# Help me understand Ne vs Se



## Pelopra

Polemic said:


> Agreed. I think that was pelopras entire point with this thread. Too many of these descriptions are very generalized and it leaves too much room for something like Forers effect to muck things up. If someone is being diligent and carefully considering all of the functions and doing plenty of research then these sorts of misunderstandings are less likely to occur, but we all know full well that certain people suck at this for various reasons. So many of these descriptions rely on metaphor and analogy and it's less than ideal because people can take those and misconstrue what the functions actually are.
> 
> Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I717 using Tapatalk



Seriously, _thank you. _(It is very comforting to see someone understands what I was trying to do on this thread...)

---

Also, to make matters worse, sometimes I'm trying to type someone who doesn't speak English and ambiguous descriptions just become ten times worse in translation.


----------



## Pelopra

Dreamer777 said:


> ok, here goes some rambling:
> 
> i don't think you're an ENTP, any Ne user would not be in such hot disagreement with everything that every other Ne user is trying to share! so really and truly, i think you have mistyped yourself? why do you think you're an ENTP or Ne user? you say you could be reading the Ne descriptions in ways other than the author intended. You know why? because you're a Ni user and you can't identify with the Ne descriptions, that's why. in my humble opinion, seriously.


you know, coming back to this post, it occurs to me that maybe the issue here was your Fi, my Ti.
Over at the art thread someone suggests that Fi users will respond to something by affirming it, Ti users by picking it apart.
Perhaps that's why my responses were upsetting to you? Because in the subconscious contract of expected behavior in your mind you viewed what i did as rude?


----------



## firedell

Se would make many different pies because of the different sensations that they give them.
Ne would make many different pies because of the different possibilities that they give them.

Hopefully this wasn't lame and made some sense.


----------



## Psychopomp

Pelopra said:


> What could very well happen is that I see a mildly unusual car, which makes me think of air resistance, which makes me think of materials engineering and whether an artifical material with extremely weird air resistance properties could be developed that would enable a car to be a rocket ship. Then I'd consider the flying cars already developed that haven't been released to market, wonder if any of them will catch on, wonder if any of them will actually be of any real importance, ever. Then I'd think about the socioeconomic repercussions of different forms of travel (and insert a brief mental thank you to the universe that I live in an era not awash in Horse poop). If i felt like continuing this general train of thought (maybe the light was taking a long time turning green) i could ask myself for ways of creating socioeconomic change via the introduction of new inventions into society (since that's infinite, I'd give myself constraints, like "with less than 5 dollars per person") , or I could backtrack to materials engineering and continue several potentially satisfying thought paths from there... (note that many of these ideas are fairly hands on, and therefore somewhat less interesting to me. My personal pet topics are social forces and change... But I'm less interested in the physical invention than in how people are going to respond to it... )





Pelopra said:


> He's saying that given zero context whatsoever, an Ne person given the single prompt of "dog" (not, for example, "tell me what comes to mind when I say dog") will respond by having their entire cortex light up?
> 
> If I'm asked "tell me what comes to mind when I say dog" i will free associate. But just given the word dog? I can't say anything much happens (on a conscious level that I can observe without the brain scan) other than me waiting for an additional context cue to indicate what I'm supposed to be responding to...
> 
> Am I afraid of exploring the absurd for the hell of it? No. Is this forming the bulk of my minute to minute consciousness (again, we're back to your description of using Ti to fight off the car being a rocket)? No.
> 
> The function I experience as Ne is more concerned with ideas than with visual input like a car. It's more inclined to ignore a car to the point of not being able to recall said car having ever been there (very likely) , than to consider whether it's a rocketship (requires some additional cue to prompt that thought chain) (maybe if I'm being forced to look at said car. In that case yes. I also happen to not particularly find rocket cars interesting, though. But what if the car could safely melt into a puddle of molecules, somehow saving the data of the person-molecules? If there were high speed car puddle networks... And then ti kicks in with a long list of reasons this is a terrible idea and I lose interest. Back to the car. Could it be painted in edible candy flavored paint? Maybe I should lick it and find out. No that would be very socially weird and unhygienic. I kinda want a lickable car. No I don't that would be gross and a huge dirt trap. Technically, all cars are lickable. Just no one does. Focus on the car, pelopra. Fine it's red and it has weird bumps and wheels it has wheels can I stop looking at the car now? I kinda wanna program something to make car windows dance to music. You know like matching those sound graphs. Only it would be super sloooow. If this car were a rocket car could I explore space with it? I'd go to a new solar system only I'd miss my family. So maybe the moon? That feels like a waste though. I wanna go somewhere slightly more original but on the other hand even if this car is capable of faster than light travel do I want to mess with relativity like that? Not sure I want to come back younger than myself. All the potentially interesting planets are so far away. This car would be more useful if it could teleport. Other than sentimental reasons I have no idea why we'd still be dealing with car shaped things once we got around to teleporting. Of course what do i know about teleporting. Maybe by sheer coincidence the shape of a car is actually optimal. Maybe the shape of a car, but scaled upwards to the size of a building.......... )
> 
> Maybe on an electrical level my brain really is triggering everything, all the time, everywhere, unprompted. Or maybe my brain isn't doing that but your brain is.
> 
> Automatic story generation, for example, occurred when I looked at that picture of the fantasy creature in the art thread. It does not occur every time I look at my pillowcase (but, when writing this sentence, it automatically does occur. If my pillowcase was alive, I start imagining ways it would move... Hang gliding vs a sort of sliding motion via alternating corners... Would it be affectionate? How does it feel about life as a pillowcase? What is the connection between it and my pillow, does it miss other pillows? Does it feel jealous of other pillowcases? What is my pillowcase ' s life dream? Is my pillowcase religious? Do pillowcases have an afterlife? Does my pillowcase feel hostile towards me? Is there a pillowcase Dark Lord? Is MY pillowcase the pillowcase dark Lord? If pillowcases had a natural enemy what would it be? Contact solution? Perhaps secretly a bitter battle has been going on between the contact solution bottles and the pillowcases ever since those uppity upstarts made their presence known. Is my pillowcase a spy? Is my pillowcase a Brazilian spy? Can a pillowcase be tried in court? Would I testify to my pillowcase ' s character if asked to do so? How much do I even know about my pillowcase anyway? It's like I've been sleeping on a stranger. Such a comfortable weave stranger though.)


This is Ne... specifically Ne/Ti. This is precisely how I think. The idea of the rocket car stuff, or the kitty litter example.... did nothing for me. It was my ISTP friend who walked into a junkyard and walked out with an array of random items and created a working projector. I was amazed. I look at the projector and think, "the ability to project light.... interesting... but, if we reconcieved it entirely.. what else could it be?!?!" ...and, really, it isn't "What else could it be.." but, "what is it right now and we are looking at it wrong..." 

What do I think of when I hear the word 'dog'? Nothing. Dogs, I guess. Do they need to be slaves? I mean, if we treated them differently, would their supposed natures change? What would they be if we had spent millennia honing them to be intelligently self-sufficient? How long does it take to make a higher reasoning life form? Could we? Would we? Should we?

People associate Ne with absurdity and I really don't think that is correct. Ne is trying to explore the potential nature of things. Looking at things through another conceptual lens. If a pillowcase were alive... what would it BE? Not what would it do... but what would it BE. What could it be. So often when STP types are being absurd and creative I get frustrated because I think "but, that isn't how it it IS" .. you can't just change the rules! There is no meaning in it. Making shit up isn't exploring conceptual angles of a thing... it is nonsense. 

Stuff like, "I can't leave the solar system because I'd miss my family... and all the interesting planets are too far away." is exploring the conceptual realities of the situation. THAT is what Ne does. Well, that is what Ti does when fed by Ne. Understanding the nature of what is by rethinking how you see it... supposing a change in its nature, etc.


----------



## Pelopra

firedell said:


> Se would make many different pies because of the different sensations that they give them.
> Ne would make many different pies because of the different possibilities that they give them.
> 
> Hopefully this wasn't lame and made some sense.


hm.
I would make many pies. I like experiencing lots of things, but my reasons are
firstly so i can identify my favorites (which i then return to)-- i hate the idea that somewhere, out there, is a _more perfect pie_ that is _even more delicious than this one_ that i haven't had because i have never tried more than one pie recipe-- i want my pie to be the _most perfect pie_ , or, if not the most perfect, at least i want to know that on a pie scale of things it is definitely above average. (once satisfied that my pie is excellent beyond reproach, i may look for new pies to add to my repertoire in general, but will contentedly have the same excellent pie like clockwork for years.... except, see the second reason.

and secondly, because i consider myself an author and i want as wide a range of experience to draw from in my writing as possible. (thus, for example, my brother has a supernatural ability to make unspeakably good pie crusts-- true story. So overall I'd be content simply having pies made by him, but I would want to experience other pies as well, because otherwise, in the hypothetical world where i am inspired to write a story where every single chapter revolves around a different type of pie, i might not have enough material. plus, how can i be a knowing pie connoisseur without having sampled the competition?)

i think both those reasons are si. it's not my in-the-moment experience of the pie, it's the stored knowledge of the sensation of the pie that i can draw on, later.

but there maybe is some Ne mixed in as well. it's still mostly Si involved in pies, though.


----------



## Pelopra

oooh ooh tell me if this dichotomy is baseless:

Se- hedonist (YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmoreplease)
Si- connoisseur (the food i am experiencing is adjective adjective. this experience is adjective adjective. Adjectives!)


----------



## Psychopomp

Pelopra said:


> oooh ooh tell me if this dichotomy is baseless:
> 
> Se- hedonist (YUMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMmoreplease)
> Si- connoisseur (the food i am experiencing is adjective adjective. this experience is adjective adjective. Adjectives!)


Think of it like this... 

Se is endless induction of stuff. Data, reality, whatever. Se is a sponge. Last night I randomly had an ESFP in my house and she just sat there enthusiastically (but mostly silently) 2 feet from me just absorbing everything I said and everything that everyone was doing, like a black hole. I thought for sure she'd get bored and not want to hear this or that... but every time I neurotically prompted her that we could change the subject, she said, no "I like hearing everything. Seeing you all interact is interesting." ...the more conceptual and abstract the conversation got, the more of a confused look she got on her face, and the more quiet, but she answered my prompts the same way... she was content to just ABSORB. She appeared to be neither weighing it (at least neither socially or quickly), nor really fully understanding it ... just observing it, contentedly, presently, literally. 

I know, weirdest thing in the world. I don't even know what to do with that.

Si, rather than free induction... is constantly referencing its database of previous experiences. Like all the experiences are present simultaneously in a way, and the current one is measured against them.... usually with a vague pessimistic leaning. So, er, Si doesn't absorb, it references?


----------



## Old Intern

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html

^ this didn't help?


----------



## Pelopra

arkigos said:


> Think of it like this...
> 
> Se is endless induction of stuff. Data, reality, whatever. Se is a sponge. Last night I randomly had an ESFP in my house and she just sat there enthusiastically (but mostly silently) 2 feet from me just absorbing everything I said and everything that everyone was doing, like a black hole. I thought for sure she'd get bored and not want to hear this or that... but every time I neurotically prompted her that we could change the subject, she said, no "I like hearing everything. Seeing you all interact is interesting." ...the more conceptual and abstract the conversation got, the more of a confused look she got on her face, and the more quiet, but she answered my prompts the same way... she was content to just ABSORB. She appeared to be neither weighing it (at least neither socially or quickly), nor really fully understanding it ... just observing it, contentedly, presently, literally.
> 
> I know, weirdest thing in the world. I don't even know what to do with that.
> 
> Si, rather than free induction... is constantly referencing its database of previous experiences. Like all the experiences are present simultaneously in a way, and the current one is measured against them.... usually with a vague pessimistic leaning. So, er, Si doesn't absorb, it references?


sounds sorta right-ish to me. 



Old Intern said:


> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html
> 
> ^ this didn't help?


hmmm... parts did, parts didn't. will carry that discussion to that thread.


----------



## Old Intern

@arkigos, I think there can be an overlap sometimes. You might think this is an Ni-Se combination process but I will make my example. Many years ago, cad operator in my department is telling boss we need a new mother-board. Without seeing the actual parts produced, my guess is that he doesn’t know what he is doing. I make a few sample drawings at the printer - trying one thing and then another. I show the boss there is no problem, the operator is doing this – drawing A, he should have been doing this – drawing B.

I wasn’t trained in anything like what this guy was doing; I could just visualize what might be going wrong. But a combination of processes is occurring here because Ti is walking through it in my mind. Ne knows there is more than one way the problem could happen and will guess, eliminate, and zero in quickly. But this happens to be visual material for problem solving – so I’m not sure how far Se could/would also take this.


----------



## Eudaimonia

Se - action

Ne - fantastic, inventive imagination


----------



## Psychopomp

Old Intern said:


> @_arkigos_, I think there can be an overlap sometimes. You might think this is an Ni-Se combination process but I will make my example. Many years ago, cad operator in my department is telling boss we need a new mother-board. Without seeing the actual parts produced, my guess is that he doesn’t know what he is doing. I make a few sample drawings at the printer - trying one thing and then another. I show the boss there is no problem, the operator is doing this – drawing A, he should have been doing this – drawing B.
> 
> I wasn’t trained in anything like what this guy was doing; I could just visualize what might be going wrong. But a combination of processes is occurring here because Ti is walking through it in my mind. Ne knows there is more than one way the problem could happen and will guess, eliminate, and zero in quickly. But this happens to be visual material for problem solving – so I’m not sure how far Se could/would also take this.


Ne doesn't know anything. It simply inducts perceptions of the nature of a thing. Ne may have had a part in what you are describing, but it was probably mostly T, with the help of N and S in some attitude. 

If I were in that situation... I'd think, "new motherboard? That seems fishy. He probably doesn't know what he is doing and is, rather than questioning, assuming something is wrong with the machine. Typical. I'll just explain the procedure, and 20 bucks says he'll trigger on something he is goofing up." 

Ti and Si did a lot of that. Ne simply inducted a new perception of the nature of the situation. "I see this sort of thing play out all the time (Si), it's probably like that." Ne contributes by allowing you to perceive potential. 

You don't think that an xNTJ, or an xSTP might similarly question? Though I am sure it would play out differently in details. For example, the xSTP would get up and go look at it and ask pointed questions to work out what was really the matter. More interacting, less intuiting. Though I could see an ESTP say something like, "YOU are probably doing something wrong. Tell me what you are doing..." Then they induct data so Ti can lay the smack down.


----------



## Old Intern

@arkigos,
my *first *inclination was to consider *possibilities* about what makes a part be cut wrong. The story might have been too long or not as good of an illustration as I thought.

Where I could see an overlap with Se is the perceiver tendency to be adaptive, to look for what is or what might be. What is going on in the environment comes first, as the lead-in for what to do.


----------



## Raawx

MegaTuxRacer said:


> Leaving it alone is not something in my vocabulary.


I think that I can relate to this specifically. My brother and I got into a dispute about something pointless; the main reason we got into the dispute is because I kept wanting to explain the concept in further detail, while he felt that he already knew enough and didn't care to hear any more. I might be misinterpreting this, but would Ne doms have the tendency to always feel the need to vocalize ones opinion? For me, if something (reasoning, statement, etc.) is wrong, I _must _point it out. As you can imagine, this gets me into trouble.


----------



## Pelopra

Raawx said:


> I think that I can relate to this specifically. My brother and I got into a dispute about something pointless; the main reason we got into the dispute is because I kept wanting to explain the concept in further detail, while he felt that he already knew enough and didn't care to hear any more. I might be misinterpreting this, but would Ne doms have the tendency to always feel the need to vocalize ones opinion? For me, if something (reasoning, statement, etc.) is wrong, I _must _point it out. As you can imagine, this gets me into trouble.


i've seen this with entj's so not necessarily an Ne thing.


----------



## Raawx

Pelopra said:


> i've seen this with entj's so not necessarily an Ne thing.


Hmm. I've considered that I might be an ENTJ as well. What does it look like in the ENTJs that you've noticed?


----------



## ENTPreneur

Ne is a Perceiving function, so it cannot exist or be analyzed without the sorting function (Judging) of the individual. That construes how it is "experienced".

Ne is just present and future possibilities ad nauseum... Related to stuff perceived, and when referenced through for example Si too.

Example: When I was a kid I was very afraid of "stuff" in the dark. There could be so many things.... I needed to develop my Ti to judge which possibilities was realistic when it came to logic, and with age I developed my Si library enough to reference what was "likely" statistically due to experience. Thus my Filtering of which possibilities are actually probable och plausible has been honed. Judgement. I am not afraid of the dark in that way anymore.... But somehow I cannot completely escape thinking/considering the POSSIBILITY of something other being there and what would happen should it... 

So... Difficult to analyze or define a single function when it in actuality cannot stand alone. I find that people make this mistake a lot...


----------



## Pelopra

Raawx said:


> Hmm. I've considered that I might be an ENTJ as well. What does it look like in the ENTJs that you've noticed?


actually, there were two parts of your post





> _I might be misinterpreting this, but would Ne doms have the tendency to always feel the need to vocalize ones opinion? For me, if something (reasoning, statement, etc.) is wrong, I __must point it out. As you can imagine, this gets me into trouble._


It was this part that I was saying I've seen with ENTJs. Maybe in their case it's coming from Te, but then again, with NeTi I'm not fully convinced it's not coming from Ti (plus an extrovert willing to express it). i dunno, being vocal about opinions could easily be cross-type over multiple functions and have more to do with function order than anything more pinpointed.




> _I kept wanting to explain the concept in further detail, while he felt that he already knew enough and didn't care to hear any more_


that actually does sound like the sort of thing that can come from an NeTi NiTe clash. NeTi feels that more, more, more information is better (It'll anyway be able to sift through it very quickly via Ti). NiTe gets bored by too much information that doesn't seem to directly relate to the point (also, frequently, overwhelmed, and then irritated).

for NeTi, our big weakness in arguments is a "lack of focus"-- we know what we're getting at (okay... often we don't even know that, or at least not the endpoint, we just know the general direction towards and shape of whatever it is we're eventually getting at), but we approach it from so many angles at once with so many sidepoints to further demonstrate our idea that the other side gets lost/bored way before we get to whatever we were actually trying to say. (which is why we play better defense than offense-- we are easily able to counter an attack, finding a thousand holes...)

in a continuation of the above problem, I believe NeTi is much more likely to change their argument on the fly. Like "yes, i was arguing that at the beginning of this conversation, but I am now arguing for a different, modified version of my initial premise". Which just makes it all the more confusing for a non NeTi person on the other half of the argument to follow "well, what is your POINT?". 

(...i find the obsession with "what is your point" tracks more highly to TeXi than to, say FeNi with an ENFJ. xxTJ types are most vocal in expressing their impatience with an argument i'm making. And they can't stand the idea that sometimes I'm finding my point along the way of making it. )

((I've definitely found that for arguments specifically, other NeTi(/TiNe) users are the most fun because they easily roll with the changes in topic, taking it for granted. I've had six-hour-straight arguments with other xNTPs without getting exhausted (to the contrary-- highly energizing), a feat I could _not _manage with other types-- The Fi types because inevitably at some point their feelings get hurt by my verbal aggressiveness, the S types because they just don't care and think all the talking is pointless, the Te types because they get super frustrated, and I'm constantly having to tailor myself down to fit them, which gets me frustrated as well)
(For "discussion" in a non-argument sense it can sometimes get more boring because too much of the same thing.)))


----------



## Pelopra

ENTPreneur said:


> Ne is a Perceiving function, so it cannot exist or be analyzed without the sorting function (Judging) of the individual. That construes how it is "experienced".
> 
> Ne is just present and future possibilities ad nauseum... Related to stuff perceived, and when referenced through for example Si too.
> 
> Example: When I was a kid I was very afraid of "stuff" in the dark. There could be so many things.... I needed to develop my Ti to judge which possibilities was realistic when it came to logic, and with age I developed my Si library enough to reference what was "likely" statistically due to experience. Thus my Filtering of which possibilities are actually probable och plausible has been honed. Judgement. I am not afraid of the dark in that way anymore.... But somehow I cannot completely escape thinking/considering the POSSIBILITY of something other being there and what would happen should it...
> 
> So... Difficult to analyze or define a single function when it in actuality cannot stand alone. I find that people make this mistake a lot...



It should be possible to find a commonality of Ne-ness shared by both NeFi and NeTi users.


----------



## ENTPreneur

Pelopra said:


> It should be possible to find a commonality of Ne-ness shared by both NeFi and NeTi users.


Yes... But then people find inconsistencies with those definitions due to the experienced "lack" of accuracy in them. And THIS is based on how the Ne interacts with the judging functions, e g the Personality Type if you will. I think someones definition of you as possible INTP was justified... If it is correct I do not know... It is a simplified system and there will always be those that are close to the "borderlands". 

I do respect your search for knowledge and the ultimate description of Ne.. After spending some years here I have read many of them and the total mass make sort of a median description that I think is nicely summed up even in this thread.


----------



## Pelopra

ENTPreneur said:


> Yes... But then people find inconsistencies with those definitions due to the experienced "lack" of accuracy in them. And THIS is based on how the Ne interacts with the judging functions, e g the Personality Type if you will. I think someones definition of you as possible INTP was justified... If it is correct I do not know... It is a simplified system and there will always be those that are close to the "borderlands".
> 
> I do respect your search for knowledge and the ultimate description of Ne.. After spending some years here I have read many of them and the total mass make sort of a median description that I think is nicely summed up even in this thread.


I wouldn't say i need the ultimate description. I think reading lots of descriptions and coming to an understanding based on all of them is probably the better way to go-- for in-depth understanding. What I want is a _good enough_ description, specifically one with a decently high rate of falsifiability, for two things:
1. to improve testing accuracy
2. to enable explanations to people who do not have in-depth experience with Mbti/Jung/etc (i.e. the "lots of descriptions" path is not for them) of the _differences_ between people. (My favorite usage for mbti is describing, in neutral non-judgemental ways, the friction between different types. if, indeed, a dichotomy can be formed between "people who value symbolism" and "people who don't" it is easier to negotiate ways of communicating between the two types. (because the dichotomy ceases to be "people who are normal" and "weirdos", which seems to be the more default state of affairs in human interaction)) in general, ideally such descriptions should be describable in under a paragraph and should capture the basic essence, not of the function but of the _difference_ between that function and other functions.

at the end of the day both goals boil down to the same thing, which is, again, function descriptions which are easily answered with a "no" by people who do not have that function. like in http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174436-fi-fe-revisited.html where this statement has a reasonably high level of sorting ability, i.e. not only do FiTe/TiFe users tend to agree with their stated position, they also tend to _disagree _with the other side:


> Te might ask what the reasonable thing is, believing there is an absolute external standard, or specific greater good to align with. Ti will ask “what is the constructive thing to do” as a matter of policy, in light of on-going associations or current responsibilities. Fe wants to be liked and will try to see through the other’s eyes. Fi will think in terms of doing the right thing without particular questioning about what right means; it just is.


(note: don't think this statement is perfect, I find the Je descriptions in particular to be a trifle weak, but i definitely strongly identify with Ti in preference to Te or Fi, and with Fe in preference to Te or Fi*, and I have confirmed in an extremely anecdotal fashion that FiTe users feel the opposite way)
*(i said both, because it's not clear to me whether Fe contradicts Te or whether Fe contradicts Fi, not that either option is, on a practical level, separable-- since you don't get the chance to isolate one scenario over the other)

---

@_Old Intern_'s suggestion in her thread of typing starting from the judging functions and then working to the perceiving functions might be a good policy. on the other hand, sometimes at least one sensing function really is obvious. 


---


i spend a lot of time on the what's my type forum-- if nothing else, the startling variations between different people's responses to the same set of questions has convinced me of the general validity of even attempting to develop a typing system 

(which is the sort of thing people tend to argue about, since for various reasons different types have a tendency to view typing as either:
-hurtful, offensive, pigeonholing
-stupid, impractical, pigeonholing

whereas my opinions on type are described adequately above-- I think describing differences as Fi clashing with Ti is a much _better_ way of doing things than describing differences as 
Me And Those Precisely Like me, The Standard of All That Is Normal and Inherently Sensible, vs the Rude/Insensitive/Irrational/Nonsensical/Superficial/Hide-bound/Strange/Stubborn/Mushy/Cold weirdos out there. 

Which everyone denies that they do, but everyone does.)


----------



## Randomasd

Ne is fundamentally recognition of patterns in the "external world". How does this leads to the ability for recognizing possibilities? I have no idea... 

So, I believe that the opening of possibilities is the consequence of something more fundamental on the Ne function. 

I think it may work like that: Let's say I'm thinking about the chemical structure of metals, then I see a paper clip. What makes the connection of the abstract idea I have with the object I see is Ne; a Se user would be more focused on the details of the object he is focusing on, and when using Se he isn't worried about an abstract theory to filter stimulus, but taking it unfiltered through the senses.


----------



## Old Intern

Ne can be defined apart from judging functions - but is hard to recognize in other people because *results* of Ne come across differently based on the judging function - and place in the "stack". Ne as a perceiving function is about intake, (Jung's description of indirect thought). Output - even if only a matter of private policy or a person’s verbal definition of something - takes the judging function to make it "real".

BTW . . . . I want to clarify that I don't have trouble loosing focus or a tendency to jump trains in mid-argument. What I struggle with is not knowing what is obvious to me and what may not be so clear (or considered to be the most crucial elements) to my hearers. @_Pelopra_ we might have a similar experience but I would describe it differently? Something I read when pumping myself up for sales calling was - "*Don't spill your candy in the loby*". Ne-Ti will anticipate all the objections! So yes, we work better at defense - in a way. I prefer thinking of it as letting other people back themselves into my corner. When something is important, I do have to work at editing how I present "my case".

and - I don't believe Ne is random . . . . it just looks that way to an observer sometimes.
also ADD can overlap with some people being Se and some Ne's having it too.

one last comment - I find it hard to imagine anyone with an "N" tendency -not knowing they are somehow different than other kids growing up - just seeing things differently.


----------



## star tripper

Se is focused on description. The grass is green.
Si is focused on the imposed sensation. The grass is itchy.

The intuitive jump-off points are different here. Ni would derive a subjective meaning from the grass being green. Ne would connect the grass and/or its itchiness to something else seemingly randomly (although it isn't in fact random to the Ne user).


----------



## Pelopra

star tripper said:


> *Se is focused on description. The grass is green.
> Si is focused on the imposed sensation. The grass is itchy.*
> 
> The intuitive jump-off points are different here. Ni would derive a subjective meaning from the grass being green. Ne would connect the grass and/or its itchiness to something else seemingly randomly (although it isn't in fact random to the Ne user).


if we could get some votes and consensus from si, se users on whether they agree with that dichotomy, it could be useful.

don't love the N bit, though.


----------



## Old Intern

Si can be quite private and individual - from my understanding it can seem like Fi - but again the direct/indirect P/J difference.

Si dom who's posts I enjoy where are you to tell us about Si ?
@teddy564339


----------



## teddy564339

star tripper said:


> Se is focused on description. The grass is green.
> Si is focused on the imposed sensation. The grass is itchy.
> 
> The intuitive jump-off points are different here. Ni would derive a subjective meaning from the grass being green. Ne would connect the grass and/or its itchiness to something else seemingly randomly (although it isn't in fact random to the Ne user).





