# Se/Ni vs Ne/Si



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

I was just explaining this in another thread and it made me have a realization of sorts. 

First we all interpret the world through sensing first. We inescapably first perceive through our senses.

The introverted function is the judging function (it's internal) and the extraverted function is the function where we interact with the environment (extraverted- external).

So with Se/Ni you take in the world via your senses (Se) and then when interpreting it you seek patterns RULES about it (Ni).

With Si/Ne you take in the world via your senses and make judgments based on that (Si) and then when you interact with the world you extend you're judgments about the world out onto it and therefore see a vast array of possibilities (Ne).

An example would be Alice in wonderland- clearly Si/Ne at work.

An example of Se/Ni would be ESXPs typical interest in philosophy.

I hope this explanation makes sense and was easy to understand.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

scorpion said:


> I was just explaining this in another thread and it made me have a realization of sorts.
> 
> First we all interpret the world through sensing first. We inescapably first perceive through our senses.
> 
> ...


 Err, in the case of Extroverted perception leads: 

Ne/Se takes in information in (hence why they're the *Extroverted Perception* functions) , and the internal judging functions are what make judgments based on the information (Ti, Fi), while the extroverted judging functions make judgements on the information based on its relevance to the outside/external-contextual world, Si/Ni as inferior just organizes the information based off of relative importance to prior knowledge or system, or contextual connections made.

In addition, Ne/Si is just as likely, if not more likely, to exhibit interest in philosophy as a Se/Ni user is (in that functional order, mind you).


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

@scorpion: Not exactly. Se dominants focus on the sensory details of what is there, and consequently, suppress leaping off into making macroscopic abstract visions, as the big picture takes away from the details. Ne dominants perceive objects, but then, make abstract associations between other objects, or ideas (mental objects). Therefore, they suppress creating a deep, sensory impression of anything, as they are most comfortable creating webs of interrelations between a number of things. What you're describing as Se-Ni, is actually Pe-Ji, and what you describe as Ne-Si is a combination of Pe-Ji-Je and a partial description of Ne.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

@_Jabberbroccoli_*: First of all, before I answer I'd just like to say 1 I haven't slept in ages plus the meds i'm on make me tired so my responses are not going to be perfect and 2 it was pretty rude of you not to even acknowledge my efforts of typing you with a thanks or something. Idk maybe it's not a big deal but for some reason that just got under my skin.
Now onto the explanation . . .*
Ne/Se takes in information in (hence why they're the *Extroverted Perception* functions) ,
*I ask you what Dark Romantic asked me, where does that come from? Your senses is the answer. You receive stimuli first via the SENSES and then judge it second but Se aka SPs are usually interested with interacting and or observing before they come to a pattern while Ne or NPs think of all kinds of bizarre patterns but they are patterns based on the rules of their Si because you Sense first and then Intuit second even if that's not your order of functions that's how the brain functions it recieves and perceives before it judges with conscious though. That's why Ne's see so many possibilities on the world and what not. They're similar so it's hard to explain but hopefully you get me.
*
and the internal judging functions are what make judgments based on the information (Ti, Fi), while the extroverted judging functions make judgements on the information based on its relevance to the outside/external-contextual world, Si/Ni as inferior just organizes the information based off of relative importance to prior knowledge or system, or contextual connections made.

*T/F are the most complete form of thought and I guess you could call them judging, although sometime they wonder too. . .
S and N aren't inferior at all they describe how a thought is formed. sensing is first, in which you either externally interact/observe (percieve) or where you either internally judge.*

In addition, Ne/Si is just as likely, if not more likely, to exhibit interest in philosophy as a Se/Ni user is (in that functional order, mind you)
*Every type is interested in philosophy as far as I'm concerned it was just hard to think of an example.*


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

@_Dark Romantic_: "Not exactly. Se dominants focus on the sensory details of what is there, and consequently, suppress leaping off into making macroscopic abstract visions, as the big picture takes away from the details."
*You know this from personal experience do you? Well as an ESFP I can tell you that explanation is full of shit. I think about the big picture too and for what it's worth I've got a superb imagination. * 
"Ne dominants perceive objects, but then, make abstract associations between other objects, or ideas (mental objects). Therefore, they suppress creating a deep, sensory impression of anything, as they are most comfortable creating webs of interrelations between a number of things. What you're describing as Se-Ni, is actually Pe-Ji, and what you describe as Ne-Si is a combination of Pe-Ji-Je and a partial description of Ne."
*You should really work on writing with out jargon so the average person can understand you.*


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Okay @_scorpion_ , I think I've noticed the flaw in your understanding. 


> *T/F are the most complete form of thought and I guess you could call them judging, although sometime they wonder too. . .
> S and N aren't inferior at all they describe how a thought is formed. sensing is first, in which you either externally interact/observe (percieve) or where you either internally judge.*


T / F are based upon an interplay between Te/Fi and Fe/Ti. In a given type, one of these sets are present, and one of the functions is more prominent in functional order than the other. 

Now, you also express a lack of knowledge of the "jargon" of Jungian terms. Let me enlighten you, by mentioning that Ti, Fi, Te, and Fe are all called *Judging functions *, that's what they're called. 

