# Ne Vs Se



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

Alrighty here. Indecision again!
This time it's between ISFP and INFP.

I'm inclined to think I'm an INFP, but there's still this doubt.

For* extroverted intuition:*
I daydream a lot. Excessively. I usually daydream about many things, for example, continuing a story of a character from a movie, book, show, etc. Or maybe building a back story. Other times I would incorporate my experiences or maybe other things to these massive story lines, and they could come out one huge jumbled mess. I jump between different stories, and they last a LONG time. One has lasted 3 years...and counting. xD I've had this habit since I was a kid.

Idk if this is related or not, but I can also FEEL the emotions of the characters inside my head. It isn't particularly hard to feel happiness or anger, depending on what situation I put this character in. I even made myself cry a couple of times from it. I know, really weird. :blushed:

In short, it's like a movie inside my head.

Other things I've dreamed about is other possibilities, like what if I was famous? I'd imagine interviews, kind of like watching myself answer these questions from a third person view. 

I don't feel like I live in the moment, really. I'm rather oblivious to my surroundings.

I'm not much of a doer, either.

I love talking about religion, philosophy, etc. I don't think I have to have a purpose for it either. The musing of it.. It's just...really enjoyable for me to talk about. Sometimes, other people aren't so interested and cut the conversation short. That's rather depressing.



For *extroverted sensing:*
Ironically, here's another interesting tidbit that actually pertains to daydreaming: It's much easier for me to...enter, I guess, my own little world when I'm moving. This is why I love walking, or dancing. I was never sure why, but it was always like this for me. When I was younger, I would jump off everything and actually do the actions that I imagine these characters to do, and speak their dialogue too. I stifled this particular habit, so, you know, I could seem _normal_, and I kept the dialogue in my head and just kept the random movements down to a stride.

Whether or not this relates to Se, I need to have music on too, to go into this little world of mine. And it has to be the right mood of the song. I will stop and go through like, ten songs, before I can go back to my own head.

^^Those two reasons there have caused problems for me whenever I really wanted to just recluse inside my head. For example, whenever I take some standardized test and have to wait for everyone else to finish... and I can't have my iPod on me. :frustrating: Sad indeed.

I don't have ideas in my head all the time... Well, I don't _think_ I do. I might just suck at identifying things. I mean, I don't think my mind is constantly exploding with thoughts or anything. It feels rather fluid.. like water. Though they have been times I've wanted to turn the faucet off, but moments like those are far and in between. My train of thought can break easily though.

When I look at a painting, I notice the details first. I think. Honestly, I don't care for it. 



Hmm. That's all I can think of for now. Thoughts?


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

The Se stuff sounds more Fi-Ne honestly. You're INFP, I'm like 90% sure. Perhaps you could share some of your musings?


----------



## The Great One (Apr 19, 2010)

You are an INFP, no questions asked.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

lilllllian said:


> For *extroverted sensing:*
> Ironically, here's another interesting tidbit that actually pertains to daydreaming: It's much easier for me to...enter, I guess, my own little world when I'm moving. This is why I love walking, or dancing. I was never sure why, but it was always like this for me. When I was younger, I would jump off everything and actually do the actions that I imagine these characters to do, and speak their dialogue too. I stifled this particular habit, so, you know, I could seem _normal_, and I kept the dialogue in my head and just kept the random movements down to a stride.


If you are moving but you are daydreaming about something else, you probably aren't using extraverted sensing.



> Whether or not this relates to Se, I need to have music on too, to go into this little world of mine. And it has to be the right mood of the song. I will stop and go through like, ten songs, before I can go back to my own head.


Possibly Fi with Si where the song triggers the memory of what your daydream felt like or Ne leaping to more ideas.
I find it easy to daydream with Ni, I see something that reminds me of something, that reminds me of something else and I am no longer paying attention to my surroundings although I don't actually need to feel anything to daydream.




> When I look at a painting, I notice the details first. I think. Honestly, I don't care for it.


What don't you care for - the details, the painting? Could it be Si that you are using at first? Are you looking at what actually is there or what should be there?


----------



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

Apollo Celestio said:


> The Se stuff sounds more Fi-Ne honestly. You're INFP, I'm like 90% sure. Perhaps you could share some of your musings?


