# Ne and Se



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Okay, my theory is that sometimes educated Se types may be confused with Ne types, because Se types can be inspired by what they've seen or read...if they've been exposed to it, they might want to DO it.

So to lesser educated people it may look like the Se type had new ideas, but really they were exposed to ideas and experiences that made them want to live those experiences themselves.

I feel that is what has happened in my case. I like to learn from what I see, what I experience, and what I read. You cannot keep me isolated to one place, tied to one way of being, or whatever...but I actually have to EXPERIENCE it...I don't just dream about a lot of things, I do them. I have taken risks in my life where I was inspired by things I read or saw.

Do you think this differs from place to place? Like I noticed a lot of the "world changing" writers of the 1920's were from New York City (a place of constant change!) with the exception of the two Fitzgeralds who were both from upper middle class families, and highly educated.

SO I'm thinking that experience and/or education makes Se types seem very sophisticated in their new approach to the world, but it's actually inspired by what they've seen, read, and experienced.

I also think Se types will have a drive to experience things they may have read about or heard about, instead of just thinking about it or dreaming about it.

I'm addressing this, because on some people's tests, or in some people's prejudice "newness" is associated with N types, but it's actually Se types often who are either educated or exposed to a variety of experience who will actually LIVE OUT these "new things." 

I utterly relate to the experiential nature of Se and the need to experience Se things every day, or I get bored (it used to conflict with my Fi, like why am I so shallow that I need these things, and now I completely embrace it, like yes, I need these things to be happy and have new ideas). 

I just think about this because I've noticed that Ne and Se can get mixed up, and there are so many intelligent, creative Se users, that I hate to think people are mistyping themselves because they think that Se types aren't intelligent or that they don't seek new experiences, which actually is counter-intuitive to Se (which clearly seeks the variety of sensory experiences) and is more based in the Si sterotypes which are perpetuated as being "all sensors" and this is why Se types often type as N types.

Okay I'm going to stop before I'm just babbling incoherently. :tongue:


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

Sounds like a good assumption. I know some Se types and they are not stupid a t all. They are not as interested in the big picture and how everything fits together, the "why". But not many are, are they. That is the N I would guess. 

ISTPs often seem quite NT to me when we do things together; we can like the same movies, do same stuff etc.. Until I see that we focus on and like different aspects of it. No bad in that. We NPs like different POVs.


----------



## owlet (May 7, 2010)

I would have thought this applied to any type across the board - Ss will appear more stereotypically N if they're thinking in a bigger way. However, this isn't always through education (I'm assuming you mean the system rather than just general learning)- there are people who will be educated, but will never think on a larger scale and people who have never been educated who think massively.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well we're also forgetting that Se types can see the big picture through Te, Ti, Fi and Fe (and in fact some can integrate Ni). If something is important to them that is bigger than the in-the-moment evaluation and they are mature enough to recognize it they will appear to be pretty balanced people.

As a Ni dom the thing that gets me about Se is how they seem to be way out in left field with figuring out intent. It's like they can read the situation, expressions, mood, etc, but accurately depicting subtext is hit or miss. I worked for one ESTP boss who was paranoid his employees were screwing him because they were working long hours late into the night and in his eyes that meant they must've been working on some personal project on company dollar (typical inferior-Ni thing -- which of course was the furthest thing from the truth, they were there late because of an excessive workload dropped on them by a boss who assumed they had time because he hadn't _seen_ them working like crazy and assumed they could handle more work). As a Ni-dom that makes my skin crawl because I'm always looking things from the standpoint of hidden meaning first and then bringing myself around to see the situation as is.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

of course.

when i first found out about MBTI i would go around trying to talk everyone into taking this test. all of a sudden about 4 people turned out to be ENTP, but they were all completely different; the only attribute they shared was that they hated to be pinned down into one category. 

i doubt any of them were ENTPs... not sure what they were, but one was my brother and i want to say that he was an ESTP. 

he is all about action, adventure, military, "huh, what, jump out of a plane, FUCK YEAH! let's do this"; he's smart, but so incredibly unorganized (he's sees no reason why he should be); is that a mountain, [strips down naked], (me "... what are you doing? (him "what do you mean what am i doing, i always climb better naked... LETS F-ING DO THIS!"--he also thinks nothing of working a 30 hour shift on 3 hours of sleep on an oil rig... it does pay though, he made $17,000 in month before... but yeah you get the picture, he's smart, regardless of what anyone takes from what i've said, since that doesn't prove that he's not intelligent, all it proves is that he experiences the world in a vastly different way than i do... he is my opposite, and despite my better judgement, i do love him .