Se, Ne, Ni, and Si are all *​Perceiving functions. 
*
The second letter in a function is known as the *attitude*, if I'm not mistaken. The attitude denotes the orientation of the functions (pointed in towards the person, or outwards towards the surrounding environment).

In an INFP, the functional preference is Fi-Ne-Si-Te. This means the dominant function is introverted feeling, creating internal conflict over the morality and internal value of information provided by Ne (the extroverted perception function). This is all is sorted by Si, and lastly evaluated for external application and value by Te. 

Si does not do the information gathering, Ne does. Si has an *introverted attitude *, meaning that what it goes about perceiving (as an *introverted perception*​ function), is internal. What this means is that Si perceives information already gathered, and then orders it as fit. 

What actually does the information gathering in a Ne/Si user, is the *extroverted perception *function, which is Ne. Ne is what actually makes use of the senses, *not *Si. The only relation Si has to "sensor"ship is that the internal map is forms it forms is literal and concrete. 


Ne/Se = Senses and information gathering
Ti/Fi = Judgement based off of internal values/knowledge
Te/Fe = Judgement based off external application/effect (to the situation and subjective emotional effect)
Ni/Si = Perception of information already gathered, and further processing and mapping of it.

In a Ni-Fe-Ti-Se user, you'd be correct in saying that the Se does the sensory operation. Ever heard of INFJs saying they were so in tune with their surroundings all the time (unless they're a druggy)? No, that's because the dominant function is focused on perceiving what has been taken in already. I had an INFJ describe to me the sporadic bursts of awareness she had as those being amidst a quagmire of internal poeticism and relative comfort of information (or however one can otherwise manage to describe the presence of a dominant Ni). 

As an ENTP, Ne-Ti-Fe-Si user, I have Ne as my extroverted perception function, not Si. Note above information and you should get a better working idea of how it all plays together.

I called sensing *inferior *in an ENTP, because it is. In an ENTP, Si is the inferior function, while Ne is the *dominant* one. In an ESTP, Se is the dominant function while Ni is the inferior. Those are just Jungian terms, not a value judgement on the worth of Sensing or Intuitive functions.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

scorpion said:


> *You know this from personal experience do you? Well as an ESFP I can tell you that explanation is full of shit. I think about the big picture too and for what it's worth I've got a superb imagination. *


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so let me make it nice and simple for you. People who use Se first (that's apparently you) want to sense everything around them, so they don't want to do the opposite, which is to not do that and make big, abstract visions and connections that have nothing to do with what they can sense around them. Imagination has nothing to do with it.



> *You should really work on writing with out jargon so the average person can understand you.*


The average person can understand me. Are you sure you're average?


----------



## TheRevaN (Mar 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, so let me make it nice and simple for you. People who use Se first (that's apparently you) want to sense everything around them, so they don't want to do the opposite, which is to not do that and make big, abstract visions and connections that have nothing to do with what they can sense around them. Imagination has nothing to do with it.


You are partially correct. We want to sense the world around us, but that doesn't mean we do that ALL THE DAMN TIME like we are damn animals or something........ So from time to time we see patterns but not by conciounsly drawing the lines, more like by simply "observing" something in an unconcious way (because Ni unconcious) and then understanding what we observed when we no longer supress Ni.

You dwell to much in theory and I don't say that in bad faith. But I also dwelled a lot on the theory and the truth is that to some extent it is flawed, so you should not apply it rigidly and try to use it as a blueprint, rather than as a system. Same thing for @Jabberbroccoli. 

And @scorpion , please be a little more polite. 

And no you can't percieve the world by intuition. It has to go to the senses first. Being a dominant Ne does not mean you percieve with Ne directly, just that what you percieve with Si (I don't want to go into details on how this is different from percieving with Se - this is theory) is deeply supressed and Ne kicks in and starts abstractizing the percievied information, so it gives the impression that you percieve with Ne.

Hope you feel me and please be a little more friendly. No war around here


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

TheRevaN said:


> You are partially correct. We want to sense the world around us, but that doesn't mean we do that ALL THE DAMN TIME like we are damn animals or something........ So from time to time we see patterns but not by conciounsly drawing the lines, more like by simply "observing" something in an unconcious way (because Ni unconcious) and then understanding what we observed when we no longer supress Ni.
> 
> You dwell to much in theory and I don't say that in bad faith. But I also dwelled a lot on the theory and the truth is that to some extent it is flawed, so you should not apply it rigidly and try to use it as a blueprint, rather than as a system. Same thing for @Jabberbroccoli.


The statement was, admittedly, oversimplified, though I'm not dwelling in theory so much as explaining the theory on its own terms.



> And no you can't percieve the world by intuition. It has to go to the senses first. Being a Ne does not mean you percieve with Ne directly, just that what you percieve with Si (I don't want to go into details on how this is different from percieving with Se - this is theory) is deeply supressed and Ne kicks in and starts abstractizing the percievied information, so it gives the impression that you percieve with Ne.


Actually, this doesn't contradict what I was saying in my first post - Ne doms are busy riding the abstract connections between objects, so we suppress the opposite - making deep, sensory impressions of any one thing, though you've elaborated and gone into more detail quite nicely here.