Pelopra said:


> if we could get some votes and consensus from si, se users on whether they agree with that dichotomy, it could be useful.
> 
> don't love the N bit, though.





Old Intern said:


> Si can be quite private and individual - from my understanding it can seem like Fi - but again the direct/indirect P/J difference.
> 
> Si dom who's posts I enjoy where are you to tell us about Si ?
> @_teddy564339_




It's hard for me to talk too much about Se, but I think the Si description fits. 


However, I think the key word is focused. Or maybe another good one is preference. It's not like an Si user wouldn't notice the grass is green, but it's not what they think of first, or what they think of the most, or as you said, what they focus on the most. Their natural tendency is to first think about how it affects them personally. I would imagine Se users are the opposite...they recognize the itchiness, but their tendency is to think about the green part.



I think there are a whole lot of deep implications of this main idea, but I won't go into all of them because I would have to post a whole lot. But basically, I think there's a definite connection between Si and the J-like structure that SJs prefer, and I would imagine the same is true for SPs and Se. I mention this some in this thread:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/176064-si-autism.html


----------



## Pelopra

teddy564339 said:


> It's hard for me to talk too much about Se, but I think the Si description fits.
> 
> 
> However, I think the key word is focused. Or maybe another good one is preference. It's not like an Si user wouldn't notice the grass is green, but it's not what they think of first, or what they think of the most, or as you said, what they focus on the most. Their natural tendency is to first think about how it affects them personally. I would imagine Se users are the opposite...they recognize the itchiness, but their tendency is to think about the green part.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a whole lot of deep implications of this main idea, but I won't go into all of them because I would have to post a whole lot. But basically, I think there's a definite connection between Si and the J-like structure that SJs prefer, and I would imagine the same is true for SPs and Se. I mention this some in this thread:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/176064-si-autism.html


it's like... se-related stuff (at least what i believe is se related stuff) kinda "bores" me... it's like my eyes are intaking the info but my brain doesn't flag it as important enough to pay any real attention to, so i'll look away from the girl in the green shirt and i won't even remember that her shirt was green? 

I have more than once not noticed major changes in a person's appearance. Two anecdotal stories:

1. In highschool a gaggle of girls were surrounding someone. 
"You look soooooooo different" one of them said.
"She looks different? what? What changed?" I asked.
"What do you mean? She got her braces off!"
".....she had braces?"

2. i walked into a classroom and someone was there and... I knew there was _something_ that looked different about her, like she looked "off" from what I was expecting... but I couldn't quite place what... So I said, tentatively "you... look different today?" and she said "...I got my hair straightened". At which point I remembered that, oh right, she had _intensely_ curly hair. 



but at the same time, i still remember the flavor of lasagna i ate a year ago. whut.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Well, Ne is like pudding, and Se is like jello.


----------



## Old Intern

Word Dispenser said:


> Well, Ne is like pudding, and Se is like jello.


what?


----------



## Word Dispenser

Old Intern said:


> what?


roud:

It depends on the flavours, and the consistencies, and the context of the dessert, y'know? 

I mean, pudding as an example... There's the obvious more gravy-like pudding, and then there's British pudding. Did you know that 'pudding' is completely different depending on the country you're in? I didn't know until I ended up living thousands of miles away.

And jello, well... What you see is what you get, basically. At least from what I've seen so far. Obviously there are variants of jello, too. Why, my ESFJ stepmum makes a mean 'traditional' dessert every Christmas, with different colours of jello and a strange whip cream, cream cheese, pineapple concoction in the center...


----------



## Pelopra

Word Dispenser said:


> roud:
> 
> It depends on the flavours, and the consistencies, and the context of the dessert, y'know?
> 
> I mean, pudding as an example... There's the obvious more gravy-like pudding, and then there's British pudding. Did you know that 'pudding' is completely different depending on the country you're in? I didn't know until I ended up living thousands of miles away.
> 
> And jello, well... What you see is what you get, basically. At least from what I've seen so far. Obviously there are variants of jello, too. Why, my ESFJ stepmum makes a mean 'traditional' dessert every Christmas, with different colours of jello and a strange whip cream, cream cheese, pineapple concoction in the center...


i wish i had the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Pelopra said:


> i wish i had the slightest clue what you're talking about.


----------



## Pelopra

Word Dispenser said:


>


i sort of spaced out at that gif for like... three minutes.


----------



## Old Intern

Word Dispenser said:


> roud:
> 
> It depends on the flavours, and the consistencies, and the context of the dessert, y'know?
> 
> I mean, pudding as an example... There's the obvious more gravy-like pudding, and then there's British pudding. Did you know that
> 
> 'pudding' is completely different depending on the country you're in? I didn't know until I ended up living thousands of miles away.
> 
> And jello, well... What you see is what you get, basically. At least from what I've seen so far. Obviously there are variants of jello, too. Why, my ESFJ stepmum makes a mean 'traditional' dessert every Christmas, with different colours of jello and a strange whip cream, cream cheese, pineapple concoction in the center...


It sounds like what you are saying is that Se has no private interpretation, but in a way Ne is also still objective. Se gets handed over to Ti or Fi for anything that becomes real to people observing the Se user, so in that respect it still comes across as individual. I wouldn't say for example that my ESFP Dad is plain old jello, same as any other jello. His Se will still be expressed through the specifics of whatever is part of his "Fi folder"

My machine shop/cad operator analogy might not be too far off ?(above in the thread) Imagining the possibilities, based on physical evidence could come from Se or Ne, but Ne takes it automatically farther. This would be a crass extreme example but I imagine my Dad wanting to see the parts and figure out a way they can still be used - with duct tape or something, or else throw the job out and start over. I, without trying to, can "see" many ways for there to be a gap of mis-matched assumptions between the hardware, software, and what the user thinks they did. So I take a jump off from parts cut wrong - to "seeing" the many reasons why this could happen. It's indirect thinking because I wasn't trained on this particular equipment and I wasn't trying to figure it out, it was just my reaction.


----------



## Word Dispenser

Old Intern said:


> It sounds like what you are saying is that Se has no private interpretation, but in a way Ne is also still objective. Se gets handed over to Ti or Fi for anything that becomes real to people observing the Se user, so in that respect it still comes across as individual. I wouldn't say for example that my ESFP Dad is plain old jello, same as any other jello. His Se will still be expressed through the specifics of whatever is part of his "Fi folder"
> 
> My machine shop/cad operator analogy might not be too far off ?(above in the thread) Imagining the possibilities, based on physical evidence could come from Se or Ne, but Ne takes it automatically farther. This would be a crass extreme example but I imagine my Dad wanting to see the parts and figure out a way they can still be used - with duct tape or something, or else throw the job out and start over. I, without trying to, can "see" many ways for there to be a gap of mis-matched assumptions between the hardware, software, and what the user thinks they did. So I take a jump off from parts cut wrong - to "seeing" the many reasons why this could happen. It's indirect thinking because I wasn't trained on this particular equipment and I wasn't trying to figure it out, it was just my reaction.


Oh, I agree about the objectiveness of Se and Ne-- They are similar in their present-orientation, and their interpretation of objective information.

I was just being playful when I wrote about pudding and jello. :kitteh:


----------



## monemi

star tripper said:


> Se is focused on description. The grass is green.
> Si is focused on the imposed sensation. The grass is itchy.


Why would I be focused on description? Why would any Se-dom focus on description? Description has nothing to do with experience.


----------



## monemi

teddy564339 said:


> It's hard for me to talk too much about Se, but I think the Si description fits.
> 
> 
> However, I think the key word is focused. Or maybe another good one is preference. It's not like an Si user wouldn't notice the grass is green, but it's not what they think of first, or what they think of the most, or as you said, what they focus on the most. Their natural tendency is to first think about how it affects them personally. I would imagine Se users are the opposite...they recognize the itchiness, but their tendency is to think about the green part.
> 
> 
> 
> I think there are a whole lot of deep implications of this main idea, but I won't go into all of them because I would have to post a whole lot. But basically, I think there's a definite connection between Si and the J-like structure that SJs prefer, and I would imagine the same is true for SPs and Se. I mention this some in this thread:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/176064-si-autism.html


I see grass and my first thought is wanting to touch the grass. Take my shoes and socks off and feel it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

monemi said:


> I see grass and my first thought is wanting to touch the grass. Take my shoes and socks off and feel it.


If I may ask, ignore what you want to do or how you feel about the grass, can you describe to me what you *See* when looking at grass? Dont force yourself to see anything, just describe what you initially see when looking at grass.


----------



## monemi

Shadow Logic said:


> If I may ask, ignore what you want to do or how you feel about the grass, can you describe to me what you *See* when looking at grass? Dont force yourself to see anything, just describe what you initially see when looking at grass.


I can give the same description anyone else can. But the description isn't my focus.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

monemi said:


> I can give the same description anyone else can. But the description isn't my focus.


I know, but It was my focus.

I asked because if you are an Se user truly then your personal description of what you "see" when staring at an object could be viable information that pertains to this discussion. You don't have to answer obviously, but I would like to know what you truly *see* in the moment that you are looking at grass without the thoughts of what you want to do or want to get out of it.


----------



## star tripper

Shadow Logic said:


> I know, but It was my focus.
> 
> I asked because if you are an Se user truly then your personal description of what you "see" when staring at an object could be viable information that pertains to this discussion. You don't have to answer obviously, but I would like to know what you truly *see* in the moment that you are looking at grass without the thoughts of what you want to do or want to get out of it.


This was what I was getting at.

Yes, you want to touch the grass, but what do you perceive _before_ that desire comes? What exactly do you "see?"


----------



## Mr inappropriate

I wonder more about what do color blind people see actually ? lol, or what Ne/Ni-doms see/perceive ? 

no offence but I believe, anyone answering that question other than green is weird or dishonest.


----------



## star tripper

crashbandicoot said:


> I wonder more about what do color blind people see actually ? lol, or what Ne/Ni-doms see/perceive ?
> 
> no offence but I believe, anyone answering that question other than green is weird or dishonest.


Really? I ask my ISFJ mom to describe the grass underneath her and she goes, "It's gonna stain my white shoes if I don't get off it first." 

It's not that I don't think Si-users would answer green -- it's that it wouldn't be the immediate perception because they abstract the sensation.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

star tripper said:


> Really? I ask my ISFJ mom to describe the grass underneath her and she goes, "It's gonna stain my white shoes if I don't get off it first."
> 
> It's not that I don't think Si-users would answer green -- it's that it wouldn't be the immediate perception because they abstract the sensation.


interesting but I thought the observer was just looking at grass, not on it from reading this.


> I would like to know what you truly see in the moment that you are looking at grass


and not describing it.

What do you perceive as Ne-dom ?


----------



## nkavezic

Well, both Si and Se are sensation functions, meaning they both deal with essentially the same subject. How something looks like, the sensation it leaves upon touching, is it wet or dry, what taste it leaves in ones mouth... People tend to oversimplify Se, making it look like some robotic function that is capable only of mindless perception of things around it. Fortunately, the truth is anything but that and furthermore Si is not that different from Se in its most basic modus operandi. 

I only possess Si as a tertiary function, and yet my first impression of something that is in front of me, let's say grass or dog or whatever, would be that it is just that - grass or a dog. I mean, grass is always just grass, is it not? You really won't see anyone who wouldn't say that. People view these things as something normal. They don't require additional mental exertion. Even an ENxP who has introverted sensation as an inferior function will say that. 

That may seem weird since Ne ( ENxP primary function) fundamentally deals with what is not in front of it. It is concerned with the underlying concept behind things, and because of that it is abstract. Questions like "but what grass really is" are the domain of Ne. Forget all that fancy sensory imagination people use to delineate Ne. Think of it as a philosophical function. 'What grass really is?' Is it 'the last, most pure part of the old world that is dying? Is it the favourite kids' playground? Or perhaps the most obvious metaphor of the circle of life?' ' What would happen if those things change, what would be the implications?' 'Perhaps only the change of colour would be enough' etc etc etc.

As you can hopefully see, Ne is essentially concerned with symbolism. It does not really care for the thing itself, but what is behind it and how that shapes everything else. 

Obviously, with simple things you really won't get that. They are mostly reserved for sensory perception. And that is alright, just completely OK. How could you really function in the world that would only be a subject of symbolic thought?

EDIT: Sorry, I just read the first post and completely overlooked the fact that there had been already 10 pages of quality discussion.

EDIT EDIT: It even wasn't the first post LOL


----------



## star tripper

crashbandicoot said:


> interesting but I thought the observer was just looking at grass, not on it from reading this.
> 
> and not describing it.
> 
> What do you perceive as Ne-dom ?


I was just giving a real life example. :tongue:

When I look at grass, I don't really register the color. It probably depends on my mindset at the moment, but I usually start imagining scenarios taking place on the grass. Like, I'll look at the grass and start imagining myself playing baseball. Or it'll remind me of a scene from a movie and I'll start imagining myself in the movie.


----------



## monemi

Shadow Logic said:


> I know, but It was my focus.
> 
> I asked because if you are an Se user truly then your personal description of what you "see" when staring at an object could be viable information that pertains to this discussion. You don't have to answer obviously, but I would like to know what you truly *see* in the moment that you are looking at grass without the thoughts of what you want to do or want to get out of it.


But that's my problem. You're perceiving that there has to be a thought/concept/idea and dismiss my perception down to a description because you don't accept Se as Se. Se is sensing. I want to sense the grass. My perception is sensing the grass in the moment. Touch. My first perception is how it feels on my skin. You're dismissing my perception and insisting on me using a different function.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

star tripper said:


> I was just giving a real life example. :tongue:
> 
> When I look at grass, I don't really register the color. It probably depends on my mindset at the moment, but I usually start imagining scenarios taking place on the grass. Like, I'll look at the grass and start imagining myself playing baseball. Or it'll remind me of a scene from a movie and I'll start imagining myself in the movie.


:shocked:

I'll have trouble if somebody *told me to imagine* things from looking at grass and for you it comes first, wow


----------



## star tripper

monemi said:


> But that's my problem. You're perceiving that there has to be a thought/concept/idea and dismiss my perception down to a description because you don't accept Se as Se. Se is sensing. I want to sense the grass. My perception is sensing the grass in the moment. Touch. My first perception is how it feels on my skin. You're dismissing my perception and insisting on me using a different function.


Oh, I wasn't saying that what you were saying _wasn't_ Se (that would be silly). I was just trying to get it down to what it is at its most basic. In my line of thinking, what you're saying is an extension of what I was saying -- the next step after. Do you disagree that what I described is the step before? Or are you saying there is no step before?



crashbandicoot said:


> :shocked:
> 
> I'll have trouble if somebody *told me to imagine* things from looking at grass and for you it comes first, wow


Too bad it's useful for absolutely nothing, and I end up looking dumb when someone asks me basic questions about the grass I was staring at for fifteen minutes. :dry:


----------



## Oprah

nkavezic said:


> Well, both Si and Se are sensation functions, meaning they both deal with essentially the same subject. How something looks like, the sensation it leaves upon touching, is it wet or dry, what taste it leaves in ones mouth... People tend to oversimplify Se, making it look like some robotic function that is capable only of mindless perception of things around it. Fortunately, the truth is anything but that and furthermore Si is not that different from Se in its most basic modus operandi.
> 
> I only possess Si as a tertiary function, and yet my first impression of something that is in front of me, let's say grass or dog or whatever, would be that it is just that - grass or a dog. I mean, grass is always just grass, is it not? You really won't see anyone who wouldn't say that. People view these things as something normal. They don't require additional mental exertion. Even an ENxP who has introverted sensation as an inferior function will say that.
> 
> That may seem weird since Ne ( ENxP primary function) fundamentally deals with what is not in front of it. It is concerned with the underlying concept behind things, and because of that it is abstract. Questions like "but what grass really is" are the domain of Ne. Forget all that fancy sensory imagination people use to delineate Ne. Think of it as a philosophical function. 'What grass really is?' Is it 'the last, most pure part of the old world that is dying? Is it the favourite kids' playground? Or perhaps the most obvious metaphor of the circle of life?' ' What would happen if those things change, what would be the implications?' 'Perhaps only the change of colour would be enough' etc etc etc.
> 
> As you can hopefully see, Ne is essentially concerned with symbolism. It does not really care for the thing itself, but what is behind it and how that shapes everything else.
> 
> Obviously, with simple things you really won't get that. They are mostly reserved for sensory perception. And that is alright, just completely OK. How could you really function in the world that would only be a subject of symbolic thought?
> 
> EDIT: Sorry, I just read the first post and completely overlooked the fact that there had been already 10 pages of quality discussion.
> 
> EDIT EDIT: It even wasn't the first post LOL


I'm not hugely versed in MBTI, but to me I'm getting some huge "S's are much more simplistic than N's" vibe from you... 

I'd sooner compare Si with Ni - they both deal with living "inside your head" and making associations or connections between past experiences. 

To me Si and Ni are more easily compared than Si and Se. 


But for you to say that Si is not much different than Se... it just doesn't make sense >.<


----------



## monemi

star tripper said:


> I was just giving a real life example. :tongue:
> 
> *When I look at grass, I don't really register the color. *It probably depends on my mindset at the moment, but I usually start imagining scenarios taking place on the grass. Like, I'll look at the grass and start imagining myself playing baseball. Or it'll remind me of a scene from a movie and I'll start imagining myself in the movie.





star tripper said:


> Oh, I wasn't saying that what you were saying _wasn't_ Se (that would be silly). I was just trying to get it down to what it is at its most basic. In my line of thinking, what you're saying is an extension of what I was saying -- the next step after. Do you disagree that what I described is the step before? Or are you saying there is no step before?
> 
> 
> 
> Too bad it's useful for absolutely nothing, and I end up looking dumb when someone asks me basic questions about the grass I was staring at for fifteen minutes. :dry:


My first perception of grass isn't the colour. My first perception of grass is the sensation of touching grass. I don't imagine a whole story. I'm not sure I understand why your perception is right but you're pressing me for a visual description. I answered the question.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

monemi said:


> My first perception of grass isn't the colour. My first perception of grass is the sensation of touching grass. I don't imagine a whole story. I'm not sure I understand why your perception is right but you're pressing me for a visual description. I answered the question.


If other Se users can confirm that their experience of perception is similar to yours then this is great information to have. It may clear up some misunderstandings of what people perceive Se to be.


----------



## star tripper

monemi said:


> My first perception of grass isn't the colour. My first perception of grass is the sensation of touching grass. I don't imagine a whole story. I'm not sure I understand why your perception is right but you're pressing me for a visual description. I answered the question.


I think you're misinterpreting the questions I'm asking you. I'm not operating under, "[my] perception is right;" I'm asking you as an Se-user if there's a step in between seeing the grass and the desire to touch it (ie do you first identify there is grass there, do you see its color, objective things). And I didn't say you imagine a whole story. I'm actually hypothesizing the opposite -- that you just see the grass as it is and then get the desire to touch it. Unless you, as an Se-user, say otherwise. :tongue: Which it sounds like you are saying, but I reworded the question anyway to make sure we're on the same page.

And my "I don't really register the color" bit was just one part of what I was getting at -- I don't register grass first; I register various contexts the grass could be in.

Although, I must say, "the sensation of touching the grass" is pretty helpful in itself.


----------



## monemi

Shadow Logic said:


> If other Se users can confirm that their experience of perception is similar to yours then this is great information to have. It may clear up some misunderstandings of what people perceive Se to be.





star tripper said:


> I think you're misinterpreting the questions I'm asking you. I'm not operating under, "[my] perception is right;" I'm asking you as an Se-user if there's a step in between seeing the grass and the desire to touch it (ie do you first identify there is grass there, do you see its color, objective things). And I didn't say you imagine a whole story. I'm actually hypothesizing the opposite -- that you just see the grass as it is and then get the desire to touch it. Unless you, as an Se-user, say otherwise. :tongue: Which it sounds like you are saying, but I reworded the question anyway to make sure we're on the same page.
> 
> And my "I don't really register the color" bit was just one part of what I was getting at -- I don't register grass first; I register various contexts the grass could be in.
> 
> Although, I must say, "the sensation of touching the grass" is pretty helpful in itself.


The average Se, by my estimation would perceive the grass according to one of their senses first. Sight, touch, smell, taste or even the sound of wind blowing through the grass. Any one of the 5 senses would be the first perception an Extroverted Sensor would have. I'm very hands on. If you look through my closet, you'll see I'm a very tactile person. Silks, linens, lambswool, brocade, chantilly lace, taffeta, doeskin, muslin, satin, tulle, suede, beading, hemp etc... I think what each Extroverted Sensor would perceive about grass first would vary. Even if a group of them perceive visual first, those that do perceive visual first, not all of them would point out the colour first as that might not be what attracts them first.


----------



## nkavezic

UglierBetty said:


> I'm not hugely versed in MBTI, but to me I'm getting some huge "S's are much more simplistic than N's" vibe from you...
> 
> I'd sooner compare Si with Ni - they both deal with living "inside your head" and making associations or connections between past experiences.
> 
> To me Si and Ni are more easily compared than Si and Se.
> 
> 
> But for you to say that Si is not much different than Se... it just doesn't make sense >.<


Honestly, I really had no intention of belittling S. I mean, that wasn't even in my mind - I wasn't comparing the functions or their values. I barely stated what each function does - N being concerned with concept, essence and S being concerned with concrete and tangible reality. After all, we are all simultaneously both N and S and I find the idea of S inferiority ridiculous. I've met S's smarter than I, S's whose creativity I was absolutely jealous of. Why would I find a N type better? Obviously, I wouldn't and I really don't.

When it comes to Si and Se, I can understand the critique I'm receiving. It's the way I phrased my thoughts that caused the trouble I believe. I did a sloppy work of presenting what I had had in my mind. The medium of communication isn't really helpful either. It would be so much better if the thoughts were directly transmitted without having to stop to pen them down

Of course that Se and Si are very different, broadly speaking, in the their method and goals. I wasn't really aiming at that, the fundamentals weren't in my mind when I was posting. Technically, if they were the same then they wouldn't require separate names. The difference between introverted and extroverted functions is huge as space.

What I was referring at was that they are not so different when it comes to the things that we deal with every day. We all take some things for granted and trying to find the difference between Se and Si in the perception of 'grass' or 'dog' is kind of silly to me. I think that such viewpoint is focused on the details, the small parts of picture if I may, and does not really yield a consensual conclusion. I mean yes, there should be differences, at least in theory but can they really be seen? I too want to know what grass feels like when I touch it. Does that make me a Se? Maybe it does.

The problem seems to lie in fact that thought process behind such primal perceptions is hugely subconscious and what we are left with are differences that are solely not enough to determine whether a person possesses Se or Si. That kind of thing really needs to be put in a larger cognitive context if we intend to define any of the functions. 

Just my thoughts, you don't have to agree of course.


----------



## star tripper

monemi said:


> The average Se, by my estimation would perceive the grass according to one of their senses first. Sight, touch, smell, taste or even the sound of wind blowing through the grass. Any one of the 5 senses would be the first perception an Extroverted Sensor would have. I'm very hands on. If you look through my closet, you'll see I'm a very tactile person. Silks, linens, lambswool, brocade, chantilly lace, taffeta, doeskin, muslin, satin, tulle, suede, beading, hemp etc... I think what each Extroverted Sensor would perceive about grass first would vary. Even if a group of them perceive visual first, those that do perceive visual first, not all of them would point out the colour first as that might not be what attracts them first.


Just want to clarify I was using "color" as a placeholder for objective visual stimulants. Actually, it doesn't matter because I was under the impression that perception is primarily sight but it makes a lot more sense to say that it's any one of the five senses. So perhaps one Se-dom first notices the sound of the wind bitchslapping the grass, one Se-dom first needs to touch the grass, one Se-dom notices the varying lengths of the blades, one Se-dom smells the grass immediately, and, well, I mean I guess an Se-dom could have the urge to taste the grass.


----------



## monemi

star tripper said:


> Just want to clarify I was using "color" as a placeholder for objective visual stimulants. Actually, it doesn't matter because I was under the impression that perception is primarily sight but it makes a lot more sense to say that it's any one of the five senses. So perhaps one Se-dom first notices the sound of the wind bitchslapping the grass, one Se-dom first needs to touch the grass, one Se-dom notices the varying lengths of the blades, one Se-dom smells the grass immediately, and, well, I mean I guess an Se-dom could have the urge to taste the grass.


It is interesting that your assumption is that perception is going to be sight. Maybe you're reliant on sight to feed Extroverted Intuition? One of the reasons I don't enjoy art galleries is that you're not allowed to touch the paintings. It's frustrating. I'm not allowed to interact with the paintings. I'm only allowed to look at them. Stupid art galleries.


----------



## star tripper

monemi said:


> It is interesting that your assumption is that perception is going to be sight. Maybe you're reliant on sight to feed Extroverted Intuition? One of the reasons I don't enjoy art galleries is that you're not allowed to touch the paintings. It's frustrating. I'm not allowed to interact with the paintings. I'm only allowed to look at them. Stupid art galleries.


That's a good question, actually. Other Ne-doms/-auxes, do you rely primarily on sight? I _can_ rely on the other senses, but sight is clearly #1.

The art gallery thing is interesting. When my ISFP friend and I went, she was constantly taking pictures, getting as close to the painting as possible, commenting on brush strokes, and when we visited this room with several tapestries hanging on the walls, she immediately went up to touch them and sniff them. So that would then be her Se at work, huh? On the other hand, I actually got kicked out of the tapestry room for peering behind all the tapestries trying to find trapdoors.


----------



## SuperSoaker

monemi said:


> I see grass and my first thought is wanting to touch the grass. Take my shoes and socks off and feel it.


Never about smoking it?


----------



## spiderfrommars

star tripper said:


> Se is focused on description. The grass is green.
> 
> Si is focused on the imposed sensation. The grass is itchy.


This seems to assume that Se relies on sight more than any of its other senses, and that Si relies on touch more than any of its other senses. I've noticed that in descriptions a lot, and I have been wondering about why. I think it's because touch sort of...feels the most abstract/personal, so when trying to describe how Si focuses on their internal sensations and the experience the grass gives them, it's easy to use touch as a shorthand. I see taste being used this way frequently as well.

However, I think a given Se or Si can be primarily focused on any sense. I do agree that the Si will be more interested in the impression it is making upon them. What am I currently feeling internally? And, yes, Se will be more attuned to what the grass actually is, but I don't think that's all.



monemi said:


> I see grass and my first thought is wanting to touch the grass. Take my shoes and socks off and feel it.


This makes me think that Se's response to the grass is to want to affect it. Si takes it in, realizes the grass is itchy, and so on. Se looks at the grass, and wants to actively touch it. What you're describing here is an immediate impulse for action: what you see when you look at the grass is what you'd like to do with the grass. 

Does that sound right? I think that's the distinction between Si and Se, here. Si notices, "the grass is affecting me, it is itchy." Se notices, "I want to interact with that grass, I wonder what it feels like." (Is that right? The wondering?)


----------



## monemi

SuperSoaker said:


> Never about smoking it?


Not my first thought, but now that you say it... Damn, it should be.


