# Se users, finding it difficlut to type themselves.



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I am just wondering about whether or not, that those now with Se as their dominant or auxiliary have found it hard to find their type. I know it has taken me some time.


EDIT: Title typo.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

I have also noticed there is a pattern with Se users taking a long time to settle on their type. Perhaps there is a glich in the system? 

I am very interested in hearing what makes it finally "click" for you and you settle on your type?


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

I honestly still don't know, why my type makes sense for me. I guess it is hard for myself to explain. I can see why Se is difficult to see within yourself. Seeing as Se is an external function, you are so involved with what is around you that is hard for you to think internally. 

I can sponge off peoples personality's as well, and copy their mannerisims quickly. I sometimes think that I must be a bunch of people I have met, and I have taken what I want from that person. Which would be strange, if it was true. Whomever I am with for a good amount of time can, somehow effect my function scores. 

I relate to this, so I type myself high Se, and i'm Fi and not Ti.


----------



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

I'm am 75% sure I'm an auxiliary Se user, so yea.
I think for me, it's because I'm constantly taking in information about type, and if I find one that is contradicting, I automatically question if I'm really the type I think I am.
I have trouble seeing the big picture, and focus on details.


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

Se feels and does, it's a function of action, not of thought. It's very simple.


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game (Nov 5, 2010)

I disagree , it is not that simple. every test i take about my personality type comes out as ISTP, yet i connect more to the INTP forums, and i'm more like an INTP, yet my S function comes off pretty strong. i don't get it.


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

ISTP have a introverted thinking dominant.. thus they are very capable of thinking.. Though they do not seek impractical goals in their right mind like INTPs would.


----------



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

Apollo Celestio said:


> Se feels and does, it's a function of action, not of thought. It's very simple.


Well, yes, it is that, but I think it's also how you perceive information so it does involve thought.

While the contradiction thing I mentioned might be a different function, the fact that I'm always looking for more data is Se.

"Extraverted Sensing occurs when we become aware of what is in the physical world in rich detail. We may be drawn to act on what we experience to get an immediate result. We notice relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context or area of focus and what goes on in that context.* An active seeking of more and more input to get the whole picture may occur until all sources of input have been exhausted or something else captures our attention.* Extraverted Sensing is operating when we freely follow exciting physical impulses or instincts as they come up and enjoy the thrill of action in the present moment. A oneness with the physical world and a total absorption may exist as we move, touch, and sense what is around us. The process involves instantly reading cues to see how far we can go in a situation and still get the impact we want or respond to the situation with presence."

Cognitive Processes


----------



## purplevelvetmask (Feb 20, 2010)

Maybe Se detracts from the intuition needed to type yourself quickly and accurately. Ne and Ni users could find that easier... just a thought. Se is concerned with now and doesn't really care much for theories and typing from my understanding. If they can hear it, see it, smell it, taste it, or feel it then it must be real. If they have to think about it too much, then it must not be worth it. :laughing:

It's not that Se users aren't as intelligent but i guess they focus their mental energies on immediate stimuli which in turn takes them a little longer to theorize and hence categorize themselves according to a theory which is the MBTI. The main thing is you realized you are an Se user and I realized I want to develop Se. Any tips?? lol


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

lilllllian said:


> Well, yes, it is that, but I think it's also how you perceive information so it does involve thought.
> 
> While the contradiction thing I mentioned might be a different function, the fact that I'm always looking for more data is Se.
> 
> ...


If it is thought, it is done *very quickly.*


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Well that's why I think the tests and descriptions are not at all geared to help type Se. There needs to be some sort of "hands on" "doing" type of test. Se users have amazing problem solving skills. They could find their type very quickly if the tests were geared towards putting them in the context in which they use their problem solving skills. 

But as they are reading about abstract theories, that is not their preferred way of receiving information. It's like cutting me off from my Ne and asking me to solve a problem.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

firedell said:


> I am just wondering about whether or not, that those now with Se as their dominant or auxiliary have found it hard to find their type. I know it has taken me some time.
> 
> 
> EDIT: Title typo.


Surprisingly you’re the first ESP that I heard claim they struggled to know their type. Generally their sense of realism allows them to read test questions literally. However there are reasons that Se users mistaken themselves initially as intuiting types per *this article*. More surprisingly I don’t think I have actually met an ESFP on this forum. I am curious why you believe you’re that type?