> Hope you feel me and please be a little more friendly. No war around here


I can grant you conscientious objector status at best. :laughing:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> Actually, this doesn't contradict what I was saying in my first post - Ne doms are busy riding the abstract connections between objects, so we suppress the opposite - making deep, sensory impressions of any one thing, though you've elaborated and gone into more detail quite nicely here.


And as a Ti dom with Ne aux, sometimes I wonder how the heck Ne doms are thinking since they are so bewildered by their ideas they completely forego the logical practicality of it :laughing: I find this to be the most true for ENTPs with poorly developed Ti, or ENxPs who have yet to fully differentiate their Ji.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

Ok @_Jabberbroccoli_ and @_Dark Romantic_ I apologize for being so rude. Like I said I was really tired and started getting heated out of frustration and the fact I felt I wasn't being taken seriously. Sometimes I get annoyed when people use things that are not their own ideas as evidence and are not clear. It's just that to me one of the beauties of MBTI is it makes sense yet is not completely worked out so you get to fill in the blanks yourself . .. You can't expect the originators to have all the answers cause we KNOW they didn't. Anyway, and I'm also sorry about what I said in the other thread. It's just like I said I was feeling ganged up on, like you were belittling me. It's annoying as hell to call my assumptions baseless (see other thread) cause I see many connections in the psychical appearances and mannerisms of types that I don't know how to explain via their functions. It doesn't make them any less valid though- a picture is worth a thousand words. I guess I should learn more about the functions for future situations like this but honestly I prefer to do my own learning.

Oh and maybe it was out of line for me to call you guys cocky. I've yet to meet someone obsessed with MBTI who thinks there typings are wrong. It's like an inherent part of typing to think you are correct so I suppose I could calm down a bit.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

@scorpion: That's fine. The reason I disagreed, though, is that you weren't logically supporting your ideas - just repeating an assertion as fact and expecting everyone to accept it at face value. Also, the entire system is an idea that isn't yours and the terms you are using have a connection to specific concepts - a knowledge of what those concepts are is necessary before one can reinterpret them, though there is a point where redefining the terms takes you outside the bounds of the system. I called your statement baseless because you weren't making any attempt to provide a logical basis for your point - it sounded like a demand that I accept your idea without evaluating it on a logical standard to determine its validity. This is not something I am prepared to do.

Nevertheless, I accept your apology, and accept responsibility for my part in the whole thing.


----------



## Dark Romantic (Dec 27, 2011)

LeaT said:


> And as a Ti dom with Ne aux, sometimes I wonder how the heck Ne doms are thinking since they are so bewildered by their ideas they completely forego the logical practicality of it :laughing: I find this to be the most true for ENTPs with poorly developed Ti, or ENxPs who have yet to fully differentiate their Ji.


I like to think of it this way; Ne doms see everything as part of a giant, interconnected web, but we never get to see all of it, so we spend our lives exploring the web by chasing individual strands that pop up, in order to see the entire web. We're never quite successful, though. :sad:

You know an Ne dom understands something when they tell you it's something else, eh? :laughing:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dark Romantic said:


> I like to think of it this way; Ne doms see everything as part of a giant, interconnected web, but we never get to see all of it, so we spend our lives exploring the web by chasing individual strands that pop up, in order to see the entire web. We're never quite successful, though. :sad:
> 
> You know an Ne dom understands something when they tell you it's something else, eh? :laughing:


Yes, and you get so stuck on trying to find out that connection you stop giving a fuck if it actually makes sense and that can frustrate me a lot when I look at your theory and I just go /facepalm and then you can get upset because I Ti your beautiful little idea into pieces :laughing:

Haha, as in gibberish?!


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

@Dark Romantic:
"That's fine. The reason I disagreed, though, is that you weren't logically supporting your ideas - just repeating an assertion as fact and expecting everyone to accept it at face value." -Interesting how when it comes to MBTI what evidence I DID provide you just deemed as not logical as in MBTI is a matter of opinion. In my opinion I'm logical. Whose to say which of our opinions is correct?

"Also, the entire system is an idea that isn't yours and the terms you are using have a connection to specific concepts - a knowledge of what those concepts are is necessary before one can reinterpret them, though there is a point where redefining the terms takes you outside the bounds of the system." - Disagree here because I DO have my own original ideas about MBTI I just haven't shared them. Yes, feel free to assume they must be wrong all you want but please don't assume that they must not exist.

"I called your statement baseless because you weren't making any attempt to provide a logical basis for your point - it sounded like a demand that I accept your idea without evaluating it on a logical standard to determine its validity. This is not something I am prepared to do."- It wasn't a demand although looking back I get why you saw it this way. I was hoping for that  to communicate a lot.  I was making some attempt but I was getting irritated at the way both you and Jabberbroccoli (who I was going to tell I like his username but o well I doubt he'd mind it) didn't take me seriously. Anyway . . . I_ think_ I finished saying what I was going to say?

When someone types a person they are making a judgement about them and in someway that judgement is always just going to be an intuitive leap of faith unless you've done as I have and turned to observing the physical characteristics and connections between the types. Making physical comparisons. That's what I've done and continue to do and . . . i would recommend it to people.