----------



## monemi

spiderfrommars said:


> This makes me think that Se's response to the grass is to want to affect it. Si takes it in, realizes the grass is itchy, and so on. Se looks at the grass, and wants to actively touch it. What you're describing here is an immediate impulse for action: what you see when you look at the grass is what you'd like to do with the grass.
> 
> Does that sound right? I think that's the distinction between Si and Se, here. Si notices, "the grass is affecting me, it is itchy." Se notices, "I want to interact with that grass, I wonder what it feels like." (Is that right? The wondering?)


I'm very impulsive. As I've matured, I've learned to slow down and think before doing something. Se appears more of an action/interactive perspective. Wanting to take things in, absorb, experience, seek stimulation, curious. Is impulse even really a thought process? Any space between seeing something and the inclination to interact with it on some level seems non-existent to me.


----------



## SuperSoaker

There has to be a link between add/ADHD and Se dom/aux?


----------



## Mr inappropriate

^^and Ne people say its related to Ne.


----------



## SuperSoaker

crashbandicoot said:


> ^^and Ne people say its related to Ne.


Well being a perceiver then


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

Conversation between Ne and Se deciding what to eat:

Ne: I'm hungry
Se: Me too
Ne: What should we eat?
Se: I don't know, do you have any taste for anything specific?
Ne: Ahhh so many options. 
Se: Look there's a McDonalds right there!
Ne: Orrrr we can go to Burger King
Se: Fine
Ne: Although I kinda feel like eating chinese
Se: Ok let's get chinese
Ne: Well what do you want?
Se: I don't really care, I'm hungry, I'm fine with anything.
Ne: Hmmm... I can't decide... what about we go to a nice restaurant?
Se: (Ti kicks in) That's too expensive and we can't afford it right now.
Ne: (Fi kicks in) But I deserve it, I worked hard this week.
Se: Fine, then we can't get that new tv we want if we keep spending money on food.
Ne: Uhhh you're right, I do want that tv. Sooo...what should we eat?


----------



## Raawx

Life.Is.A.Game said:


> Conversation between Ne and Se deciding what to eat:
> 
> Ne: I'm hungry
> Se: Me too
> Ne: What should we eat?
> Se: I don't know, do you have any taste for anything specific?
> Ne: Ahhh so many options.
> Se: Look there's a McDonalds right there!
> Ne: Orrrr we can go to Burger King
> Se: Fine
> Ne: Although I kinda feel like eating chinese
> Se: Ok let's get chinese
> Ne: Well what do you want?
> Se: I don't really care, I'm hungry, I'm fine with anything.
> Ne: Hmmm... I can't decide... what about we go to a nice restaurant?
> Se: (Ti kicks in) That's too expensive and we can't afford it right now.
> Ne: (Fi kicks in) But I deserve it, I worked hard this week.
> Se: Fine, then we can't get that new tv we want if we keep spending money on food.
> Ne: Uhhh you're right, I do want that tv. Sooo...what should we eat?


Don't you mean a conversation between you and your boyfriend?


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

Raawx said:


> Don't you mean a conversation between you and your boyfriend?


Lol was it that obvious? )


----------



## Life.Is.A.Game

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/178394-game-cognitive-functions.html

Come play my cognitive function game!!!


----------



## star tripper

spiderfrommars said:


> This seems to assume that Se relies on sight more than any of its other senses, and that Si relies on touch more than any of its other senses. I've noticed that in descriptions a lot, and I have been wondering about why. I think it's because touch sort of...feels the most abstract/personal, so when trying to describe how Si focuses on their internal sensations and the experience the grass gives them, it's easy to use touch as a shorthand. I see taste being used this way frequently as well.
> 
> However, I think a given Se or Si can be primarily focused on any sense. I do agree that the Si will be more interested in the impression it is making upon them. What am I currently feeling internally? And, yes, Se will be more attuned to what the grass actually is, but I don't think that's all.


Yeah, @monemi kept me in check about the whole sight thing (in my mind, perception is literally through the eyes).

Your description of Se and Si was in line with what I was thinking, but I'm hesitant on it because it implies Se embraces sensation and Si reacts to it (or perhaps I'm imposing that implication myself).


----------



## PaladinX

star tripper said:


> Yeah, @_monemi_ kept me in check about the whole sight thing (in my mind, perception is literally through the eyes).
> 
> Your description of Se and Si was in line with what I was thinking, but I'm hesitant on it because it implies Se embraces sensation and Si reacts to it (or perhaps I'm imposing that implication myself).


It makes sense though when you consider how Jung described Extraversion as _"a manifest relation of subject to object, a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object;"_ and Introversion as _"a negative relation of subject to object. Interest does not move towards the object but withdraws from it into the subject."_


----------



## Old Intern

SuperSoaker said:


> Well being a perceiver then


naaaaah, some people who have ADD think they are P's And some P's think they must be ADD just because they are different from somebody J who found a quicker or smoother place in life - so they think they have something wrong.


----------



## star tripper

PaladinX said:


> It makes sense though when you consider how Jung described Extraversion as _"a manifest relation of subject to object, a positive movement of subjective interest towards the object;"_ and Introversion as _"a negative relation of subject to object. Interest does not move towards the object but withdraws from it into the subject."_


I quite like this. How would it apply to the other functions?


----------



## Old Intern

Being aware of your own thoughts and an observing self (introvert), vs outward focus and less awareness of yourself as the observer (extrovert) - Doesn't relate to the world being like a fast moving radio dial with static - which is the best I can come up with for an understanding about ADD - like the radio dial and not staying tunned.

That I like to channel surf doesn't mean I have tuning in malfunctions.


----------



## spiderfrommars

star tripper said:


> I quite like this. How would it apply to the other functions?


 I've been thinking about an idea that introverted functions reject (and create?) things in whatever their area is, while extraverts seek out (and curate?) their things. So:

Si rejects unpleasant sensations, Se seeks out sensations
Fi rejects things they find "bad," Fe seeks out things that stimulate them
Ti rejects information, Te seeks out information
Ni rejects ideas [ways of understanding], Ne seeks out new ideas [ways of understanding]

　
An important point here is that while the introvert in each pair is picky, the extravert is not. Se doesn't just seek out pleasant sensations, but all sensations--at least to try them out, of course they will learn that putting their hand on the fire hurts and stop doing it. But they will want to try. Fe seeks out not just good things, but everything that stimulates their emotions/moral evaluations. Te seeks out not just information that agrees with their previous understanding, but all information. And Ne doesn't just seek out good ideas, but any new ideas.

It's not that the extravert can't then drop this stuff once they realize it's no good: Se can take their hand off the stove, Fe can dump the manipulative friend, Te can realize the study wasn't properly conducted, and Ne can realize that, no, a rocket-propelled car made of cheese isn't viable. But they spend most of their time trying to find more, and the introverts spend most of their time selecting.

What do you think?


----------



## Deus Absconditus

@spiderfrommars I agree with your ideas that introverted functions reject while Extraverted functions seek out. Thank you for this new piece of information, I see it as a very viable idea.


----------



## TaylorS

*Se sees "what is"*, helped by Ni which gives many different perspectives on "what is".

*Ne sees "what could be"*, helped by Si, which tells Ne "what was".


----------



## TaylorS

PaladinX said:


> @_Pelopra_
> 
> I think one of the problems that you are having in separating Ne and Se is the amount of weight you give Ni. You have to remember that in an ESTP, Ni is the inferior, most repressed function. To me, my girlfriend's brother is a good example of this. *We thought he was an ENTP based on his penchant for arguing, his multiple degrees, high intelligence, and quick wit.* After testing him and coming out ESTP, we had him read the profile, then read the profile of an ENTP to see if that suited him better. His initial reaction to viewing the latter was "pfft! Intuition?! That is definitely not me. Intuition is f**king stupid."


Sensors can't be smart, educated, and witty? I think you have some self-hate going on! :tongue:

The smartest, most witty person I know is an ISFJ lawyer.


----------



## PaladinX

TaylorS said:


> Sensors can't be smart, educated, and witty? I think you have some self-hate going on! :tongue:
> 
> The smartest, most witty person I know is an ISFJ lawyer.


Attributing traits to a type does not mean the opposite type cannot exhibit those traits. In general, ENTPs are known for those things, are ISFJs? We are talking about generalities. This does not mean that all ENTPs exhibit those traits and that no ISFJ does. 

There is no self-hate. You are reading into something that isn't there.


----------



## Dreamer777

MNiS said:


> You know... the solution to that would be to simply leave like 15 minutes earlier.
> 
> Though, I'm absolutely not one to judge when it comes to being on time. I actually blew two job interviews because I was so late to them. One was at the Hilton in Long Beach, which if you've ever been you'd know their parking lot is in an absurd location and if you pass it you get spit back on to the freeway. >:| I hate the roads in Long Beach. They even have roundabouts which I'm still not sold on as being more efficient. ;/ Well, I was so embarrassed I was so late that I also missed the cue that my interviewer wanted to eat lunch with after the interview was over. :bored: Terrible day for me, that one was. x.x
> 
> The other was about 30 miles away and I was relying on Google Map's estimated destination time to decide what time to leave because I find suits to be incredibly uncomfortable and leaving at the right time means you'll be as fresh as possible while also minimizing time spent in said uncomfortable suit. Well, there was major road construction on the freeways that wasn't accounted for and I was like three hours late. >>:|
> 
> *sigh* I hate LA sometimes. :\
> 
> Anyway, driving is one activity where it pays to be very good with Se. Much more so than Ne.


LOL! ROFL!! :laughing:

what's wrong with us dang late people?! i say i'm gonna be late to my own dang funeral, by time i get there everyone will be gone from being sick of waiting so long! LOL :laughing:

yeah, i see what you mean about the concept of Se verses Ne as in noticing signs at appropriate times so as to not miss turn offs, etc. But as in the google thing, not sure how Se could have helped any better there? would that not be more Ni to execute a perfect plan and strategy kinda thing? how would it be Se?


----------



## Thalassa

spiderfrommars said:


> This seems to assume that Se relies on sight more than any of its other senses, and that Si relies on touch more than any of its other senses. I've noticed that in descriptions a lot, and I have been wondering about why. I think it's because touch sort of...feels the most abstract/personal, so when trying to describe how Si focuses on their internal sensations and the experience the grass gives them, it's easy to use touch as a shorthand. I see taste being used this way frequently as well.
> 
> However, I think a given Se or Si can be primarily focused on any sense. I do agree that the Si will be more interested in the impression it is making upon them. What am I currently feeling internally? And, yes, Se will be more attuned to what the grass actually is, but I don't think that's all.
> 
> 
> 
> This makes me think that Se's response to the grass is to want to affect it. Si takes it in, realizes the grass is itchy, and so on. Se looks at the grass, and wants to actively touch it. What you're describing here is an immediate impulse for action: what you see when you look at the grass is what you'd like to do with the grass.
> 
> Does that sound right? I think that's the distinction between Si and Se, here. Si notices, "the grass is affecting me, it is itchy." Se notices, "I want to interact with that grass, I wonder what it feels like." (Is that right? The wondering?)


For me it's more like I wonder how people tolerate their dreadful boring lives, and feel slightly arrogant about the diversity of my experience. And I feel utmost sympathy for "trapped" SPs, though they generally find escape through things like coaching football or having secret affairs. Even Keirsey said the ESFP goes whistling past the graveyard and ISFP can abandon the family to paint in the mountains....I think STPs may find a lot of joy in firefighting, police work and EMT or emergency room services. I wonder how some of my old friends survive their lives.

I need new input, or I have to be challenged. I think my drug addict sister is Se dom. My mom even says "Sheree likes to shock people" and Keirsey identified this as a trait of unfulfilled SPs.

A truly fulfilled SP is unfettered. My dream romance since I was twenty years old is the man who wanders back to me. Neither of trapped, but dying with holding my hand, like Henry Miller and Anais Nin.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

I don't know shit about Se or Ne, but I like that analogy. Bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead, have very long, complex music. It goes on forever, and is richly filled. I can't/don't appreciate it. I like my music barebones. I like short, fast things. Like Monemi said about Se flooring it to save time. Exactly. 

There is a music station around here plays edited versions of songs. I love it. lol. Like Light My Fire by the Doors. That keyboard solo, totally cut out. And I'm very thankful for that. There is no reason to keep repeating that for like 3 minutes. That's why I love vintage rock. The days of the 3 minute single. I don't care about guitar solos, or musicianship. The longer a song is, the less likely I will like it.

Very interesting. All my friends with Ne love that jam band music. I never have.


----------



## MNiS

Dreamer777 said:


> LOL! ROFL!! :laughing:
> 
> what's wrong with us dang late people?! i say i'm gonna be late to my own dang funeral, by time i get there everyone will be gone from being sick of waiting so long! LOL :laughing:
> 
> yeah, i see what you mean about the concept of Se verses Ne as in noticing signs at appropriate times so as to not miss turn offs, etc. But as in the google thing, not sure how Se could have helped any better there? would that not be more Ni to execute a perfect plan and strategy kinda thing? how would it be Se?


Well, an Se type probably wouldn't rely on a time estimator to begin with.

Also, I was just being humorous.  I drive to most places and arrive there on time or exactly when I planned on arriving. I was just trying to make @Raawx laugh by sharing two comically bad instances of poor timekeeping.


----------



## Thalassa

MNiS said:


> I know you're trying to show Ne contrasted to Se but that's not exactly true. I mean, obviously Ne types have eyes and use them to notice details in the environment. It's just that Se on its own is much less appealing that studying the environment and conceptualizing from there. For instance, if you look at a chair you may notice that it is brown in appearance with four legs and I'd say okay sure but that's not very interesting. The chair could be used to say wedge up against a door to prop it shut; you could stand on it as a make shift ladder; you could collect a bunch of them and play musical chairs; or you could simply sit in it.
> 
> Socionics describes Ne as the internal static of objects or meaning: The potentiality of stuff. What use or uses can you come up with something. That's why Ne types, especially dominants can come up with multiple perspectives on something and are seemingly endless idea generators. That's what they're good at and enjoy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some are but not all. A lot of Ne-types can actually be quite brash and anti-hippyish. It would depend highly on the culture the person is surrounded in as say, INFJ can be quite hippyish too.


Yes thanks you and I mean the same thing but misunderstand each other. Se has a hunger for what is there, for new tangible experience, to be physically or emotionally (rather than academically) challenged. I have a hunger for facts and substance and exact memory, for the beauty of the perfect physical and emotional experience, or even for the new imperfect experience because the old becomes old. But I love the reality of what is old, not the impression of it. Like my ESFP once said "this song is so great, just listen to it over and over again until its old, forget about it, then when you listen to it again, it's so tight!"

Se needs a break from even the physically delicious. Friday in the evening, Sunday in the afternoon, what have you got to lose....Tuesday please be gone im tired of you, what have you got to lose...can I tell it like it is? Suite Judy Blue Eyes by Crosby Stills and Nash is a very SP love song...how do you catch the sparrow? Will you come see me? Thursday and Saturday...what have you got to lose?

Being Se Fi is like the engulfment emotionally of what is, judging it, putting it aside for novelty, then retrieving it. My ISTJ used to say, you want to actually relive it again.

I watched House of 1000 Corpses again on my birthday. It was exciting again.


----------



## Thalassa

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't know shit about Se or Ne, but I like that analogy. Bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead, have very long, complex music. It goes on forever, and is richly filled. I can't/don't appreciate it. I like my music barebones. I like short, fast things. Like Monemi said about Se flooring it to save time. Exactly.
> 
> There is a music station around here plays edited versions of songs. I love it. lol. Like Light My Fire by the Doors. That keyboard solo, totally cut out. And I'm very thankful for that. There is no reason to keep repeating that for like 3 minutes. That's why I love vintage rock. The days of the 3 minute single. I don't care about guitar solos, or musicianship. The longer a song is, the less likely I will like it.
> 
> Very interesting. All my friends with Ne love that jam band music. I never have.


I don't like 20 minute songs either, but I like the Grateful Dead and went to the Further Festival (Jerry Garcia died on my birthday or the day before, in my teens, sadness) ...honestly I think that's a heroin cocaine x thing....I never was really more than a pothead and a drinker, though I tried others, drugs weren't my scene...I am a sort of relaxed person, I enjoy the sensual but drugs made me too incompetent, I can't be incompetent, I think that comes from Te influence...I am a histrionic (authoritarian parents held me up to impossible conditional standards but experentially gave me the world) and drugs really don't gel with my need to be impressive, I tend to rebel in more active ways (apparently histrionics are similar to sociopaths in their need for excitement and impact but have empathy, I am pretty sure now almost that histrionic personality disorder is SFP or NFJ and aspd is STP, think my sister is ESTP)....anyway...um...unhealthy SP stuff aside...I think Ne goes more oon these mad ideas or possibilities of adventure, Se does porn, joins the park service or the.military or becomes a film maker or musician...SP lives out tangible ID EXPERIENCE....I think Ne can explore in one spot thanks to Si.

Like long instrumental solos. I don't know. My ENFP friends seem less bothered by physical stagnation. I still like all ten minutes of Green Grass and High Tides Forever. I want that song played at my funeral.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

That's interesting about the jam bands, as I love music like that, but I've always kind of associated it with Se, so just thought it was a small contradiction.


----------



## FearAndTrembling

fourtines said:


> I don't like 20 minute songs either, but I like the Grateful Dead and went to the Further Festival (Jerry Garcia died on my birthday or the day before, in my teens, sadness) ...honestly I think that's a heroin cocaine x thing....I never was really more than a pothead and a drinker, though I tried others, drugs weren't my scene...I am a sort of relaxed person, I enjoy the sensual but drugs made me too incompetent, I can't be incompetent, I think that comes from Te influence...I am a histrionic (authoritarian parents held me up to impossible conditional standards but experentially gave me the world) and drugs really don't gel with my need to be impressive, I tend to rebel in more active ways (apparently histrionics are similar to sociopaths in their need for excitement and impact but have empathy, I am pretty sure now almost that histrionic personality disorder is SFP or NFJ and aspd is STP, think my sister is ESTP)....anyway...um...unhealthy SP stuff aside...I think Ne goes more oon these mad ideas or possibilities of adventure, Se does porn, joins the park service or the.military or becomes a film maker or musician...SP lives out tangible ID EXPERIENCE....I think Ne can explore in one spot thanks to Si.
> 
> Like long instrumental solos. I don't know. My ENFP friends seem less bothered by physical stagnation. I still like all ten minutes of Green Grass and High Tides Forever. I want that song played at my funeral.


I actually like the Grateful Dead too. But only their most radio friendly, mainstream songs. Like Casey Jones. Allman Brothers is another band like this. I only like their short, mainstream songs. Like Ramblin Man. 

My father was at Woodstock, and is still a big pothead. INTJ. He''s cool, kinda nerdy, but cool. He doesn't like that hippy music either. He likes stuff I like. Like Elvis and Neil Diamond. 

How would inferior Se and Ne manifest themselves?


----------



## Inveniet

Ne is objecifying possibilities.
Se is objectifying sensations.

This leads you to have a distaste for the opposite way of doing it.
Hence people clash over it and argue a lot.
Even people like me who know it.
I just now was very crass with a person over type related shit in another thread.
It will not lead anywhere constructive, unless you can call being rightously indignant
a constructive state. 
Still I do it, cause it feels right.


----------



## Razef

Raawx said:


> I actually really strongly related to his example for Ne. I don't get mad easily at most because I find that there are usually other reasons for the action than what I can see. When one is given an argument they can either: reject, accept, or suspend judgement. I typically suspend judgement, simply for lack of information. When the information is provided, and I have a full grasp of the situation, then I can feel. It truly is perceiving before judging.
> 
> Does this example perfectly encompass Se/Ne? Probably not. Am I saying that your example was wrong? No. Just in my experience, I did find that the latter example was accurate.
> 
> I can see what you mean in your example, though. If anything, what @_Razef_ provided was an example for an ENFP, while yours was for an ENTP.
> 
> EDIT: On second thought, I think you might be wrong. I'm not sure.
> 
> Ne is intuition of the present
> Ni is intuition of the future
> Se is sensing of the present
> Se is sensing of the future
> 
> I do believe that this is the case. What you're likely describing, then, would be Ni rather than Ne.


I think what she was describing is actually Ne, since it's kinda like ''what if''. What if we did something about this road? like replacing it with some kind of traintracks where all cars are automatic and people don't have to drive, just like now that we have cars that drive on itself but are still kinda rare, then we could prevent this etc. stuff like that, just thinking it for the sake of thinking ideas but not actually doing anything about it.


----------



## monemi

FearAndTrembling said:


> I don't know shit about Se or Ne, but I like that analogy. Bands like Phish and the Grateful Dead, have very long, complex music. It goes on forever, and is richly filled. I can't/don't appreciate it. I like my music barebones. I like short, fast things. Like Monemi said about Se flooring it to save time. Exactly.
> 
> There is a music station around here plays edited versions of songs. I love it. lol. Like Light My Fire by the Doors. That keyboard solo, totally cut out. And I'm very thankful for that. There is no reason to keep repeating that for like 3 minutes. That's why I love vintage rock. The days of the 3 minute single. I don't care about guitar solos, or musicianship. The longer a song is, the less likely I will like it.
> 
> Very interesting. All my friends with Ne love that jam band music. I never have.


If a song is long, it better be for a good reason. An aimless repetitive tune that people 'jam' to make me impatient. It's like really bad sex. Pass. But some musical piece's (no words, just music) have a sense of purpose and are enjoyable to me. 

#EPICWIN

* *












 Not a jam obviously, but it's just the music and the composer is very effectively communicating with the listener without words. Not standing on the stage saying "yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah". 

Jams are good, if we're going somewhere with this or it's kept short. Sometimes, jams are ruined when they add singing. Like Boston's Foreplay. Fanfuckingtastic beginning, mocked with the ugly stick when they start singing. Why? We'll never know. Makes me think of why I'm not a fan of Metallica. So obnoxious about being "serious" musicians effectively alienating much of the audience. I want my music to take me on an experience. I don't want musicians to fret about the technicalities of their art. I want art up close and personal. Authenticity in all of it's beauty and grotesqueness.


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> Rereading this thread, this is a point I'd like to explore further. Because my experience has been that there is something more accepting, more "let things be" in the way many Se users I know approach ideas. I also like the way you describe independently operating ideas within the mental space. I can almost imagine metaphorically speaking an Se user interacting with ideas like separate toys, picking up and examining each one, exploring the room in an enjoyable, somewhat laid back fashion.
> 
> @_monemi_, feedback?


How do I approach a problem? I work with what I have on hand. I wouldn't say I 'let things be'. I just don't plan on things being as I want them to be. I wouldn't say I pick up separate toys and examine each one. I will pull together seemingly unrelated ideas in the moment and problem solve with them. I find people who aren't as willing to accept things as they are, will focus too much on what they don't have on hand instead of seeing what they do have and working with that.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

As an Ne dominant I kind of experience perception like this:

I see every object as defined by its surrounding. (i.e., the object itself (including people, ect.) only exists in relation to all other objects and the definition of the object is defined by how the object relates to the other objects). Basically, I think strong Ne users will repress the detailed sensory data of Se to grasp a more complete picture of the relationship between the objects in the environment. In contrast, Se users will experience the world in immense physical detail, noticing everything and wanting to physically experience it themselves; however, due to this Se users repress perceiving the relationships and connections that exist between the objects.

Not sure if that made sense, but that's how I've always assumed both to be different. Both are Pe junctions, so all the ExxPs actually have the most "objective" perception of reality. For ESxPs that comes in forms of objective physical detail, whereas for ENxPs that comes in forms of objective object relations.


----------



## Recede

I read through this whole thread and I still can't figure out whether I prefer Se or Ne. I think I understand the functions but I seem to use both. Well, now what? :/


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Silveresque said:


> I read through this whole thread and I still can't figure out whether I prefer Se or Ne. I think I understand the functions but I seem to use both. Well, now what? :/


Don't just rely on your meta-thinking. Be empirical about it.


----------



## Recede

ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Don't just rely on your meta-thinking. Be empirical about it.


I am being empirical. I'm constantly observing myself and I've seen both forms of perception in my cognition.


----------



## Kitty.diane

If you cant ideologically understand Ne then you are an Se user. If you had Ne the descriptions would make sense. (No i didnt read the entire thread. #enfp)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Silveresque said:


> I read through this whole thread and I still can't figure out whether I prefer Se or Ne. I think I understand the functions but I seem to use both. Well, now what? :/


Ne is going to feel "introverted" in the sense that a lot of it happens in your head. Ne seems "random" because people don't understand the jumps. 

i.e., if someone is talking about grass I'll sometimes (Ne dom) will go in my head grass is green. Green reminds me of St Paddys day. St Paddys day reminds me of drinking. and then I verbalize "Oh shit, the liquor store is closing in 15 and I still need to pick something up."

Because I only verbalize the last part it seems completely random; however, if people could see the thought process it actually is just very rapid "random" yet still connected jumps. Those jumps usually happen in less than half a second.

If you constantly find yourself thinking about something, then a few minutes later ask "how did I get to thinking about this" that is very Ne. 

Se on the other hand is more physical. From what I understand of it you are constantly physically present. I can tell you that as an Ne dom I NEVER feel "physically present." I am always present, but on a more "intuitive" level. e.g., I always trip over things because I'm physically oblivious; however, I can always tell the alternative meanings of something someone said because I am always "present" in terms of intuitively perceiving what is happening.

I think a good example may be:

Se: realizes someone has a crush on you because of their body language

Ne: realizes someone has a crush on you because their behavior pattern changes around you compared to others

Changes are if you iffy you're Se. Ne users typically "Aha" when they read the Ne description. Or, at least that was my experience and the experience of other NPs I know. 

Ne really is a lot about future possibilities and generating a lot of them. An Ne user will say "we could do this" and the Se user will say "what are we waiting for." 

Ne users are more content that Se users to just discuss ideas. Se users want to experience the world. Ne users do too; however, they may need a push to leave the couch, so to speak. 

Ne users rarely commit to any one idea or perspective. As an ENTP I can literally hold 5-10 different positions on a single topic depending on the day and what other people are arguing.

Another thing as an Ne dom is that I usually "see" what is potentially coming. For example, today I was watching a stand up comedy routine with my friends. The comic was in the middle of telling the joke and I realized where he was going so I started laughing. My friends didn't understand why I was laughing, as the comic hadn't said anything funny ... yet. Once the joke was made a couple seconds later they joined in.