Apollo Celestio said:


> Se feels and does, it's a function of action, not of thought. It's very simple.


Uh.... *cognitive* functions (emphasis on cognitive)? All functions are of thought even feeling functions.


pinkrasputin said:


> I have also noticed there is a pattern with Se users taking a long time to settle on their type. Perhaps there is a glich in the system?
> 
> I am very interested in hearing what makes it finally "click" for you and you settle on your type?


Not sure what you mean by that Pink. I think even per capita, you will find more intuiting types flip flopping their types and remain unsettled. All you have to do is review the "What's My Type" sub forum.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Uh.... *cognitive* functions (emphasis on cognitive)? All functions are of thought even feeling functions.Not sure what you mean by that Pink. I think even per capita, you will find more intuiting types flip flopping their types and remain unsettled. All you have to do is review the "What's My Type" sub forum.


Well I wasn't basing it the trend I saw on the "What's My Type" forum. I was basing it on my personal experiences with other Se users finalizing their type. It makes me curious because I've never really been undecided about my type.

That's why I think there is something lacking in descriptions and tests. 

Is there a reason why you quoted me in particular?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

pinkrasputin said:


> Well I wasn't basing it the trend I saw on the "What's My Type" forum. I was basing it on my personal experiences with other Se users finalizing their type. It makes me curious because I've never really been undecided about my type.
> 
> That's why I think there is something lacking in descriptions and tests.
> 
> Is there a reason why you quoted me in particular?


No just curious as to why you thought Se users took longer periods to settle on their type. It seemed to infer that intuiting types may settle quicker. Based on some information, all types using extraverted perceiving will take a longer time to settle because we're open to new information and will keep our options open before settling on a particular type, whereas those using extraverted judging functions will make a decision and stay with it, in lieu of information that should be considered.


----------



## RyRyMini (Apr 12, 2010)

When I first joined, I didn't know anything about functions and kind of struggled a lot with whether I'm an ISFP or INFP. As I learned about functions, however, it became evident to me that I don't have much use of Ne, so therefore INFP is basically out of the question. 

Se was much more relatable to me, but I'm pretty sure I don't lead with it. So I'm pretty secure with my type now, but I do sometimes have doubts because I don't have a lot of the Se dominant traits like being super coordinated or good with retracing my steps or finding my way and that kind of stuff.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> No just curious as to why you thought Se users took longer periods to settle on their type. It seemed to infer that intuiting types may settle quicker. Based on some information, all types using extraverted perceiving will take a longer time to settle because we're open to new information and will keep our options open before settling on a particular type, whereas those using extraverted judging functions will make a decision and stay with it, in lieu of information that should be considered.


I wonder if it's also based on age? And rightfully so. I may not have tested as a full ENFP when I was in my teens going through my emo phase. I was older when I typed myself and almost in my coffin so there wasn't as much developing left. :tongue:


----------



## purplevelvetmask (Feb 20, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Se users have amazing problem solving skills. They could find their type very quickly if the tests were geared towards putting them in the context in which they use their problem solving skills.


In what ways do Se users have amazing problem solving skills??


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

purplevelvetmask said:


> In what ways do Se users have amazing problem solving skills??


Our sheer awesomeness.


----------



## Black Rabbit (Apr 15, 2010)

Not understanding cognitive functions led me to believe I was an ESTJ for a while. It wasn't until I understood the difference between Se and Si that I felt pretty sure I was mistyped.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

purplevelvetmask said:


> In what ways do Se users have amazing problem solving skills??


Wow. That is truly a loaded question. It's way too vast to list them all. My dad is an ESTP and that's all he does is solve problems. My experience with other Se users is that they were incredible problem solvers. They blow me away, honestly.

Here is just a few examples:
Fixing computer problems.
Implementing a plan to start and maintain my business.
Resolving customer conflict issues.
life issues
life crisis issues
car issues
insurance issues
scheduling conflicts issues
time management issues
Almost any freaking issue

There is always a plan and a solution. And the ones I know are extremely humble about their ability. They act like it's normal. They treat it like they just blew a bubble or something. 