Hmm. Well, the most recent example I can think of was when my friend and I were talking about this theory about how time travel was impossible. Granted, when he was talking, my mind went to MBTI, then how a sensor might act, and jumped to how the conversation was pointless, but I listened anyway and gave feedback to him. It didn't feel forced though, and I could follow the conversation well. We also talked about the afterlife, like how our consciousness moved on and he molded the theory to fit almost every major religion.



pc3000 said:


> If you are moving but you are daydreaming about something else, you probably aren't using extraverted sensing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I do that sometimes, how one thing reminds me of another, but I didn't consider that daydreaming. :crazy:
It's only interesting when feelings are involved. 

I'm not really sure. I guess the painting itself. Sometimes, I'll look at a painting that'll evoke feeling in me, but those times are rare, and the feeling is hard to describe. It's intangible for me. What do you mean by should be there? 

It's a possibility, but Si was one of the reasons I doubted INFP. I was reading up on the Fi-Si loop INFP's can sometimes fall under, and I didn't really related to it. I'm not sure if I relink things to my past much.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

I didn't realise you could daydream about feelings. The only time I imagine I'm feeling is if I am dreaming at night. 

I don't actually know how Se/Si relate to paintings. I was just trying to go along with the crowd. Lol. Maybe I'll let other Fi using people talk now. I guess I was thinking that I wouldn't be dancing around but then I'm not an ISFP. Do ISFPs ever do that stuff?


----------



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

pc3000 said:


> I didn't realise you could daydream about feelings. The only time I imagine I'm feeling is if I am dreaming at night.
> 
> I don't actually know how Se/Si relate to paintings. I was just trying to go along with the crowd. Lol. Maybe I'll let other Fi using people talk now. I guess I was thinking that I wouldn't be dancing around but then I'm not an ISFP. Do ISFPs ever do that stuff?


I would liken it to acting, I guess. You could be the character and feel what they go through. Idk if other is/nfps do this though.  I'm probably just weird.


----------



## vel (May 17, 2010)

My inferior Se usually wants me to get my hands on something 
Touch it, check out texture, taste, smell, etc. In stores sometimes when I see a pretty thing I immediately want to get my hands on it. It is certainly not a process locked into my head as a way of daydreaming. It is extraverted and requires me to interact with objects/people around me. It is a process of gathering information via senses.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lilllllian said:


> Alrighty here. Indecision again!
> This time it's between ISFP and INFP.
> 
> I'm inclined to think I'm an INFP, but there's still this doubt.
> ...


Can I just interject a point that may have already been stated here. Extraverting functions cannot and do not daydream. Te-Fe-Ne and Se are all present moment function-attitudes that can only work when interacting with an object. When you consider the term daydreaming, it means you are no longer cognitively in the present. Ti and Fi cannot do this as well which means it is coming from your Ni or Si, ergo your tertiary function (assuming you are IFP). So you’re on the right track of considering one or the other, but Ne does not equate to daydreaming it considers possibilities based on the present moment. It has to be active in the present moment to generate ideas.


lilllllian said:


> For *extroverted sensing:*
> Ironically, here's another interesting tidbit that actually pertains to daydreaming: It's much easier for me to...enter, I guess, my own little world when I'm moving. This is why I love walking, or dancing. I was never sure why, but it was always like this for me. When I was younger, I would jump off everything and actually do the actions that I imagine these characters to do, and speak their dialogue too. I stifled this particular habit, so, you know, I could seem _normal_, and I kept the dialogue in my head and just kept the random movements down to a stride.
> 
> Whether or not this relates to Se, I need to have music on too, to go into this little world of mine. And it has to be the right mood of the song. I will stop and go through like, ten songs, before I can go back to my own head.
> ...


INFP function orders are Fi-Ne-Si-Te-Fe-Ni-Se-Ti. ISFP function order is Fi-Se-Ni-Te-Fe-Si-Ne-Ti. Since they’re essentially the same hierarchy but merely trading out the perceiving functions (Ne-Se, Ni-Si), you have to determine which you are using in these circumstances. Unfortunately it’s not that easy since Ne users can confuse their actions as sensing. Good luck.