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

laurie17 said:


> I would have thought this applied to any type across the board - Ss will appear more stereotypically N if they're thinking in a bigger way. However, this isn't always through education (I'm assuming you mean the system rather than just general learning)- there are people who will be educated, but will never think on a larger scale and people who have never been educated who think massively.


No I mean in a general way, not by "the system."

Some people lack education - even self-education - because their parents didn't encourage them to read, or to learn at home, or to do well in school, or whatever.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

celticstained said:


> of course.
> 
> when i first found out about MBTI i would go around trying to talk everyone into taking this test. all of a sudden about 4 people turned out to be ENTP, but they were all completely different; the only attribute they shared was that they hated to be pinned down into one category.
> 
> ...


hahha yeah sounds like an ESTP!


----------



## Fizz (Nov 13, 2010)

I understand what you're saying as you are going off of stereotypes of types. Not an actual difference between Se-users being this way or that way naturally. The assumption is that Ne would be naturally intelligent but that Se is stuck with what is rather than what could be. Though they're both wrong, that's why I initially state them as assumptions/stereotypes.

I'm Se-dom, but I'm not interested in all the stereotypical Se-dom behavior. I'm also a type 7 and I think that's an important factor in my overall perception and expression of life.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

I don't see the connection between Se /Ne

*Se focuses on the experiences and sensations of the immediate, physical world*. With an* acute awareness of the present surroundings,* it brings *relevant facts and details to the forefront* and may lead to spontaneous action.

*Ne finds and interprets hidden meanings, using “what if” *questions to explore alternatives, *allowing multiple possibilities to coexist.* This imaginative play* weaves together insights and experiences* from various sources *to form a new whole,*

Se focus on the immediate, the present. Facts and details are relevant to Se. Ne hates facts, because we see everything as possible, nothing is indeed a fact . Details are Ne Achilles heel, we hate having to explain ourselves, and don't apply facts and details when making decisions. Ne for the most part can't explain how we know things, how we connect the dots and cross the T's. Se doesn't make leaps when processing, Se base what they deem to be facts, and present details. Ne makes leaps of logic from insights, abstract experiences from all the angles that bring us data......maybe i'm just babbling, but i don't see the correlation between the two functions


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well as I understand it the correlation is that they're both extraverted perception functions. They basically do 80% of the same thing which is to take in data from the world around you. The difference is, with Ne the metaphysical possibilities are also brought to light. In other words where Ne and Se both deal with what facts could emerge from a perception, Ne takes it one step further beyond the physical aspect and intuits what meanings could emerge as well. (In a similar way Ni and Si both deal with perception of the inner world, with Ni looking at symbolic connections and Si doing almost the same thing but adding a sensory component).


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Well as I understand it the correlation is that they're both extraverted perception functions. They basically do 80% of the same thing which is to take in data from the world around you. The difference is, with Ne the metaphysical possibilities are also brought to light. In other words where *Ne and Se both deal with what facts could emerge from a perception,* Ne takes it one step further beyond the physical aspect and intuits what meanings could emerge as well. (In a similar way Ni and Si both deal with perception of the inner world, with Ni looking at symbolic connections and Si doing almost the same thing but adding a sensory component).


This is a well though out conclusion. The only thing i would change is what i highlighted. Ne doesn't consider facts, only insight and possibilities. Our end result comes from process of elimination after connecting all the dots within the pattern.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well facts in the sense of Ne being an extraverted function can only deal with things (objects, concepts, ideas) derived from the external world. Maybe facts was the wrong term, but to me Ne can't be concerned with the inwardly symbolic because that is the domain of Ni. If there is no external input then Ne has nothing to work with (similar to Se). Ne's conclusions, possibilities, insights, whatever, have to still be grounded in the real world. 

To me Ni could intuit something that is wholly symbolic, that has no tangible connection to anything concrete or real (Si probably does a variation of this as well) but Ne really can't do this because the genesis of its function is the real world. I see Ne as an abstraction of the real world (and perhaps maybe Ni as a concretization of the inner world).