List goes on and on. When I'm overwhelmed, I tend to become a dear stuck in the headlights. Holy crap, their ability to come up with a solution has helped me many times. And usually their solutions are not temporary band aids either. They fix the momentary issue in a way that takes care of future conflicts as well.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

njchick said:


> I would say that ISFP would have the most difficult time finding their type.
> Have you considered that you may be ISFP?


Yes, I have previously typed myself as ISFP, but I don't feel that connection.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> I only trust the first hand descriptions at bestfittype.com since they are based on discussions with confirmed types. Some descriptions are good, but other are laced with stereotypes. I have not based my type on a description in years since I never know where the author is getting their third hand knowledge from. In fact the moment I see a description, describing ISTP as being mechanically oriented, I stop reading. Does this resonate with you:


That is a very good analysis, but can ESFP's not be party people?


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

firedell said:


> That is a very good analysis, but can ESFP's not be party people?


Sure, but so can ENFPs, ENTPs and ESFJs since the interaction style of those types will be "Get Things Going":


> *Get-Things-Going*
> 
> The theme is persuading and involving others. They thrive in facilitator or catalyst roles and aim to inspire others to move to action, facilitating the process. Their focus is on interaction, often with an expressive style. They Get-Things-Going™ with upbeat energy, enthusiasm, or excitement, which can be contagious. Exploring options and possibilities, making preparations, discovering new ideas, and sharing insights are all ways they get people moving along. They want decisions to be participative and enthusiastic, with everyone involved and engaged.


There are some stereotypes such as partying that just seems to defy principles of type. Yes ESPs will want to enjoy themselves with others, but their sense of entertainment seems more earthy which could mean having a bunch of friends over to play cards..... The ESFPs (assuming they were) that I have encountered can be quite business oriented and know how to make the best of anything.

Don't take this the wrong way Firedell, but maybe you should start from scratch. First not wanting to know and find no need for you to say, but your age may have something to do with the fact that you are still developing a type. If you are over 21 then you should be able to determine at least your dominant function. Next, start at basics and determine your temperament order. It would be easy for ENFP and ESFP to confuse themselves. *This assessment* may be of some benefit if you choose to take it. It should give you an indication of the order of how you prefer temperaments. It will not surprise me that you prefer SP-NF or vice-versa as your most two preferred temperaments. If you do choose to assess, distinguish between what you are expected to do per society, work, community, etc.... and how you would be if just left to your own devices.


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

Interesting I got SP and SJ. I had a hard time relating this since I haven't had much experience in the workplace especially at one for any length of time and certainly never had a leadership role. I usually get Improviser/Catalyst for these tests although I did get Theorist too once lol. I got Improviser/Stabilizer on this one so I feel something is off a bit.



firedell said:


> Yes, I have previously typed myself as ISFP, but I don't feel that connection.


I know exactly how you feel. I do feel that connection with ESFP as well.


----------



## Voici Claire (Aug 10, 2010)

i had no problems.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> Sure, but so can ENFPs, ENTPs and ESFJs since the interaction style of those types will be "Get Things Going":There are some stereotypes such as partying that just seems to defy principles of type. Yes ESPs will want to enjoy themselves with others, but their sense of entertainment seems more earthy which could mean having a bunch of friends over to play cards..... The ESFPs (assuming they were) that I have encountered can be quite business oriented and know how to make the best of anything.
> 
> Don't take this the wrong way Firedell, but maybe you should start from scratch. First not wanting to know and find no need for you to say, but your age may have something to do with the fact that you are still developing a type. If you are over 21 then you should be able to determine at least your dominant function. Next, start at basics and determine your temperament order. It would be easy for ENFP and ESFP to confuse themselves. *This assessment* may be of some benefit if you choose to take it. It should give you an indication of the order of how you prefer temperaments. It will not surprise me that you prefer SP-NF or vice-versa as your most two preferred temperaments. If you do choose to assess, distinguish between what you are expected to do per society, work, community, etc.... and how you would be if just left to your own devices.





> The temperament pattern you rated highest:
> 
> Improviser: Want the freedom to choose the next act. Seek to have impact,to get results. Want to be graceful, bold, and impressive.Generally are excited and optimistic. Are absorbed in the actionof the moment. Are oriented toward the present. Seek adventureand stimulation. Hunger for spontaneity. Trust impulses, luck,and their ability to solve any problem they run into. Think in terms of variation. Have the ability to notice and describerich detail, constantly seeking relevant information. Like freedom to move, festivities, and games. Are natural negotiators. Seize opportunities. Are gifted tacticians, deciding the best move to make in the moment, the expedient action to take. Are frequently drawn to all kinds of work that requires variation on a theme.





