# The Extraverted Sensation Function (Se) and Misconceptions



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

Enfpleasantly said:


> How do you know what the average Ne dominant does? Si is different than Se, but inferior Si grounds dominant Ne and makes us able to see things in the appropriate literal context. I actually happen to look at pencils as pencils on a regular daily basis; however, ask me what a pencil reminds me of, or to name all of the things I could do/make with a pencil, and it would be pretty much endless (including scientific significance).


I can't remember the last time i looked at a pencil and related it with a banana. Sometimes the explanations of functions are taken out of context. No wonder people get confused. Looking at something and relating to what it could be used for are two entirely different things.


----------



## Enfpleasantly (Mar 5, 2012)

MuChApArAdOx said:


> I can't remember the last time i looked at a pencil and related it with a banana. Sometimes the explanations of functions are taken out of context. No wonder people get confused. Looking at something and relating to what it could be used for are two entirely different things.


Yes, these examples are usually given to show the thought process, or the differences in functions. The scenarios are not supposed to be taken literally, especially when the description is about a single function, because that's not how we operate; other functions affect things greatly.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Enfpleasantly said:


> How do you know what the average Ne dominant does? Si is different than Se, but inferior Si grounds dominant Ne and makes us able to see things in the appropriate literal context. I actually happen to look at pencils as pencils on a regular daily basis; however, ask me what a pencil reminds me of, or to name all of the things I could do/make with a pencil, and it would be pretty much endless (including scientific significance).


I was just using Ne as the example in the way that the author of the original post did, where he deliberately isolated it (as well as Se) from other functions in order to examine their purest individual natures under the microscope. The author of this article made this very clear. I didn't mean to make it look like Ne dominants hallucinate to function, lol.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

> If someone is thinking of too many possibilities that are irrelevant to the moment, I'll usually say, "I'll cross that bridge when I get to it" or something along those line.


As an Se inferior type, I agree with this as well. I'd prefer to improvise on the spot, rather than predict the future outcomes in order to ACT on them, the way Ne does (I've noticed that my Ne inferior parents do things the latter way I mentioned and don't like improvising with what's in front of them on the spot at all, although they'd be capable of it if they absolutely needed to, since Se is a backup function for them (5th function).


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Kito said:


> This is really good, but I can't help but feel like this guy has presented Se as stubborn and boring. An actual Se user doesn't openly think that the possibilities are irrelevant, they just don't think of any in the first place. It's not natural for them.
> 
> Is there one of these for Si? That's definitely the function with the most misconceptions.


Funny thing is, if I were to support either the Se dom's pencil argument or the Ne dom's pencil argument, I would actually pick the Se dom's argument, LOL. I find the Ne dom's reasoning sounding like it's trying too hard to be unique to an annoying extent (e.g. okay, so if yellow means banana, in my mind, I suppose it can also mean just, I dunno, other yellow things that aren't in the room, like stoplights or whatever - but, here's the catch to my reasoning - I largely have trouble appreciating the Ne behind this because my Ni wants more deep significance and irony in the connection - it's lacking intuitive symbolism (Ni) imo, AND the even bigger, more interesting catch: there is definitely some Si behind this, which is essentially my cognitive function blindspot, so I'm having trouble appreciating it - and here's where I think the Si was in that statement: I think the Si was behind choosing "banana," since I suppose it's easier to correlate a subjective sense impression of a banana with a subjective sense impression of a pencil, based on ESSENTIAL impressionistic details of both that unite them in form, I guess). Okay, I understand that this isn't the most award-winning portrayal of either function around, but they are fundamentally fine examples, none-the-less, since Se is concerned with focusing on what's there, and Ne is concerned with focusing on what's not in the present moment at all - it's all about preference, btw. The Se perspective is at least more ego syntonic to me, as in, I'd rather be caught as the Se dom than the Ne dom in that scenario, quite honestly. 

And actually, the Se dom probably would unconsciously think that the possibilities are irrelevant, since they reject this preference of viewing things in terms of tangential variables based on random possibilities. If they had to, they might be able to force themselves to think like an Ne dom, but it would certainly be draining, because they preferentially reject it the most in consciousness.


----------



## MilkyWay132 (Jul 15, 2010)

Hmm.. I thiink Se cares for possibilities too, but those are more concrete/literal than Ne ones. Se is basically more action oriented. Se users care more if an idea helps them find a solution to a problem or take action. In fact, Se users, like Ne users, can be creative problem solvers.