----------



## alionsroar (Jun 5, 2010)

So then while acting out daydreams could it be Si/Te then that makes you arrange yourself into poses that the character might do? Sort of like rearranging the environment to fit your idea of what it should look like based on your internal view. And maybe as you do so, your Ne thinks up more things to do.

And with the detail-painting thing, I was thinking how an Si user must 'notice details' too since they then compare it with their internal image of how things should be. Like yep, that face has two eyes, a nose and a mouth like it should, very good.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

lilllllian said:


> For *extroverted sensing:*
> Ironically, here's another interesting tidbit that actually pertains to daydreaming: It's much easier for me to...enter, I guess, my own little world when I'm moving. This is why I love walking, or dancing. I was never sure why, but it was always like this for me. When I was younger, I would jump off everything and actually do the actions that I imagine these characters to do, and speak their dialogue too. I stifled this particular habit, so, you know, I could seem _normal_, and I kept the dialogue in my head and just kept the random movements down to a stride.
> 
> Whether or not this relates to Se, I need to have music on too, to go into this little world of mine. And it has to be the right mood of the song. I will stop and go through like, ten songs, before I can go back to my own head.


This is all Ne behavior not Se. An Se user is focused on what is around them, not what is in their head. Daydreaming requires attention to be placed on possibilities, not what it actually present. An Ne user will find enjoyment in imagining and analyzing things that don't exist or things that could exist, an Se user will find enjoyment in analyzing things that already do exist right in that moment.

Needing to move to organize thoughts more efficiently also has nothing to do with S functions. I do that too, as well as every other INFP I know in person, and I have very little Se usage.

When your body is moving, you're actually doing so to utilize S functions even less so your N functions can do their thing undistracted (since S functions conflict with N functions) because your body is being put on auto-pilot.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> This is all Ne behavior not Se. An Se user is focused on what is around them, not what is in their head. Daydreaming requires attention to be placed on possibilities, not what it actually present. An Ne user will find enjoyment in imagining and analyzing things that don't exist or things that could exist, an Se user will find enjoyment in analyzing things that already do exist right in that moment.


Then that would be Ni, not Ne. Surely you must know that all extraverting function-attitudes focus on external objects. Why would you believe Ne is any different?


OmarFW said:


> Needing to move to organize thoughts more efficiently also has nothing to do with S functions. I do that too, as well as every other INFP I know in person, and I have very little Se usage.


Internal...external, internal.... external. Of course organizing internal thoughts is not Se. It's not any sort of extraverting function, it's an introverting function, specifically it's Ti or Fi.


OmarFW said:


> When your body is moving, you're actually doing so to utilize S functions even less so your N functions can do their thing undistracted (since S functions conflict with N functions) because your body is being put on auto-pilot.


I am not sure where are you getting this from. Ne and Se are identical functions that both must be active to work. You're not moving to initiate a sensing function, you're moving because Ne and Se calls for it. If you are not interacting with an object outside of the self, then you not extraverting. If you are not going inside to internalize, you're not introverting.


pc3000 said:


> So then while acting out daydreams could it be Si/Te then that makes you arrange yourself into poses that the character might do? Sort of like rearranging the environment to fit your idea of what it should look like based on your internal view. And maybe as you do so, your Ne thinks up more things to do.
> 
> And with the detail-painting thing, I was thinking how an Si user must 'notice details' too since they then compare it with their internal image of how things should be. Like yep, that face has two eyes, a nose and a mouth like it should, very good.


I am not sure I follow you PC. I would think once Te or any extraverting function becomes involved, you're no longer day dreaming.... you have snapped back to reality. I would say that based on Lillian's disclosure, she may want to take a good look at what she is considering daydreaming. Again from what I connote daydreaming entails cognitively leaving the present, to enter the future (Ni) or the past (Si). What Lillian may be doing is merely leaving to go into deep thought. Both Fi and Ti do this to analyze the principles of a matter (Ti) or compare intonations to how they actually feel about a matter (Fi). They too can appear miles away.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Then that would be Ni, not Ne. Surely you must know that all extraverting function-attitudes focus on external objects. Why would you believe Ne is any different?


because Ne is the most internal of the extraverted functions. With the way INFP's use it, it begins to overrule our sensory input. aka "zoning out". Hence why many INFP's tend to be clumsy when they are daydreaming but also moving around. They aren't focusing on what their eyes are seeing, they are focused on what they're mind is seeing.