> The temperament pattern you rated second:
> 
> Catalyst:Want to be authentic, benevolent and empathic. Search for identity, meaning and significance. Are relationship oriented, particularly valuing meaningful relationships. Are romantic and idealistic, wanting to make the world a better place. Look to the future. Trust their intuition, imagination, impressions. Focus on developing potential, fostering and facilitating growth through coaching, teaching, counseling, communicating. Generally are enthusiastic. Think in terms of integration and similarities and look for universals. Are gifted in the use of metaphors to bridge different perspectives. Are diplomatic. Frequently are drawn to work that inspires and develops people and relationships.


I am 20, when does a person begin to see their other functions clearly?


----------



## Neon Knight (Aug 11, 2010)

I am pretty sure my Te is starting to kick in and I'm in my 30s.


----------



## madhatter (May 30, 2010)

My brother-in-law is an ESFP, and he is not a partyer. He hardly even drinks. But he is such an ESFP, my sister and I were cracking up when I was reading the ESFP description from Lenore Thomson's book, because it described him so perfectly.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

rowingineden said:


> That's interesting, since I've only seen the opposite in action. :laughing:





Functianalyst said:


> I think we can just take a tour of the forum to show overwhelmingly the opposite.





rowingineden said:


> We must be observing different trends, here, then.


This is interesting. I'm with rowingineden here, but am primarily fascinated by the fact that both of you point to personal experience of the same forum. I wonder if this could be an N/S difference in how we see things, or maybe even of expressing the same observation...

I understand I am not really putting forward much theory for my conclusion either, but I think it would be interesting if we could actually dissect this disagreement and pinpoint where our views differ. :happy:



rowingineden said:


> I think Se users have a tendency to think of their personality in terms of how they act and what they actually do (less accurate), even if it is not consciously how they are defining themselves, whereas Ne/Si users define themselves by their natural and overarching preferences (more accurate).


I agree here with S tending to think of their behaviour more as specific actions and N more easily seeing patterns. I would put Ni with Ne, though, and Si with Se.



Functianalyst said:


> Uh no... It's the opposite since intuiting types naturally infer and read threads of meaning even with themselves. Se types see themselves and everything as it really is.


And I agree here with the first sentence, that N infer things about themselves too. But in claiming that Se sees everything "as it really is", I think you are biased by your type. I don't think that personality can be understood solely as a string of unrelated events; both S _and_ N are needed to get at full understanding of the world and ourselves.

What do you say?


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> For anyone reading this thread, I do not want it said I have started an argument when responding to Apollo for taking a swipe at types using Se. Care to explain yourself Apollo since functions are merely about cognition and has nothing to do with intellect anymore that feeling has to do with emotions?


I did no such thing. Cease all accusations of the sort. 
Se types are people of action. That's all there is to it..it's the nature of Se. It has nothing to do with intellect. 
Read my words for what they are instead of associating so much.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

firedell said:


> I am 20, when does a person begin to see their other functions clearly?


ExxPs seem to mature later in life, not sure if this translates to functional development but I think it does.
Usually by late 20s to early 30s people use their first three functions. Inferior kicks in somewhere around middle age or later and it is said that it is responsible for phenomenon of mid-life crisis in people, that they suddenly want to express their inferior function. My own auxiliary kicked in at age 11 and tertiary somewhere around early 20s. Right now I'm just past mid-20s and do feel all three working but inferior is still kind of snoozing.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Apollo Celestio said:


> I did no such thing. Cease all accusations of the sort.
> Se types are people of action. That's all there is to it..it's the nature of Se. It has nothing to do with intellect.
> Read my words for what they are instead of associating so much.


Thought I did, so maybe I should get a better understanding of your statement:


Apollo Celestio said:


> It's what "we" perceive of Se types. Not so much nothing happening in the brain.





penchant said:


> And I agree here with the first sentence, that N infer things about themselves too. But in claiming that Se sees everything "as it really is", I think you are biased by your type. I don't think that personality can be understood solely as a string of unrelated events; both S _and_ N are needed to get at full understanding of the world and ourselves.
> 
> What do you say?