----------



## Recede

MightyLizardKing said:


> Ne is going to feel "introverted" in the sense that a lot of it happens in your head. Ne seems "random" because people don't understand the jumps.
> 
> i.e., if someone is talking about grass I'll sometimes (Ne dom) will go in my head grass is green. Green reminds me of St Paddys day. St Paddys day reminds me of drinking. and then I verbalize "Oh shit, the liquor store is closing in 15 and I still need to pick something up."
> 
> Because I only verbalize the last part it seems completely random; however, if people could see the thought process it actually is just very rapid "random" yet still connected jumps. Those jumps usually happen in less than half a second.
> 
> If you constantly find yourself thinking about something, then a few minutes later ask "how did I get to thinking about this" that is very Ne.
> 
> Se on the other hand is more physical. From what I understand of it you are constantly physically present. I can tell you that as an Ne dom I NEVER feel "physically present." I am always present, but on a more "intuitive" level. e.g., I always trip over things because I'm physically oblivious; however, I can always tell the alternative meanings of something someone said because I am always "present" in terms of intuitively perceiving what is happening.
> 
> I think a good example may be:
> 
> Se: realizes someone has a crush on you because of their body language
> 
> Ne: realizes someone has a crush on you because their behavior pattern changes around you compared to others
> 
> Changes are if you iffy you're Se. Ne users typically "Aha" when they read the Ne description. Or, at least that was my experience and the experience of other NPs I know.
> 
> Ne really is a lot about future possibilities and generating a lot of them. An Ne user will say "we could do this" and the Se user will say "what are we waiting for."
> 
> Ne users are more content that Se users to just discuss ideas. Se users want to experience the world. Ne users do too; however, they may need a push to leave the couch, so to speak.
> 
> Ne users rarely commit to any one idea or perspective. As an ENTP I can literally hold 5-10 different positions on a single topic depending on the day and what other people are arguing.
> 
> Another thing as an Ne dom is that I usually "see" what is potentially coming. For example, today I was watching a stand up comedy routine with my friends. The comic was in the middle of telling the joke and I realized where he was going so I started laughing. My friends didn't understand why I was laughing, as the comic hadn't said anything funny ... yet. Once the joke was made a couple seconds later they joined in.


Hmm, I don't relate to any of these examples of Ne or Se.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy

Silveresque said:


> I am being empirical. I'm constantly observing myself and I've seen both forms of perception in my cognition.


Observing yourself is meta-thinking in this context. Look at how you affect your environment and the people around you (and what type those people are). Ask your friends about their thoughts.

You've literally gone from LII to ESI. You have 130 posts in your type-me thread. There needs to be some new approach here.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, I don't relate to any of these examples of Ne or Se.


My Se examples probably suck, I have none of it and only have a couple Se friends.

Not to say it's final, but if you don't really identify with the Ne ones you may be Se. Of course everything depends on the person, so don't rule Ne out cause you don't identify with my experiences of it.


----------



## Crome

monemi said:


> I see grass and my first thought is wanting to touch the grass. Take my shoes and socks off and feel it.


I'm starting to get a bit of a clue here. Si and Se both think about the experience. For Si, it's about how the grass makes their feet feel, while for Se it's about how the grass feels under their feet. The subject of your interest is not your body, but rather your body is the object that allows you fully experience the subject of your focus which in the above hypothetical example is the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment). If I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Se dom, you probably enjoying touching more than being touched.
As for teddy, I imagine the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment) is the object that allows him to fully experience the subject of his interest which is his body. Again if I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Si dom, teddy probably enjoys being touched more than touching.

Sensing isn't something I understand too well, and mbti as a whole is still somewhat foreign to me. I'd love some feedback on these speculations of mine. Thanks in advance!


----------



## monemi

Crome said:


> I'm starting to get a bit of a clue here. Si and Se both think about the experience. For Si, it's about how the grass makes their feet feel, while for Se it's about how the grass feels under their feet. The subject of your interest is not your body, but rather your body is the object that allows you fully experience the subject of your focus which in the above hypothetical example is the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment). If I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Se dom, you probably enjoying touching more than being touched.
> As for teddy, I imagine the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment) is the object that allows him to fully experience the subject of his interest which is his body. Again if I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Si dom, teddy probably enjoys being touched more than touching.
> 
> Sensing isn't something I understand too well, and mbti as a whole is still somewhat foreign to me. I'd love some feedback on these speculations of mine. Thanks in advance!


Yes, I enjoy touching more than being touched. Sex being the easier example here. It's nice if my partner touches me, but really sex is about getting my hands on my partner.


----------



## TruthDismantled

Crome said:


> I'm starting to get a bit of a clue here. Si and Se both think about the experience. For Si, it's about how the grass makes their feet feel, while for Se it's about how the grass feels under their feet. The subject of your interest is not your body, but rather your body is the object that allows you fully experience the subject of your focus which in the above hypothetical example is the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment). If I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Se dom, you probably enjoying touching more than being touched.
> As for teddy, I imagine the grass(could be replaced with any other aspect of the environment) is the object that allows him to fully experience the subject of his interest which is his body. Again if I'm getting this right, then I bet as an Si dom, teddy probably enjoys being touched more than touching.
> 
> Sensing isn't something I understand too well, and mbti as a whole is still somewhat foreign to me. I'd love some feedback on these speculations of mine. Thanks in advance!


I think your grass example is good, I also think it's correct! I hope someone with a little more understanding than myself can shed some light.


----------



## TruthDismantled

Perhaps Se users are more likely to "it's cold!" while Si users are more likely to say "I'm cold".

You guys notice this in yourselves?


----------



## Raawx

TruthDismantled said:


> Perhaps Se users are more likely to "it's cold!" while Si users are more likely to say "I'm cold".
> 
> You guys notice this in yourselves?


I like your example. It captures the objective and subjective qualities of Se and Si. It might not be completely accurate (in the Si one sense) but it captures the understanding much better.

It's like:
- Se: It is [sensation].
- Si: [sensation] makes me feel this. (not in the traditional sense of feeling)

Also, plays into the whole "blunt" aspect of Se. 

I've always said Se is binge eating, while Si is comfort eating. Both can be addicts, but for different motivations.


----------



## jasakki

TruthDismantled said:


> I think your grass example is good, I also think it's correct! I hope someone with a little more understanding than myself can shed some light.


Person affects environment = extraversion
Environment affects person = introversion

Or at least how individual experiences it. 

Over-simplified, but this is something that Jung originally meant with these terms in my opinion.


----------



## monemi

jasakki said:


> Person affects environment = extraversion
> Environment affects person = introversion
> 
> Or at least how individual experiences it.
> 
> Over-simplified, but this is something that Jung originally meant with these terms in my opinion.


Thermostat = extraversion
Thermometer = introversion

Is that what you mean?


----------



## FearAndTrembling

monemi said:


> Yes, I enjoy touching more than being touched. Sex being the easier example here. It's nice if my partner touches me, but really sex is about getting my hands on my partner.


Yes, definitely. I hate being touched. And I often find myself touching things. Not people.. I am very imbalanced between what I touch, and what touches me. I am very discriminatory and sensitive about sensory input. I'm all output.


----------



## jasakki

monemi said:


> Thermostat = extraversion
> Thermometer = introversion
> 
> Is that what you mean?


Lol  I think u can put it that way too.

Just trying to say that introverts see reality more subjectively as we are more likely to experience ourselves as objects and vice versa...

Hope that made more sense.


----------



## VoodooDolls

what about touching myself?


----------



## monemi

DonutsGalacticos said:


> what about touching myself?


You prefer touching yourself to being touched or touching other people?


----------



## jasakki

DonutsGalacticos said:


> what about touching myself?


I was thinking about the same thing  didn't get far on that...


----------



## VoodooDolls

monemi said:


> You prefer touching yourself to being touched or touching other people?



hehehe nah i was joking 
I enjoy being touched, i enjoy touching too, i enjoy it so much.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Silveresque said:


> I read through this whole thread and I still can't figure out whether I prefer Se or Ne. I think I understand the functions but I seem to use both. Well, now what? :/


What ways do you feel you use Ne and what ways do you feel you use Se?


----------



## Dreamer777

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, I don't relate to any of these examples of Ne or Se.


obviously you are a Ni dom Se inferior
or a Si dom Ne Inferior

is probably why you cant' relate well to the Ne and Se descriptions

Ni x x Se = INFJ or INTJ
Si x x Ne = ISFJ or ISTJ

INTJ and ISTJ are Te users, so they will settle on a type for themself fairly quickly, especially someone like yourself that has been around Typology for a long time.

ISFJ will settle rather quickly on a type too being that they are inferior abstract/theory thinkers

that leaves INFJ, which are mostly the type that don't like to be put in a box of being typed in the first place! You are obviously an abstract/theory type of person to even be sooooooo interested in prolonged debates of typology. S's are not into that as much as N's are.

My guess is you're INFJ.


----------



## Recede

Dreamer777 said:


> obviously you are a Ni dom Se inferior
> or a Si dom Ne Inferior
> 
> is probably why you cant' relate well to the Ne and Se descriptions
> 
> Ni x x Se = INFJ or INTJ
> Si x x Ne = ISFJ or ISTJ
> 
> INTJ and ISTJ are Te users, so they will settle on a type for themself fairly quickly, especially someone like yourself that has been around Typology for a long time.
> 
> ISFJ will settle rather quickly on a type too being that they are inferior abstract/theory thinkers
> 
> that leaves INFJ, which are mostly the type that don't like to be put in a box of being typed in the first place! You are obviously an abstract/theory type of person to even be sooooooo interested in prolonged debates of typology. S's are not into that as much as N's are.
> 
> My guess is you're INFJ.


Why are you trying to type me knowing nothing about me? Have you actually seen any Si or Ni in my posts? If not, you're just making unfounded assumptions and jumping to conclusions.


----------



## Sporadic Aura

Silveresque said:


> Why are you trying to type me knowing nothing about me? Have you actually seen any Si or Ni in my posts? If not, you're just making unfounded assumptions and jumping to conclusions.


I haven't read any of your posts up until now, but if you gave a short description of the ways you feel you use Ne vs Se I might be able to help you out. Or at least give my interpretation and mention others that I feel are better at typing than myself and ask their opinions as well.

I feel that Ne is given lots of different descriptions, some of which feel accurate to me, and others seem wildly off. I could at least try to determine if maybe you have some misinterpretations about what Ne is really like.


----------



## Recede

Sporadic Aura said:


> I haven't read any of your posts up until now, but if you gave a short description of the ways you feel you use Ne vs Se I might be able to help you out. Or at least give my interpretation and mention others that I feel are better at typing than myself and ask their opinions as well.
> 
> I feel that Ne is given lots of different descriptions, some of which feel accurate to me, and others seem wildly off. I could at least try to determine if maybe you have some misinterpretations about what Ne is really like.


Se: I see things exactly as they are. I see what things look like objectively without adding any subjective descriptors or having personal, subjective perceptions. I get annoyed when people seem to be arguing with reality, complaining that something isn't the way it used to be, doesn't make sense, or doesn't meet some standard of how they think it should be. It is what it is, and you can actually see what it is right now. It is pointless to argue with objective reality. 

Ne: I'm always aware that there are other possibilities or interpretations of things, whether or not I have anything specific in mind. I can easily think of ideas and possibilities, and I'm very sensitive to ambiguity. I've spent three years jumping around types, partly because nothing fits that well, but also partly because I have to explore every possibility in order to figure out which one is the best fit.


----------



## Bricolage

Se - experiences in outer environment 

Ne - ideas and possibility in outer environment


----------



## Glory

Ne types generate many abstractions that the environment implies, and Se types work with the environment as is. Se types can understand abstractions just fine if they're mentioned, but their focus is the environment and its utility at hand.


----------



## Bricolage

Jung hints at what I mean with his respective descriptions of Se and Ne types. With Se Jung uses terms like realist, which connotes an interest in _current _happenings; Ne users are called entrepreneurial by Jung, which connotes an interest in possibilities and_ future _happenings.


----------



## Crome

monemi said:


> Yes, I enjoy touching more than being touched. Sex being the easier example here. It's nice if my partner touches me, but really sex is about getting my hands on my partner.


That is the exact example I was thinking about. Thanks for the feedback. I'd love to hear from an Si dom as well.

@OP. I apologise man. The conversation between monemi and teddy completely sucked me in. I believe Se values what currently is, more than what it could be tomorrow. Ne does the opposite and values what could be, more than what currently is. This doesn't mean that Se doms don't give a damn about future possibilities, or that Ne doms don't give a damn about the present reality. It just means that they each naturally value one over the other, and that sets a distinctive difference in attitude.

Se: Today's reality is the foundation/building block to tomorrow's reality. I will manipulate the present, one brick at a time, till I've built my staircase to the heavens.

Ne: Tomorrow's reality defines the significance of today's reality. I will spread my wings and explore the future, one possibility at a time, till I've found the perfect and most significant spot in today's reality, and free fall back to earth.

All feedback is appreciated. Especially where Se doms are concerned.


----------



## Recede

Crome said:


> That is the exact example I was thinking about. Thanks for the feedback. I'd love to hear from an Si dom as well.
> 
> @OP. I apologise man. The conversation between monemi and teddy completely sucked me in. I believe Se values what currently is, more than what it could be tomorrow. Ne does the opposite and values what could be, more than what currently is. This doesn't mean that Se doms don't give a damn about future possibilities, or that Ne doms don't give a damn about the present reality. It just means that they each naturally value one over the other, and that sets a distinctive difference in attitude.
> 
> Se: Today's reality is the foundation/building block to tomorrow's reality. I will manipulate the present, one brick at a time, till I've built my staircase to the heavens.
> 
> Ne: Tomorrow's reality defines the significance of today's reality. I will spread my wings and explore the future, one possibility at a time, till I've found the perfect and most significant spot in today's reality, and free fall back to earth.
> 
> All feedback is appreciated. Especially where Se doms are concerned.


I've been leaning slightly toward Se aux lately, and that Se example fits me perfectly. The way I see it, I can't know what will happen, I can only do what I can now in the present to hopefully lead to a better future. A good future is nice, but I can't ignore the present reality. I'm currently in a situation where the present sucks and the future (a couple months from now) will be awesome. And I'm feeling kind of depressed/unhappy, perhaps because my focus is more on the present. I've never thought of the future giving the present significance, that's an interesting perspective. And I like your wings metaphor.


----------



## Crome

Silveresque said:


> Se: I see things exactly as they are. I see what things look like objectively without adding any subjective descriptors or having personal, subjective perceptions. I get annoyed when people seem to be arguing with reality, complaining that something isn't the way it used to be, doesn't make sense, or doesn't meet some standard of how they think it should be. It is what it is, and you can actually see what it is right now. It is pointless to argue with objective reality.
> 
> Ne: I'm always aware that there are other possibilities or interpretations of things, whether or not I have anything specific in mind. I can easily think of ideas and possibilities, and I'm very sensitive to ambiguity. I've spent three years jumping around types, partly because nothing fits that well, but also partly because I have to explore every possibility in order to figure out which one is the best fit.


That's normal. The functions of any given type are merely preferences, and the degree to which you prefer one function over it's opposing one, differs from person to person. The one you prefer is the one that most influences your attitude. You're misunderstanding the meaning behind "preferred function", if you're hoping to fit one description and not the other. You're a human being and hopefully a reasonably complete one. Being Ne dom will not make you blind when you're outside, any more than being an Se dom will make you oblivious to future implications and possibilities.
Observe your attitude, and see whether you prefer starting from the top and working down, or starting from the bottom and working up. I could be wrong, as I'm still kind of new to this, but to me at least, it seems kinda simple. Then again, I may be failing to communicate my point properly, so please let me know if you're still confused.


----------



## Crome

I should really read threads entirely before posting. So impatient with putting my opinion across lol. I'm glad I was able to help you a little, and I really hope I'm not misleading you with my meager understanding.


----------



## Dreamer777

Crome said:


> That is the exact example I was thinking about. Thanks for the feedback. I'd love to hear from an Si dom as well.
> 
> @OP. I apologise man. The conversation between monemi and teddy completely sucked me in. I believe Se values what currently is, more than what it could be tomorrow. Ne does the opposite and values what could be, more than what currently is. This doesn't mean that Se doms don't give a damn about future possibilities, or that Ne doms don't give a damn about the present reality. It just means that they each naturally value one over the other, and that sets a distinctive difference in attitude.
> 
> Se: Today's reality is the foundation/building block to tomorrow's reality. I will manipulate the present, one brick at a time, till I've built my staircase to the heavens.
> 
> Ne: Tomorrow's reality defines the significance of today's reality. I will spread my wings and explore the future, one possibility at a time, till I've found the perfect and most significant spot in today's reality, and free fall back to earth.
> 
> All feedback is appreciated. Especially where Se doms are concerned.


lol at your descriptions, especially Ne free falling back to earth, haha, i'm aux Ne INFP, i totally get it 

good descriptions of Se and Ne, i like!


----------



## Dreamer777

Silveresque said:


> Se: I see things exactly as they are. I see what things look like objectively without adding any subjective descriptors or having personal, subjective perceptions. I get annoyed when people seem to be arguing with reality, complaining that something isn't the way it used to be, doesn't make sense, or doesn't meet some standard of how they think it should be. It is what it is, and you can actually see what it is right now. It is pointless to argue with objective reality.
> 
> Ne: I'm always aware that there are other possibilities or interpretations of things, whether or not I have anything specific in mind. I can easily think of ideas and possibilities, and I'm very sensitive to ambiguity. I've spent three years jumping around types, partly because nothing fits that well, but also partly because I have to explore every possibility in order to figure out which one is the best fit.


*"but also partly because I have to explore every possibility in order to figure out which one is the best fit."*

Silveresque, that sounds like Ni rather Ne, here's why: best fit is Ni. Ni looks at everything and keeps discarding what is rubbish or unnecessary, like the Nebula verses the Supernova. Nebula Ni draws in everything it needs to make one defined thing. Supernova Ne takes one defined thing and explodes it into many different possibilities. Ne doesn't care about failing at a plan, Ni is hell bent on wanting a plan to work out. Ne more enjoys the ride of trying different ideas and possibilities like the enjoyment one feels on a roller coaster ride, and getting high on the ride, then getting off the ride and feeling happy about the high of the ride. Soon again Ne will be off trying another idea llike going on another roller coaster ride, hence what @Crome said, then freefalling back to earth. Ne just wants to enjoy the ride, whether or not the plan works out. It's the high of the enjoyment of trying the new ideas/possibilities or just dreaming them up too without even trying them out sometimes, Ne gets high doing that. The outcome isn't as important. (nice when it does work out though, but doesn't bother a Ne user as much when it doesn't work out, as it bothers a Ni user deeply when it doesn't work out. Because Ne doesn't spend much time making a plan, just jumps up and starts trying out different things to see what works, whereas Ni takes a very long time to make a plan and puts alot of effort and time into making the plan and then gets real frustrated when the plan don't work out, cause they invested so much time and effort into making the plan, they have lost all that, Ne didn't lose much, it didn't invest much, so no big loss for Ne, but rather a huge loss for Ni.)

So i guess you could say, when it comes to a plan (choosing what is the best fit), Ne enjoys the ride of being curious to try out different ways even if they don't work out, and Se is not caring of how enjoyable the ride is, as long as the plan works out and they get the best fit. However, it doesn't mean Se doesn't enjoy life, Se lives in the moment and enjoys life in the present moment and makes the best out of the present moment in the physical, but Se pairs with Ni, so for plans, Se can be very disciplined to build that stairway to heaven one brick at a time every day and not get bored nor frustrated with following through with that plan. It frustrates the hell out of Ne to try to do that. Ne want's to be wild and free to enjoy the ride and screw it if the plan fails, who cares, Ne will find another plan and try something else again. Ne just wants to stay high on dreaming up ideas and possibilities and trying them out sometimes, it's that high that Ne cares about, not the plan itself so much. 

But of course this would be in the dom and aux position for Ni and Ne. Once it's teritary and inferior function, then whatever is the dom functions are ruling, not the ter and inferior. But it still would show somewhat, just nowhere as strong as in dom and aux.

So Se more so enjoys the present in the physical, but is boring and monotonous with carrying through a plan.
Ne more so enjoys dreaming up ideas and trying some of them out and would get bored with being stable, steady and consistent to carry through a long term plan, but is less able to enjoy the present in the physical, as is more in their mind/abstract.


(and you mentioned in another post afterwards that you see yourself as a Se user, but you're still not sure on Ne, which makes sense because if you're Se then you're Ni, not Ne, Ne goes with Si. I don't see Ne in your posts, i see Ni. You say aux Se, so ISTP and INFJ shares the same functions, INFJ Ni Fe Ti Se, ISTP Ti Se Ni Fe, so when an ISTP is in a Ti Ni (Ni Ti) loop it can resemble ways of the INFJ, and when an INFJ is in a Ni Ti loop (Ti Ni) it can resemble ways of the ISTP.)

I hope i explained it ok, i'm not that great at explaining things properly (due to my strong Ne of course


----------



## monemi

Dreamer777 said:


> *"but also partly because I have to explore every possibility in order to figure out which one is the best fit."*
> 
> Silveresque, that sounds like Ni rather Ne, here's why: best fit is Ni. Ni looks at everything and keeps discarding what is rubbish or unnecessary, like the Nebula verses the Supernova. Nebula Ni draws in everything it needs to make one defined thing. Supernova Ne takes one defined thing and explodes it into many different possibilities. Ne doesn't care about failing at a plan, Ni is hell bent on wanting a plan to work out. Ne more enjoys the ride of trying different ideas and possibilities like the enjoyment one feels on a roller coaster ride, and getting high on the ride, then getting off the ride and feeling happy about the high of the ride. Soon again Ne will be off trying another idea llike going on another roller coaster ride, hence what @_Crome_ said, then freefalling back to earth. Ne just wants to enjoy the ride, whether or not the plan works out. It's the high of the enjoyment of trying the new ideas/possibilities or just dreaming them up too without even trying them out sometimes, Ne gets high doing that. The outcome isn't as important. (nice when it does work out though, but doesn't bother a Ne user as much when it doesn't work out, as it bothers a Ni user deeply when it doesn't work out. Because Ne doesn't spend much time making a plan, just jumps up and starts trying out different things to see what works, whereas Ni takes a very long time to make a plan and puts alot of effort and time into making the plan and then gets real frustrated when the plan don't work out, cause they invested so much time and effort into making the plan, they have lost all that, Ne didn't lose much, it didn't invest much, so no big loss for Ne, but rather a huge loss for Ni.)
> 
> So i guess you could say, when it comes to a plan (choosing what is the best fit), Ne enjoys the ride of being curious to try out different ways even if they don't work out, and Se is not caring of how enjoyable the ride is, as long as the plan works out and they get the best fit. However, it doesn't mean Se doesn't enjoy life, Se lives in the moment and enjoys life in the present moment and makes the best out of the present moment in the physical, but Se pairs with Ni, so for plans, Se can be very disciplined to build that stairway to heaven one brick at a time every day and not get bored nor frustrated with following through with that plan. It frustrates the hell out of Ne to try to do that. Ne want's to be wild and free to enjoy the ride and screw it if the plan fails, who cares, Ne will find another plan and try something else again. Ne just wants to stay high on dreaming up ideas and possibilities and trying them out sometimes, it's that high that Ne cares about, not the plan itself so much.
> 
> But of course this would be in the dom and aux position for Ni and Ne. Once it's teritary and inferior function, then whatever is the dom functions are ruling, not the ter and inferior. But it still would show somewhat, just nowhere as strong as in dom and aux.
> 
> So Se more so enjoys the present in the physical, but is boring and monotonous with carrying through a plan.
> Ne more so enjoys dreaming up ideas and trying some of them out and would get bored with being stable, steady and consistent to carry through a long term plan, but is less able to enjoy the present in the physical, as is more in their mind/abstract.
> 
> 
> (and you mentioned in another post afterwards that you see yourself as a Se user, but you're still not sure on Ne, which makes sense because if you're Se then you're Ni, not Ne, Ne goes with Si. I don't see Ne in your posts, i see Ni. You say aux Se, so ISTP and INFJ shares the same functions, INFJ Ni Fe Ti Se, ISTP Ti Se Ni Fe, so when an ISTP is in a Ti Ni (Ni Ti) loop it can resemble ways of the INFJ, and when an INFJ is in a Ni Ti loop (Ti Ni) it can resemble ways of the ISTP.)
> 
> I hope i explained it ok, i'm not that great at explaining things properly (due to my strong Ne of course


No, Ni doesn't impact Se in that manner. Lot's of Se-doms drop out of school and fail to follow the plan. If we commit to what we're doing, we'll follow through. The hard part is getting a Se-dom to commit to a plan. We'll dodge, squirm and avoid giving a straight answer until we have to make a decision. Ni is usually what comes out in our art, or finds a solution to a problem in the back of our head and when we weren't paying attention or attacks us viciously with worst case scenario's of the future when we're feeling vulnerable and scares the effing crap out of us (which goes into why we don't want to make plans because Ni pokes it's head out and screws with us.)


----------



## Dreamer777

monemi said:


> No, Ni doesn't impact Se in that manner. Lot's of Se-doms drop out of school and fail to follow the plan. If we commit to what we're doing, we'll follow through. The hard part is getting a Se-dom to commit to a plan. We'll dodge, squirm and avoid giving a straight answer until we have to make a decision. Ni is usually what comes out in our art, or finds a solution to a problem in the back of our head and when we weren't paying attention or attacks us viciously with worst case scenario's of the future when we're feeling vulnerable and scares the effing crap out of us (which goes into why we don't want to make plans because Ni pokes it's head out and screws with us.)


Thanks for helping me out with understanding that from a Se dom.

Also, i did mention this

*"But of course this would be in the dom and aux position for Ni and Ne. Once it's teritary and inferior function, then whatever is the dom functions are ruling, not the ter and inferior. But it still would show somewhat, just nowhere as strong as in dom and aux."*

but that would rule out ISTP aux Se for Silveresque? i think Silveresque is INFJ.

EDIT:

maybe Silveresque is ISTP, and i'm just getting my head a bit mixed up with trying to explain the functions, etc.

There are times i mistype ISTP's and INFJ's for each other. I do tend to make that mistake sometimes.

EDIT 2:
What you speak of is dom Se with inferior Ni, so Ni is going to behave childlike when in inferior funciton.

ISTP Se is aux and Ni is ter, so they make plans and try to execute them, but they fail a bit at it, and get upset when it fails, but get over it quickly as Se pulls them back out out of the upset, and they move on to making other plans. Ni in aux or dom is going to be more frustrated when a plan fails, than in ter, because also Ni in aux or dom is an xNxx abstract intuitive person who lives more in their head than in the physical.


----------



## monemi

Dreamer777 said:


> Thanks for helping me out with understanding that from a Se dom.
> 
> Also, i did mention this
> 
> *"But of course this would be in the dom and aux position for Ni and Ne. Once it's teritary and inferior function, then whatever is the dom functions are ruling, not the ter and inferior. But it still would show somewhat, just nowhere as strong as in dom and aux."*
> 
> but that would rule out ISTP aux Se for Silveresque? i think Silveresque is INFJ.
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> maybe Silveresque is ISTP, and i'm just getting my head a bit mixed up with trying to explain the functions, etc.
> 
> There are times i mistype ISTP's and INFJ's for each other. I do tend to make that mistake sometimes.
> 
> EDIT 2:
> What you speak of is dom Se with inferior Ni, so Ni is going to behave childlike when in inferior funciton.
> 
> ISTP Se is aux and Ni is ter, so they make plans and try to execute them, but they fail a bit at it, and get upset when it fails, but get over it quickly as Se pulls them back out out of the upset, and they move on to making other plans. Ni in aux or dom is going to be more frustrated when a plan fails, than in ter, because also Ni in aux or dom is an xNxx abstract intuitive person who lives more in their head than in the physical.


I'd agree that Ni for Se-dom's is immature. Much like Se is immature in Ni-dom's. Ni-dom's often have a weird or downright insulting perception of Se, probably because they don't have a strong grasp on what Se is and I'm guessing Se-dom's perception of Ni isn't accurate. Inferior functions just aren't a preference.