"Nevertheless, I accept your apology, and accept responsibility for my part in the whole thing."-Thank you.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

I would suggest moving away from the notion that the cognitive "functions" (I'll call them perspectives for the rest of this post) are literally associated with basic processes happening in the brain. Try not to think about them as something you "use" when you do something. For example, sensation is not literally some "tool" you use to literally see, hear, taste, touch, or smell. Feeling is not something you "use" when you give someone a hug. That's just not what these concepts mean.

Intuition and Sensation are both perceiving perspectives in their own right. I elaborated on them in this post. A person's preferred perceiving perspective shapes what portions of their environment and sensory impressions they will pay attention to and give meaning to. People with inferior sensation are not therefore literally blind or deaf (if they happen to be, that's a coincidence :wink: ). People with inferior intuition are not incapable of understanding metaphor or word play.

Something that the MBTI tries to emphasize is that type is about preference, not strength. An INFJ can be a star quarterback, an Olympic diver, or marathon runner. An ESTJ can be a wonderful sculptor, songwriter, or poet. It's unlikely that an INFJ would be interested in being a football player, and it's also unlikely that an ESTJ would feel compelled to pour out her soul in verse, but they can be great at it if they *are* interested.


----------



## Nabil (Nov 12, 2012)

@scorpion I agree that we all interpret the world through sensing first. We can't use Ni without Se and of course we can't use Ne without Si too. We can't use T/F function too without sensing first. So, we can't use N/T/F without S first. @Jabberbroccoli @Dark Romantic

How could someone have intuition without sense something first? Can you make an idea or think or feel something without sense it in the first place? I don't think so. People will more likely to use the function that they prefer but that doesn't mean they use it first.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Nabil said:


> @scorpion I agree that we all interpret the world through sensing first. We can't use Ni without Se and of course we can't use Ne without Si too. We can't use T/F function too without sensing first. So, we can't use N/T/F without S first. @Jabberbroccoli @Dark Romantic
> 
> How could someone have intuition without sense something first? Can you make an idea or think or feel something without sense it in the first place? I don't think so. People will more likely to use the function that they prefer but that doesn't mean they use it first.


You don't understand functions. As I've explained, SENSING doesn't actually do the sensing. Your extraverted perception function senses the outside world (Se, Ne), not the introverted function Si, which responds to the internal world.

Ya know how a judging function doesn't mean you're judgemental? Yeah, sensing functions don't always do the sensing, the extraverted perception function does (Se or Ne) does.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> You don't understand functions. As I've explained, SENSING doesn't actually do the sensing. Your extraverted perception function senses the outside world (Se, Ne), not the introverted function Si, which responds to the internal world.
> 
> Ya know how a judging function doesn't mean you're judgemental? Yeah, sensing functions don't always do the sensing, the extraverted perception function does (Se or Ne) does.


Um. Sensing functions sense, that's how they got there name. No one is questioning that an Ne doms extraverted function is there Ne but you still need to sense via you're sensing function before you intuit. The brain is a bit more complex and can do that than you're giving it credit for.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

scorpion said:


> Um. Sensing functions sense, that's how they got there name. No one is questioning that an Ne doms extraverted function is there Ne but you still need to sense via you're sensing function before you intuit. The brain is a bit more complex and can do that than you're giving it credit for.


!(O_O)!

I think what he is trying to say is that introverted sensing does not perceive the outside world. Introverted sensing looks at the outside world through your extraverted intuition, and when it sees something it remembers then it starts bringing back memories of stuff that it has already sensed. However introverted sensing is on the inside. It looks at the world and evokes memories of the past. I could see why you would think it perceives externally. Especially since it needs to observe on the outside in order to evoke these memories, but even so it is still inner perception. 

P.s.: People with Ne/Si still have Se/Ni. Its just not in their primary function stack. There's nothing that says the development of shadow functions can harm you. In fact I know a few INTJs with a good grasp on extraverted feeling. Its odd.... but it is still possible.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> !(O_O)!
> 
> I think what he is trying to say is that introverted sensing does not perceive the outside world. Introverted sensing looks at the outside world through your extraverted intuition, and when it sees something it remembers then it starts bringing back memories of stuff that it has already sensed. However introverted sensing is on the inside. It looks at the world and evokes memories of the past. I could see why you would think it perceives externally. Especially since it needs to observe on the outside in order to evoke these memories, but even so it is still inner perception.
> 
> P.s.: People with Ne/Si still have Se/Ni. Its just not in their primary function stack. There's nothing that says the development of shadow functions can harm you. In fact I know a few INTJs with a good grasp on extraverted feeling. Its odd.... but it is still possible.


That. Extraverted Intuition acts to percieve the outside world, Si does not. When I see something and my brain registered my perception of it and draws connections, that's Ne. Se fulfills the same function in an SP and NJ, but Ne does the perception of the outside world in SJs and NPs. Sensing is a bad term, and the Jungian/MB use of the word is not the same as the definition.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> !(O_O)!
> 
> I think what he is trying to say is that introverted sensing does not perceive the outside world.Introverted sensing looks at the outside world through your extraverted intuition, and when it sees something it remembers then it starts bringing back memories of stuff that it has already sensed. However introverted sensing is on the inside. It looks at the world and evokes memories of the past. I could see why you would think it perceives externally. Especially since it needs to observe on the outside in order to evoke these memories, but even so it is still inner perception.
> 
> P.s.: People with Ne/Si still have Se/Ni. Its just not in their primary function stack. There's nothing that says the development of shadow functions can harm you. In fact I know a few INTJs with a good grasp on extraverted feeling. Its odd.... but it is still possible.