Umm ever read a description of Se or ESP? They have no intent on inferring or reading between the lines. As Myers-Briggs describes Se in “Gifts Differing”, “Se sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The primrose by a river’s brim is simply a primrose”. 

The first two bullets in the book says of ESPs, “Are realistic; matter of fact and practical;” The first sentence in describing Se in the book is, “The greatest strength of the Se types is their realsim…” The first sentence in describing Se users, by Jung is, "No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism." So to the contrary if there is any bias as you may see it came from an INTP (Jung) and INFP (Katherine Briggs).


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Umm ever read a description of Se or ESP? They have no intent on inferring or reading between the lines. As Myers-Briggs describes Se in “Gifts Differing”, “Se sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The primrose by a river’s brim is simply a primrose”.
> 
> The first two bullets in the book says of ESPs, “Are realistic; matter of fact and practical;” The first sentence in describing Se in the book is, “The greatest strength of the Se types is their realsim…” The first sentence in describing Se users, by Jung is, "No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism." So to the contrary if there is any bias as you may see it came from an INTP (Jung) and INFP (Katherine Briggs).


I agree perfectly with everything you say about Se and Se-types. I do not question that Se see things photographically.

What I want to point out exactly that, that "concrete reality and nothing more", is a very Se way of understanding the world, and one which I do not agree fully captures the world as it really is. I do not accept the thinking that says that Se views things entirely as they really are, and Ni adds it's personal interpretation. I have not read much Jung, but what I understand is that he clearly connects Ni with an innate understanding of the archetypal patterns of reality. My thinking then is that both the brute facts and the connections are part of the same reality. Hence my point that both N _and_ S are neccessary to understand the world.

From this then follows that Se types might well see all the facts, but fail to make the connections necessary to understand their type, unless they also make enough use of Ni or any other function(s) substituting for Ni.

I fully understand if you do not share this view, but I wanted to make clear more exactly where our disagreement comes from, as I am sure it is not (at least in this case) how we understand the Se function.

Did that make more sense? :happy:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penchant said:


> I agree perfectly with everything you say about Se and Se-types. I do not question that Se see things photographically.
> 
> What I want to point out exactly that, that "concrete reality and nothing more", is a very Se way of understanding the world, and one which I do not agree fully captures the world as it really is. I do not accept the thinking that says that Se views things entirely as they really are, and Ni adds it's personal interpretation. I have not read much Jung, but what I understand is that he clearly connects Ni with an innate understanding of the archetypal patterns of reality. My thinking then is that both the brute facts and the connections are part of the same reality. Hence my point that both N _and_ S are neccessary to understand the world.


Just to make sure we’re understanding each other Penchant, this is your opinion not how you believe the theory works? 

I am always leery when we use the general terms sensing, intuiting thinking and feeling since those are mere functions in neutral and are a bit meaningless until you actually put them to work with an assigned attitude. In that case you’re not just saying N-S but referring to a particular function attitude Ni/Ne-Si/Se. 

You made a pertinent statement in your previous post describing what Ne does which I agree. However it’s easy for us to believe that the opposite of Ne is Si. It is a compensatory opposite because Se needs Ni to compensate and Ne needs Si (and vice-versa). The true opposite of Se is Ne because they both extravert in the same manner, thus as Quenck and Jung says you can’t consider the possibility of something and actually act on it at the same time. As it relates to your description, if Ne implies, infers, reads threads of meaning, then it logically concludes that Se will do the opposite ergo see things for what they are not as inferences. I do wholeheartedly agree that Se does something more than just take in things literally. That was noted in *this thread* where Berens and Nardi says the Se is similar to Ne in that:


> Se and Ne are both simultaneous in nature and involve perception of many things at once. This can lead to random activity as the outer world is scanned for additional information. With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action.


 and Se and Te:


> Se and Te are often used when there is a focus on facts and an empirical approach. Keep in mind that Se is a perceptive process and may consist of data gathering with questions, whereas Te is a judging process in which the purpose of question is to establish logic.