Ne deals in analyzing things that already exist, but it is not limited to doing so right as you see the object in front of you.



Functianalyst said:


> Ne and Se are identical functions that both must be active to work.


 I do not agree with that at all. If I had to use Se, I would be more aware of what my body was doing while I was contemplating things. but most of the time I'm not. I would also have a much higher tested Se function usage. but the cog functions tests only verify what I already know. I barely use Se at all.



Functianalyst said:


> If you are not interacting with an object outside of the self, then you not extraverting.


The type of extraversion you are describing is Se. Like i said above, Ne takes things that already exist or can exist and forms potential situations or outcomes from them. An Ne user could be sitting in a room filled with nothing and still have lots of thoughts going on in their head. They are still Ne thoughts because they are still utilizing externally based things, and only incorporate things that have or will exist(ed). They do not extend any major barriers of logic or probability like Ni thoughts do. Ni thoughts do not necessarily need any external input like Ne does.

If an INFP (whom most often have weak S functions) is utilizing his/her Ne and is especially lost in contemplation, they are not focusing on what is present consciously. They are focused on the mental image in their head built upon things taken out of their external environment.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> because Ne is the most internal of the extraverted functions. With the way INFP's use it, it begins to overrule our sensory input. aka "zoning out". Hence why many INFP's tend to be clumsy when they are daydreaming but also moving around. They aren't focusing on what their eyes are seeing, they are focused on what they're mind is seeing.


I will not ask where you came up with that, because it’s been a rampant misconception by ENPs since I have been studying type. Ne is Ne. It’s an extraverting function-attitude used no different than any other extraverting function attitude. The notion the best I can surmise, originated with Keirsey claiming sensing is extraverting and intuiting is introverting. It’s a load of crap and he should have stayed with his temperament theory instead of delving into type. In fact there has been a great deal of criticism by MBTI enthusiasts in how Keirsey described the ISP types. You can find some of those critiques *here*.

There is some argument that Jung himself originally considered introverting=intuition and sensing=extrarverting, but he allegedly changed his mind. Nevertheless these are snippets of Jung’s description of Ne:


> Just as sensation, when given the priority, is not a mere reactive process of no further importance for the object, but is almost an action which seizes and shapes the object, so it is with intuition, which is by no means a mere perception, or awareness, but an active, creative process that builds into the object just as much as it takes out……
> 
> But, because this process extracts the perception unconsciously, it also produces an unconscious effect in the object. The primary function of intuition is to transmit mere images, or perceptions of relations and conditions, which could be gained by the other functions, either not at all, or only by very roundabout ways. Such images have the value of definite discernments, and have a decisive bearing upon action, whenever intuition is given the chief weight; in which case, psychic adaptation is based almost exclusively upon intuition. But since intuition, in the extraverted attitude, has a prevailingly objective orientation, it actually comes very near to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude towards outer objects may, with almost equal probability, avail itself of sensation…….
> 
> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because only thus can the appearance of a complete life be created, so intuition tries to encompass the greatest possibilities, since only through the awareness of possibilities is intuition fullysatisfied. Intuition seeks to discover possibilities in the objective situation; hence as a mere tributary function (viz. when not in the position of priority) it is also the instrument which, in the presence of a hopelessly blocked situation, works automatically towards the issue, which no other function could discover……





OmarFW said:


> Ne deals in analyzing things that already exist, but it is not limited to doing so right as you see the object in front of you.


First of all, Ne does not analyze anything, it does not slow down enough to take on such a laborious task. Back to Jung in his recap of Se and Ne:


> I call the two preceding types irrational for reasons already referred to; namely, because their commissions and omissions are based not upon reasoned judgment but upon the absolute intensity of perception. Their perception is concerned with simple happenings, where no selection has been exercised by the judgment.


If you describe Ne in your manner, what are you describing as Ni? You have them doing the same thing and they are far from being the same functions.


OmarFW said:


> I do not agree with that at all. If I had to use Se, I would be more aware of what my body was doing while I was contemplating things. but most of the time I'm not. I would also have a much higher tested Se function usage. but the cog functions tests only verify what I already know. I barely use Se at all.