How you're describing Si/Ne just proves my expanation correct all the more. First, when you're young you take in the world via your Senses and form jusgements about it. (Si) Then when your older your intution uses those past judgements to try and understand the world in a hella complex way that I plain just don't get. Where you see the potential of everything! That's it. It's not that you see what's there, you see potential. Man I'm awesome at finding the right words some days. ^^


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

scorpion said:


> How you're describing Si/Ne just proves my expanation correct all the more. First, when you're young you take in the world via your Senses and form jusgements about it. (Si) Then when your older your intution uses those past judgements to try and understand the world in a hella complex way that I plain just don't get. Where you see the potential of everything! That's it. It's not that you see what's there, you see potential. Man I'm awesome at finding the right words some days. ^^


 No. 

Ne takes it in, Si catalogues it post-perception and post-judgement. 

When you're young, you take in information with Ne, judge it with Tx, Fx, and lastly catalogue it with Si, and then in the future when Ne percieves thing, it draws comparisons to old details retained per the influence of Si.

Si doesn't do the sensing, its attitude is introverted, and cognition as related to the function takes place with information gathered by excercise of the extraverted perception function of Ne.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

I went here to try to determine if I was INFP or ISFP and just got more confused lol


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

puer_aeternus said:


> I went here to try to determine if I was INFP or ISFP and just got more confused lol


Scorpion is making incorrect assertions, backed by misconstrued evidence, and an admitted lack of understanding for the system. Read my lolonger post on the first page of this thread. 

Do you have a type me thread?


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Double post, blame my phone.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Scorpion is making incorrect assertions, backed by misconstrued evidence, and an admitted lack of understanding for the system. Read my lolonger post on the first page of this thread.
> 
> Do you have a type me thread?


Ahaha from a long time ago. That was when I questioned my ENTP-ness and was quickly proved I do not know anything about using Ti. 

I know I'm a Fi-dom but the Se/Ni or Ne/Si axes are what get me.


----------



## jontherobot (Sep 11, 2012)

puer_aeternus said:


> Ahaha from a long time ago. That was when I questioned my ENTP-ness and was quickly proved I do not know anything about using Ti.
> 
> I know I'm a Fi-dom but the Se/Ni or Ne/Si axes are what get me.



I was once sitting with someone well versed in typology (ENTJ). I can't remember how the conversation got there, but I replied to her something like, "I prefer to sit back and think about things before answering." She said it was very a Ni thing to say, and wondered how I ever thought I was ENTP.


I believe a key difference between Se/Ni users and Ne/Si users is how we prefer to metabolize information, and it's actually quite easy to distinguish to two: 

Ne users enjoy immediate feedback to their ideas, they grow their thoughts by relative quick input and output.

Se users prefer to have all the facts up front, where they can retreat and categorize them internally.


Both have their advantages and disadvantages, and I doubt this is a one-size fits all model... but it's fairly accurate, from what I've surmised.


----------



## Nabil (Nov 12, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> You don't understand functions. As I've explained, *SENSING* doesn't actually do the sensing. Your extraverted perception function senses the outside world (Se, Ne), not the introverted function Si, which responds to the internal world.
> 
> Ya know how a judging function doesn't mean you're judgemental? Yeah, sensing functions don't always do the sensing, the extraverted perception function does (Se or Ne) does.


Ok, I see your point of view and agree with that except the part I bold but if you see my post I didn't say that Ne doesn't perceive the outside world. I said that Si is the first one that interpret the world. Are you sure you can use Ne first without Si at all?

I think I understand your point of view and I want to know your opinion about mine.

Oh yeah, I forgot to add something. What is your *SENSING *definition? In my opinion that is perceiving not sensing. I know you understand that Se,Si,Ne,Ni are all perceiving functions.


----------



## Hal Jordan Prime (Dec 13, 2012)

jontherobot said:


> I was once sitting with someone well versed in typology (ENTJ). I can't remember how the conversation got there, but I replied to her something like, "I prefer to sit back and think about things before answering." She said it was very a Ni thing to say, and wondered how I ever thought I was ENTP.
> 
> *I believe a key difference between Se/Ni users and Ne/Si users is how we prefer to metabolize information, and it's actually quite easy to distinguish to two:
> 
> ...


If this is accurate then I'm indeed Se-auxiliary. The difference I see between me and my ESFP friends is I'm a bit more... hesitant in doing spontaneous things whereas most of them are that "leap before you look" type


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

@Jabberbroccoli- look intuition and imagination are very linked but you can't have intuition before sensing. It just doesn't logically follow. I'm sorry we keep repeating ourselves. I think we just disagree.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

scorpion said:


> @_Jabberbroccoli_- look intuition and imagination are very linked but you can't have intuition before sensing. It just doesn't logically follow. I'm sorry we keep repeating ourselves. I think we just disagree.