Also, I think something that is really misunderstood about Se users is that while they like ideas that have the potential to be useful, they also care if the facts and details are useful. They don't gather useless details that won't help them or serve any practical purpose.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

I felt like the original poster's explanation of Ne sounded a bit too much like Ni, or possibly Thinking. The emboldened parts especially seem like Ni, which tends to look at possibility upon possibility in a linear path.



> So, an Ne user in the forest would take in all the experiences of the present moment and *have a “hunch”*. To the Ne user, based on what is seen, heard, felt, smell, and taste, it probably rains in the forest often. It appears to be sunny at the time, but based on what was seen in the evironment, the Ne user could not help but have *this strange hunch that this forest must have a lot of rain*. He may also begin to branch off and develop even more possibilities of what may go on in the forest. *Possibilities upon possibilities*.


Then, below, I have emboldened only the parts that I think actually reflect Ne:



dimane said:


> The Ne user may say something along the lines of this. They may continually build possibilities and relate/connect patterns seen across time:
> “*These tree leaves are similar to tree leaves in another forest I know *and it rains there a lot. I can’t help but feel it probably rains here too, because I notice that the patterns of these tree leaves are very similar to what I have seen before in another forest. *The soil also have “patterns” that are similar to the other forest* for rain as well as various other things in this forest to the other forest.”


The emboldened parts seem most like Ne. The non-emboldened parts seem more like Thinking, of some variety.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

LOL Thank you so much. It's so funny and damn useful. I'm not sure about my type before because of the Se/ Ne confusion. I'm usually tested as ISFP but I found myself having INFP personality traits that don't belong to stereotypical ISFPs. I took function test before. I'm Fi dominated, and Se is always my second or third function and Ne the least developed among the eight, but I didn't understand why I got this result until I read this post. The explanations I've read before are all vague since they don't have any example to clarify the theory. Now I'm pretty sure that I'm a Se. Ne sounds strange to me. I relate to the Se in forest example a lot. 

As I read, I wonder why would anyone on this planet imagine something behind something as simple as a tree or a pencil without being tired of such imagination. By doing so, you miss the opportunity to enjoy the moment and if situation requires you to make some decision, the imagination is not going to help and even prevents or delays a rational decision-making. If I see a pencil and imagine something, it would be something that had actually happened or existed, such as my experience of using the pencil or some special experience I have with a specific pencil, such as that someone bought me a box of cute pencils from a trip to England, but the imaginations are never "a pencil = a banana." (I laugh so hard at this.) Most of the time it's just a pencil. If it is sharp I use it. If not I sharpen it and use it. That's it.

I just take things as they are. I love orange so I use it as my example here. When I eat an orange, I feel and enjoy the taste and the texture. If I'm lucky to get a juicy one, I am like, OMG its so juicy and sweet, I'm the luckiest person on this planet, and then I let the juice flow inside my mouth and let my taste bud to absorb the juice and taste as much as possible. Actually I try the best to feel all these so I can maximize, especially when I have a good one, the pleasure of eating it.


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

This was good, but you make it sound like an Se 'user' doesn't use Ne; a person labeled with Se are that way because they value the information they receive from Se more than Ne. I suppose this is just a misconception that comes with MBTI though :S


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

^Well, Ne is shadow for Se (Ni would be more usefully applied) and is unnecessary for Se users to have anyway.

I can say the same as a Ne-dom. I do feel like a lot of the stuff that is exclusively described to Se is also true of Ne. Maybe not to the extent of how similar the functions are, but there are a lot of surface details about the two that are essentially the same. Discerning why for it though would give you the difference between Se and Ne. I kind of lol'd at that pencil/banana thing, kind of an extreme case.

I'm so glad people here have been able to see Se rather than Ne with me, because I mostly feel (now) that the latter is what I really use.

Yeah, as posters have mentioned, some stuff mistaken as Ne can apply to Se as well.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Obsidian said:


> I felt like the original poster's explanation of Ne sounded a bit too much like Ni, or possibly Thinking. The emboldened parts especially seem like Ni, which tends to look at possibility upon possibility in a linear path.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually, as for what you said reminded you of Ni, you are right. It should. What you label as Ni is just general Intuition. Intuition is about possibilities and hunches. Ni is deeper and narrower and subjective. Ne is the opposite. So Ne actually would be "hunches" and see possibilities upon possibilities. Ne here is still broad. It may look narrower at first glance because the description is just short and it only used an example or two. Ne, when looking at a forest, can still focus on the forest -- it's just going to be different than somebody who uses Ni. Of course Ne may think that the forest may have had some rain. 