I should not say identical, I should say we use the functions for identical purposes, to take in information. I did not say it, the man who created them terms described them that way. Ne and Se are both extraverting irrational function-attitudes that as Jung recaps:


> In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation. [p. 468]


I thought I had quoted in another post, Jung’s assertion that Ne types actually uses sensing.


OmarFW said:


> The type of extraversion you are describing is Se. Like i said above, Ne takes things that already exist or can exist and forms potential situations or outcomes from them. An Ne user could be sitting in a room filled with nothing and still have lots of thoughts going on in their head. They are still Ne thoughts because they are still utilizing externally based things, and only incorporate things that have or will exist(ed). They do not extend any major barriers of logic or probability like Ni thoughts do. Ni thoughts do not necessarily need any external input like Ne does.
> If an INFP (whom most often have weak S functions) is utilizing his/her Ne and is especially lost in contemplation, they are not focusing on what is present consciously. They are focused on the mental image in their head built upon things taken out of their external environment.


You are kidding right? Omar all extraverting function-attitudes interact with the environment, otherwise what would be the difference between the extraverting and introverting function-attitudes? Ni and Si types have images and impressions, Ne and Se gain their images and impressions from communing with the object. I am a bit surprised that you would make these claims with so many posts. Surely you have picked up on some basics of type with that much interaction.


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> I will not ask where you came up with that, because it’s been a rampant misconception by ENPs since I have been studying type. Ne is Ne. It’s an extraverting function-attitude used no different than any other extraverting function attitude. The notion the best I can surmise, originated with Keirsey claiming sensing is extraverting and intuiting is introverting. It’s a load of crap and he should have stayed with his temperament theory instead of delving into type. In fact there has been a great deal of criticism by MBTI enthusiasts in how Keirsey described the ISP types. You can find some of those critiques *here*.
> 
> There is some argument that Jung himself originally considered introverting=intuition and sensing=extrarverting, but he allegedly changed his mind. Nevertheless these are snippets of Jung’s description of Ne: Back to Jung in his recap of Se and Ne:If you describe Ne in your manner, what are you describing as Ni? You have them doing the same thing and they are far from being the same functions. I should not say identical, I should say we use the functions for identical purposes, to take in information. I did not say it, the man who created them terms described them that way. Ne and Se are both extraverting irrational function-attitudes that as Jung recaps:I thought I had quoted in another post, Jung’s assertion that Ne types actually uses sensing. You are kidding right? Omar all extraverting function-attitudes interact with the environment, otherwise what would be the difference between the extraverting and introverting function-attitudes? Ni and Si types have images and impressions, Ne and Se gain their images and impressions from communing with the object. I am a bit surprised that you would make these claims with so many posts. Surely you have picked up on some basics of type with that much interaction.


according to everything you've said when comparing it to myself, i am neither an INFP nor an Ne user, therefore I cannot possibly take it seriously.

I will believe what I have found to be accurate and true through real evidence and experience, not what some article on the internet says. Especially when considering a non-perfect system/theory. Besides, the only thing I believe Jung was 100% right on was his theory of introversion and extraversion.



Functianalyst said:


> First of all, Ne does not analyze anything, it does not slow down enough to take on such a laborious task.


wow. I have nothing to say to that. you really need to wipe your brain of everything mbti and start over.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> according to everything you've said when comparing it to myself, i am neither an INFP nor an Ne user, therefore I cannot possibly take it seriously.
> 
> I will believe what I have found to be accurate and true through real evidence and experience, not what some article on the internet says. Especially when considering a non-perfect system/theory. Besides, the only thing I believe Jung was 100% right on was his theory of introversion and extraversion.
> 
> wow. I have nothing to say to that. you really need to wipe your brain of everything mbti and start over.


Geez dude are you really that desperate to be different? You think you can simply make up shit and don’t think anyone will call you on it? You don’t believe in his theory…., but I notice you are still wearing that badge proudly. You think Meyers-Briggs created the function theory? Jung did, he devised feeling and intuition, Myers-Briggs simply came up with a clever four-letter title for you to claim. So contrary to your little temper tantrum, just discussing the topic on this forum shows you believe in something beyond E/I. Surely you're not that deluded to believe Ne is some special function-attitude that makes you different?