Sensation in terms of type is not "using your eyeballs". Intuition is a perception function on its own. The focus of the two, sensation and intuition, are different, but they are both perception functions. A person very well can intuit before they sense. For example, I'm watching the nightly news, and while the anchors are wrapping up a segment and getting ready to cut to commercial, "out of nowhere" I get this idea of "ROBBERY" in my head. "Wow," I might say to myself, "I must be psychic, and the next segment is going to be about a robbery." Then I realize, "Oh, I'm a dummy! Of course I knew that the next segment was going to be about a robbery. There is a caption on the screen!"

In this case, the *meaning *of what my eyes had seen bubbled up to my consciousness before the *physical reality *of what I had seen. I had perceived by way of intuition _first_, and then perceived by way of sensation.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

I haven't even read all of this, but the referee calls time out, violation citing opposing cognitive functions that are not understanding each other. 


I made videos on Ne/Si and Se/Ni awhile back which need to be revised a bit, but still should be in line with Jung. Watch them. 


---------------------------------------------------*Se and Ni* ---------------------------------------------------------

Se dominant types often have a pulsing sort of mind, where they are constantly ready to spring into action. They notice the things around them and frequently shift from stimulus to stimulus. They get "charged" when something happens that actually_ does _cause them to have to leap forward, and they may become bored when they have to sit for long periods because their minds are ready for action. Some ESTP are more deductive and analytical (Ti) than "in the moment," and some ESFP are more business-like and interpersonal connectors (Fi) - but most representatives of both types should experience this mental pattern at least from time to time. 

Instead of "pulsing," Ni dominants are more likely to have sudden moments of poignant realization, where multiple factors that seemed to be inactive suddenly pop out of nowhere and form a cohesive, _focused _solution to a single consideration. Because they're pulling from many areas up top, Ni people need lots of different kinds of stimuli to feed the processes that give them these sorts of realizations. 

Se people will benefit from the focus of Ni because it will offer them a single focus of activity, whereas they might otherwise either miss important underlying patterns, or "do a lot for nothing." Ni people will benefit from having both variation of experience (to feed the strength of their intuitions), and a focus on what is actually in front of them, instead of what only "is" in theory.



---------------------------------------------------*Ne and Si* ---------------------------------------------------------

Ne dominants like to shift perspectives constantly, playing around with different kinds of abstract connections and possibilities of such from the vantage of various spaces. From here, they see potential and appreciate novelty. Nardi actually refers to their mental pattern as a "Christmas Tree," which "lights up" different parts of the brain at different points as the Ne dom shifts perspective. As with the above example with Se and Ni, some Ne dominants will vary in how frequently they do this.

Si dominants are concerned with recalling sensory experiences from a mental bank they have accumulated over time, and comparing the present physical state with what they can pull from their personal "bank." Tastes, smells, colors, names, facts, what step you're on in a process, etc. They enjoy building this bank over time, and will do so by recalling specific concrete details of what becomes their past. Doing this can make Si doms particularly good with tasks that require specialized, burned-in knowledge, and after practice they are well-equipped with their store of inner data. Some, again, may be less-inclined towards this but it is a typical, broad characteristic of the type. 

Ne dominants will benefit from having concrete evidence and fact-based expertise to base their active perspective-shifting. They sometimes lack the focus and detail necessary to bring about the grand connections they imagine in their heads. Si dominants will benefit from the novelty of employing their capabilities to _new _frontiers instead of re-hashing old ones repeatedly. 


---------------------------------------------------*Summary* ---------------------------------------------------------

In each pairing, the extraverted perception function (Se/Ne) does the job of bringing the introverted perceiving function (Si/Ni) "to life" by feeding it experience to process. The introverted function offers the extraverted function an intentioned focus from which to drive such activity.


----------



## Nabil (Nov 12, 2012)

I think I got something that make a misunderstanding. So I want to know what is the difference between using Si and using senses? 

I want to know how Si recalling sensory experience like tastes, smells, colors, names, facts, what step you're on in a process, etc. What is it from if not from sense? Is it just from sense and not Si? If it is not from Si then sense doesn't have place in cognitive functions?

I hope someone can tell me the experience about Si especially Si user.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

scorpion said:


> @Jabberbroccoli- look intuition and imagination are very linked but you can't have intuition before sensing. It just doesn't logically follow. I'm sorry we keep repeating ourselves. I think we just disagree.



Just stahp. Extraverted functions percieve the outside world, introverted functions percieve the information gathered by process of the extraverted functions. That Si is a sensing function means nothing but that it is literal and concrete in its mapping and patterning of information. Let's rename Si to Cheeseburger if that helps clear things up for you. Cheeseburger takes information gathered by virtue of Ne to process it. Ne is what percieves, or senses, the outside world.



Nabil said:


> Ok, I see your point of view and agree with that except the part I bold but if you see my post I didn't say that Ne doesn't perceive the outside world. I said that Si is the first one that interpret the world. Are you sure you can use Ne first without Si at all?
> 
> I think I understand your point of view and I want to know your opinion about mine.
> 
> Oh yeah, I forgot to add something. What is your *SENSING *definition? In my opinion that is perceiving not sensing. I know you understand that Se,Si,Ne,Ni are all perceiving functions.


