# Perception



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> It would seem to me that Ne is more focused on theoretical potential and Se is more practical potential. The things right in front of me are tools. I use strips of fabric and rope in ways many people just don't seem to think of. Easiest way to show you is youtube.
> 
> It's funny, but a lot of the things I do, have youtube videos now and get called life hacks. But it all seems like common sense to me. I see the potential for how I can use things and people in a practical way. Although, I use style. :wink:
> 
> It seems to me that Ne over thinks it and tend to lack the practicality that Se has. But the Ne users seem to want to think on larger proportions. My way's faster.


Why do you attribute this potential to Se itself? Could it be your thinking ability? Feeling? Intuition?

I agree that I tend to think bigger than is necessary and I often lack practicality of the situation because of it. For example, an HR assistant at work was giving my team re-training on a time-tracking application. My team complained that the information we are expected to enter was way too complicated. Rather than deal with the immediate problem, I began to question the HR assistant about how the problem can be easily solved from an organizational standpoint by getting the HR executives and our union to simplify our time coding process (it is really ridiculous).

Is there an emphasis on actualizing these potentials or in the potential itself? The reason why I ask comes from this line from Jung:



> 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 fully satisfied.


What do you think about the following paradigm?



> These four functional types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; thinking tells you what it is; feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.





monemi said:


> Don't you think you lack imagination given that in all that time, you never thought to go in the fountain?


That is a very interesting perspective on imagination. I never would have thought to connect imagination and going in the fountain like that. It's just not what I would think of when I think of imagination. Although I do recall another post your wrote that I think displays a similar imagination:



> My impulses are the little white bunnies hoppity hopping past my line of vision all day long ever day. Fire alarm all shiny and red is begging to be pulled, can we walk on our hands, hold up traffic, see if we can make the fat police officer run, what's the highest branch we can climb up that tree, this man has zero emotion on his face: can we make him flush red with anger, must remember to find a place to try shark to see what it tastes like, is that a drum, is this book any good, can I fix this myself...etc....


[HR][/HR] @Octavian Thomson does make mention that "INJs throughout history have been prophets, poets, and heretics." Just sayin... 

Some of the description sounds like Thinking to me, especially "interpretations" and conceptual perspectives. How is that an intuitive feature versus a thinking one?

What do you think of Jung's basic paradigm of the functions?



> These four functional types correspond to the obvious means by which consciousness obtains its orientation to experience. Sensation (i.e. sense perception) tells us that something exists; *thinking tells you what it is;* feeling tells you whether it is agreeable or not; and *intuition tells you whence it comes and where it is going.*


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Why do you attribute this potential to Se itself? Could it be your thinking ability? Feeling? Intuition?
> 
> I agree that I tend to think bigger than is necessary and I often lack practicality of the situation because of it. For example, an HR assistant at work was giving my team re-training on a time-tracking application. My team complained that the information we are expected to enter was way too complicated. Rather than deal with the immediate problem, I began to question the HR assistant about how the problem can be easily solved from an organizational standpoint by getting the HR executives and our union to simplify our time coding process (it is really ridiculous).
> 
> Is there an emphasis on actualizing these potentials or in the potential itself?



I'm having a really hard time putting this into words. 

It's reflexive. When people talk about word association, my word associations are tactile. Someone says grass, other people say green. I hear grass and the word association has an almost ghost like sensation. Like I've reached out and touched it already. I feel grass on my finger tips and poking up between my toes. It's one of the reasons I dislike word association exercises because what I to associate isn't a word. It's too language dependent. 





PaladinX said:


> The reason why I ask comes from this line from Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> What do you think about the following paradigm?


I think Jung was an intuitive and never experienced Se. But intuitives want to tell us how we experience Se and how we use it. As though they were inside our heads and using this function dominantly. I think Jung failed to understand the other perspective. 

Intuition is thinking. Ne users aren't expected to prove that their intuition isn't just them using Ti. Obviously Ne and Se are thinking. Cognitive functions are a part of our thought process. But Se isn't any easier to explain than Ne is. I know it's not Ti. 