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Well facts in the sense of Ne being an extraverted function can only deal with things (objects, concepts, ideas) derived from the external world. Maybe facts was the wrong term, but to me Ne can't be concerned with the inwardly symbolic because that is the domain of Ni. If there is no external input then Ne has nothing to work with (similar to Se). Ne's conclusions, possibilities, insights, whatever, have to still be grounded in the real world.
> 
> To me Ni could intuit something that is wholly symbolic, that has no tangible connection to anything concrete or real (Si probably does a variation of this as well) but Ne really can't do this because the genesis of its function is the real world. I see Ne as an abstraction of the real world (and perhaps maybe Ni as a concretization of the inner world).


Yes, its all from the external world. Just not facts. Only possibilities and insights/observations creating patterns that we merge together bringing us to a correct conclusion. And yes, Ne is an abstraction of the real world. I imagine Ni to be somewhat similar internally. My husband leads with Ni, this is how we explained it to each other. We see the world the same way, although how we arrive at our conclusions are different, yet we come to the same end result, if that makes sense


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> Yes, its all from the external world. Just not facts. Only possibilities and insights/observations creating patterns that we merge together bringing us to a correct conclusion. And yes, Ne is an abstraction of the real world. I imagine Ni to be somewhat similar internally. My husband leads with Ni, this is how we explained it to each other. We see the world the same way, although how we arrive at our conclusions are different, yet we come to the same end result, if that makes sense


I agree. What is interesting to me is that Ne and Si seem to both be built around abstraction (or impression in the case of Si), where Ni and Se are both based on concretization. 

The personal unconscious (and perhaps the collective unconscious) are really just a void of complexes, archetypes, patterns, symbols, and whatever else is floating around in there that has no form or meaning of its own relative to the outside world. In order to absorb that into the ego, Ni acts as the bridge or translator between the symbolic unconscious and the concrete conscious. It's Ni that takes all that symbolic whatever that's in our unconscious and makes it tangible in such a way that we can utilize those things consciously. 

On the flipside, its interesting to me that neither Ne or Si really _seek_ the concrete world but rather the impressionistic or abstract world (though both deal with physical sensory data neither really deal with that data for its for its own sake). Si's maxims or axioms are built around _impressions_ of experiences. In fact were it not for the strength of the maxims or bookmarks that Si created that person might well have no grounding to the physical world. Like water, the unconscious has no form of its own, unless it gets channeled into something recognizable either by Si's sensory triggers or Ni's translation.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> I agree. What is interesting to me is that Ne and Si seem to both be built around abstraction (or impression in the case of Si), where Ni and Se are both based on concretization.
> 
> The personal unconscious (and perhaps the collective unconscious) are really just a void of complexes, archetypes, patterns, symbols, and whatever else is floating around in there that has no form or meaning of its own relative to the outside world. In order to absorb that into the ego, Ni acts as the bridge or translator between the symbolic unconscious and the concrete conscious. It's Ni that takes all that symbolic whatever that's in our unconscious and makes it tangible in such a way that we can utilize those things consciously.
> 
> On the flipside, its interesting to me that neither Ne or Si really _seek_ the concrete world but rather the impressionistic or abstract world (though both deal with physical sensory data neither really deal with that data for its for its own sake). Si's maxims or axioms are built around _impressions_ of experiences. In fact were it not for the strength of the maxims or bookmarks that Si created that person might well have no grounding to the physical world. Like water, the unconscious has no form of its own, unless it gets channeled into something recognizable either by Si's sensory triggers or Ni's translation.


Well i can't agree with Si seeming to build around abstraction. My ISTJ friend is very concrete in thinking and comes to all his conclusions based on past experiences , and just like the descriptions says, draws from history to form his expectations about what will happen in the future. Ne doesn't take history or past experiences into consideration. Ne bases all their conclusions on new data, always, to form expectations about what will happen in the future.
*
Si collects data in the present moment and compares it with past experiences*, a process that sometimes evokes the feelings associated with memory, as if the subject were reliving it. Seeking to protect what is familiar, *Si draws upon history to form goals and expectations about what will happen in the future*. Using Si, ISTJs thrive on deep analysis of their surroundings.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> The difference is, with Ne the metaphysical possibilities are also brought to light. In other words where Ne and Se both deal with what facts could emerge from a perception, Ne takes it one step further beyond the physical aspect and intuits what meanings could emerge as well.