Incorrect, Ne first, then judging functions, then Si. The perception/sensing is done with the extraverted perception function of Ne before it goes to Si. The fact that Si is a "sensing" function means nothing except the method by which it processes information.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Nabil said:


> I think I got something that make a misunderstanding. So I want to know what is the difference between using Si and using senses?
> 
> I want to know how Si recalling sensory experience like tastes, smells, colors, names, facts, what step you're on in a process, etc. What is it from if not from sense? Is it just from sense and not Si? If it is not from Si then sense doesn't have place in cognitive functions?
> 
> I hope someone can tell me the experience about Si especially Si user.


As a Si inferior, connections made by Ne and their relevant data is catalogued internally, with Si piecing through information previously gathered by Ne,. When Ne is used in the role of percieving the outside world, information catalogued by Si is used by Ne to connect to precedent and tie information together for Ti to work with.


----------



## The Wanderering ______ (Jul 17, 2012)

Nabil said:


> I think I got something that make a misunderstanding. So I want to know what is the difference between using Si and using senses?
> 
> I want to know how Si recalling sensory experience like tastes, smells, colors, names, facts, what step you're on in a process, etc. What is it from if not from sense? Is it just from sense and not Si? If it is not from Si then sense doesn't have place in cognitive functions?
> 
> I hope someone can tell me the experience about Si especially Si user.


I think *Jabberbroccoli* has said this like a million times now, but Si does not perceive the outside world. Si does two things. 

One: It recalls past information, and past data. Si doms use Ne, just like Ni doms use Se. Its weak so it doesn't receive me the full benefits. Because of that Ne for Si doms sees patterns and information in the outside world, but it goes through the tubes of past of information and most of it gets discarded because it goes against what Si doms already know. This is why Si doms typically stick to traditional methods of doing things. They can have some exceptions although it takes more of a conscious effort on their part. This also make Si doms very detail oriented, something Ne doms can have a HUGE problem with. 

Two: Si seems to be able to help an Si dom realize abnormalities in their body. or so i've heard............

P.s. Si compared to sensing? I think you mean Si compared to Se. Si recalls past information simple and clean. Se see Everything, every little detail, every array of color, every seashell amongst the pebbles in vivid detail. So the difference is Si recalls things in detail, Se sees things in the present moment in detail.

If your talking about sensing in general that could be any number of things. 

Sensing a pattern=Ne or Ni

Sensing through you eyes=Se

Sensing emotions=Fe

The list goes on.


----------



## Nabil (Nov 12, 2012)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> I think *J**abberbrocoli* has said this like a million times now, but Si does not perceive the outside world. Si does two things.
> 
> One: It recalls past information, and past data. Si doms use Ne, just like Ni doms use Se. Its weak so it doesn't receive me the full benefits. Because of that Ne for Si doms sees patterns and information in the outside world, but it goes through the tubes of past of information and most of it gets discarded because it goes against what Si doms already know. This is why Si doms typically stick to traditional methods of doing things. They can have some exceptions although it takes more of a conscious effort on their part. This also make Si doms very detail oriented, something Ne doms can have a HUGE problem with.
> 
> ...


I have a question. What is the first function used when baby was born? I think it's Se based on your definition.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

The Wanderering ______ said:


> Sensing a pattern=Ne or Ni
> 
> Sensing through you eyes=Se
> 
> ...


Ugh noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo :bored: And I'm dead.


----------



## Jabberbroccoli (Mar 19, 2011)

Nabil said:


> I have a question. What is the first function used when baby was born? I think it's Se based on your definition.


Uh, Jungian function theory doesn't extend to childbirth. I'd posit that the baby isn't using any function at all, because the cognitive processes in an infant's head aren't patterned like they would be in an adult's brain.

Your eyeballs are not a function, the process your mind goes through with the information directly perceived is what is being described by function theory. If you really want to talk about infants, Ne or Se would be equally applicable, with Ne drawing connections with information as it learns it and Si cataloguing it, while Se would simply perceiving the information with Ni to work the connections later. 

It would vary from infant to infant based on functional stacking, and the Ne baby would be building connections with more immediacy, and thus learn at a more rapid and consistent rate, while the Ni baby would have bursts of breakthroughs like suddenly figuring out how to walk? Both babies using their pair of functions would end up with pretty much the same results though.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

This entire overcomplicated argument could be over if we just accept that the functions don't _do_ anything.