----------



## Ctrooper2011

Se and Ne are overly complicated parts of Jungian theory (that's probably what dabbling in the Occult does to you). That's part of why you should stick with Keirsey Temperament Sorter. I couldn't decide on my personality until I started relying on that and it was simpler than it initially seemed (and easier than what MBTI supporters claim, kind of like Harold Hill). And to be honest, I'm only glad that I'm a male with a directive personality.


----------



## jasakki

Crome said:


> Originally Posted by monemi View Post
> Yes, I enjoy touching more than being touched. Sex being the easier example here. It's nice if my partner touches me, but really sex is about getting my hands on my partner.
> 
> That is the exact example I was thinking about. Thanks for the feedback. I'd love to hear from an Si dom as well.


This is how it goes for me and my INFP, I like to touch more and she likes to be touched more. I'd love answer from an Si dom too, anyone?


----------



## jasakki

Ctrooper2011 said:


> And to be honest, I'm only glad that I'm a male with a directive personality.


I don't see how Ne vs Se anything has anything to do with being directive?


----------



## Megakill

Kitty.diane said:


> If you cant ideologically understand Ne then you are an Se user.


I'm not so sure that you're on to something here.


----------



## Pelopra

Kitty.diane said:


> If you cant ideologically understand Ne then you are an Se user. If you had Ne the descriptions would make sense. (No i didnt read the entire thread. #enfp)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk



Unlikely to be true. 

A longer response:
Your statement is dependent on the meaning of the word "understand". 

Perhaps a shallow experiential understanding-- the fleeting sensation of the idea of a thing as it flits by in your every day experience -- is enough for you. 

The kind of "understanding" that, when challenged to explain it, you hem and haw and say "well" and finally throw your hands up in despair with some patronizing observation about how if you don't get it then you must not have it, which in case you're wondering is definition number four in the dictionary under the word "useless". 

I prefer to follow the Richard feynman principle, which is that if I can't explain it well to an uninitiated novice then I don't really understand it myself. 

If i cannot offer a meaningful (low alpha and low beta error test) explanation of Ne in language sufficiently vivid yet unambiguous such that it creates clarity, not further obfuscation, in the minds of those who hear it... 

Then I do not understand Ne. 

What that has to do with my possessing it is negligible.



Eta: of course, it is possible that this preference for experienced understanding versus portable understanding is, in fact, a TiFe vs FiTe conflict. FiTe users seem to prefer "just getting" things that I do not "just get" and when they tell me to just get them I get very irritated. I assume I exhibit a parallel behaviour in other areas to annoy them right back.

Edit#2: Bah I'm feeling pointlessly snarky today. I'm sorry. My point, expressed in slightly more polite language, is that I want an explanation of Ne that is clear and approachable for outsiders, including non-Ne users, and also that given the ambiguity of language, it's still very unlikely that just not relating or relating to a set of Ne explanations is proof of function use-- in both directions, ie non-Ne users can relate to an Ne description that they interpret one way, and Ne users might not relate, and all this is more likely the vaguer or more badly phrased the explanation is, and not enough controls have been set in place to check these things, to check, for example, that a given Ne description isn't describing something sufficiently universal to Pe that Se users also identify with it.


----------



## Bricolage

Pelopra said:


> Unlikely to be true.


I agree. The original statement is just unnecessarily disparaging of ESXPs. Come on, ESTPs have Ti; they can understand Ne or anything an N can.


----------



## Pelopra

jasakki said:


> This is how it goes for me and my INFP, I like to touch more and she likes to be touched more. I'd love answer from an Si dom too, anyone?


Not an Si dom. 
Chiming in anyway. 


Ne:
I prefer... Both? It isn't a sharp distinction? I enjoy the feeling of contact, you get that both from touching and being touched, or rather, I'm not clear on how they are possible separate? Aren't you always "being touched" when touching something? Aren't you always "touching" when being touched? 


*reads through entire thread of conversation*
Hm. Okay, gonna probably place myself on the "being touched" side. When I step barefoot onto grass its to experience feeling of grass on feet, not to explore grass. I love walking barefoot and the different sensations over different types of ground, the grittiness of sidewalk and the rounded or rough parts of rocks. Actually one of the things I resent about shoes is how they effectively blind me to an ongoing and varied experience... (and I can happily crunch around in fresh healthy grass for quite a while) 

But I'd love more explanation on what exactly you mean by "touching" (in contrast to being touched), what that is experienced as. How would this manifest in, say, different approaches to both giving/getting a massage?


Edit: also, Bah, no, back to being unsure of side. 
My first response to grass is not "story!" 
It's "why do I still have shoes on" 
My second response, once my shoes are off, is to basically ignore the grass and think about other things? I'm not sure, I don't really remember. My feet are happy being grassed and the rest of me is doing its own thing? The only thing I can remember from the last time I was on grass is that there was this cat that kept trying to cross the grass but was scared off by my being there but it didn't just go around or anything like I was clearly somewhat in its way so I pretended to ignore it and it streaked across and headed for a bush nearby. Beyond that, I was probably thinking about something or sending emails or something, I don't remember.


----------



## jasakki

Pelopra said:


> But I'd love more explanation on what exactly you mean by "touching" (in contrast to being touched), what that is experienced as. How would this manifest in, say, different approaches to both giving/getting a massage?


Giving a massage would be touching and getting a massage would be being touched. I think @monemi might be better at explaining this as an Se dom.


----------



## Pelopra

jasakki said:


> Giving a massage would be touching and getting a massage would be being touched. I think @_monemi_ might be better at explaining this as an Se dom.


Right, but I like both. I meant, what is the experience, in both experiences, for a toucher vs a touchee. 


Me, massaging:
Okay first of all this usually happens because my hands are feeling restless or touch-hungry. But then, most of my focus is going to be on trying to feel out how to do this most pleasantly for the other person, what amount of pressure to apply, finding knots, etc. Trying to find a good rhythm. Feeling through my fingers. I'm not sure how to describe this. Anyway afterwards my hands feel better. 

Me, getting massaged:
Oh man my back is permanently touch-starved so it's just "yes! Contact!" 
other than issuing some directives for how to do it better I think that might be the main thought going on. 


Assuming I'm a touchee, what is different between my thought process and the touchers thought process?


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> It is interesting that your assumption is that perception is going to be sight. Maybe you're reliant on sight to feed Extroverted Intuition? One of the reasons I don't enjoy art galleries is that you're not allowed to touch the paintings. It's frustrating. I'm not allowed to interact with the paintings. I'm only allowed to look at them. Stupid art galleries.


Yeah, that's... That's what got me kicked out of a museum once.


----------



## Pelopra

star tripper said:


> That's a good question, actually. Other Ne-doms/-auxes, do you rely primarily on sight? I _can_ rely on the other senses, but sight is clearly #1.
> 
> The art gallery thing is interesting. When my ISFP friend and I went, she was constantly taking pictures, getting as close to the painting as possible, commenting on brush strokes, and when we visited this room with several tapestries hanging on the walls, she immediately went up to touch them and sniff them. So that would then be her Se at work, huh? On the other hand, I actually got kicked out of the tapestry room for peering behind all the tapestries trying to find trapdoors.


Sight ranks dead last for me. (for the curious: probably: touch, taste, smell, sound, sight, although possibly sound should be ranked higher, and maybe smell and taste should be flipped) 

I highly doubt this is a function thing, though.


----------



## jasakki

@Pelopra I didn't mean it black&white, of course everyone (hopefully) like both, but I like to touch more than being touched.


----------



## Pelopra

jasakki said:


> @Pelopra I didn't mean it black&white, of course everyone (hopefully) like both, but I like to touch more than being touched.


Right I got that, I'm trying to understand the underlying idea you were expressing by metaphor.


Ie what does it mean to prefer to touch.


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> Right, but I like both. I meant, what is the experience, in both experiences, for a toucher vs a touchee.
> 
> 
> Me, massaging:
> Okay first of all this usually happens because my hands are feeling restless or touch-hungry. But then, most of my focus is going to be on trying to feel out how to do this most pleasantly for the other person, what amount of pressure to apply, finding knots, etc. Trying to find a good rhythm. Feeling through my fingers. I'm not sure how to describe this. Anyway afterwards my hands feel better.
> 
> Me, getting massaged:
> Oh man my back is permanently touch-starved so it's just "yes! Contact!"
> other than issuing some directives for how to do it better I think that might be the main thought going on.
> 
> 
> Assuming I'm a touchee, what is different between my thought process and the touchers thought process?


I really don't like massage. I'm entirely uncomfortable. I mean, touch is nice, but I don't want back massages and while I go for pedicures, I fucking struggle for the part where they massage my feet. I just don't like massage. I enjoy giving massages and I like being touched. I've been to spa's with friends before and it was such badly spent money because I don't like it. 

Being touched and touching are two very different things. 

The Power of Touch | Psychology Today

Touch is a form of communication. Most of the time, people interpret touch correctly. Americans seem to be almost haphephobic. 

Touching and Being Touched: The Hand as a Brain | NPT

Touching is communicating outwardly. Being touched is receiving communication. I'm not entirely a fair two way street in this manner. When I feel something for someone, I want to express it in a tactile way. When I want to ease someone else's stress, I want to communicate with massage. But I'm not as receptive as I am expressive.


----------



## Word Dispenser

@_Silveresque_: I think, to understand Ne/Se in depth, you need to connect it to its counterpart: Si/Ni.

For Se+Ni: Look no farther than:






For Ne+Si:







To explain the Se+Ni: There's a lot of obvious sensory images here, but they also have obvious symbols to them. But, the thing is, this is using someone's everyday routine, and making you look more closely at the sensory details in an Se way, to make an Ni connection to the symbolism of what the show represents. Therefore it's a 'new', and 'narrow-in-field' idea.

To explain Ne+Si: There's a lot of random references jumbled together, tangential information bouncing off of each other, and the entire music video is based on someone else's produced effort, changed around into something completely 'new' and different, but not really obviously 'new', in the way Se+Ni is. It's broad, and encompasses a lot of different subjects within nerd and geek culture.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Crome

Pelopra said:


> Not an Si dom.
> Chiming in anyway.
> 
> 
> Ne:
> I prefer... Both? It isn't a sharp distinction? I enjoy the feeling of contact, you get that both from touching and being touched, or rather, I'm not clear on how they are possible separate? Aren't you always "being touched" when touching something? Aren't you always "touching" when being touched?
> 
> 
> *reads through entire thread of conversation*
> Hm. Okay, gonna probably place myself on the "being touched" side. When I step barefoot onto grass its to experience feeling of grass on feet, not to explore grass. I love walking barefoot and the different sensations over different types of ground, the grittiness of sidewalk and the rounded or rough parts of rocks. Actually one of the things I resent about shoes is how they effectively blind me to an ongoing and varied experience... (and I can happily crunch around in fresh healthy grass for quite a while)
> 
> But I'd love more explanation on what exactly you mean by "touching" (in contrast to being touched), what that is experienced as. How would this manifest in, say, different approaches to both giving/getting a massage?
> 
> 
> Edit: also, Bah, no, back to being unsure of side.
> My first response to grass is not "story!"
> It's "why do I still have shoes on"
> My second response, once my shoes are off, is to basically ignore the grass and think about other things? I'm not sure, I don't really remember. My feet are happy being grassed and the rest of me is doing its own thing? The only thing I can remember from the last time I was on grass is that there was this cat that kept trying to cross the grass but was scared off by my being there but it didn't just go around or anything like I was clearly somewhat in its way so I pretended to ignore it and it streaked across and headed for a bush nearby. Beyond that, I was probably thinking about something or sending emails or something, I don't remember.


I'm not sure what's causing the uncertainty on your part, but I can relate to enjoying both sensations. I love being touched, and I also love touching, almost equally. I know this because I love it when my partner can alternate between taking initiative and taking a step back so I can take initiative. While I do enjoy both sensations, I know I enjoy being touched a little bit more than touching, because I will pick getting a massage over giving one, 60-70% of the time. If Si loves being touched, and Se loves touching, then my experiences would indicate that the two functions are close in their influence over my overall personality and Si is just ahead of Se. This remains in harmony with the idea that I'm an ENFP since ENFP functions are ordered in terms of influence like so: 1=Ne, 2=Fi, 3=Te, *4=Si*, *5=Se*, 6=Ti, 7=Fe, 8=Ni.

You being ENTP, it makes sense that you also enjoy both almost equally since our functions have a similar order of influence, with Si and Se ranking 4th and 5th respectively for the both of us.

If I speculate further, I imagine your Ne may be the cause of your uncertainty. You want to explore possibilities and probably can see more ways of enjoying both sensations than most people do(especially if your Ne is particularly strong). However, while exploring both possibilities is something that comes naturally to you, narrowing down and defining which one you prefer isn't. This would make comparing the influential power of two functions that rank so close to each other difficult, especially when both functions can easily be overshadowed by the dominant Ne that just wants to keep exploring.

In my opinion, Ne doms can be too easily bored by simplicity and have a natural tendency to be optimistic about the idea of there always being a missing piece. This is how things like what you mentioned above happen; You came to the conclusion that you enjoy both touching and being touched. You thought about it a little more, and felt that you enjoyed being touched a slight bit more. Then your Ne decided that it could no longer allow the low ranking Si and Se to take up anymore of the spotlight and proceeded to kick your simple and probably accurate conclusion to the side, because it was too boring.
The cat running scared adds a touch of complexity which makes for an attractive thought, but it's irrelevant to your preference between touching and being touched. What is relevant is the grass and your attitude towards making contact with it. You said "My feet are happy being grassed". In this sentence, your feet are the subject, indicating that you place more importance on your body rather than the grass it's interacting with. If you read back to monemi's post that prompted me to post in the first place, the subject of her post was the grass, indicating that she placed more importance on her environment(significantly more so, as her Se ranks at the top of her functions, while her Si ranks at the bottom).

I think you're either an ENTP or an ENFP. My criteria is for typing is far from being thoroughly revised though, so take it with a grain of salt.


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> I really don't like massage. I'm entirely uncomfortable. I mean, touch is nice, but I don't want back massages and while I go for pedicures, I fucking struggle for the part where they massage my feet. I just don't like massage. I enjoy giving massages and I like being touched. I've been to spa's with friends before and it was such badly spent money because I don't like it.
> 
> Being touched and touching are two very different things.
> 
> The Power of Touch | Psychology Today
> 
> Touch is a form of communication. Most of the time, people interpret touch correctly. Americans seem to be almost haphephobic.
> 
> Touching and Being Touched: The Hand as a Brain | NPT
> 
> Touching is communicating outwardly. Being touched is receiving communication. I'm not entirely a fair two way street in this manner. When I feel something for someone, I want to express it in a tactile way. When I want to ease someone else's stress, I want to communicate with massage. But I'm not as receptive as I am expressive.


Alright, then I have completely lost track of how this would be an Ne/Se difference.


----------



## Pelopra

Crome said:


> You said "My feet are happy being grassed". In this sentence, your feet are the subject, indicating that you place more importance on your body rather than the grass it's interacting with. If you read back to monemi's post that prompted me to post in the first place, the subject of her post was the grass, indicating that she placed more importance on her environment(significantly more so, as her Se ranks at the top of her functions, while her Si ranks at the bottom).


 @monemi do you agree with this distinction?


----------



## Crome

Pelopra said:


> Alright, then I have completely lost track of how this would be an Ne/Se difference.


It's not. It's an Se/Si difference.


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> @_monemi_ do you agree with this distinction?


I would say that you've lost track of context.

Se/Si both having preference for experiences, that was distinguishing preference for experience. Not the difference between Se/Ne. It's not really relevant to Ne IMO, unless you have a sensing preference.

When you approach a situation is your kneejerk reaction to experience it? If so, then you might not be an intuitive.


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> I would say that you've lost track of context.
> 
> Se/Si both having preference for experiences, that was distinguishing preference for experience. Not the difference between Se/Ne. It's not really relevant to Ne IMO, unless you have a sensing preference.
> 
> When you approach a situation is your kneejerk reaction to experience it? If so, then you might not be an intuitive.



Depends on the situation... Or rather "situation" is vague. 

and alright, got lost between Si vs Se and Ne vs Se. Bah. Back to Ne vs Se?
Question: is there a difference in how they get bored and how they deal with boredom? (leading question since I'm assuming there is one)


----------



## Raawx

I think I might have an example/understanding that can help explain the difference in perception between the two. Imagine a friend describing a concert they went to in a few sentences.

*Extraverted Sensing/Introverted Intuition*

*Se*: objectifies the experience; describes the experience in terms of specific action events; "what happened"

_"This one guy grabbed the man by the arm and beat him into the floor. The crowd went wild after that!"
_
*Ni*: derives meaning from the experience; describes the experience in terms of an understanding

_"I went to a concert the other day. The people there were all so sad. It's almost as if they were collectively running from their problems and creating a world outside their own."_

*Introverted Sensing/Extraverted Intuition*

*Si*: personalizes the experience; describes the experience in terms of specific sensory experience; describes the event and ongoings in relation to the self

_"I was waiting by the ice cream cart when I saw the man get pummeled. I was dying of the heat, by then. The crowd was so loud. They were in a complete uproar."_

*Ne*: summarizes the experience; describes the experience in terms of summarized concepts

_"The concert was fun. In all honesty, much like other concerts I've been to. I made a few friends, too! It was weird though--there was one fight and I think I saw my first concert beatdown. Concert people can be so crazy at times..."
_
-----

In general, I find that the quickest and simplest way for me to tell between an Ne and an Se dom is whether they are actionable or contemplative. Usually, the difference between the two is enough to indicate a significant difference.


----------



## Mr inappropriate

Pelopra said:


> Depends on the situation... Or rather "situation" is vague.
> 
> and alright, got lost between Si vs Se and Ne vs Se. Bah. Back to Ne vs Se?
> Question: is there a difference in how they get bored and how they deal with boredom? (leading question since I'm assuming there is one)


Si never gets bored because it loves routine and all. That's the difference. :kitteh:


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> Depends on the situation... Or rather "situation" is vague.
> 
> and alright, got lost between Si vs Se and Ne vs Se. Bah. Back to Ne vs Se?
> Question: is there a difference in how they get bored and how they deal with boredom? (leading question since I'm assuming there is one)


Well let's go back to the origin of the grass. A Ni type thinks grass and might associate it with a symbol or meaning. So they might think harmony/balance because the colour green symbolizes harmony/balance. Makes a connection. A Si type might associate it with a memory (not clear on this). Se perceives without value judgement. The association is seeking experience in the now. Desire. It's not a thought process. That Ti for Fi jumps in. But the initial preference is experiencing, hoping it's new. Maybe it will be a different texture or smell like pineapples. It's just perceiving. For me personally, this translates to me want to touch. My hand is already moving before I've started thinking. 

You're saying depends on situation, but for Se this doesn't depend on the situation. Our first reaction isn't to consider risks/benefits. We analyze whether this is what we want because we develop our secondary functions. But our reflex is to experience it. Experiences don't have to be physical in nature or good>bad. I want to touch the grass. I want to touch the fire. I want to touch the water. I want now. Obviously, in immaturity, this is a massive problem. But fortunately, experience is a thorough teacher if also a bitch. 

Ne is more focused on what could be. Ne see's the grass and might think of making it into blocks and build a little hut for amusement. I see ENTP's claiming both Se and Ne proudly and only attributing Se to ESTP. Yes you might want to touch the painting. A lot of people want to touch the painting. The question is, is that your first association? Is that your reflex reaction? When you see something that burns, is your first reflex to interact with it? Or is it to imagine what you could use it for? 

How I respond to boredom depends on context of the situation and largely on my secondary function as I do need to survive the world.


----------



## Pelopra

crashbandicoot said:


> Si never gets bored because it loves routine and all. That's the difference. :kitteh:


The question was about Pe, though, not Pi.


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> Well let's go back to the origin of the grass. A Ni type thinks grass and might associate it with a symbol or meaning. So they might think harmony/balance because the colour green symbolizes harmony/balance. Makes a connection. A Si type might associate it with a memory (not clear on this). Se perceives without value judgement. The association is seeking experience in the now. Desire. It's not a thought process. That Ti for Fi jumps in. But the initial preference is experiencing, hoping it's new. Maybe it will be a different texture or smell like pineapples. It's just perceiving. For me personally, this translates to me want to touch. My hand is already moving before I've started thinking.
> 
> You're saying depends on situation, but for Se this doesn't depend on the situation. Our first reaction isn't to consider risks/benefits. We analyze whether this is what we want because we develop our secondary functions. But our reflex is to experience it. Experiences don't have to be physical in nature or good>bad. I want to touch the grass. I want to touch the fire. I want to touch the water. I want now. Obviously, in immaturity, this is a massive problem. But fortunately, experience is a thorough teacher if also a bitch.
> 
> Ne is more focused on what could be. Ne see's the grass and might think of making it into blocks and build a little hut for amusement. I see ENTP's claiming both Se and Ne proudly and only attributing Se to ESTP. Yes you might want to touch the painting. A lot of people want to touch the painting. The question is, is that your first association? Is that your reflex reaction? When you see something that burns, is your first reflex to interact with it? Or is it to imagine what you could use it for?
> 
> How I respond to boredom depends on context of the situation and largely on my secondary function as I do need to survive the world.


My reflex reaction to almost anything is to want to touch it, possibly because my need for tactile contact is way, way up there. If i see a (physical) painting that grabs my attention, my first instinct is to touch (painting on computer does no such thing). 
However, and possibly this is the distinction, once I'm actually getting tactile contact I don't really pay attention to it so much as spacing out and thinking about other things? I need the sensation to sort of anchor myself, more than anything else? When I'm on the grass, barefoot, I don't really think about the grass. I think about other things while my feet are happy. 

One thing that's been mentioned a couple of times for Se is response time and ability to real-time react, and I think that is a difference. I can do that in a crisis, but other than that it's hard for me to anchor in the present moment enough to be really "there". Not because I'm off in the "future" - I've always found it weird when Ne descriptions talk about that, it seems like nonsense - but just, I dunno, my brain sort of is always running four tracks at once? But sometimes it sounds like Se does that as well. Except maybe the Se tracks are more related to the actual surroundings, like listening to a teacher while also being aware of the body language of the other students while also planning ahead what to do in five minutes when the bell rings while also doodling complicated cartoons?


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> My reflex reaction to almost anything is to want to touch it, possibly because my need for tactile contact is way, way up there. If i see a (physical) painting that grabs my attention, my first instinct is to touch (painting on computer does no such thing).
> However, and possibly this is the distinction, once I'm actually getting tactile contact I don't really pay attention to it so much as spacing out and thinking about other things? I need the sensation to sort of anchor myself, more than anything else? When I'm on the grass, barefoot, I don't really think about the grass. I think about other things while my feet are happy.
> 
> One thing that's been mentioned a couple of times for Se is response time and ability to real-time react, and I think that is a difference. I can do that in a crisis, but other than that it's hard for me to anchor in the present moment enough to be really "there". Not because I'm off in the "future" - I've always found it weird when Ne descriptions talk about that, it seems like nonsense - but just, I dunno, my brain sort of is always running four tracks at once? But sometimes it sounds like Se does that as well. Except maybe the Se tracks are more related to the actual surroundings, like listening to a teacher while also being aware of the body language of the other students while also planning ahead what to do in five minutes when the bell rings while also doodling complicated cartoons?


I don't know, you just don't sound like a Ne-dom to me. If your reflex preference is for in the moment, I would call you a Se-dom.


----------



## Recede

Word Dispenser said:


> @_Silveresque_: I think, to understand Ne/Se in depth, you need to connect it to its counterpart: Si/Ni.
> 
> For Se+Ni: Look no farther than:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Ne+Si:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To explain the Se+Ni: There's a lot of obvious sensory images here, but they also have obvious symbols to them. But, the thing is, this is using someone's everyday routine, and making you look more closely at the sensory details in an Se way, to make an Ni connection to the symbolism of what the show represents. Therefore it's a 'new', and 'narrow-in-field' idea.
> 
> To explain Ne+Si: There's a lot of random references jumbled together, tangential information bouncing off of each other, and the entire music video is based on someone else's produced effort, changed around into something completely 'new' and different, but not really obviously 'new', in the way Se+Ni is. It's broad, and encompasses a lot of different subjects within nerd and geek culture.
> 
> Hope that helps.


This lines up with my understanding of Se-Ni and Ne-Si. But honestly, I don't see myself in either of those examples.


----------



## surgery

Silveresque said:


> I read through this whole thread and I still can't figure out whether I prefer Se or Ne. I think I understand the functions but I seem to use both. Well, now what? :/



You might find that site Cognitivetype.com helpful. Itt's dedicated to system of typology that uses more "empirical" method that are based on physical manifestations of the cognitive functions. If you have the technology, you can record a video of yourself answering some questions and submit it to the forums. There, other users will read your hand gesticulations, eye movements and things that that to help determine your type.

Here's a video that explains things more in-depth. They also have a few videos that show the physical differences between Se and Ne.


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> I don't know, you just don't sound like a Ne-dom to me. If your reflex preference is for in the moment, I would call you a Se-dom.



Mm, take it in the broader context of my postings on PerC as a whole. 
I am pretty confident about my typing. Including but not limited to the effortless communication I have, irl, with confirmed Ne+Ti users.


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> Mm, take it in the broader context of my postings on PerC as a whole.
> I am pretty confident about my typing. Including but not limited to the effortless communication I have, irl, with confirmed Ne+Ti users.


And yet this is such a huge part of being a Se-dom, that I question it.


----------



## Pelopra

monemi said:


> And yet this is such a huge part of being a Se-dom, that I question it.


Perhaps it isn't? Just like abstraction isn't an Ne thing. I don't know whether a single symptom is good enough.

Beyond that, though, I don't see the same type of reactivity and alert awareness in myself as I do in the more obviously Se-dom people I know... A certain boldness of presence or sheer vitality. Hell, what do I know. I'll stick Estp onto my list of suggested typings (my broad goal is to hit all sixteen at some point. Already halfway there...)


----------



## Raawx

Pelopra said:


> Perhaps it isn't? Just like abstraction isn't an Ne thing. I don't know whether a single symptom is good enough.
> 
> Beyond that, though, I don't see the same type of reactivity and alert awareness in myself as I do in the more obviously Se-dom people I know... A certain boldness of presence or sheer vitality. Hell, what do I know. I'll stick Estp onto my list of suggested typings (my broad goal is to hit all sixteen at some point. Already halfway there...)


 @Pelopra, be honest and tell me which of these examples you identify and why.

Hey @ScarrDragon & @O_o. Could you two do the same?


----------



## monemi

Pelopra said:


> Perhaps it isn't? Just like abstraction isn't an Ne thing. I don't know whether a single symptom is good enough.
> 
> Beyond that, though, I don't see the same type of reactivity and alert awareness in myself as I do in the more obviously Se-dom people I know... A certain boldness of presence or sheer vitality. Hell, what do I know. I'll stick Estp onto my list of suggested typings (my broad goal is to hit all sixteen at some point. Already halfway there...)


That boldness comes from that reflexive want. You claim it here, but I haven't seen it in your posts. I'm not going to tell you how you view the world. If you insist you view it the same way I do, then it's only polite to take you at your word.