This is actually a theory I had as well for some time, after heaving read Jung however (assuming you'll want to stick to his definitions) that train of thought is wrong. That train of thought would also be the origin as to why N > S etc. because what you're basically saying is that Ne does everything Se does, but even more.

I can see where you are coming from, but it's false in the aspect that Ne plainly *cannot* stick with the what-is moment but inherently tries to see meanings, meaning they overlook / discard the is-state of things. Se basically concentrates on what-is and nothing more, while Ne explores possibilities on what-is facts but completely disregards the what-is state in itself.

It's weird to say the least, but that's just it, I s'pose.


----------



## ENTPreneur (Dec 13, 2009)

It is just a system. Useful one. If going with the system, we all use all functions to SOME degree. Functions test gave me almost as high use of Ni as Ne (HIGH) too. Difficult to say how I function using the system.... I guess Se is the non-dreamer aspect of it: It calls your attention to stuff you see, hear etc, and keeps it, deducing and tracing some steps backward and forward in time (Who went there...ahhh size 45, a man.... Smells Old Spice.... older ... etc). Se users - or any other function user - can be very smart, as in intelligent in WHAT THEY DO AND DEDUCE. 

I think Ne sees as many possibilities as possible without judging them. Thats what it does. Ne does not seek The Truth. It seeks ALL Truths, as it often is a patter of personal view. Ne is comfortable holding many conflicting views in the head at one time, seeing from many peoples eyes, perhaps even JUDGING from their differing perspectives and noticing where it takes us. Ne users like possibilities, what-ifs. Doing this makes it hard to judge people for their POV, but rather gives the irritating - and quite inappropriate - urge of judging them for their inability to see and hold all POVs... thus becoming "narrow -minded". For us.

As a Ne-Ti dom I can trace my deductions very accurately. Ti builds logical frameworks and models that I use for almost everything. A world simulation if you will, that goes on in my mind all the time parallel with what I notice with my Se


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Erbse said:


> This is actually a theory I had as well for some time, after heaving read Jung however (assuming you'll want to stick to his definitions) that train of thought is wrong. That train of thought would also be the origin as to why N > S etc. because what you're basically saying is that Ne does everything Se does, but even more.
> 
> I can see where you are coming from, but it's false in the aspect that Ne plainly *cannot* stick with the what-is moment but inherently tries to see meanings, meaning they overlook / discard the is-state of things. Se basically concentrates on what-is and nothing more, while Ne explores possibilities on what-is facts but completely disregards the what-is state in itself.
> 
> It's weird to say the least, but that's just it, I s'pose.


Nice post. I completely agree that Ne is not just Se + abstraction. Each Pe function perceives something at the expense of something else. SPs generally perceive facts/details first at the expense of concepts/possibilities, and NPs tend to perceive concepts/possibilities at the expense of the actual facts/details. Of course, everyone can do both, it's just what we tend to first, or what we do more often/easily. The point though is that Ne users are not perceiving facts/details AND concepts/possibilities while Se users are restricted to only facts/details... it's actually that the functions focus on different things, and as you say, overlook/discard different things.

---
Also, I think there is a semantic problem with the word "facts". NPs still see/hear/touch/etc. the world directly just like SPs (and everyone else). I mean, things are still literally observed with the 5 senses. I don't have, like, antennae sticking out of my head to directly perceive possibilities. lol.

But my *speculation* here is that literal observation is usually subconscious for NPs, and the vast majority of what filters through to conscious thought are concepts and distant (in time) / farfetched possibilities. I don't _intentionally_ focus on possibilities, they're just...there/emerging. Facts don't really register. Whereas for SPs, I think details and immediate/realistic _possibilities for action_ would generally filter to conscious thought. (ETA: Perhaps literal observation is subconscious for all(?))

We do literally take in the same facts, but I don't think NPs have access to them the way SPs do. We are not perceiving details/facts as consciously as an SP and then generating possibilities on top of that. I think we have only minimal access to the direct perception -- it's largely discarded. This may be where the misconception that Ne is Se + possibilities is coming from -- the fact that we are all observing with the same 5 senses. (Se is an attitude, not just raw observation)

My speculation could well be wrong/inaccurate, so I would like input from others (of all types).




ENTPreneur said:


> ISTPs often seem quite NT to me when we do things together; we can like the same movies, do same stuff etc.. Until I see that *we focus on and like different aspects of it.* No bad in that. We NPs like different POVs.