, and Ne and Fe:


> Ne and Fe often focus on people and their interactions. With Ne, it is the meanings and inferences that come to mind relative to people and their interactions. With Fe, it is the actions that keep people connected or disconnected that matter.





penchant said:


> From this then follows that Se types might well see all the facts, but fail to make the connections necessary to understand their type, unless they also make enough use of Ni or any other function(s) substituting for Ni.
> 
> I fully understand if you do not share this view, but I wanted to make clear more exactly where our disagreement comes from, as I am sure it is not (at least in this case) how we understand the Se function.
> 
> Did that make more sense? :happy:


I do appreciate what you’re saying that Se may struggle to make a decision but it has nothing to do with Ni. How could it since Ni is even more irrational a process than Se or Ne and it’s introverted which makes it subjective and incapable of realistically viewing itself. If your theory is to work would it not be a judging type that would make that decision? From everything I understand about type, the reason that Se can make a realistic observation is because they suppress their Ni and seeing things as they are, not as they could be. Sorry for the long post.


----------



## scarygirl (Aug 12, 2010)

I really doubt what my type is, and I'm supposed to be an INFP. So I don't know.
Maybe extroverted perceiving people have it more hard than others to find their type.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

scarygirl said:


> I really doubt what my type is, and I'm supposed to be an INFP. So I don't know.
> Maybe extroverted perceiving people have it more hard than others to find their type.


That's a given since people using extraverted perceiving functions are always open to new information coming in and chaning their minds accordingly, whereas extraverted judging function users will use their decision maker to filter out additional information. The difference is not that IPs and EPs are more wrong, it's that IJ and EJs go wrong with confidence.


----------



## penchant (Sep 20, 2010)

This is very interesting, because our perspectives are apparently so different that we have trouble understanding eachother... I will try to see if I can sort out what I think your point is, and how to better express my point.



Functianalyst said:


> Just to make sure we’re understanding each other Penchant, this is your opinion not how you believe the theory works?


True, I do not see type theory as in any way explicitly describing the nature of reality beyond the workings of the human mind. However, I do think that it is important to consider the Jungian background of the theory. Again, I haven't studied this enough to discuss it really. My point here is that I do not agree with the statement that Se sees the world as it is. As I understand the theory Se perceives sensory data. In my view, sensory data is not all there is to the world, and I think that Jung would say the same, which is why it is still relevant here.



> You made a pertinent statement in your previous post describing what Ne does which I agree. However it’s easy for us to believe that the opposite of Ne is Si. It is a compensatory opposite because Se needs Ni to compensate and Ne needs Si (and vice-versa). The true opposite of Se is Ne because they both extravert in the same manner, thus as Quenck and Jung says you can’t consider the possibility of something and actually act on it at the same time.


Yes, two different uses of the work opposite. Ni/Se and Ne/Si as complementary opposites since they are the most different of the perceiving functions, but Ne/Se and Ni/Si as conflicting opposites as they are not possible to use at the same time.



> As it relates to your description, if Ne implies, infers, reads threads of meaning, then it logically concludes that Se will do the opposite ergo see things for what they are not as inferences.


And I agree with this.



> I do wholeheartedly agree that Se does something more than just take in things literally. That was noted in *this thread* where Berens and Nardi says the Se is similar to Ne in that:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sorry, I do not see your point here. I think you are trying to show that Se does more than perceive sensory data, but I don't follow...



> I do appreciate what you’re saying that Se may struggle to make a decision but it has nothing to do with Ni. How could it since Ni is even more irrational a process than Se or Ne and it’s introverted which makes it subjective and incapable of realistically viewing itself.


No, I am not saying that Se will have trouble making a decision. I am clear that Se is a perceiving function, not a judging function. Nor do I mean that Ni is a judging function, as it too is clearly a perceiving function. The difference is that Ni perceives patterns, while Se perceives sensory data. My point here is that both Se and Ni are perceiving functions, and they both perceive reality equally well, just different parts of it and in different ways.



> If your theory is to work would it not be a judging type that would make that decision?


Yes, it is a judging function that makes the decision, either Fi, Fe, Ti or Te.



> From everything I understand about type, the reason that Se can make a realistic observation is because they suppress their Ni and seeing things as they are, not as they could be.


You almost seem to suggest that Ni is less useful than Se as a perceiving function.

Again, I do think much of this comes from our different perspectives as TiSe vs. NiFe, but I would love to sort out where the real point of disagreement lies, and hopefully learn from that. Sorry for a probably even longer post!