----------



## O_o

Raawx said:


> @_Pelopra_, be honest and tell me which of these examples you identify and why.
> 
> Hey @_ScarrDragon_ & @__. Could you two do the same?


I found the summary a a bit vague so I'm not honestly sure if it's the best way to summarize since I could see one doing one of the described whether discussing certain matters while doing another when discussing something else. 

I almost constantly "derives meaning from the experience; describes the experience in terms of an understanding" as describes the Ni. If discussing events I'm not so much... interested in talking in, I will "summarizes the experience; describes the experience in terms of summarized concepts". To provide the general vibe, most of my descriptions are fairly short and to the point. I automatically attempt to synchronies the experiences. 

As for getting on topic regarding Ne vs Se. I've met individuals that describe events similar to the Se example you provided. As in they try to.. put in as much specific step by step perceptual details to make you feel like you're actually reliving it. There's a vividness to it that I don't think I'm ever capable of producing. And it comes naturally to them, meanwhile I don't think I've ever done this in my entire life, regardless of the event, I automatically skip to summary or derived meaning.

My bad if this isn't helpful. I haven't read the rest of this thread yet.


----------



## Pelopra

Raawx said:


> I think I might have an example/understanding that can help explain the difference in perception between the two. Imagine a friend describing a concert they went to in a few sentences.
> 
> *Extraverted Sensing/Introverted Intuition*
> 
> *Se*: objectifies the experience; describes the experience in terms of specific action events; "what happened"
> 
> _"This one guy grabbed the man by the arm and beat him into the floor. The crowd went wild after that!"
> _


A tiny bit? Not usually how I tell stories. Um. Lemme think for a second. Trying to remember something exciting that I saw that I would describe similarly. But the only thing that's coming to mind is that time I fell and got stitches. I was really angry and I was running down the mountain with my hands shoved in my pockets. The entire previous sentence is an example of stupid. Anyway, then I went from vertical to horizontal. And then my arm really hurt. And then I put my hand to my face and it came away all red and I realized I was bleeding which I thought was weird because my arm hurt more than my face. 



> *Ni*: derives meaning from the experience; describes the experience in terms of an understanding
> 
> 
> _"I went to a concert the other day. The people there were all so sad. It's almost as if they were collectively running from their problems and creating a world outside their own."_


This makes me break out in hives it sounds so pretentious. 



> *Introverted Sensing/Extraverted Intuition*
> 
> *Si*: personalizes the experience; describes the experience in terms of specific sensory experience; describes the event and ongoings in relation to the self
> 
> _"I was waiting by the ice cream cart when I saw the man get pummeled. I was dying of the heat, by then. The crowd was so loud. They were in a complete uproar."_


I mean it's a weird mix of totally prosaic details and violence, so I'm not sure I'd frame it quite like that. The night my great aunt died, though, I remember it was so incredibly hot and the air was stale and thick and dead. I was running around a lot trying to arrange things for the funeral and it was really, unseasonably hot and still and it felt kind of fitting, almost restless and trapped. So I could see myself including these kinds of details, when they fit with the experience. Like maybe there's something about the juxtaposition of ice cream and someone being beaten up. Vanilla ice cream and bruises. Hm. There's something there. 



> *Ne*: summarizes the experience; describes the experience in terms of summarized concepts
> 
> _"The concert was fun. In all honesty, much like other concerts I've been to. I made a few friends, too! It was weird though--there was one fight and I think I saw my first concert beatdown. Concert people can be so crazy at times..."
> _


This sounds a tiny bit Valley girlish to me. Some things were similar, I tend to keep track of what things are my "first", for example. 
I'm trying to think of a good parallel experience to describe. My first concert, I wasn't super impressed with the concert experience per se, but there was a chandelier in the hall (I know, weird) and with the strobe lights going on and off I got this awesome horror movie type ambience (totally not matched to the very mellow style of music) which I kept trying to take pictures of because I like to collect evocative pictures for use as story fuel later on (didn't really work, but whatever). I didn't interact with the people there too much, I was there with a boyfriend and anyway it seemed kinda rude to socialize when people were there to hear the music. At some point we got bored and left, to find a place to sit and talk. Pretty sure we talked about social structure and body language because that's what I'd been reading about earlier that day.


----------



## O_o

Pelopra said:


> This makes me break out in hives it sounds so pretentious.


Well fuck, then I am surely the most pretentious person on the planet. Shiitt. 

No but actually, I'm curious why that is viewed as pretentious?


----------



## Raawx

@Pelopra, this is probably going to come out of nowhere and will likely shock you, but have you considered either variant of ESxJ? If not then either way, you don't seem Se to me. I see much, much more Ne/Si than Ni/Se.


----------



## VoodooDolls

Raawx said:


> @_Pelopra_, this is probably going to come out of nowhere and will likely shock you, but have you considered either variant of ESxJ? If not then either way, you don't seem Se to me. I see much, much more Ne/Si than Ni/Se.


hey Raawx, what do you think about my new type? does it seems accurate for you?


----------



## Raawx

DonutsGalacticos said:


> hey Raawx, what do you think about my new type? does it seems accurate for you?


I believe others have said ESFJ. Personally, I haven't paid much attention to you enough to type you correctly.


----------



## VoodooDolls

Raawx said:


> I believe others have said ESFJ. Personally, I haven't paid much attention to you enough to type you correctly.


wrong. nobody said esfj.


----------



## Raawx

DonutsGalacticos said:


> wrong. nobody said esfj.


Oop. Probably a different person then. :x


----------



## Pelopra

O_o said:


> Well fuck, then I am surely the most pretentious person on the planet. Shiitt.
> 
> No but actually, I'm curious why that is viewed as pretentious?


Lol ignore my knee-jerk allergic reaction to depictions of Ni. It's unfair and immature and probably leftover from my obnoxious tween days trolling the Internet. 

Why do I view it as pretentious... Hm... It's this, "I'm going to insist on taking this face value thing and make it meaningful and deep and symbolic" blablabla. Okay, actually, maybe this is less my tween days and more my high school English class. There's a reason why when we had to discuss schools of literary analysis I chose formalism. Sitting around discussing the symbolic meaning of Gregor Samsa's apple has always made my skin itch. I absolutely adore discussing themes in literature, but I hate discussing symbolism. It's not that I don't appreciate an elegant and well done motif, it's that I hate trying to see all sorts of special extra layers of depth to it. Yes the apple is an allusion to original sin yawn I got it can we move on? 


Anyway, my point is, it's a rather immature and intolerant reaction and so should probably best be ignored. 

----
@Raawx you're not the first to suggest it, (my current tally of suggested types is: entp, intp, enfp, infp, infj, intj, isfj, esfj, estp).
I have a variety of reasons for being pretty much certain of my typing, though I don't mind hearing alternate opinions (if for no other reason than:
1. Insight into how I come across
2. Tbh, insight into how mistypings happen)


----------



## Cellar Door

surgery said:


> You might find that site Cognitivetype.com helpful. Itt's dedicated to system of typology that uses more "empirical" method that are based on physical manifestations of the cognitive functions. If you have the technology, you can record a video of yourself answering some questions and submit it to the forums. There, other users will read your hand gesticulations, eye movements and things that that to help determine your type.
> 
> Here's a video that explains things more in-depth. They also have a few videos that show the physical differences between Se and Ne.


Just so you know, this stuff is exactly the same as pod lair. I was a part of the cognitive type community in the early days, probably one of the first forum members, and actually interacted quite a bit with the founders back when they were always posting on their forum. Just recently I started watching the pod lair videos, and it's almost completely identical, only it has all those ridiculous names.

Different people put different weighting on visual typing, some like it but others don't, and Adymus was typology famous before he defected from mbti/jung so people still follow him. If you can get past the ridiculous terminology, it's arguable that pod lair is actually more complete than cognitive type is right now. As far as visual typing methods go at least.


----------



## Ctrooper2011

jasakki said:


> I don't see how Ne vs Se anything has anything to do with being directive?


I'm simply dismissing Jungian functions from now on and moving on to the much simpler and easier Keirsey Temperament Sorter. Directive vs Informative is actually determined by ST/NJ vs SF/NP.


----------



## surgery

Cellar Door said:


> Just so you know, this stuff is exactly the same as pod lair. I was a part of the cognitive type community in the early days, probably one of the first forum members, and actually interacted quite a bit with the founders back when they were always posting on their forum. Just recently I started watching the pod lair videos, and it's almost completely identical, only it has all those ridiculous names.
> 
> Different people put different weighting on visual typing, some like it but others don't, and Adymus was typology famous before I defected from mbti/jung so people still follow him. If you can get past the ridiculous terminology, it's arguable that pod lair is actually more complete than cognitive type is right now. As far as visual typing methods go at least.



Yeah, I got that impression (that it was extremely similar to Jungian theory) of Pod'Lair when I visited their website. At the same time, the page constantly distances itself from Jung (and MBTI). It seems the reason for that is that Jungian theory focuses too much on "habitual use", which is too subjective. I didn't notice if they posted any information about their methods for actually reading signals..it just seemed like you had to send a video of yourself, which I forwent doing.


----------



## Cellar Door

Not everyone is going to agree with this one, and maybe even disagree on the basis that it's written by Adymus, but it is one of the most famous cognitive function posts on the internet ever. Maybe Simulated Worlds has some could be considered as famous, but these two guys really made an impact on the typology community.

Cognitive Functions 100: Basic Functionality Revised - INTP Forum

*Cognitive functions basics:
This is the introductory course into the basic functionality of your cognitive processes. This guide is intended to be a work in progress, as there is far more that needs to be covered. Although this is a perfect starting point, and we are going to have to start somewhere.




Extroverted and Introverted Functions:

*Extroverted and Introverted functions are functions that can easily be described as “Outer world” and “Inner world” functions respectively. However, their functionality is a bit more complex than to be so specific. It would be more accurate to say Extroversion correlates with Objectivity, and Introversion correlates with Subjectivity. Extroverted functions focus on something Objective, that is to say: something that is apart from the subject. They are impersonal and reference and objective (sometime external) source. Extroverted functions do not necessarily engage only the “external world”, it is possible for an extroverted function to be abstracted inward while used in tandem with an introverted function. This is actually how introvert usually use their auxiliary extroverted function. For example, Ne perceives objective patterns, and these patterns could possibly be seen within a person’s internal thoughts and feelings. Ne can view the internal analysis or point of view that the person is using, objectively; and thus perceive patterns within one’s own internal thinking or feeling process. Introverted Functions stem from the internal and subjective world. These are all functions that are personal to the person who uses them; it could be their personal logic, convictions, or worldview. They are functions that exist only for the benefit of the person who is using them, and cannot be seen or understood by anyone else, unless translated into something objective by an extroverted function.*



The Extroverted type:

*Despite popular belief, being an extrovert has nothing to do with how much you talk. Any personality type at all is going to be stimulated by their dominant function, and if their dominant function is an extroverted function, then they are considered an extroverted type. The extroverted type is a personality type that is stimulated (gains energy) by interfacing with a certain element of the external world. This can come in the form of social engagement; however it is not exclusive to this. For instance, Fe is stimulated by the social connection made with other people through social interaction, but Se is stimulated by the sensations of the external world, thus their stimulation could be gained outside of social interaction. The act of extroversion is simply engaging with the external world, this could be in the form of listening to a person speak, being aware of your senses, being aware of the present patterns, or even drawing a picture.*


The Introverted type:

*A personality type that has an introverted function as a dominant function is an introvert. In other words, it is a personality type that is stimulated by interfacing with the dominant element of their internal world. This however does not mean that an introverted type cannot interface with the external world, it is just draining task for them. This is also not suggesting that an introvert cannot be “talkative”, as the amount a person is talking is not an indicator that they are being stimulated by it, but rather that they are well versed in the activity. It is also possible to use external engagement as a catalyst to stimulate the internal world, if this engagement is allowing the introvert to go back into their internal world, and gain moment come back out for more engagement. For instance, an INTP is a Ti dominant, meaning the social engagement and articulation required to use Fe will be the most draining activity for them. However, if this engagement is in the form of a debate for example, they can use this engagement to go back into their Ti, analyze the information taken from the other person which allows them to be stimulated by its use, and then use this energy gained to articulate their answers; making an overall very stimulating experience for the INTP.*


Adaptive and Directive functions:

*An MBTI Judging type is a personality type that has directive functions as their dominant and auxiliary functions. An MBTI Perceiving type is a personality type that has Adaptive functions as their dominant and auxiliary functions.

Directive functions all either have an agenda that wants to be pushed into reality (Worldview) or are meant to translate internal data into an objective and structured action (Dynamics). The Directive types are considered the most structured and schedule oriented, although different directive functions yield different manifestations of directivity. Directive types are action oriented, even when not directly taking action; they are mapping out what actions need to be taken. If we were to split Directive and Adaptive into the Yin and Yang, the directive types and function would be Yang, as directive functions are oriented toward creating an agenda, than pushing toward that agenda.
Adaptive functions all either take in information as it is currently happening, or processing information that is occurring in the present. The adaptive functions harbour a person’s concept of present, and change as it is occurring now. These functions are all reactionary in that they “go with the flow” as opposed to directing the flow. The adaptive functions and adaptive types would be “yin”, in that are oriented toward moving with an agenda as opposed to pushing their own.

Directive types have a concern for where things are going; “is this going in a direction that I don’t want it to go in?” They set boundaries to direct others to move in certain directions, and avoid other ones. If personality type’s dominant and auxiliary functions are directive functions, then they are considered Directive (Or J) types. The Directive types must reach over to their right brain functions in order to adapt and freeform when they need to, although this is draining for them.
Adaptive types have a curiosity for where things are going; “Is this going to go somewhere interesting?” They can be much more inviting and disarming in their pursuit of free formed and open ended flow of what is happening now. If personality type’s dominant and auxiliary functions are adaptive functions, then they are considered Adaptive (Or P) types. *

Perception and Judgment:
*Perception functions feed a person’s apparatus a stream of pure and unrefined data to be processed by their judgment. This information could be coming from the objective external reality (Extroverted perception), or the person’s subjective worldview (Introverted perception). Discernment functions take information from the perception, and then use it to make decisions. These decisions could be the subjective and reactionary analysis of how one feels or considers the information they are getting (introverted Judgment), or the setting of objective courses of action (Extroverted Judgment)*.


The Four Considerations:


*In order for a person to function at all, they must be able to have a way to engage the external world (Extroversion), a way to engage the internal world (Introversion), a means of gaining information (Perception), and a way to make decisions (Judgment.) Therefore, Extrovert Judgment and Introverted perception, or Introverted Judgment and Extroverted Perception would be the minimal criteria to have a functional apparatus. However, while this minimum is technically functional, a person must satisfy the 4 priorities to actually have a mature and adaptable apparatus.
*
The Four Priorities:


Dynamics (Extroverted Judgment): 

*Dynamics is what a person reaches into when they need to output objective external structure, or take in objective external structure. Dynamics functions are directive functions that focus on the objective dynamics of an external system. Fe focuses on the system of social dynamics, how everyone feels about what, and how they can be directed into feeling something else. Te focuses on the dynamics of the objective systems of logical protocol, how something is working, and how it can direct others to operating an objective system. There is a “Push” and “Push back” that occurs when the Dynamics functions are being used. “Push” is what happens when the an action is taken by an external decision, and “Push Back” is the detection of how the external dynamics are currently operating. The Dynamics functions also serve as a person’s articulator, as it takes a person’s subjective thoughts and perceptions and turns it into a structured, objective, and external language. Because of this, personality types with dominant dynamics functions, such as the ENTJ or ESFJ for example, will be able to articulate with the most ease and types with inferior dynamics functions will have the most trouble with articulation. It is also the Dominant Dynamics types that need this articulation in order to help clarify their own thoughts and understandings. They start by “pushing” their perspectives onto others, and then when they are pushed back by the outside world, they introvert to check with their worldview to see why they got the “Push back” reaction that they did. Once they see the solution then they “Push” again, and the cycle continuous.
*

Worldview (Introverted Perception):


*A person’s worldview is their own personal and subjective perception of the way the world works and the way it should work. This is where a person’s personal map of life is held; their understanding and knowledge of all that is true in the world. The Worldview functions are both Directive functions, as they are a preset agenda that serves as the homeostasis of internal information for a person’s psyche. Si is a worldview that is based on a person’s history and memories of how things were in their past, and it’s agenda is to make the present match this past image. Ni is worldview that is based on a person’s map of abstract patterns, natural law, and how things will unfold in the future, and it’s agenda is to turn the present into this future model. The worldview is what a person looks into when they check to see where things are going. When a pattern or event happens in real time, then a person must check their worldview to be able to recognize what is happening now and where it is going to go. When anyone makes plans, or sets timetables for courses of action, it must be logged into their worldview function so they can set a time based playlist of actions. Personality types with dominant worldview functions, such as the ISTJ or INFJ, use their worldview to see the best course of actions, and then use their dynamics function to execute these actions. However, they put far more time and focus into the internal planning phase, which why when a dominant Worldview type “Pushes”, their push is much harder than a dominant dynamics type. For a dominant worldview type, the act of “pushing” is a draining action and would much rather have it only take one shot, so they are not looking to dance, they are looking to win.*


Stimulus (Extroverted Perception):


*Stimulus functions are how a person takes in new objective and/or external information as it is happening now. These functions that a person uses to be “in the now” so to speak and they gain awareness for present change and flow. Stimulus functions are adaptive because they only follow information as it is coming. They ride the wave of new emerging external data, instead of try to direct where it is going. Se takes in objective information gained by the five senses, exactly as the details are in a literal sense. Ne takes in information based on emerging patterns, possibilities, and trends that are emerging in real time. When something occurs in the present, Ne detects its patterns and then jumps to where the next step could possibly be. Personality types with dominant stimulus functions, such as the ENTP and ESFP, live in the moment and are most energized by experiencing the events emerging in real time. The surf the waves of the changing external environment, and use their Auxiliary Introverted Judgment function as a rudder to guild how they process the information gained.*


Compass (Introverted Judgment):


*The Compass functions are how a person weighs new information gained by a perception function, based on a subjective model of personal values or logic. The Compasses react to inputted information through a process of “resonation”. They will resonate in such a way that tells the psyche whether they agree or disagree with the information. The compasses are adaptive in that they are reactionary and interface with information that is thrown at them in real time. Ti will resonate with information when it aligns strongly with it’s personal logic, and reject information when it’s logic is weak. Fi will Resonate with information with it aligns with its personal values, and reject information that does not. Both Ti and Fi have a very “yuck” sort of reaction when posed with disagreeable information, that tells a person right away where they stand on it, and what problems they have with it. Personality types that have a Compass function as their dominant function, such as the INTP and ISFP, are very reflective, and gain most of their energy by modeling their internal logic or values. They can also augment their Compass functions when met with other types that have compass models that they agree with. Effectively, and INTP for example can agree with a piece of an ENTP’s logical model, and then integrate that into their own. However, the models created by the compasses are amorphous and unstructured, which is why they are the hardest to describe and turn into structure and articulated language.*



The powers of the Cognitive functions:


Se (Extroverted Sensing):


Scanning Environment: *Se is noticing changes and opportunities for action, by scanning for sensual reactions and data. It notices relevant facts and occurrences in a sea of data and experiences, learning all the facts we can about the immediate context of 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 their attention.*

Sensual Experience: *Se is experiencing the immediate context, and accumulating experiences. Se occurs when we become aware of what is in the general world in rich detail. Se types have a zest for living life to the fullest by way of multiplying experiences. Always on the alert for what needs immediate attention or what might provide a bit of action, excitement or entertainment, they engage quickly with their environment. Se types are attuned to the environment and the myriad of colors, textures, sounds, beauty and the sensuousness of it all. Their attention will always go towards whatever provides the keenest impression on their senses. With Se, data is accepted without discrimination and is only later subjected to sorting and selection through their introverted judgment functions. This, in conjunction with the immediacy of their perceptual process, may underlie their natural affinity for sensual and aesthetic experience.*

Active Energy: *Se is taking action in the physical world; it 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. Se types often have an uncanny ability to respond appropriately in cases of an emergency, often having excellent reflexes, and they can act without thinking. Se comes into play when events are changing so rapidly that linear analysis is impossible. They respond immediately, on the basis of visual and tactile information, guided by what they done before. Se types are pragmatic and realistic with a talent for being whatever they need to be in order to make a situation work for them.*

Fun Loving: *Se types seek and enjoy freedom, are good-natured, direct, tolerant and often the ones who provide levity. They also tend to have natural mediating skills. Se types have a way of dealing with people on a very equal platform and are not easily star struck. Rank, celebrity, and status mean little when they are face to face with another individual. Se types love variety and are curious and adventurous, enjoying the unexpected. As long as things are moving along, they are happy. They like to keep things simple and immediate, going with the flow. Se types are helpful in a very concrete ways, providing the correct tools or specific service the person requires. They love having fun and if things are too quiet they may provide the entertainment or distraction.*

Stage Presence: *The Se types have a “feel” for atmosphere, style, and image. They know what people are interesting in and like being recognized as paradigmatic of the trend. ESPs often speak of that peculiar thrill of knowing their game, knowing when luck or timing or the cards or and audience is “with them”. An ESP assesses what’s going on, plays on it, and takes pleasure in the escalating sense of mastery. You can always tell by the ESPs in the crowd exactly what pop culture currently regards as admirable, stylish, fascinating, outrageous, or exciting. They become the experiential standard by which others’ image and attitude are measured. Some ESPs have a kind of moving-star quality—a self-assurance, a charisma, an appetite for life—That others enjoy and find infectious. It should be granted that ESPs don’t feel unduly vulnerable to external influence. Indeed, they cherish freedom and individuality. The worst fate they can imagine is to be trapped by others’ ideas about normal or typical behaviour. ESPs can therefore become paradigms of what can be acquired, said, done, not withstanding accepted social wisdom. ESPs are magnetic, clever, full of energy and enthusiasm, they make a room come alive, thrive on attention, and are attentive in return.*

Suppression:* Se and Ni have a suppressive relationship. When Ni is attempted, it pulls one out of the sensations of the present outer world and into the theoretical and abstract world of Ni. Se dominants prefer to be in the here and now, and sometimes find Ni to be overwhelming, in that it can give them a feeling of losing their footing, and lifting them off steady ground.
*

Ne (Extroverted Intuition):


Pattern Surfing: *Ne involves interpreting situations and relationships, and picking up meanings and interconnections, seeing patterns emerging. Ne is useful in getting the gist of a situation very quickly. It has an uncanny instinct for spotting trends and possible future developments, often before others are even mildly aware of them.*

Brainstorming: *Ne involves entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true. By using this process one can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking.*

Improvisation: *Words, ideas and possibilities spew effortlessly from Ne using types. They are keen improvisers, and they are rarely caught off guard; there is always something up their sleeve.
*
Change Initiation: *Ne initiates change and often is prone to trespassing a few known boundaries to take themselves and others where no one has been before. Their faith in possibilities and belief in the benefit of change often inspires others to follow. They are challenging, ingenious and innovative. They will give their best to what appears to be an impossible challenge, a place unknown to man or beast. Ne also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through the emergent leadership.*

Inspirational Energy: *Ne types, when inspired, are fearless and tireless. Their energy will know no limits. They possess the ability to go without food or rest, beyond other personality types’ limits. Ne types are easily inspired and their enthusiasm is contagious to others around them causing them to become inspired as well.
*
Suppression: *Ne and Si have a suppressive relationship. Si wants plant everything down to what is known, and Ne wants to bounce to new possibilities. Si shuts down Ne when demanding that there are no other possibilities besides what is already known.
*

Ti (Introverted Thinking):


Clarification: *Ti involves clarifying definitions to get more precision. This often involves finding just the right word to clearly express an idea concisely, crisply, and to the point. Using Ti is like having an internal sense of the essential qualities of something, noticing the fine distinctions that make it what it is and then naming it.*

Principle Understanding: *Ti involves figuring out the principles on which something works and then evaluating according to these principles and whether something fits the framework or model. Ti ponders the apparent chaos of the world in order to extract from it the universal truths and principles that can be counted on. These principles, once extracted, will provide the logical structure on which to build strategies.*

Situational Logic: *Ti is not conceptual and linear. It’s body based and holistic, and it operates by way of visual, tactile, or spatial cues, inclining us to reason experientially rather than analytically. Ti, with its all-at-once approach to life, doesn’t require exact predictability before it takes action. Its decisions are based on the probabilities and it leaves room for the random and unexpected. Ti uses hands-on experience to recognize, in the midst of action, which variables are best taken into account and which are irrelevant to our goal. Thus, Ti always involves perceptual skills. Ti is not just a matter of responding to immediate perceptual stimuli. It’s a decision-making process. When one is thinking in an introverted way, they are coordinating their behaviors with the variables in a situation related to our intended effect. Ti helps to understand what it means to be I harmony with the parts of a situation that are still in flux. When we’re involved in something that interests us, we don’t distinguish our thoughts form the tacit level of information we’re relying on. We’re part of the process, changing its nature by changing ourselves.*

Dispassion: *Ti types are usually level-headed, objective, impersonal, yet intensely involved in problem solving. They are rigorous with their thoughts and analysis, choosing the exact words that convey precisely what is meant. Ti types maintain the utmost objectivity. They approach people and events as dispassionate observers, with the goal of arriving at the most comprehensive truth possible. Ti types typically do not take constructive criticism and disagreement personally. They often welcome tough, unrelenting critique as an aid to achieving the highest levels of accuracy and objectivity.
*
Situational Analysis: *Ti is analyzing and categorizing; this involves an internal reasoning process of deriving subcategories of classes and sub-principles of general principles. These can then be used in problem solving, analysis, and refining of a product or an idea. This process is evidenced in behaviors like taking things or ideas apart to figure out how they work. The analysis also involves looking at different sides of an issue and seeing where there is inconsistency. In so doing, we search for a “leverage point” that will fix problem with the least amount of effort or damage to the system. We engage in this process when we notice logical inconsistencies between statements and frameworks, using a model to analyze situations, find root causes and foresee consequences. They are curious and capable of explaining complex political, economical or technological problems, Taking great pleasure in explaining all the factors and intricacies.
*
Suppression: *Ti and Fe have a suppressive relationship. While one must withdraw and be dispassionate of the feelings of others in order to use their subjective personal logic, Fe ignores the personal one’s personal logic and focuses on the feelings and needs of others.
*

Fi (Introverted Feeling):


Essence Reading:* Fi is considering importance and worth. It allows one to decide if something is of significance and worth standing up for. It serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in. There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life’s situations. It helps Fi types know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the “essence” of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.*

Moral Compass: *Fi is clarifying values to achieve accord. Fi types have high personal moral standards and are particularly sensitive to inconsistencies in their environment between what is being said and what is being done. Empty promises of adhering to something they value set off an inner alarm and they may transform themselves into a powerful crusading force.*

Empathy: *Fi types are usually gentile and kind. They are sensitive to others’ pain, restlessness or general discomfort and strive to find happiness, balance and wholeness for themselves in order to help others find joy, satisfaction and plenitude. They are deeply empathetic, and they are usually tolerant and open-minded, insightful, flexible and understanding. They have good listening skills, are genuinely concerned and insightful. At their best, they inspire others to be themselves. These types focus on the good in others, so they tend to downplay others faults, often forgiving them for the slights of minor hurtful behavior. Their habitual approach to people is nonjudgmental, understanding and forgiving. They seek to affirm all parties in a controversy and thus readily the validity of contradictory points of view. Underlying their characteristic tolerance is an overarching natural curiosity. They find the diversity in the world immensely appealing.*