(Steps back as the thread explodes)


----------



## ValConMoto (Jan 6, 2012)

In my opinion, the problem in discussing Intuition dominants is that people begin to assume we don't always use our senses. Everyone has sensations, this is existence in the physical world. The information received is categorized via intuition or sensation (as a term, not as in sensory experience). Every type has sensory experiences, the difference is that sensing individuals give value to the object itself and not in the connections to the object. For example, my earliest memory is when I was about 2 years old and there was an earthquake. I looked up and I saw our lamp swaying back and forth. Instead of noticing the details of the lamp I remembered that it's arms were stretched out like a person that wanted to hug me. This image has stayed with me because it was a comforting image when I was scared. The problem is a lot of images that I "remember" are not remembered accurately. The color, shape and design is usually a little bit off but the symbol and feeling that I gained from the memory remains consistent (Ni+Fe). A sensory dominant person might see the same lamp and notice the colors and shape distinctively. They could recall details much better but I would be able to recall the meaning behind the experience. Both Intuitives and Sensors take information in via their senses.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Nabil said:


> I think I got something that make a misunderstanding. So I want to know what is the difference between using Si and using senses?
> 
> I want to know how Si recalling sensory experience like tastes, smells, colors, names, facts, what step you're on in a process, etc. What is it from if not from sense? Is it just from sense and not Si? If it is not from Si then sense doesn't have place in cognitive functions?
> 
> I hope someone can tell me the experience about Si especially Si user.


Basically, sensation is the act of gathering physical information, Sensation (Jungian) is a cognitive mechanism for handling information gathered. All human beings take in the world around them via sensation to some extent, but not all prefer a cognitive process that emphasizes such information as it creates the person's perceptive world. Introverted Sensation means that the emphasized sensory perception is directed inward, in a subjective way. 

Si users don't necessarily value what, simply, "is" (that's Se), but rather what they can pull from their inner bank. They see what either is or could be in the future, and use their recollection of the past to make decisions. An ESFJ friend of mine from college once told me that she sometimes knew the answers to test questions because she could literally see the page in her notes that contained the information the question was asking. My ISFJ mom is a former RN who can tell you what illness someone has by simply smelling it. My ISTJ dad overpacks for trips because he wants to prepare for the worst in case of rain, snow, heat, etc, not wanting to experience discomfort (and let's say there's an unexpected tornado during the trip - that may become a consideration next time - note the connection to inferior Ne as well). 

In all three cases, the Si user is sensing just as an N would, but actually employing that data as a way of making sense of the world around them. An N may remember the question being in the notes, smell something funny, or realize rain is in the forecast, but wouldn't be as likely to return to their mental bank to make a conclusion. 

Si is comparing surroundings to what the person can remember from their mental storage room of sensory memories.


----------



## scorpion (Dec 8, 2012)

ElectricSparkle said:


> This entire overcomplicated argument could be over if we just accept that the functions don't _do_ anything.
> 
> 
> 
> (Steps back as the thread explodes)


I think they do something I just think they don't see how my ideas of what they do don't actually at all conflict with theirs.


----------



## Nabil (Nov 12, 2012)

Jabberbroccoli said:


> Uh, Jungian function theory doesn't extend to childbirth. I'd posit that the baby isn't using any function at all, because the cognitive processes in an infant's head aren't patterned like they would be in an adult's brain.
> 
> Your eyeballs are not a function, the process your mind goes through with the information directly perceived is what is being described by function theory. If you really want to talk about infants, Ne or Se would be equally applicable, with Ne drawing connections with information as it learns it and Si cataloguing it, while Se would simply perceiving the information with Ni to work the connections later.
> 
> It would vary from infant to infant based on functional stacking, and the Ne baby would be building connections with more immediacy, and thus learn at a more rapid and consistent rate, while the Ni baby would have bursts of breakthroughs like suddenly figuring out how to walk? Both babies using their pair of functions would end up with pretty much the same results though.


So the sensing that I mean doesn't have place in cognitive functions? I know I have some misunderstanding about Si before. Thanks.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

The reason I think the explanations here may have been confusing is that it is very conceptually unclear why an intuiting function would be how you take in data. Truth is I see the processes as synchronizing, and Si constantly working on the sidelines to render intelligible the data being processed, by giving Ne a grounding to intuit with. To say we "first" take in data with Pe is correct in one sense, but in reality we take in data through Pe/Pi. Undoubtedly on soe conscious level, accumulation of Pe data will trigger and be triggered by Pi.


----------



## Teybo (Sep 25, 2012)

There seems to be a consensus in this thread that seems to run against most of what I've seen written about type and cognitive functions. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. :laughing:

Our sensory organs "take in data". Cognitive functions have *nothing* to do with that. Functions, particularly the perceiving functions, have to do with what aspects of our sensory impressions that we prefer to pay attention to and our preferred ways of giving them meaning. 

Can someone point me to any resource that supports the prevailing view in this thread regarding the roles that extraverted perception and introverted perception play?


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

Pe or Pi? - not a part of cognitive function theory, is it?

Function order formulas ending in J all have Te or Fe as dom or aux. This means the process is more direct, thus judging, not actually telling you someones attitude about life, although it could be part of how they come across.

We have all heard about how it is possible for someone in surgery to have their brain touched or stimulated in some way that will cause a replay of something recorded in the physical tissue. That form of recall might have data in it that the person would never remember without the surgical process or stimuli. Doesn't that tell us that cognition is the processing, not the raw data itself? The raw data is still somewhere, but we create the brain files we want to use for the way we prefer to work with that data.

*Also, wasn't MBTI a work that came out of Jung, built on his work but after the fact*. Some of the judging percieving thing was part of Jung's earlier work and function order should not be mixed or re-interpreted through his earlier work? - I might have this wrong, I'm asking.


----------