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

penchant said:


> This is very interesting, because our perspectives are apparently so different that we have trouble understanding eachother... I will try to see if I can sort out what I think your point is, and how to better express my point.


Well after reading your response here, I had to go back and look at what led us to this. Rowingineden and I were disagreeing about Ne vs Se. I thought you were agreeing with Row on that aspect. But now you’re alluding to Ni vs Se which is a completely different beast and an apple/orange comparison since the only thing these two types have in common are that they are both perceiving functions. 

The difference of opinion is that I believe Se users will have an easier time determining their type because when they read the questions, they make no inferences, do not read threads of meaning into the questions, thus they simply answer them as written. Most people mistype because they do make inferences and assumptions about the questions. You cannot use Ni to answer questions, because it calls for an activity outside of the self and is the process of taking in information. Only Se and Ne do that. Ni will need Te or Fe to judge how they feel about the information so will process completely different than Ne and Se. Ni and Si gestates information from within not necessarily from something they have experienced. They just know.


penchant said:


> My point here is that I do not agree with the statement that Se sees the world as it is. As I understand the theory Se perceives sensory data. In my view, sensory data is not all there is to the world, and I think that Jung would say the same, which is why it is still relevant here.


Sensory data is exactly what Se notices, but so does Ne, Te and Fe judge sensory data….. Sensory data is anything outside of the self and a focus on the object. Jung:


> But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation…. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision.





penchant said:


> My point here is that both Se and Ni are perceiving functions, and they both perceive reality equally well, just different parts of it and in different ways. You almost seem to suggest that Ni is less useful than Se as a perceiving function.
> 
> Again, I do think much of this comes from our different perspectives as TiSe vs. NiFe, but I would love to sort out where the real point of disagreement lies, and hopefully learn from that. Sorry for a probably even longer post!


No I don’t think Ni is less useful, but the discussion was Ne vs Se and whether Se types struggle to determine their type. As I have already said, I don’t think Se and Ne users struggle any more than Ni and Si types. It has always been understood that types depending on Se and Ne will simply refrain from making a decision, awaiting additional information or they are willing to change their decision once new information is ascertained, causing them to change their decision. 

But I was seeing the discussion of Ne vs Se as a process of reading questions to determine their type. From that aspect Ni would not be considered since we do not use any introverting function to consider the objective or things outside of the Self. If the person struggles to determine their type from within that would result from the inability to decide. And as you know only two introverting functions makes internal decisions. Either one fails to make an internal decision based on not understanding the principles or model enough to judge (lack of Ti), or failing to grasp checkpoints along the way to know if the evaluation is right (lack of Fi). 

I am not sure whether Ni and Si would even work in this process since their perception gestate from within and uses the Te or Fe to decide against external or objective comparisons. Maybe you can share a thought of how Ni and/or Si would be used in determining type, since from my understanding of both cognitive functions, they would not think or feel they were a type, they would know from within.


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Thought I did, so maybe I should get a better understanding of your statement: Umm ever read a description of Se or ESP? They have no intent on inferring or reading between the lines. As Myers-Briggs describes Se in “Gifts Differing”, “Se sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The primrose by a river’s brim is simply a primrose”.
> 
> The first two bullets in the book says of ESPs, “Are realistic; matter of fact and practical;” The first sentence in describing Se in the book is, “The greatest strength of the Se types is their realsim…” The first sentence in describing Se users, by Jung is, "No other human type can equal the extraverted sensation-type in realism." So to the contrary if there is any bias as you may see it came from an INTP (Jung) and INFP (Katherine Briggs).


It's what you see in the Se person. What we perceive are people of action. They have brains and think and stuff, but the expression of Se is decisions and actions.. and it's done very quickly sometimes.


----------



## letsride (Dec 22, 2009)

Revy2Hand said:


> I absorb stuff from other people easily too without even trying it just happens kind of like if I'm talking to someone with an English accent or just someone who is English, I soon find my self kind of talking like them though I'm not doing it on purpose. People just have a way of rubbing off on me and I just absorb it somehow.


I do this too, without intending to.

And like firedell mentioned, I'm like a sponge. My mannerisms can adapt to whoever is in my company at the moment.


----------

