play around with them. By "following" I mean actually acting on them. So no, I'm not in my head much wondering about them... so it's also probably not introverted intuition, but maybe I got all this wrong and it's introverted intuition helping a dominant Se? :) Could be Ni, because when I see something is possible like that, I also place myself into the future far ahead.

Dunno if it is reactive, concrete, abstract or whatever. I understand your explanation of those, but not sure if I'd apply this right. I don't think I have it under conscious control, though. I can't predict anything about me noticing some potential, it just comes and that's it. -.-

Ok so I said my possibility sensing is limited. My default is just this expectant attitude to anything around me out in the world. I like exploring! I won't think of whatever possibilities here and there most of the time. Instead when I look at a tangible object, I just see the object, nothing more. No subjective memories either, it's just there here and now. So that sounds Se to me. (The Si function concept is just plain weird to me, bleh. Alien to me.)

Yet somewhere in the background, I think this is only subconscious most of the time (so um, would have to be repressed intuition, not dominant, right...?), I have the expectant attitude that things can't just be simply as is. I can get a bit absent minded due to that: I'm very practical if I focus on the task in front of me, but sometimes I have to make sure that this attitude doesn't interfere with the task. It would interfere because it would be more interesting that way, haha. But if the task needs to be done then I better focus on just getting it done, right? In many tasks I guess I have no problem making sure of this automatically and I very much enjoy just doing the whatever task without wondering about meaning or potential, but in new ones I'm a bit too open minded with that certain expectant attitude. (Yet I don't really try to conjure up possibilities, it's just an open minded attitude.) In a sense I do often downplay the immediate sensory data, then.

And nah I don't have fantasies. Well I can make up stories and I love doing that but I don't daydream otherwise, at all. That'd be just pointless. OK, I also don't view those stories as "possibilities". They are just to entertain me. Cool stuff! =) I don't think it is intuition. Though the way I can make the stories work really well, is kind of intuitive, because I never know how the hell I managed to put it together so well. :) I mean, I rely on quite some hunches when working the stories out.

I don't have any Ni-like images either. Well, when I was very heavily stressed out once, I had some thoughts enveloped inside such symbolic images, but it was kind of unnatural to me as I usually have nothing like that going on. After I figured out what the symbolic stuff meant it did make sense though.

Eh, hope my description about the possibility stuff makes sense? All this is why I started wondering about the Ne/Se thing. -.-

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.

Hey um, you didn't insult anyone. :) you don't need to apologize for anything :)

Open window, haha, I like how you put that. Good analogy. Maybe even enlightening. Humm...

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

*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?"

Get out of that hole please! :)

Well with Ne, isn't it ever bothered by the possibility (yay) that the idea may not work out? Does it just want the novel-ness without regard to whether it can even work at all, without considering the likelihood of it working out? If so, what happens when the Ne user sees that it actually didn't work out? Feel disappointment or just laugh and try another choice just to see? -.- Or I suppose Ti or Fi would sort the evaluation automatically and so a Ne user is not totally irrational this way (even though Ne itself may be?) and just tries those that do have a good chance of working out to actually make something novel out of it?

Originally Posted by itsme45

Get out of that hole please! :)

Well with Ne, isn't it ever bothered by the possibility (yay) that the idea may not work out? Does it just want the novel-ness without regard to whether it can even work at all, without considering the likelihood of it working out? If so, what happens when the Ne user sees that it actually didn't work out? Feel disappointment or just laugh and try another choice just to see? -.- Or I suppose Ti or Fi would sort the evaluation automatically and so a Ne user is not totally irrational this way (even though Ne itself may be?) and just tries those that do have a good chance of working out to actually make something novel out of it?

Ne is very irrational. It sees all of the possibilities and does not decide among any of them which are realistic and which are not. Thing is, if the Ne is developed well enough, the possibilities are very accurate. If the Ne user is incorrect, they may or may not get stuck on it, depending on the person. ENxP's are more likely to suffer this than INxP's in my opinion because the INxP's see the rationality first, and then the ideas come, whereas the ENxP's see the ideas first, and then afterwards decide what was a good idea or not. Please, don't quote me on this, this is just my interpretation.