Well, the second paragraph reminded me of Si more than anything else. I actually don't think too much of the second description sounded quite like Ne. I think I can see what point it was attempting to draw, though.


----------



## rin111 (May 23, 2012)

Se description isn't right.

Se sees things in the surroundings and decides what is to be done based on them. for this Se needs to relate the data to something. Like, 'Oh, trees, green leaves-most likely far from autumn or winter= no need for cold weather clothes. Blue skies- prolly doesn't rain, Hold that, moisture- it doesn't look like rain now but it may rain, better make a shelter. ' 

where Ne sees, 'Oh, trees and green leaves...I've seen trees like this where i come from and they produce green leaves in spring= no need for cold weather clothes. Blue skies and moisture- in all likelihood, there;'s alot of rain here, afterall green leaved trees. wait is this an evergreen forest? if so, i won;t have to save up for winter. whew! oh right, rain...i'll make a shelter now.


Both have to operate on analyzing the surrounding to act- if not, every Se user would be starved or drowned and every Ne user would be run over by a bus or walk into people. 

they land at similar conclusions but take different paths and diff actions.

Ne is more accommodating with possibilities and may plan for them whereas Se sees what is to be done now- crosses bridges when it gets there


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

I feel like perception functions just look at the situation and it's not their job to figure out what to do.


----------



## rin111 (May 23, 2012)

Owfin said:


> I feel like perception functions just look at the situation and it's not their job to figure out what to do.



right, it's judging's job to decide what course of action to take. The Ps have to gather data, however, and based on that data (quantity and quality), J will be able to take action

Most people here seem to think that Se just takes in visual stimuli and doesn't bother to look for a link between them. Ne apparently connects data and therefore gathers more data in a shorter time frame. Ne and Se are both nearly equal in gathering data. basically Se has quantity, Ne has quality. i don't thin this is true.

besides

Where one is deficient, J compensates and takes over.

if this weren't the case then human survival would have depended only on personality type and only the strongest types would have emerged into the modern world ( by which i mean after the last ice age)

the above is a sleep deprives thought...don't take it seriously


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

rin111 said:


> Se description isn't right.
> 
> Se sees things in the surroundings and decides what is to be done based on them. for this Se needs to relate the data to something. Like, 'Oh, trees, green leaves-most likely far from autumn or winter= no need for cold weather clothes. Blue skies- prolly doesn't rain, Hold that, moisture- it doesn't look like rain now but it may rain, better make a shelter. '
> 
> ...


Well these are functions on there own without any other function,Every type has four functions that they can call on when needed. An ESTP could logical deduce that it probably rains through his Ti.
ever type can do what another type can, somethings just come more naturally one to rather than others


----------



## rin111 (May 23, 2012)

dimane said:


> Well these are functions on there own without any other function,Every type has four functions that they can call on when needed. An ESTP could logical deduce that it probably rains through his Ti.
> ever type can do what another type can, somethings just come more naturally one to rather than others


i understand that but people who label Se and Si inferior don't seem to.

Ne and Se are similar and you can't really decide which one is better. To denigrate Se and Si is wrong

I only see Ne's advantages shown on the forums but Se is very useful IRL and that's passed over


----------



## Kabosu (Mar 31, 2012)

Both can be applied IRL (as well as whatever said person has) and I don't really think that any one function is "better" than the other, but for the individual it's better to apply their stronger ones.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

rin111 said:


> i understand that but people who label Se and Si inferior don't seem to.
> 
> Ne and Se are similar and you can't really decide which one is better. To denigrate Se and Si is wrong


Well I think most types time devalue their their inferior functions and have a inferiority complex about them
and yeah Se and Ne are similar the difference is concrete pragmatism and imagined possibilities


----------



## Rafiki (Mar 11, 2012)

I think the banana thing rings more like Se for me. I mean Se still makes associations, doesn't it? How is it not characteristic of Se to compare the physical natures of things through categorical comparison and stuff. I look at a pencil, I definitely see the banana, I don't think that's Ne. Taking in superficial knowledge and appropriating/analyzing it involves Se, sure, does it not?