Yeah. My brother is an ISTP and I have exactly this experience. I think Se and Ne are complementary, just for that reason, because they focus on different aspects of the same environment. My brother and I have had hours-long discussions about movies, politics, etc... and we always end up showing each other new perspectives. Win-win.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> I agree. What is interesting to me is that Ne and Si seem to both be built around abstraction (or impression in the case of Si), where Ni and Se are both based on concretization.
> 
> The personal unconscious (and perhaps the collective unconscious) are really just a void of complexes, archetypes, patterns, symbols, and whatever else is floating around in there that has no form or meaning of its own relative to the outside world. In order to absorb that into the ego, Ni acts as the bridge or translator between the symbolic unconscious and the concrete conscious. It's Ni that takes all that symbolic whatever that's in our unconscious and makes it tangible in such a way that we can utilize those things consciously.
> 
> On the flipside, its interesting to me that neither Ne or Si really _seek_ the concrete world but rather the impressionistic or abstract world (though both deal with physical sensory data neither really deal with that data for its for its own sake). Si's maxims or axioms are built around _impressions_ of experiences. In fact were it not for the strength of the maxims or bookmarks that Si created that person might well have no grounding to the physical world. Like water, the unconscious has no form of its own, unless it gets channeled into something recognizable either by Si's sensory triggers or Ni's translation.


FROM a si dominant, thank you! This is what I've been trying to tell intuitives, but you put it much better than I could. Everything has a sort of air to it, a certain something that makes it "it". I think part of the reason why many SJs mistype as NJs is because they say, "Well, I'm not all concrete! I have abstract impressions of stuff! Looks like I'm an N!" It took a lot of reading for me to realize what si really meant, and then there was no question that I was a si dominant.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

Wilson said:


> I completely agree that Ne is not just Se + abstraction. Each Pe function perceives something at the expense of something else. SPs generally perceive facts/details first at the expense of concepts/possibilities, and NPs tend to perceive concepts/possibilities at the expense of the actual facts/details. Of course, everyone can do both, it's just what we tend to first, or what we do more often/easily. The point though is that Ne users are not perceiving facts/details AND concepts/possibilities while Se users are restricted to only facts/details... it's actually that the functions focus on different things, and as you say, overlook/discard different things.


I was confused about this for a while as well, with the sort of descriptions that suggest that Se is Ne that is missing something. The way you put it makes a lot more sense.



> Also, I think there is a semantic problem with the word "facts". NPs still see/hear/touch/etc. the world directly just like SPs (and everyone else). I mean, things are still literally observed with the 5 senses. I don't have, like, antennae sticking out of my head to directly perceive possibilities. lol.
> 
> But my *speculation* here is that literal observation is usually subconscious for NPs, and the vast majority of what filters through to conscious thought are concepts and distant (in time) / farfetched possibilities. I don't _intentionally_ focus on possibilities, they're just...there/emerging. Facts don't really register. Whereas for SPs, I think details and immediate/realistic _possibilities for action_ would generally filter to conscious thought. (ETA: Perhaps literal observation is subconscious for all(?))
> 
> We do literally take in the same facts, but I don't think NPs have access to them the way SPs do. We are not perceiving details/facts as consciously as an SP and then generating possibilities on top of that. I think we have only minimal access to the direct perception -- it's largely discarded. This may be where the misconception that Ne is Se + possibilities is coming from -- the fact that we are all observing with the same 5 senses. (Se is an attitude, not just raw observation)


I'm still confused by this part though. In the same way that you think of observation as subconcious, I just always assumed that all humans not only take things in through the senses, but do this consciously. Does this mean that I actually take things in in a Se way? I have no idea, but I know that I do not seem like one because I don't care for the facts of the moment and don't seem to acknowledge levels of detail in the way that Se types can. But it is only through taking in the world and facts and stuff that I can see how they come together and where they can go. I see the desk in front of me. It's red and worn out and the slideout tray isn't quite working anymore. I always see these things and have noticed that my desk is worn out, but it wasn't until just these last minute or so that I've noticed how terribly worn out this desk is and I've been using it for probably about 3 years now. Maybe in there lies the difference somewhere. Maybe we can only take the functions as attitudes with nothing to do with perception or ability. But what to make of all the NPs on here who say that they lack an awareness of surroundings and their own state when I can hardly even imagine not being aware of those things is still left to the unsolved.


----------