Devotion: *Intense and passionate about their values and deeply held beliefs. They are quietly persistent in raising awareness of cherished causes and often fight for the underdog in quiet or not-so-quiet ways.
*
Idealism: *They live life in an intently personal fashion, acting on the belief that each persona is unique and that social norms are to be respected only if they do not hinder personal development or expression. Moral choices prompted by the Fi types are not derived from legal principles or the social obligations that accrue to our roles in the world. They’re derived from the subjective experience of being human, our will to deal with a situation in terms of human ideal. Fi bypasses structural considerations and puts human value first. They place a high value on affirming both their own and others’ individuality and uniqueness.
*
Suppression:* Fi and Te have a suppressive relationship. Te is the protocol that everyone must abide by, and it ignores the values of the individual. Te suppresses Fi in that it makes no acceptation for anyone and holds everyone to the same standard. While Fi ignores structural protocol and puts their values first.*


Si (Introverted Sensing):


Reliability:* Si types are dependable, reliable and trustworthy. They like to belong to solid organizations that have reasonable in their ambitions and loyal to their employees. They are thorough and conscientious in fulfilling their responsibilities.*

Practicality: *Once an Si type accepts a project, they will see it to the end. They manage their time well and are realistic about how much time and resources will be needed. They derive great pleasure from perfecting existing techniques with the goal of maximizing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.*

Memory: *Si is reviewing past experiences and recalling stored impressions. Si often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference. Si is operating when we see someone who reminds of someone else. Sometimes the feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. The process involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. Si types tend to have a good memory for specific facts that are necessary in their day-to-day life at work and at home. When one uses Si, we don’t adjust to our surface impressions; we package them and take them with us—in the form of facts, numbers, signs and memories. We don’t remember, or even notice, everything that we see, hear, taste, touch and smell during the course of our lives. Only some things strike us as important, useful, familiar, or exciting enough to convert into mental content—that is, into facts that we retain over time. Si guides in this selection, and it prompts us to reconcile our new impressions with the ones we’ve already stored.*

Attention to Detail: *Si types are careful and orderly in their attention to facts and details, Si is accumulating data and seeking details information and links to what is known. With Si, there is often a great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. Si is recognizing the way things have always been.*

Stability: *With Si there can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture, and protect what is known and long-lasting. The Si type tends to be rather modest, traditional and conventional, to like sensible clothing, to be thrifty, careful and wise with both money and possessions. They may keep possessions for a lifetime and treasure those that were given to them. Si types have a developed sense of citizenship and accountability. From an Si viewpoint, immediate conditions have no stable meaning. They’re just an influx of data impinging on the senses, and the response to these impressions depends on mood, state of mind, desires and feelings. It’s our commitments and priorities, the facts we hold inalienable that give our circumstances enduring significance. Knowing what matters, what’s worth keeping or building again, gives a sense of continuity and security. It gives direction in the midst of a crisis, or helps to weather a loss of faith that immediate feelings would not equip us to handle. All things flow away like water, but the ground of our self-experience remains. Si types are typically seen as well grounded in reality, trustworthy, and dedicated to preserving traditional values and time-honored institutions.*

Suppression: *Si and Ne have a suppressive relationship. The chaos on unpredictability of Ne renders the reliance of the past data obsolete in that it cannot be reliably trusted if the environment is constantly changing.*


Ni (Introverted intuition):


Perspective Shifting: *Using Ni a person can shift their perspectives, view and understand things from different angles and in different ways, each giving insights, synthesizing information and trying to get to the best outcome for the problem at hand and accomplish a vision of the future. Perspectives are often evoked by focusing on physical symbols, archetypes, totems, and other abstractions like visual models. This ability allows the Ni user to see the underlying meaning and universal truths of natural law behind symbols and abstractions, and then apply them in other places that appear unrelated or contradictory. *

Meaningful Insight: *Ni involves synthesizing the seemingly paradoxical or contradictory, which takes understanding to a new level. Using this process, one can have moments when completely new, unimagined realizations come to them. Quite often during times of relaxation after concentrated intellectual activity, when the mind is allowed to wander freely, the Ni seems to take over and can produce the sudden clarifying insights. Ni is a way of seeing things that rise above competing views. Engaging this process starts with entering a state of withdrawal from the world in order to purposefully gain an insight or realization. These insights may manifest as "aha!" experiences, the kind of thing that "pops" into your head while you're taking a shower. Once these insights come to pass they can align them with their global model transforming it into an updated perspective of the world and future.*

Prediction: *Ni is always looking for implications of how the future will unfold. Ni types often find themselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs. Because of this curious power that Ni users have, they tend to be seen as having a “psychic” or prophetic quality to them.*

Visionary Drive:* The sense of the future and the realizations that come from Ni have sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future. The Ni user can hold the ideal future society or system within their Ni, and rigorously drive toward this goal to turn it into reality.*

Independence of Mind: *Ni dominants confidently trust their intuitions, insights, ideas, and inspirations - often no matter what others say. Their thoughts become part of who they are, and they are completely independent of the world the live in. Ni dominants are the most independent minded of all other types, the insights they pick up on in their lives are completely original and subjective. For this reason, many Ni dominants feel like aliens, as if they perceive a completely different reality from everyone else.*

Suppression: *Ni and Se have a suppressive relationship. Ni causes the person to withdraw from the active sensual environment in order to work effectively. The slightest nudge, impulse noise, or visual flash can knock a person completely out of Ni and derail their train of thought. Because of this, Ni dominants can’t stand being interrupted, and prefer to surround themselves with only the most pleasant of sensations.

*
Fe (Extroverted Feeling):


Personal Connection: *Fe is connecting with others. The process of Fe often involves a desire to connect with (or disconnect from) others and is often evidenced by expressions of warmth (or displeasure) and self-disclosure. They carry conversations well, finding common ground with their speaker. They tend to find the correct and gracious way to respond in any given situation, no matter how tense or uncomfortable it is. Fe types typically radiate goodwill and enthusiasm. They are optimistic about life in general and human potential in particular. They prefer to focus on the positive, harmonious and uplifting aspects of people and human relations, paying little attention to negative, pessimistic, limiting, and divisive messages, situations and conclusions. Their primary goal is to create and maintain good feeling and harmony among people.*

Personal Consideration: *Fe is considering others and the group – organizing to meet their needs and honour their values and feelings. Adjusting to and accommodating others, and deciding if something is appropriate or acceptable to others. The “social graces,“ such as being polite, being nice, being friendly, being considerate, and being appropriate, often revolve around the process of Fe. Laughing at jokes when others laugh, and trying to get people to act kindly to each other also involves Fe. Using this function, one responds according to expressed or even unexpressed wants and needs of others. Fe types are careful not to hurt others’ feelings and try to take others’ well-being into account. If they cannot avoid telling someone an Unpleasant truth, they will carefully soften the message by putting it in an affirmative context. For Fe types, unconditional positive regard is a strongly held value. They are always focused on the other person, feeling a glow when those around them are happy, and troubled when something is amiss.*

Ritualizing: *Fe is maintaining societal, organizational, or group values. “Family”, “friend”, and “co-worker” aren’t states of emotion. They’re categories of human alliance, organized by degree of relatedness. What we are doing, when we use these categories, is accommodating our specific experience of people to the conceptual shapes the terms offer. This is a rational process, not a sentimental one. These standards constitute one aspect of our societal value system. They set up conventions that tell us how relationships are “supposed” to be conducted and what responsibilities they entail.*

Social Awareness: *Fe is conceptual and analytic. It encourages us to make rational choices, to measure our options for relationship against external standards of behaviors. [Customs] Fe prompts in this regard are not a matter of emotion, impulse, or doing what we learned in kindergarten. These are secular rituals—visible signs that mark a participant’s membership in the community at large. Such rituals can touch us, but they aren’t occasions of sentiment. They’re a vocabulary, part of our feeling lexicon. They submit to collective form an experience ordinarily confined to individual history, allowing us to express the kinds of relationships important to us as people. Social values mark these wares of decision making that go beyond one person’s immediate experience to affect the community as a whole. Apart from questions of moral rectitude, our behaviors toward others have implications, whether we intend them or not. Fe types seek continuity through harmonious relationships and collective values. They excel at picking up on the tone of a situation and acting accordingly, adding warmth to a cool setting or turning sour into sweet.*

Team building: *They will naturally seek to know what people do well, what they enjoy, where and how they work, and understand what they need in order to make the appropriate connections with other people. They weave and strengthen the collective fabric of social conventions and interactions. Fe types seem to have an infinite of acquaintances from all walks of life and are always on the lookout for people in need and those who can help out. Inclusiveness is important and they are particularly sensitive to those who are excluded. As team players and project leaders, they have a gift for rallying their players, focusing on what is being done right and each member’s strengths. They are loyal and they expect loyalty. They are natural cheerleaders, often expressing support, gratitude, and encouragement, and heaping praise onto those they appreciate. They take note of what is being done and what needs doing, offering their help and assistance wherever necessary.*

Suppression: *Fe and Ti have a suppressive relationship. Fe devotes itself to the feelings of the collective, and must ignore one’s personal logic in order to satisfy the customs of the tribe.

*
Te (Extroverted Thinking):


Thirst for Challenge: *ETJs love a challenge, especially one that will allow tangible improvement in productivity, efficiency or profitability. They are direct, finding the quickest, most direct path between what is and what should be. ETJs love a problem, especially one that will make full use of their competencies, their logic and sense of order, justice and fair play. Many Te types find competition to be stimulating and fun. Fairness and respecting the same set of rules, so may the best one win. And since they readily acknowledge that there will be a winner and a loser, they would simply much rather be the winner. So they hone their strategies on the fine knife of experience and sharpen their skills to meet the next challenge head on. ETJs love having greater challenges bestowed on them as a result of having successfully met the last, as this attests to their competence and skills.
*
Directness:* Te types are direct and honest with most things that displease them and expect others to do the same. Their communication style is honest direct, and to the point, and the prefer others to be similarly candid with them.*

Planning & Decision Making: *Contingency planning, scheduling, and quantifying utilize the process of Te. Te types enjoy making decisions, and the like to be in control of things and value efficiency and effective decision making. They are comfortable in leadership positions and readily accept responsibility for making things happen.*

Organizing: *Te is segmenting, systematizing, structuring and organizing for efficiency, Te helps us to organize our environment and ideas through charts, tables, graphs, flow charts, outlines, and so on, ETJs excel at implementing ideas and are often on the lookout for good ideals worthy of their attention. They are quick to organize, orchestrate, find resources, coordinate, and follow through to the end of a project. Te types are seen by others and see themselves as having rigorous standards that typically take precedence over both their own, and others’ personal needs.*

Protocols: *Te is checking for consequences, monitoring for standards or specifications being met and deciding if something is working or not. Te is setting boundaries, guidelines and parameters. In written or verbal communication, Te helps us notice when something is missing. Te harmonizes us with the general ideas about reality, so most the standards of order we employ are collectively determined. When one uses Te, they are recognizing that certain principles of order are “always true”. The “truth” of Te, in this respect, is not its scientific accuracy but its rational utility. It doesn’t matter that other cultures have conceptualized times, space, and seasonal progression differently than we do. The bottom line is that our Te principles are reliable enough to use as consensual benchmarks, thereby freeing us from the dictates of immediate experience. Te is a social language—a vocabulary that creates common ground, rights, and expectations among people whose life experiences may be very different.*

Suppression: *Te and Fi have a suppressive relationship. The individual personal values of Fi can get in the way of the standard protocol that Te has everyone abide by.


----------



## Cellar Door

surgery said:


> Yeah, I got that impression (that it was extremely similar to Jungian theory) of Pod'Lair when I visited their website. At the same time, the page constantly distances itself from Jung (and MBTI). It seems the reason for that is that Jungian theory focuses too much on "habitual use", which is too subjective. I didn't notice if they posted any information about their methods for actually reading signals..it just seemed like you had to send a video of yourself, which I forwent doing.


I've never uploaded a video of myself, so I didn't participate in that aspect. Pod'lair tries to distance itself, but originally Adymus presented all those visual typing ideas for MBTI. He later started pod'lair and began to distance himself claiming all these ideas were really part of a different system. The guy in that cognitive type video is "Auburn" from the INTP forum. He was a contributor there at the same time as Adymus, but I don't know if he was eventually banned like Adymus. Either way, he's pretty much taking the same visual typing principles and making them more palatable.

In terms of methods, they are really similar, pod'lair has some extra stuff that has to do with leaning your head to different sides and it also matters what direction your eyes zone. In cognitive type it matters a little bit too, but it seems to be less of a factor. In fact, before "Auburn" started cognitivetype he started another website that I can't remember the name of, it was all the same ideas, but it used the terminology that adymus used in the post I just used. I don't think he does in cognitive type at this point.


----------



## Serpent

Raawx said:


> @_Pelopra_, be honest and tell me which of these examples you identify and why.
> 
> Hey @_ScarrDragon_ & @__. Could you two do the same?


Interesting. After a perfunctory read, I was inclined to go with the Ne example. However, when I looked into the examples a little more, I realized the Se-Ni descriptions were more accurate for me. I definitely objectify my sensory experiences. As a matter of fact, it's one reason why I'm such a terrible storyteller. I would describe sensory situations and experiences with great objectivity and expect others to derive meaning from them. You could even say that I'm deliberately trying to make my descriptions as objective and realistic as possible, so as to expose the ones on the receiving end to the intangible nature of it. Adding to your first example, I could imagine saying something like, 
_This one guy grabbed the man by the arm and beat him into the floor. The crowd went wild after that. They seemed ravenous for a brawl. As I watched the brawl unfold, I thought about how the guy getting beaten up looked like a deer in the flashlights of the crowd and under the clutches of the bear (the other guy) and eventually, how violence was essentially the primitive solution to arguments..."

_Basically, I observe a situation objectively and derive meanings from it, or just dryly comment on it. Sometimes, I might get reminded of a similar situation that took place in the past (again, I wonder whether this is Si).


Word Dispenser said:


> For Se+Ni: Look no farther than:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For Ne+Si:


A few seconds into the first video, I thought about how similar it was to the American Psycho intro (although, they're not as similar as I thought in retrospect). Then I immediately wondered whether this was Si. Of course, maybe I'm thinking too much into it. It's probably general association.

By the way, here are some short or incomplete stories I just wrote because I was bored. Wonder what you think of them with reference to typology.


* *




Once upon a time, a weary young knight stumbled upon a desolate city. Having just narrowly escaped from a hopeless battle with the adversaries still pursuing him, the knight desperately searched for accommodation. But the town was deserted, the buildings destroyed, the knight's courage waned as he wandered in vain.

Finally, when almost all hope was lost, the young warrior, to his glee, discovered a regal palace partly concealed by darkness and mist. As the ecstatic knight heaved a great sigh of relief and prepared to sleep once inside, he was struck by the magnificence of a dozen portraits surrounding him, each apparently depicting a previous occupant. Yet, there was something about the nasty expressions in the faces of the men in the portraits and the remarkable authenticity with which they were made that unsettled him. 

Regardless, the knight went to sleep. As he later awoke from a troubling nightmare, the knight was startled to see that his surroundings, now illuminated by the sunlight, were messy and ransacked. The portraits were indiscernible through the glow.

On exiting the mansion, the knight was pleasantly surprised to see a woodcutter walking towards him.
'You've got some nerve, son. Playing dead in that bloody castle,' he said.

'Why so?' said the knight.

'Jesus, were you actually dead? A gang of filthy hooligans looted the damn castle while you were happily dreaming.' 

'What!?' the knight exclaimed. Slowly, and ominously, he looked over his shoulder and saw a dozen broken windows situated on the outer walls of the mansion. The portraits were missing.





* *




Jimmy was a skeptical boy. Blessed (or cursed) with an impenetrable skull of cynicism blended with a sense of realism, he scorned at the fairy tales, supernatural anecdotes and the imaginary friends that his friends so enthusiastically adored. Never mind the foolish figments of their imagination, he thought. I have the real world to entertain me. It was hard to get him excited about anything. Indeed, Jimmy predominantly seemed to maintain a demeanor of solemnity.





But the seasonal local carnival was definitely an exception. The one thing that Jimmy admired. The one thing that fascinated Jimmy. The one thing that would get him excited. Jimmy would enter the carnival with a permanent radiance in his eyes. The rides. The parades. The masquerades. The Circus... it was the Circus that particularly attracted Jimmy. It was the Circus that Jimmy would allow his mind to fantasize about. Surprisingly, the skeptic had never even been to that circus. Like the young astronomer gazing at the stars from his balcony, he would scrutinize the majestic tent from afar. For once, Jimmy would imagine. Imagine all the wonders and secrets that tent contained. Yes, he thought. One day, I will visit the circus.





* *




Johnny trudged down the bleak wasteland, a revolver in one hand and a stopwatch in another, at which he glanced for a second and grunted. Enough time had been wasted and his target remained undiscovered. Johnny hadn't even had a glimpse of his target in the desolate wasteland, where the only available hideouts were provided by nasty heaps of garbage.
"Come on, you criminal coward," Johnny shouted. "Show yourself. Quit being a craven. It doesn't matter anymore. Your capture is inevitable. You brought all of this upon yourself. Your undoing. Your indiscretion. I am only the instrument of the law. I don't even care who finds whom. In the end, you will be the one in eternal slumber..." When he didn't apprehend any indication of a response, Johnny cursed and decided to quicken his pace and place his faith on spontaneity, choosing to abandon the methodical approach he was renowned for.

Johnny was a mercenary. Among his circles, he was renowned for his ruthless approach to the trade. Such a profession obviously entailed its practicians to abandon their emotions and sentiments and in some cases, even cognitive states such as doubt and choice, all in order to ensure optimal efficiency. Maximus Efficientia. At the moment however, Johnny was doing a terrible job at maintaining it. _I swear, after I finally find and dispose of this guy, I will demand a break. I deserve it. Or you can sign my resignation letter with your fancy name, which is obviously not your real one._

"Your target's identity cannot be disclosed to you. It might... complicate matters, you understand?" Abraham Kennedy said.

Johnny didn't mind. By principle, he paid no attention to such worthless trivia, anyway. Circumstances. Situations. Consequences. Such terms were of no significance to him. Indeed, he considered them nothing more than petty hindrances. Johnny was the kind of individual who would not hesitate to abduct the President's daughter, or exterminate the President himself. A cold, inexorable, assassin.

“Anyway," Kennedy said when Johnny gave a sign of consideration. "This particular target has been classified as a Sigma-9. I presume I do not need to expound the significance of the classification to you?”

Johnny nodded. “Target must be exterminated as soon as possible," he said monotonously. "He’s a threat to the world and stuff, right?”





An hour elapsed. The hour gradually increased to a couple. But Johnny still hadn't found the target yet. This annoyed him, which he found surprising. Johnny seldom allowed emotions to get in his way. He knew that his ingenuous heart was just an obstacle to overcome. As a child, he had even tried to hire a doctor to extract it, so as to spare him the trouble of such sentiments. 



Noise. Johnny paused and cocked his ears towards the sound. It seemed to be originating from one of the burrows to his left. He wasted no time in sprinting towards it and aiming his revolver. Should I shoot? Why not? Can’t take a risk in such a situation. And so he shot. He heard the same noise again. Only this time, it was louder and yet fainter. It began on a high note and concluded insidiously. Johnny peered over the edge and found a recumbent fox. Johnny grunted and stepped back in disbelief. What the hell is going on?



“So, what happened down there in the wasteland, John?” Abraham asked, although it sounded more like a command.

“I… I… met someone unexpected” Johnny replied lamely.

Abraham sighed and sat down. “I should have told you about this before. But I assume you’ve already found out, am I correct?”

“Yes. For the first time… I failed. Oh my god, I actually failed!” Johnny suddenly seemed to realize the significance of the situation. “Are you going to fire me?”

Abraham remained silent.

"As you're fond of saying, Johnny, the circumstances can go to hell. You failed a mission. You jeopardized the security of the world. Do you realize how dangerous our target can potentially be? He's a Sigma-9 for a reason. His elimination is urgent. No, I won't fire you. You are still a valuable asset to our organization. Go home. Have a drink. Watch TV or something. Just enjoy."

"Are you serious, boss?"

"Dead serious. Now off you go, before I change my mind. My mind is organized fickle."



_I still cannot believe whatever I saw back then. For once, I am doubting my eyes. My very senses. The phenomenon I just witnessed._ Johnny stared at the splotch of crimson on his left shoulder that marked the spot where the delinquent had shot him. It hadn't been fatal, far from it. _Probably an amateur. _Then, _did I just disparage myself?_

Johnny appareled himself and made his way towards the parlor. _Maybe I should really get some rest now. Watch the telly, perhaps. I'll definitely get to the bottom of this soon. This situation is far too big to avoid. No, I cannot afford to avoid it._

Locating the remote control and making himself comfortable on the sofa in front of the television, Johnny was on the verge of switching it on when he heard a voice that froze him, head to toe.

"You know, this certainly is quite an experience. Do you reckon it's similar to the feeling a person has when he meets his long lost twin after a long time? Probably not, methinks. This particular situation is way more screwed up, I guess."



Johnny swiftly turned round to sight a figure seated on one of the chairs to the dining table, only a few metres behind the sofa. The figure was partially shrouded in obscurity because of the darkening room. 



"Get out of here, before I shoot you. I'm serious. I might have foolishly pardoned you the first time, but now it's different. You have ten seconds."



"You know, I expected a much colder welcome!"

"Nine."

"One."

















The third one is messed up because I wrote it randomly and whimsically. If I recall correctly, I was just free-writing to pass time. It does seem rather lame in retrospect.


----------



## monemi

Seagreen said:


> Is that more Socionics, and if so, does it fit with MBTI descriptions also? I've never heard the two functions being distinguished from each other in that way, but if true, it would make it easier to tell them apart. When Keirsey talks about SP's making an impact, is that what he's referring to?
> 
> Going by the above, I'm Ne, but I'd be curious to see what dom Se's think about it.


I haven't investigated Se vs Ne stage presence. I'm a decent public speaker. I have a tendency to lead with my sexuality when put on the spot. It's better to go up on stage from a position of power and confidence in yourself. If I have more time to prepare, I'll focus on confidence and power. 

Se is big on action. Going after what you want. If going on stage, to get what you want, you need to give your audience what they want. Your audience isn't interested in you. No audience is interested in what is going on on stage or who you are. There are only two things that every audience has in common. Engagement and entertainment. Then you have to think about what this specific audience has in common and what they want. Why are they all here? When you know what they want, give them what they want. 

I don't like public speaking, but I'm decent at it. I've been given offers in television but I prefer smaller groups. Like corporate sales.


----------



## SilverRain

@monemi, much of what you said in your first post sounds like me (I just caught your second but I'm off to bed). I enjoy people and because I'm an extrovert, I need to talk a lot to figure out what I'm thinking and in order to be happy, but it's a no-brainer when it comes to a choice between sitting and talking, no matter how interesting, and horseback riding, skiing, dancing, even watching birds (not all day haha), it's just that I don't like doing those activities by myself. And I don't engage with nature in order to be soothed but to find excitement, even if it's finding a great field of flowers. An ideal day would be a fun, fast-paced activity with a lot of change involved, then long discussions at night about motivations, philosophy, ethics, and especially personality typing. I'd love to live in nature since I need to be outside and it feels like home, but then I'd be to a certain extent cut off from the type of people who like to converse the way I do, open minded and willing to discuss anything, so it's a conundrum.

I wish I could say I'm Ne and be done with it, but though I frequently look at the world through insights, possibilities and meanings, I spend enough time not seeing the world in that manner that I don't know where to put myself. Another problem is that I "want" to be SP because it feels so relaxing to something inside, even though I don't seem like a lot of SP's I know, and what does that mean? It's possible I was born SP but have now spent so much time with N's that I've taken on that mindset also, leaving me somewhat in the middle, not particularly good at either. It could be the reason I don't especially fit anywhere, since I'm more of a generalist and need people in between like I am in order to best enjoy myself.

I was so cut off from people in my childhood that by the time I connected, I no longer needed to be accepted the way others seemed to need, so I was able to go my own way. Definitely pluses and minuses to having a weird upbringing.

I understand motives, whys and consequences, but that comes from many years of reading about and studying people. I was clueless for quite a long time. Now it's simple, but also difficult in that I see through people in real life so easily, and I also wish they would just cough it up so I wouldn't have to play polite social games with people who don't understand that I understand them.


----------



## Recede

What does it mean if my sensing is more attuned to the big picture of what's there rather than little details? For example, an ESTJ I know is always nitpicking little details of appearance, and I'm thinking "Who's gonna notice?" I tend to notice big things like the layout of places, where things are, and what things look like overall more than the details. I notice some details here and there, but certainly not most of the details.


----------



## SilverRain

monemi said:


> I haven't investigated Se vs Ne stage presence. I'm a decent public speaker. I have a tendency to lead with my sexuality when put on the spot. It's better to go up on stage from a position of power and confidence in yourself. If I have more time to prepare, I'll focus on confidence and power.
> 
> Se is big on action. Going after what you want. If going on stage, to get what you want, you need to give your audience what they want. Your audience isn't interested in you. No audience is interested in what is going on on stage or who you are. There are only two things that every audience has in common. Engagement and entertainment. Then you have to think about what this specific audience has in common and what they want. Why are they all here? When you know what they want, give them what they want.
> 
> I don't like public speaking, but I'm decent at it. I've been given offers in television but I prefer smaller groups. Like corporate sales.


I'm very good at going after what I want, but stage presence? Public speaking rates up there with being chased by a grizzly bear. Nice gift to have, though, one of the few that I've felt some envy for.


----------



## SilverRain

I know two ENFP's and two ENTP's very well. Two have no particular interest in the physical, one takes a week-long backpack once a year and runs to stay in shape, and one ENFP teaches parasailing as a hobby in order to get people to enjoy life more and to let go of their problems by sailing through the sky, or something along those lines. Those are only four people, but I don't have anyone else to compare myself to as part of trying to figure out my type. They might enjoy physical aspects of life, but it doesn't seem as necessary to them as it does to me.

I do the physical because it's absolutely necessary, just as necessary as delving into new conceptual areas, including the alternative. I'd go hiking, skiing, horseback riding, dancing or waterskiing 7 days a week if I didn't have to work, in fact I sometimes do anyway. If I'm Ne, why this strong need to constantly experience these types of activities on a daily basis? If I'm Se, why the equally strong need to talk ideas, not to mention reading many to dozens of books on any subject, conceptual or not, that interests me? Why do I sometimes think in terms of possibilities and meanings, then drop it for hours at a time and just want to experience what is? I wonder if I'm more an Se or Ne outlier.

MBTI and Jung expect people to have a clear type or dominant, but either it doesn't seem to always work that way, or maybe type can get confused if, for example, an Se is fascinated by new, alternative ideas or an Ne is hooked on certain aspects of the physical.