I wouldn't say the likening of a pencil to a banana is what I often do cognitively. I'd say, agreeing with @uncertain that I'd more associate an event involving it. But if I just look into a pencil, sure I'd let my imagination run, and view it as a banana- why not, it only takes a half second.

I see a lot of Si in Ne users, being in a forest would evoke images from Alice in Wonderland, and you may hope to find the Cheshire Cat, Idk. 

I believe im an SFP.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

How true is it that Se prefers to improvise compared to Ne who likes to have predicted all possible outcomes? I've seen it mentioned a few times. Is this a comparison between the two functions or just an observation (which may or may not be true)?


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

Ksara said:


> How true is it that Se prefers to improvise compared to Ne who likes to have predicted all possible outcomes? I've seen it mentioned a few times. Is this a comparison between the two functions or just an observation (which may or may not be true)?


I think it's a personal sort of thing. I don't know, I prefer to improvise. I'm definitely an in-the-moment person. speculating about the outcome tends to be one or two options for me {either it'll work, or it won't} and ends up kinda being useless.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

honestly I think the article just treated the functions as stand-alone. 

so in the most simplistic of terms, it's sort of right--but also, inaccurate.
I love the forest. I love being outside. These things are beautiful to me. I'm Se-aux. So is it Se saying these things? or is it Fi, Ni, Te, or some combination of the four? because the way I see it, all four functions are constantly working together all the time. 

I think it's interesting to note, though, that Ne and Se are inherently similar. I have plenty of good friends that are Ne-dom or aux and I love hanging out with them. We come up with the best adventures.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Ksara said:


> How true is it that Se prefers to improvise compared to Ne who likes to have predicted all possible outcomes? I've seen it mentioned a few times. Is this a comparison between the two functions or just an observation (which may or may not be true)?


I'm sure both can improvise, but I'm Ne-dom, and I can say that I'm only average at improvisation, and only became _that _skilled because I've had time to practice that particular skill. 

Brainstorming is _not _improvising. Because the first idea that pops into your head usually isn't the best one. :kitteh:

Improvising requires quick-thinking, and _normally_ within the physical world, which is what Se excels at.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> I'm sure both can improvise, but I'm Ne-dom, and I can say that I'm only average at improvisation, and only became _that _skilled because I've had time to practice that particular skill.
> 
> Brainstorming is _not _improvising. Because the first idea that pops into your head usually isn't the best one. :kitteh:
> 
> *Improvising requires quick-thinking, and normally within the physical world, which is what Se excels at.*


Extraversion is what is focused on the physical world, Se only focuses on the sensations of it while Ne focuses on the physical worlds possibilities. Improvising is finding the best alternative, or the best next possibility in the physical world, and since Ne is focused on possibilities in the physical world, this is actually what Ne excels at.

And also being Ne dom, I must say I am no where near average, and have always excelled in improvisation within the physical world without any practice, its just been something I'm naturally adept at.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deus Absconditus said:


> Extraversion is what is focused on the physical world, Se only focuses on the sensations of it while Ne focuses on the physical worlds possibilities. Improvising is finding the best alternative, or the best next possibility in the physical world, and since Ne is focused on possibilities in the physical world, this is actually what Ne excels at.
> 
> And also being Ne dom, I must say I am no where near average, and have always excelled in improvisation within the physical world without any practice, its just been something I'm naturally adept at.


I don't think it's quite as simple as that. 

Ne, for example, and as I'm sure you're aware: Is about possibilities, about interest, about ideas and more of what _isn't _there than what _is_.

Se is about what _is _there, absolutely-- About what _is_, and precisely _how _such things are. _Especially _the physical world. Ne isn't so much about the _physical _as it is about the theoretical, the intangible. That can be quite a disadvantage.

It's not about 'sensations', necessarily, for Se. 'Sensations', particularly internal ones, are more the realm of Si. Se is more about external physical elements and evaluations of them. 

Indeed, rather, I would say that Se deals more in exactly what you see in front of you. Additionally, Se deals in power politics, even drama, in territory, and in execution-- All areas which improvisation lends itself to.

Of course, it _does _depend upon the particular _kind _of improvisation. But, largely, and on the whole, the one with valued and high Se will excel in the improvising, because it takes what's there, in reality, and it expands upon it.

That said-- There's nothing that says that an Ne-dom can't have an affinity for improvising! It depends on how you're raised, your environment, values, interests... 