----------



## OmarFW (Apr 8, 2010)

Functianalyst said:


> Geez dude are you really that desperate to be different? You think you can simply make up shit and don’t think anyone will call you on it? You don’t believe in his theory…., but I notice you are still wearing that badge proudly. You think Meyers-Briggs created the function theory? Jung did, he devised feeling and intuition, Myers-Briggs simply came up with a clever four-letter title for you to claim. So contrary to your little temper tantrum, just discussing the topic on this forum shows you believe in something beyond E/I. Surely you're not that deluded to believe Ne is some special function-attitude that makes you different?


Every single person I have quoted your above posts to thinks you are full of crap. ha, Ne is a non-analyzing function. what a laugh.

Yeah whatever i'm done talking to you. go spread your misinterpretations of the mbti all you want. I will continue teaching people how functions REALLY work and stay out of your hair :dry:


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

OmarFW said:


> Every single person I have quoted your above posts to thinks you are full of crap. ha, Ne is a non-analyzing function. what a laugh.
> 
> Yeah whatever i'm done talking to you. go spread your misinterpretations of the mbti all you want. I will continue teaching people how functions REALLY work and stay out of your hair :dry:


***EDIT*** I am editing my response because the more I think about it, I think based on your pattern of thought, you're young. I am feeling remorse if that is the case, but in all seriousness the claim that Ne is a function that is more introverted than the other extraverting function-attitudes is a fallacy Omar. I had this discussion with other Ne users many years ago and believed it myself, until I began to read more of Jung's work. However the fact is Ne is more extraverting than other extraverted attitudes specifically Se type users. This is a snippet of what confirmed ENTPs think of themselves:


> Life feels like a constant state of moving from one interesting thing to another, and I can get frustrated when there isn’t enough time to pursue all those interesting things.
> 
> I have a wide range of interests. I love to explore the world, how other people live, what they believe in, and what their lives are like. I have a deep need to understand the human condition and what brings people to life, even above difficult odds. I like it when the conversation goes wherever it wants to go—deep imaginative, intellectual, or philosophical conversation. Going off on one theory or another is fun, but long stories with nothing to learn frustrate me.
> 
> ...


 -AND- 
ENFP:


> I have to be directly in contact with people and know that somehow I am influencing what happens for them in a positive way. That is a kind of driving force in my life, actualizing potential, giving encouragement, letting people know what I think they can do. I have been told I have this uncanny ability to absolutely zero in on and intuit what people need. I sometimes recognize something about them that they have not said to anybody else. And they say, “How did you know?”
> 
> I see myself as a facilitator. It’s not about imposing what I want to see happen, although I have some grand ideal of everyone having a better life or feeling better or dealing with a particular issue. Being able to understand people in depth gives me a feeling I have been friends with them forever, and when I act too much that way, they may not be able to handle it. But I feel sad when I see potential in someone and they are either denying it or not able to access it in some way. I’m very sensitive too, but sometimes easily discouraged, and I still go on thrilled to meet new people, with an interest in assisting them in whatever they are seeking. I give them both knowledge and meaning. I bring a fresh perspective and my appreciation for people’s goodness.
> 
> ...


The point is Ne is an extraverting function-attitude no different than the others. What you may be failing to realize is that you are an introvert therefore clearly your use of Ne will be different than anyone using it at the dominant level. However what you describe is possibly a use of Ni, therefore have you given consideration that you may be someone using the Ni function at the tertiary level?


----------



## lilllllian (Feb 9, 2010)

Alright now, bickering aside...

I scrapped out ISFP (for now, haha..) and am now deliberating between INFP and ISTJ (even ISFJ, idk..)

INFP = Fi Ne Si Te
ISTJ =Si Te Fi Ne

They both have the same functions, but I cannot for the love of me figure it out. I'm pretty sure I have either Ne or Te as my inferior function, based on the fact that I get stressed out for not being able to think up arguments in debate. I literally blank out sometimes. Either I'm not seeing the possibilities of where the argument can go, or I just feel inadequate to make an argument. Granted, if it was a subject that actually mattered to me, I would totally own, but subjects like nukes or other political jargon is just not my thing.

Ne is where you see an object and from there your thoughts branch out, right? Correct me if I'm wrong.