Originally Posted by Sarah

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.

(...)

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

Hey thanks for your response. :D

I was right, your T/F is nicely balanced then... =) Though I don't see anything in that description that can't be Fi/Te instead of Ti/Fi. :P

Woo, those test results... :) Though, one thing, If you then say that you can't brainstorm well, how did you score so high on Ne? That test conceptualizes Ne with that random brainstorming requirement. You see, I score low Ne on that test due to that.

Overall you do sound a lot more N than I do... I don't believe in anything like the stuff you brought up. Well, I do like some spirituality stuff but I don't seriously *believe* in any concrete form of it - by this I mean any religion or any ideas put into concrete words. (I suppose Zen stuff tries to avoid that and I thus like that in it.) It's more like something I feel the need for, at times.

OTOH I sound less S than you because of the disinterest of many S things that I talked about (you get more stimulation out of them). :P

The line is so strong between N/S (and T/F) because it's a conceptual definition. In practice I suppose it can blur because of the complexity. :D

I sure hope though that it is not dominant N for you that got stopped in developing... :) I still have the ESFP or ESxP impression for you right now though that load of psychic experiences stuff is interesting along with you seeming to take it pretty seriously. I don't know if that's something that must be strong differentiated N (and specifically Ni?) according to theory. Have you read the reply from LiquidLight to me about differentiated vs only basic N functions? You can try to determine it based on that.

By taking it seriously vs as an amusement, I meant, which is the one that you rely on more. Obviously both can be important. Though, I guess based on your answer you rely more on the physical by default plus the underlying meaning thingie is more Ni, thus you are Se/Ni, and as you are an extravert etc., it would have to be Se > Ni. Well just my guess. -.- I do realize that you need to answer this for yourself based on your own understanding before you will be content with the answer. (And then maybe I do see some Ti there lol so I'll stick to ESxP for you for now.)

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

Ne is very irrational. It sees all of the possibilities and does not decide among any of them which are realistic and which are not. Thing is, if the Ne is developed well enough, the possibilities are very accurate. If the Ne user is incorrect, they may or may not get stuck on it, depending on the person. ENxP's are more likely to suffer this than INxP's in my opinion because the INxP's see the rationality first, and then the ideas come, whereas the ENxP's see the ideas first, and then afterwards decide what was a good idea or not. Please, don't quote me on this, this is just my interpretation.

Thanks. :) Now just need to understand why Jung never talked about how Ne has a lot of these possibilities seen at once or almost at once... Jung described it more, kind of, linear. One idea, follow it, drop it somewhere (follow through or leave fruit to others), another idea, and so on. Now maybe that's not important but I would like to understand why. The Ne brainstorming as it's usually defined in newer theories is not as linear as this, or is it? Perhaps it's just that the Ne user is selective after all, dropping most ideas at once, and only show a few to the world...

Originally Posted by itsme45

Thanks. :) Now just need to understand why Jung never talked about how Ne has a lot of these possibilities seen at once or almost at once... Jung described it more, kind of, linear. One idea, follow it, drop it somewhere (follow through or leave fruit to others), another idea, and so on. Now maybe that's not important but I would like to understand why. The Ne brainstorming as it's usually defined in newer theories is not as linear as this, or is it? Perhaps it's just that the Ne user is selective after all, dropping most ideas at once, and only show a few to the world...

We do only show a few ideas to the world. However, it can be linear in some cases. Meaning, A whole bunch of ideas for one thing, choose one. Next. repeat. That sort of linear. Not quite as you'd expect though.

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

We do only show a few ideas to the world. However, it can be linear in some cases. Meaning, A whole bunch of ideas for one thing, choose one. Next. repeat. That sort of linear. Not quite as you'd expect though.

Out of curiosity - is this a verbal process (for you anyway)? Or visual? Or neither/both?

Originally Posted by itsme45

Out of curiosity - is this a verbal process (for you anyway)? Or visual? Or neither/both?

Which process? The showing of ideas, or the generation of them?

Originally Posted by Solar Storm

Which process? The showing of ideas, or the generation of them?

The generation of them :)