I just don't. :kitteh: Or, at least-- I don't think I do. Maybe I don't give myself enough credit, who knows.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> I don't think it's quite as simple as that.
> 
> Ne, for example, and as I'm sure you're aware: Is about possibilities, about interest, about ideas and more of what _isn't _there than what _is_.
> 
> ...


I'm sorry but I disagree, it is exactly that simple:



> Just as extraverted sensation strives to reach the highest pitch of actuality, because this alone can give the appearance of a full life, so intuition tries to apprehend the widest range of possibilities, since only through envisioning possibilities is intuition fully satisfied. *It seeks to discover what possibilities the objective situation* holds in store; hence, as a subordinate function (i.e., when not in the position of priority), it is the auxiliary that automatically comes into play when no other function can find a way out of a hopelessly blocked situation. *When it is the dominant function, every ordinary situation in life seems like a locked room which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking fresh outlets and new possibilities in external life*.


Ne, no matter how anyone wants to interpret is the function that focuses on the possibilities of the external world, the external world being the physical world, and how to expand or alter the physical world derives from the possibility of doing so, which is another trait of Ne. 

Se on the other hand as it is stated in the above quote seeks the highest actuality, the highest sensation in the external world, it does not try to alter it but instead suck it dry of its intensity:



> *As sensation is chiefly conditioned by the object, those objects that excite the strongest sensations will be decisive for the individual’s psychology*. The result is a strong sensuous tie to the object. Sensation is therefore a vital function equipped with the strongest vital instinct. *Objects are valued in so far as they excite sensations*, and, so far as lies within the power of sensation, they are fully accepted into consciousness whether they are compatible with rational judgments or not. *The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of the sensation* produced by their objective qualities.


The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of sensation, not seeing the possibilities of the external world, or how to alter it. Altering or expanding the physical realm is directly tied to envisioning how to expand or how to alter it, meaning perceiving the possibility in how to alter the physical world. Since Ne uses sensations in the external world as a starting point, and then perceives the possibilities of the external world, then it would mean that Ne adjusts or expands the physical world:



> *But since extraverted intuition is directed predominantly to objects, it actually comes very close to sensation; indeed, the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation.* Hence, if intuition is to function properly, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed. By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand because, if I ask an intuitive how he orients himself, he will speak of things that are almost indistinguishable from sense-impressions. Very often he will even use the word “sensation.”*He does have sensations, of course, but he is not guided by them as such; he uses them merely as starting-points for his perceptions. *He selects them by unconscious predilection.* It is not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, that is accorded the chief value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value is enhanced by the intuitive’s unconscious attitude.* In this way it may eventually come to acquire the chief value, and to his conscious mind it appears to be pure sensation. But actually it is not so.


As you can see Ne above, Ne is the one who enhances sensations, whether that means altering or expanding on them, because seeing the possibility of the external world tmeans first taking in the sensations of the external world then seeing the possibilities it contains and how to alter it based on those possibilities, whereas Se seeks solely the highest intensity of sensation, not the possibilities inherent in the external world.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deus Absconditus said:


> I'm sorry but I disagree, it is exactly that simple:


I've never understood why people apologize for disagreeing. :kitteh:




> Ne, no matter how anyone wants to interpret is the function that focuses on the possibilities of the external world, the external world being the physical world, and how to expand or alter the physical world derives from the possibility of doing so, which is another trait of Ne.


I go by the Socionics definition, which tends to be more in-depth, and explains the dynamics between all 8 functions in a type. (Check out the Typing thread in my signature for more information-- It's quite enlightening.)

Anyway, the Socionics definition is namely this: " Ne is responsible for understanding the essence (permanent but not obvious traits) of a thing, estimating the potential and latent capabilities for people and things, and visualizing the likely outcome of events. It is responsible for the sense of interest or boredom. Ne will speculate as to why an event occurs, but sees the specific event as static and unalterable."

It's far more, and less, than the physical world alone.



> Se on the other hand as it is stated in the above quote seeks the highest actuality, the highest sensation in the external world, it does not try to alter it but instead suck it dry of its intensity:


Another Socionics definition, if you'll permit. If not, then disregard.

"Se is responsible for the perception, control, defense, and acquisition of space, territory, and control. It observes outward appearances, estimates whether forces are in alignment or conflict, and uses strength of will and power-based methods to achieve purposes. Se understands territory and physical aggression. It is also the function of contact and apprehension of qualia."