My friend and I had a conversation about this. He sees a brown leaf, then starts thinking about death, then so on. 
I don't do that. A dead leaf is a leaf. That's all I see it for. If I tried, yea, I can connect ideas, but it's not very natural to me. 
Plus, I don't see myself as a very creative person. Besides those little stories in my head, that's all I really got. The only reason I assumed I would be an SP was because of the movement. Maybe I got so bored of reality that I just started my own little world to live in it. xD Now that I think back, it doesn't make sense.
I also feel like I don't make my own ideas. I think I rely on someone else's, and just kind of add on to that.

Despite all this, I think I might be an Ne because:
I like the banter back and forth between ideas. I might not see any connections in objects, but conversations are my domain. I like seeing all the different perspectives and ideas that people give. I'm a rather inquisitive person; I ask a lot of questions to gain their insight on things.

People usually ask for my advice, and I'm able to give it to them despite not being in their particular situation. I feel like it comes just out of nowhere. I warn them about it too, that what I'm saying is my suggestion and it's up to them to figure out whether my advice is prudent to take. <- I read for INFP's, Ne is used for advice giving and helping other people, etc, from this thread: For INFPs by INFPs

The reasons I don't think I'm an ISTJ is because...well, I'm too damn sensitive. I can feel so attached to characters that aren't even real.. I've been known to be blunt and straight forward though. Sorry, I gotta tell it like it is. My friends like me for that, despite the fact it might be hurtful. I'm real. Still, I do feel a bit guilty for being too mean. :/ 
All that, plus the fact that I don't really relate to the profiles. 

One more little tidbit, I didn't know where this could fit.
I am CONSTANTLY analyzing my actions. Like, every time someone told me about some characteristic I have, and even worse when I found MBTI. I understand (kinda?) the functions, I just don't relate to them, really. So I try to look at what I'm doing to see what functions I use. And I can't. Turn. It. Off. It can get soo annoying sometimes.

GAH. I'm seriously lost on the fact of whether I'm a S or N.

I might be a ISTJ with a high Fi, or an INFP with a low Ne. o.o


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

lilllllian said:


> Alright now, bickering aside...


Yes ma’am….


lilllllian said:


> I scrapped out ISFP (for now, haha..) and am now deliberating between INFP and ISTJ (even ISFJ, idk..)
> 
> INFP = Fi Ne Si Te
> ISTJ =Si Te Fi Ne
> ...


That is correct as I understand it as well.


lilllllian said:


> My friend and I had a conversation about this. He sees a brown leaf, then starts thinking about death, then so on.
> I don't do that. A dead leaf is a leaf. That's all I see it for. If I tried, yea, I can connect ideas, but it's not very natural to me.
> Plus, I don't see myself as a very creative person. Besides those little stories in my head, that's all I really got. The only reason I assumed I would be an SP was because of the movement. Maybe I got so bored of reality that I just started my own little world to live in it. xD Now that I think back, it doesn't make sense.
> I also feel like I don't make my own ideas. I think I rely on someone else's, and just kind of add on to that.


Ummm… and why did you decide on not considering ISFP? I like Myers-Briggs’ description of Se, *“Sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The “primrose” by a river’s brim is simply a primrose.*” In opposition, Myers-Briggs says Si will, *“See things highly colored by the subjective factor, the impression being merely being suggested by the object and coming out of the unconscious in the form of some meaning or signficance.”*


lilllllian said:


> Despite all this, I think I might be an Ne because:
> I like the banter back and forth between ideas. I might not see any connections in objects, but conversations are my domain. I like seeing all the different perspectives and ideas that people give. I'm a rather inquisitive person; I ask a lot of questions to gain their insight on things.
> 
> People usually ask for my advice, and I'm able to give it to them despite not being in their particular situation. I feel like it comes just out of nowhere. I warn them about it too, that what I'm saying is my suggestion and it's up to them to figure out whether my advice is prudent to take. <- I read for INFP's, Ne is used for advice giving and helping other people, etc, from this thread: For INFPs by INFPs
> ...


It would be interesting to know why you dropped ISFP. You gave an excellent contrast between someone using Ne vs Se with your male friend. Just my thoughts, but as you said, INFPs use Fi-Ne-Si-Te and ISFPs use Fi-Se-Ni-Te. Not to attempt to influence your thoughts, but I am not sure you should quickly dismiss ISFP.


----------