----------



## icecream

Good site: The 8 Cognitive Functions


----------



## Cellar Door

Seagreen said:


> Is that more Socionics, and if so, does it fit with MBTI descriptions also? I've never heard the two functions being distinguished from each other in that way, but if true, it would make it easier to tell them apart. When Keirsey talks about SP's making an impact, is that what he's referring to?
> 
> Going by the above, I'm Ne, but I'd be curious to see what dom Se's think about it.


I think it's compatible with both, also when I said manly I meant for a man, it would be womanly for a woman haha. And yes I think that's what Keirsey was refering to.


----------



## SilverRain

icecream said:


> Good site: The 8 Cognitive Functions


Ne descriptions aren't typically confusing to me, but that one is! I identify more with their Ni, but then on other sites and in many books, Ne is more clear and Ni is murky.

It's possible my 7w6 and Carol Tuttle Type 1 (need for randomness and fun) are drowning out my MBTI type. I wasn't going to post this until I understood it better, but it fits here and might also be an issue:

DCNH subtypes by Vera Borisova: Dominant, Creative, Normalizing, Haronizing

The DCNH categories can be applied to any MBTI type. Though people on the thread argue as to the categories' validity, I'm clearly a Creative, which sounds as if it can also confuse type.

Thanks to the person who gave me the link. I love new info, and I'd never come across this before.


----------



## monemi

Seagreen said:


> I know two ENFP's and two ENTP's very well. Two have no particular interest in the physical, one takes a week-long backpack once a year and runs to stay in shape, and one ENFP teaches parasailing as a hobby in order to get people to enjoy life more and to let go of their problems by sailing through the sky, or something along those lines. Those are only four people, but I don't have anyone else to compare myself to as part of trying to figure out my type. They might enjoy physical aspects of life, but it doesn't seem as necessary to them as it does to me.
> 
> I do the physical because it's absolutely necessary, just as necessary as delving into new conceptual areas, including the alternative. I'd go hiking, skiing, horseback riding, dancing or waterskiing 7 days a week if I didn't have to work, in fact I sometimes do anyway. If I'm Ne, why this strong need to constantly experience these types of activities on a daily basis? If I'm Se, why the equally strong need to talk ideas, not to mention reading many to dozens of books on any subject, conceptual or not, that interests me? Why do I sometimes think in terms of possibilities and meanings, then drop it for hours at a time and just want to experience what is? I wonder if I'm more an Se or Ne outlier.
> 
> MBTI and Jung expect people to have a clear type or dominant, but either it doesn't seem to always work that way, or maybe type can get confused if, for example, an Se is fascinated by new, alternative ideas or an Ne is hooked on certain aspects of the physical.


I'm interested in ideas and reading too. I attend lectures open to the public from a couple of local universities a couple of times a year. I like museums. I absolutely talk about ideas with my husband and friends. Do you honestly think Se-doms don't have a mind? Thinking is important to me.


----------



## SilverRain

monemi said:


> I'm interested in ideas and reading too. I attend lectures open to the public from a couple of local universities a couple of times a year. I like museums. I absolutely talk about ideas with my husband and friends. Do you honestly think Se-doms don't have a mind? Thinking is important to me.


Running out the door for the day, want to talk later, most Se's I know won't engage long with me about ideas, would like to understand more since I could be Se.


----------



## monemi

Seagreen said:


> Running out the door for the day, want to talk later, most Se's I know won't engage long with me about ideas, would like to understand more since I could be Se.


I'll engage with people I find interesting and have something interesting to say. I'd rather keep things on an impersonal level with most people. So no, I don't engage with a lot of people about ideas. I tend to keep that stuff private.


----------



## FePa

MightyLizardKing said:


> Ne is going to feel "introverted" in the sense that a lot of it happens in your head. Ne seems "random" because people don't understand the jumps.
> 
> i.e., if someone is talking about grass I'll sometimes (Ne dom) will go in my head grass is green. Green reminds me of St Paddys day. St Paddys day reminds me of drinking. and then I verbalize "Oh shit, the liquor store is closing in 15 and I still need to pick something up."
> 
> Because I only verbalize the last part it seems completely random; however, if people could see the thought process it actually is just very rapid "random" yet still connected jumps. Those jumps usually happen in less than half a second.
> 
> If you constantly find yourself thinking about something, then a few minutes later ask "how did I get to thinking about this" that is very Ne.
> 
> Se on the other hand is more physical. From what I understand of it you are constantly physically present. I can tell you that as an Ne dom I NEVER feel "physically present." I am always present, but on a more "intuitive" level. e.g., I always trip over things because I'm physically oblivious; however, I can always tell the alternative meanings of something someone said because I am always "present" in terms of intuitively perceiving what is happening.
> 
> I think a good example may be:
> 
> Se: realizes someone has a crush on you because of their body language
> 
> Ne: realizes someone has a crush on you because their behavior pattern changes around you compared to others
> 
> Changes are if you iffy you're Se. Ne users typically "Aha" when they read the Ne description. Or, at least that was my experience and the experience of other NPs I know.
> 
> Ne really is a lot about future possibilities and generating a lot of them. An Ne user will say "we could do this" and the Se user will say "what are we waiting for."
> 
> Ne users are more content that Se users to just discuss ideas. Se users want to experience the world. Ne users do too; however, they may need a push to leave the couch, so to speak.
> 
> Ne users rarely commit to any one idea or perspective. As an ENTP I can literally hold 5-10 different positions on a single topic depending on the day and what other people are arguing.
> 
> Another thing as an Ne dom is that I usually "see" what is potentially coming. For example, today I was watching a stand up comedy routine with my friends. The comic was in the middle of telling the joke and I realized where he was going so I started laughing. My friends didn't understand why I was laughing, as the comic hadn't said anything funny ... yet. Once the joke was made a couple seconds later they joined in.


That was one of the best explanations of NexSe, my dear fellow NP
Right on! 
I'm your twin sister, you described me perfectly! 
Thanks


----------



## pretense

Not a difficult distinction, imo.

At first glance, both seem to be actively changing the object, but that isn't really what they are doing. What they are actually doing is perceiving the potential in the object. The difference is, Se is purely physical while Ne does both physical and conceptual, and when dealing with the physical Se perceives new and Ne perceives novel/previously perceived. Then Ne starts generating conceptual ideas on your ass and leaves Se in the dust flirting with super models in a very charismatic fashion. It doesn't really matter how Ne operates when perceiving conceptual potential when considering Ne vs Se because Se can't even do that. Then Ti comes in and it does matter but now I'm out of my comfort zone.


----------



## MNiS

Ne: Lens flares. Tons of it too.
Se: No lens flares, that effect is super annoying.

In J.J. Abrams we trust.


----------



## Recede

Rational Thought said:


> Not a difficult distinction, imo.
> 
> At first glance, both seem to be actively changing the object, but that isn't really what they are doing. What they are actually doing is perceiving the potential in the object. The difference is, Se is purely physical while Ne does both physical and conceptual, and when dealing with the physical Se perceives new and Ne perceives novel/previously perceived. Then Ne starts generating conceptual ideas on your ass and leaves Se in the dust flirting with super models in a very charismatic fashion. It doesn't really matter how Ne operates when perceiving conceptual potential when considering Ne vs Se because Se can't even do that. Then Ti comes in and it does matter but now I'm out of my comfort zone.


What is conceptual potential? Can you give examples?


----------



## SilverRain

This is what I came up with today:

The reason I think I'm Ne: I'm very open minded when it comes to ideas and will track down and study all manner of information, whether it makes sense in the physical realm or not. I have yet to come across an Se who has read 100+ books on various methods of personality typing and the same with spirituality (as opposed to religion) and is curious enough to research such topics as breatharianism and Bigfoot. I'm not saying I believe in everything, but I do find many oddball topics interesting. I also study more mainstream topics and the sciences, I just wanted to bring up some alternative subjects that might be outside the realm of what would be of interest to a typical Se. So if I'm Se, it seems I'd be one of the furthest-flung outliers. If I'm mistaken about this, I'd love to hear from Se's. I enjoy seeing meanings and patterns, though it took many years before I was good at it -- it didn't come naturally at an early age (but then I had an extra-screwed-up childhood). I also gain insights easily and they're important to my life, but again it took until into adulthood to be able to access it.

The reason I think I'm Se: Though my thoughts in general are very possibility oriented in that I don't rule much out, my individual thoughts don't seem to follow the path of a typical Ne. I see what's there much of the time, unless there's a pattern that stands out or I want to look at meanings. If someone comes up with a new idea or one I've researched, I can easily join in and keep up with Ne's with regard to almost any topic they bring up, since few people can out-information-junkie me on the many topics I'm interested in, but it's out of curiosity to understand the idea better, not as much to see what possibilities are linked to the idea. This might be splitting hairs or it might be central to figuring out my dominant.

Going by behavior, I seem like Ne's I know. Going by what my mind is actually doing, I might not be Ne. I can talk ideas for hours, but I can ski or dance for hours and not need ideas because the present is so gripping. If pretty much all dom Ne's think of possibilities and meanings for much of what they see, I'm not Ne. If it takes a possibility mindset in general, a strong open mindedness to and interest in all sorts of ideas, then I'm Ne.


----------



## pretense

Silveresque said:


> What is conceptual potential? Can you give examples?


Conceptual potential: Silveresque. You have to mine silver. Mining takes time. You are like that? You are slow to come out of your shell but the wait is worth it? Maybe Silver is especially difficult to mine? Silver is shiny. You are shiny? You got a nice tan or you were sweating or you had just acted in a school play as a character that required you to be painted in shiny paint the day you made your PerC account. It is a comic book hero? What are the letters for Silver on that element chart thingy? They are your initials? If you assign number values to each letter of the alphabet, 1 being A and 26 being Z, and then add the two values corresponding to the letters that make up the short name for silver on the periodic table that also happens to be your initials the sum is your age when you made this account. Silver is valuable... and so are you? You're rich. You struck gold investing in obscure penny stocks. NO! YOU STRUCK SILVER WHEN YOU INVESTED IN A SILVER MINING START UP! YES, THATS IT!

That is the beauty of Ne. Eventually something sticks. EDIT: Actually the real beauty is that the looseness that allows crap like this to get through also allows the user to grasp concepts very quickly. Occasionally that makes a hillbilly like me look intelligent, when in reality I'm completely average.

Perhaps I accidentally slipped a bit of thinking in there somewhere, but I doubt enough to really throw you off.


----------



## monemi

Rational Thought said:


> Not a difficult distinction, imo.
> 
> At first glance, both seem to be actively changing the object, but that isn't really what they are doing. What they are actually doing is perceiving the potential in the object. The difference is, Se is purely physical while Ne does both physical and conceptual, and when dealing with the physical Se perceives new and Ne perceives novel/previously perceived. Then Ne starts generating conceptual ideas on your ass and leaves Se in the dust flirting with super models in a very charismatic fashion. It doesn't really matter how Ne operates when perceiving conceptual potential when considering Ne vs Se because Se can't even do that. Then Ti comes in and it does matter but now I'm out of my comfort zone.


Se can't? You're an idiot. I just have no patience for it. But you should know that you're an idiot.


----------



## Recede

Rational Thought said:


> Conceptual potential: Silveresque. You have to mine silver. Mining takes time. You are like that? You are slow to come out of your shell but the wait is worth it? Maybe Silver is especially difficult to mine? Silver is shiny. You are shiny? You got a nice tan or you were sweating or you had just acted in a school play as a character that required you to be painted in shiny paint the day you made your PerC account. It is a comic book hero? What are the letters for Silver on that element chart thingy? They are your initials? If you assign number values to each letter of the alphabet, 1 being A and 26 being Z, and then add the two values corresponding to the letters that make up the short name for silver on the periodic table that also happens to be your initials the sum is your age when you made this account. Silver is valuable... and so are you? You're rich. You struck gold investing in obscure penny stocks. NO! YOU STRUCK SILVER WHEN YOU INVESTED IN A SILVER MINING START UP! YES, THATS IT!
> 
> That is the beauty of Ne. Eventually something sticks. EDIT: Actually the real beauty is that the looseness that allows crap like this to get through also allows the user to grasp concepts very quickly. Occasionally that makes a hillbilly like me look intelligent, when in reality I'm completely average.
> 
> Perhaps I accidentally slipped a bit of thinking in there somewhere, but I doubt enough to really throw you off.


Okay, that's pretty foreign to me. I would think of silver as a metal and silver as an element on the periodic table, but this thing you're doing with these connections is weird to me.


----------



## pretense

monemi said:


> Se can't? You're an idiot. I just have no patience for it. But you should know that you're an idiot.


Do you do this every time someone's definition of a function doesn't line up with your own, or only when someone misrepresents Se as an non-omnipotent function? 



Silveresque said:


> Okay, that's pretty foreign to me. I would think of silver as a metal and silver as an element on the periodic table, but this thing you're doing with these connections is weird to me.


Hmmm... Was it the substance of it that threw you, or the style?

The possibilities themselves should be foreign to you. That was really silly, and stupid, and littered with ridiculous stretches. This was more about showing you a lot of conceptual potential around one question. Where did your name come from? Abstract ideas coexisting.


----------



## SilverRain

Silveresque said:


> Okay, that's pretty foreign to me. I would think of silver as a metal and silver as an element on the periodic table, but this thing you're doing with these connections is weird to me.


Ditto. Is that manner of thinking about most objects and ideas a necessity in order to be considered Ne?


----------



## pretense

Seagreen said:


> Ditto. Is that manner of thinking about most objects and ideas a necessity in order to be considered Ne?


Where did the object come from and where is the object is going? That is what intuition perceives according to Jung. If you innately and constantly perceive answers to these questions then you are probably N. If you are capable of perceiving multiple answers to one of these questions in relation to a single object then you are probably Ne. And I wouldn't answer these questions immediately. Observe yourself acting normally. Then answer the questions.

I shouldn't post about the functions, I don't know enough. I'm in over my head now.


----------



## Recede

Rational Thought said:


> Hmmm... Was it the substance of it that threw you, or the style?
> 
> The possibilities themselves should be foreign to you. That was really silly, and stupid, and littered with ridiculous stretches. This was more about showing you a lot of conceptual potential around one question. Where did your name come from? Abstract ideas coexisting.


Both. This doesn't sound like how I think at all.


----------



## pretense

Silveresque said:


> Both. This doesn't sound like how I think at all.


For whatever it's worth, I've read a few of your posts and I disagree. It's all projection but I get the feeling that you're a dominant or auxiliary Ne user, and that feeling is very strong. Something about you feels a lot like me.

On a side note, I think individuals whose dominant perceiving function is Ne might be far and away the most likely to claim other individuals are their own type. Which isn't to say that I'm claiming you are ENTP, Silveresque. I'm not even sure I'm an ENTP. Only claiming that you are all that I know I am, Ne over Si.

also don't hurt me Octavian.


----------



## Recede

Rational Thought said:


> For whatever it's worth, I've read a few of your posts and I disagree. It's all projection but I get the feeling that you're a dominant or auxiliary Ne user, and that feeling is very strong. Something about you feels a lot like me.


Which posts did you read? Was there anything specific that gave that impression?

I have noticed some of what could be Ne in my cognition within the past hour. My dad mentioned that the t.v. he just bought doesn't have any buttons on it, so you can't control it if something happens to the remote controller. I got an image of the t.v. going wild and out of control and trying to take over the world, kinda like evil robots taking over the world.


----------



## pretense

Silveresque said:


> Which posts did you read? Was there anything specific that gave that impression?


I skimmed your "some kind of alpha maybe," thread, and I read your M&M questionairre. As far as specifics go in my perception of you, no, I haven't perceived any. My feeling that you are without question NeSi is simply based on everything I have observed of you. It couldn't be any less specific.

My thinking tells me that I know you can use your Pe when you feel like it, and are likely an Pe dominant perceiver based on your answer to Octavian's M&M pain question. Definitively, I know nothing of your type. When I engage my thinking function it doesn't look kindly onto projections like the one I have made here.



> I have noticed some of what could be Ne in my cognition within the past hour. My dad mentioned that the t.v. he just bought doesn't have any buttons on it, so you can't control it if something happens to the remote controller. I got an image of the t.v. going wild and out of control and trying to take over the world, kinda like evil robots taking over the world.


Yes, that is quite possibly Ne. Definitely in the area of intuition. Very banal. Seemingly you recognized details that matched those of the robots taking over scenario. Like Terminator, or Maximum Overdrive, or War Games.

You see, Ne recognizes a pattern between details of an object currently being perceived and an object previously perceived in the past. It then adds details from the object previously perceived that aren't within the perceived pattern and adds them to the current object. Context expansion and cross contextualization come to mind as good ways to describe this process. And fuck, I'm not even sure this is right. It seems to fit, that is all I know.


----------



## SilverRain

Silveresque said:


> Which posts did you read? Was there anything specific that gave that impression?
> 
> I have noticed some of what could be Ne in my cognition within the past hour. My dad mentioned that the t.v. he just bought doesn't have any buttons on it, so you can't control it if something happens to the remote controller. I got an image of the t.v. going wild and out of control and trying to take over the world, kinda like evil robots taking over the world.


I think that way, the sillier the better since I like funny. Maybe we're more along the lines of Ne comedians? 


Does Ne have to deal with possibilities? What about abstractions instead, such as seeing a football and rather than staying with the particulars of the individual ball, think about sports balls in general and what they mean philosophically with regard to humanity? What about watching a political situation and understanding enough about humanity that you know what will happen next and wondering why the same scenario has to be played out ad infinitum? Are those Ne or Ni? Or Ti, since you'd be making decisions about what you believe regarding meanings or the future? To sum up, are constant possibilities a necessary part of Ne, or can Ne instead more encompass meanings, connections (such as to other balls), and various types of abstractions? Or would that be Ni instead?


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility

Se vs. Ne is probably not the comparison you want to start with, but evolve to it. First start with Ne vs. Ni, since Se is inextricably attached in combination with Ni, even in Se dominants.

Ni is what might be considered the most "instinctual" cognitive function. Making decisions on the gut. This is because there does not need to be as much conscious judgment applied to the perceptions of Ni/Se, due to Ni being internal and convergent. In the case of Ne/Si, the intuition is divergent, and therefore requires -more- conscious thought to make sound decisions. As such, those using Ne/Si will tend to make poorer decisions when rushed unless there is a very large amount of Si experience to draw from, since Ne is not designed to hone in on a singular correct decision, but more to flood the psyche with possibilities.

Se dominants are considered the most instinctual of the types, because their Ni is not well developed and therefore generally avoided when possible. Thus we have the use of a convergent instinct paired with a desire to not allow information to "simmer" prior to decision making (as you might find in an Ni dominant) and as a result, Se dom/aux types feel most comfortable making quick and decisive decisions, correct or not. This may be why Se dominants are also quite adept at "disaster control" and flying by the seat of the pants, fixing what went wrong and reacting to the new situation as it develops with their dominant Se which is quite adept at taking in large amounts of information in the moment. This can somewhat offset that impulsive decision making with inferior Ni will inevitably have its fair share of poor decisions, and is definitely the Se dominant comfort zone.

Thus also, Se dominants will be most at home in situations where Se is *able* to take in more information. This is why those with Se preference will prefer realism and hands on operations - there is more opportunity for success, due to more Se information being available, and less reliance on Ni.

Ne, in stark contrast, is paired with Si. Ne is adept at generating iNtuitively visions of what might be possible. The quality is not necessarily high in these iNtuitions, but the quantity is quite robust. Those with a preference for Ne will be more pensive in general, as there will be a preference to filter all the Ne generated possibilities with judgment, and also filter against Si generated perceptions of concrete past experiences that are relationally similar to the Ne possibilities.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility

Silveresque said:


> Which posts did you read? Was there anything specific that gave that impression?
> 
> I have noticed some of what could be Ne in my cognition within the past hour. My dad mentioned that the t.v. he just bought doesn't have any buttons on it, so you can't control it if something happens to the remote controller. I got an image of the t.v. going wild and out of control and trying to take over the world, kinda like evil robots taking over the world.


This could have been produced by either Ni or Ne, in fact anyone could have come up with this, even someone with N in the inferior position. And actually, especially those with inferior Ni are prone to using intuition in the negative direction, and in a way that is more focused on a scenario rather than specific calamity. For example, zombie apocalypse, alien abduction, superstition, "the government is out to get us" etc., inferior Ni eats this up, because it's all very generalistic - a platitude sort of Ni - that will more or less break down under any level of scrutiny.

When someone with dominant or auxillary intuition dreams up a scenario as you mentioned, it's more likely to be brought up with sarcasm, wit, "this is ridiculous" type of tone - satire.


----------



## Recede

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> This could have been produced by either Ni or Ne, in fact anyone could have come up with this, even someone with N in the inferior position. And actually, especially those with inferior Ni are prone to using intuition in the negative direction, and in a way that is more focused on a scenario rather than specific calamity. For example, zombie apocalypse, alien abduction, superstition, "the government is out to get us" etc., inferior Ni eats this up, because it's all very generalistic - a platitude sort of Ni - that will more or less break down under any level of scrutiny.
> 
> When someone with dominant or auxillary intuition dreams up a scenario as you mentioned, it's more likely to be brought up with sarcasm, wit, "this is ridiculous" type of tone - satire.


It wasn't negative to me because obviously a television isn't going to take over the world. It was just a rather amusing image that came to mind. 

And I think those examples you gave are too extreme to be attributed to an inferior function.


----------



## SilverRain

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> This could have been produced by either Ni or Ne, in fact anyone could have come up with this, even someone with N in the inferior position. And actually, especially those with inferior Ni are prone to using intuition in the negative direction, and in a way that is more focused on a scenario rather than specific calamity. For example, zombie apocalypse, alien abduction, superstition, "the government is out to get us" etc., inferior Ni eats this up, because it's all very generalistic - a platitude sort of Ni - that will more or less break down under any level of scrutiny.
> 
> When someone with dominant or auxillary intuition dreams up a scenario as you mentioned, it's more likely to be brought up with sarcasm, wit, "this is ridiculous" type of tone - satire.


Actually, the alternative and conspiracy theory communities are well staffed with dom and aux N's, though only the inf N's are out hunting zombies.  I also wouldn't lump "the government is out to get us" with superstition and zombies, since it doesn't always break down under scrutiny.


----------



## xln

does Ne usually think more about possibilities and better things, especially when Ne as first or second function, they don't always accept what's given to them, even though it's much easier and secure for them to play safe, they still want to explore more options, they think there are better things out there for them than what's in front of them. 

I think Se is not very good with possibilities, but is better at taking advantage of the opportunities that are presented to them. and maybe better at sports, and things that require working with hands? like building things and making things? ..


----------



## The_Wanderer

Ne is _possibilities_, it sees the many _could be's, potentials_, and _opportunities _present in an object.

Se is _volitional_, it sees how it can _directly affect, push_ or _force_ an object to achieve their goal.


----------



## Derange At 170

Ne is multidimensional. It sees what happens now, a number of things that could've made it happen, a number of things it can result in, or other situations that could've taken place instead... and so on and so forth. It's not just "in time"; that's a massive simplification of it. But it doesn't really closely zoom in on any of what it perceives. It's like standing on top of a skyscraper and getting a look at everything, but you never really make out the details. Many people think that Ne-doms are in their head, but they aren't really. Their perceptions are completely limited by the physical world, but they just see more versions of it. I also think it's a mistake to call Ne-doms introverted extraverts for that reason; they're only introverted when you consider Se the prototypical pinnacle of extraversion that all forms of extraversion need to be compared to.

Se is focused mostly on the more immediate dimensions and takes time into account, but to a much lesser degree than Ne users. It perceives the world strongly through the user's senses at present, but contrary to standing on top of a skyscraper and looking at it all, the Se user is crouching down with a big ol' magnifying glass in hands, closely observing the immediate surroundings. What it lacks in width, it completely makes up in depth and its very astute in its physical observations. Like Ne, it's focused on the physical world, but more concretely on the aspects the user can directly experience firsthand.

Calling Ne "multidimensional" may make it look more dramatic than it is, especially compared to Se, but that wasn't my intention. It's just an overlooked aspect of it since people only focus on the 'time' aspect.


----------



## Recede

Silveresque said:


> Maybe an analogy will help. Everything that exists in this world can be interacted with in some way--nothing sits disconnected from everything else. If there's a tree, you can touch it, you can water it, you can cut it down. If there's a rock blocking your path, you can go around it, climb over it, dig under it, or break through it. If you don't have the tools to do this you can make them. Even if there's a locked door and the only key for it was destroyed, you can simply learn how to pick locks. The idea is that the lock is always an object that can be interacted with, and with the right tool (which can always be made, in theory) you can produce the right effect.
> 
> The very nature of existence and matter and all things is that they can be moved and changed. So much so that change is not only possible but _inevitable_. Every single interaction between objects or people leaves some kind of impact. You can't walk through water without displacing it. The wind can't blow without touching everything in its path. No object can exist that is so heavy no amount of force can move it, it is only a matter of whether we can in this moment produce the tools to create the level of force needed.
> 
> Tools can always be made. All objects are interactable and with these objects anything can, in theory, be built. That's because you can take materials from the environment and rearrange them in any way imaginable. However, in reality there are limits to what we can actually achieve with what we have. For example, there may not be enough materials available to us to make what we want. Or we may not have the time or energy to do things. Everything is theoretically possible but not everything is realistically doable.
> 
> This is where we come to a philosophical divide. Do we assume that something can be done on the basis of it being theoretically possible, and only when proven undoable give up on it? Or do we view things with skepticism until we know they are doable? It's a matter of which perspective you find more valuable.


Is this Ne or Se? Seems like Ne I think but I'd like to make sure because I've heard of Se being associated with physical possibilities.


----------



## RK LK

Ne users are more full of themselves in this grandiose, 'I-know-the-secrets-of-the-universe-bla-bla-bla-OMG-what-if-the-universe-is-just-like-a-grain-of-sand-bla-bla-bla-im-so-deep' kind of way. They think Se users are boring just because they don't mistaken their imaginations for reality.

Se users are full of themselves in a down-to-earth, humble sort of way.


----------



## Teen Rose

Sporadic Aura said:


> just kinda my understanding..
> 
> Se sees an something/an object and starts perceiving everything it can about the current, present object.. how to manipulate it/how to improve it/it's essence/how to react to it..
> 
> Ne doesn't start with what's physically there now but with everything that relates to it.. it sees potential and how to use it in a completely different or unique way


Yeah! Se is the now. Ne feels laid back or too advanced. People seem to me that they just can't stop doing work. They always DO something. It is ACTION. While i always like to KNOW something or ponder or improvise.

Also OT do anyone call u philosophical mind? Or ur frnd u r confused with? If she is ESTP she tries to be too human and caring her people. If she is ENTP she might still care but she is philosophical and also need a little time. I see ENTPs are extroverts but also sit alone for sometime in parties and away. They might still need to be away from physical world for little time.
I take so much time alone and i see myself as a double introvert. Fi gives introversion and Ne too. I may not do any work but i still get tired seeing people being active, doing all the things.

Se - Realistic/Materialistic(not necessarily bad thing)

Ne - Spiritual(mostly NFs)/Philosophical(mostly NTs)

I also get bored in real world(may be more INF). I love learning things and also curiosity is one of the things that define me. I love reading books. My mom an ISFJ gets surprised at the speed i finish a big book in one night which she thinks takes 3 months.


----------