> The sole criterion of their value is the intensity of sensation, not seeing the possibilities of the external world, or how to alter it. Altering or expanding the physical realm is directly tied to envisioning how to expand or how to alter it, meaning perceiving the possibility in how to alter the physical world. Since Ne uses sensations in the external world as a starting point, and then perceives the possibilities of the external world, then it would mean that Ne adjusts or expands the physical world:


I disagree with all of this, but that's fine. I don't need to agree for it to be correct or incorrect.



> As you can see Ne above, Ne is the one who enhances sensations, whether that means altering or expanding on them, because seeing the possibility of the external world tmeans first taking in the sensations of the external world then seeing the possibilities it contains and how to alter it based on those possibilities, whereas Se seeks solely the highest intensity of sensation, not the possibilities inherent in the external world.


I also disagree with this-- But, it's a clever way of interpreting sensations, at the very least. I'll address both above quotes now: I reject the idea of sensation for either cognitive function. The only 'sensations' that Se deals with, are based on the immediate environment, according to the theories. And Ne doesn't deal with sensations at all, at least not how I interpret it, although I can see how 'sensation' can be interpreted simply as perceptions or perspective, and any mental process could be attributed to 'sensation', but I digress.

Although Ne _can _act directly in the physical world around it, as I understand it, it's only when something of interest takes one's attention. Otherwise, the physical world is something which Ne-doms tend to be rather oblivious to, and dealing with physical space is challenging, to say the least. Not impossible. It depends on how the Ne-dom in question is raised and their environment-- There are more variables than simple theory.

Anyway, as I said in the first post-- There's nothing to say that someone with Ne can't be terrible at improvisation. It depends on their environment as they develop. And there's nothing that says Se can't be terrible at improvisation, either, for the same reasons. Improvising is a skill, and is basically garnered through experience, whether you're aware of those learning moments or not. One interest or skill inclination alone certainly does not point to one particular type.

That said, I'm working from a completely different platform in my explanations than you are-- I delved deeply into Socionics after finding out how limited MBTI was in explaining Jung's theories.

I understand you're taking your quotations from Jung himself-- But, the way you seem to interpret it isn't necessarily the way he intended it.

Additionally, Socionics expanded quite a bit on his theories, and it makes a great deal of sense if you happen to end up looking into it. roud:


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

@Word Dispenser

Yea we're going to have to agree to disagree because I put Jung above both socionics and MBTI when it comes to understanding the functions since the knowledge of them derives from him. This is essentially leading you and I to be considering and discussing aboug two different irreconcible concepts as Ne which will be nothing but disagreements between the two of us.

What I will say though is that if you solely go off of Jung's definitions of the functions then it is Ne that is the master of improvisation, not Se. Obviously using different concepts and calling it Ne will give different results, because the results are dependent on how the concepts are defined and their relation to other concepts and/or objects, therefore different concepts leads to different results.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Deus Absconditus said:


> @_Word Dispenser_
> 
> Yea we're going to have to agree to disagree because I put Jung above both socionics and MBTI when it comes to understanding the functions since the knowledge of them derives from him. This is essentially leading you and I to be considering and discussing aboug two different irreconcible concepts as Ne which will be nothing but disagreements between the two of us.
> 
> What I will say though is that if you solely go off of Jung's definitions of the functions then it is Ne that is the master of improvisation, not Se. Obviously using different concepts and calling it Ne will give different results, because the results are dependent on how the concepts are defined and their relation to other concepts and/or objects, therefore different concepts leads to different results.


Having read Jung's definitions alone, I would disagree with this, anyway. You underlined what you thought was Jung's point, but in my opinion, his point was this: "By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum." 

Which isn't sensation at all as you are using it in your definitions of the word. Jung provided a definition, right there in that quote. The issue, then, is that it's open to interpretation as to what he meant exactly by physiological and psychic datum, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it's mostly internal, and has more to do with physiological reaction and mental reaction than it does with physical sensations alone. 

Jung even seems to suggest that the Ne-dom is experiencing something other than 'sensations' entirely, but that the Ne-dom will describe their orientation to the world as sensations, even if that isn't accurate. Using 'sensations' as a starting point is not the same as manipulating the world around you.

It's really more about envisioning possibilities than it is about actualizing or going into action, which I think is pointed out by the first quote you posted.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> Having read Jung's definitions alone, I would disagree with this, anyway. You underlined what you thought was Jung's point, but in my opinion, his point was this: "By sensation I mean in this instance the simple and immediate sense-impression understood as a clearly defined physiological and psychic datum."
> 
> Which isn't sensation at all as you are using it in your definitions of the word. Jung provided a definition, right there in that quote. The issue, then, is that it's open to interpretation as to what he meant exactly by physiological and psychic datum, but if I were to hazard a guess, I would say that it's mostly internal, and has more to do with physiological reaction and mental reaction than it does with physical sensations alone.
> 
> ...


Its still sensation, he specifically states that the expectant attitude is just as likely to make use of sensations:



> indeed, *the expectant attitude to external objects is just as likely to make use of sensation*.


The only difference is that its not the sensation with the highest intensity that guides them but instead the sensation that can be enhanced by the expectant attitude of sensation:



> It is not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, that is accorded the chief value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value is enhanced by the intuitive’s unconscious attitude.


Nevermind the fact that Jung specifically states without a doubt that intuition does indeed have sensations but they aren't what guides the intuitive, but instead are used as mere starting points:



> *He does have sensations, of course, but he is not guided by them as such*; he uses them merely as starting-points for his perceptions


"He does have sensations but he is not guided by them as such", this isnt my interpretation, this is the exact thing he states to explain that Ne uses sensations. Nevermind the fact that the first 9 chapters in Psychological Types goes over the differences in extraversion and introversion, and he explains quite clearly that all extravert's use sensations since the external world, their orientation, is covered in sensations and can only be taken in by sensory data. Jung isn't " suggesting that its something other than sensations, he is stating that it is indeed sensations but they don't guide the intuitive.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Word Dispenser said:


> It's really more about envisioning possibilities than it is about actualizing or going into action, which I think is pointed out by the first quote you posted.


Also actualizing and going into action is not only a trait of Ne but all extravert's:



> *The outward reaction characterizes the extravert*, just as the inward reaction is the mark of the introvert. *The extravert has no especial difficulty in expressing himself; he makes his presence felt almost involuntarily, because his whole nature goes outwards to the object.*





> For the same reason these contents will have undergone little elaboration and are therefore easily understood; the quick succession of immediate reactions produces a series of images that show the public the path he has followed and the means by which he has attained his result.


And here is Ne in actualizing and going into action:



> *He seizes on new objects or situations* with great intensity, sometimes with extraordinary enthusiasm, only to abandon them cold-bloodedly, without any compunction and apparently without remembering them, as soon as their range is known and no further developments can be divined. So long as a new possibility is in the offing, the intuitive is bound to it with the shackles of fate. It is as though his whole life vanished in the *new situation. *One gets the impression, which he himself shares, that he has always just reached a final turning-point, and that from now on he can think and feel nothing else.





> *He brings his vision to life*, he presents it convincingly and with dramatic fire, he embodies it, so to speak. But this is not play-acting, it is a kind of fate.


If this isn't enough to convince that Ne is about action then let's go to chapter 11, the definitions chapter, and let's see how he differentiates Ne from Ni in the definition of intuition:



> Introverted and extraverted intuitives may be distinguished according to whether intuition is directed inwards, to the inner vision, *or outwards, to action and achievement*.


Its clearly stated, with no interpretation on my part whatsoever that extraverted intuition is focused outwards to action and achievement. Therefore action and actualization is a key part of Ne since that is the only thing he states about Ne in the definition of intuition.


----------



## wanderlusts (Dec 15, 2014)

dimane said:


> Well I think most types time devalue their their inferior functions and have a inferiority complex about them
> and yeah Se and Ne are similar the difference is concrete pragmatism and imagined possibilities


Yeah. I live with an enfp chick. I use se Dom and she uses ne-Dom. While she's my party buddy/housemate, I noticed she likes to talk too much about how her biological clock is ticking, where she wants to live when she's older, how world war 3 is coming, and a bunch of other exaggerated crap.

Whereas with my se, I'm constantly telling her " I'll worry about that when it happens" not that I don't like conversation, but we're 24?? I don't wanna stress about that stuff, until I have to. she's now getting used to this new saying "that's a future problem"  

That's how I experience ne and se

my other infp roommate who uses ne , she could go on for hours talking about aliens existing & I find it hella interesting. Not sure if that's ne, but seems like it 

Is there a topic on functions when you're stoned ???


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------