PaladinX said:


> That is a very interesting perspective on imagination. I never would have thought to connect imagination and going in the fountain like that. It's just not what I would think of when I think of imagination. Although I do recall another post your wrote that I think displays a similar imagination:


I see a rope and a host of potential uses come to mind. 
With a rope I could make:
a knot
a bag
weapon
clothesline
leash,
take apart and weave a blanket
climbing
skipping
pulley system
ladder
tourniquet
fuel for fire
fishing net
tie up (person, animal or item)
noose
snare

You get the idea. My point being is that I've found intuitive imagination is just different. I imagine how to use it, as it is. Ne imagines taking a hundred lines of rope and making an obstacle course with them. I thought intuitives can be extremely dismissive of other types of imagination or claim all imagination as their own. But maybe it simply doesn't occur to you that this is imagination.


----------



## Octavian (Nov 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Thomson does make mention that "INJs throughout history have been prophets, poets, and heretics." Just sayin...


You're right. That slipped my mind.



> Some of the description sounds like Thinking to me, especially "interpretations" and conceptual perspectives. How is that an intuitive feature versus a thinking one?


The key is that Ni is not actively forming an interpretation, nor it is judging the interpretations of others, it is simply "noticing" them. Much like how Jungian Ni does not make predictions per se, so much as it notices the general mold or archetypes that events are falling into.

No where in Lenore's description does Ni assert "this interpretation is correct" or "this one is wrong." It notes the expected interpretations, and the interpretations that are being ignored, or that are hidden by comparison.



> What do you think of Jung's basic paradigm of the functions?


For the most part I'm in agreement. The bit on intuition reads a bit biased towards Ni though.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> I'm having a really hard time putting this into words.
> 
> It's reflexive. When people talk about word association, my word associations are tactile. Someone says grass, other people say green. I hear grass and the word association has an almost ghost like sensation. Like I've reached out and touched it already. I feel grass on my finger tips and poking up between my toes. It's one of the reasons I dislike word association exercises because what I to associate isn't a word. It's too language dependent.


That's fair. I tend to think of things in spatial or kinesthetic ways and patterns. It can be difficult to describe. I usually have to draw a series of lines and dots that makes no sense to anyone, but it helps me to somewhat verbalize a meaning. Here is an attempt I made to describe it in another thread:




> For myself, I am diagnosed with "Reading disorder" and "Disorder of written expression" because I apparently have a 4th grade reading comprehension rate and take a long time to write. I do not think in images necessarily. I do some word thinking, but I generally think in something more spatial/kinesthetic/experiential, pattern-oriented, and often abstract than anything. It's like my girlfriend's way of thinking looks at completed 3-d objects and all I essentially see is the underlying wireframe. Kinda like this:
> 
> 
> * *
> ...





> I think Jung was an intuitive and never experienced Se. But intuitives want to tell us how we experience Se and how we use it. As though they were inside our heads and using this function dominantly. I think Jung failed to understand the other perspective.
> 
> Intuition is thinking. Ne users aren't expected to prove that their intuition isn't just them using Ti. Obviously Ne and Se are thinking. Cognitive functions are a part of our thought process. But Se isn't any easier to explain than Ne is. I know it's not Ti.


Jung, at least at the time of writing Psychological Types, claimed to be a Sensor. But later claimed to be an Intuitive. So who knows?

I disagree with the idea that the functions are different kinds of thoughts. My understanding is that sensations, thoughts, feelings, and hunches are different mental phenomena. But I won't get into that here. I certainly appreciate your perspective though.



> I see a rope and a host of potential uses come to mind.
> With a rope I could make:
> a knot
> a bag
> ...


Well I wouldn't say that I'm the norm by any means, but I trust your experience. Personally, having Asperger's and all, I consider myself to be an outlier. In my particular case, I wouldn't say that I'm dismissive or that I have the corner on imagination, but I would agree with you that it never occurred to me that what you described is imagination. Which is why I thought it was fascinating. I love new perspectives that I hadn't considered before.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Octavian said:


> The key is that Ni is not actively forming an interpretation, nor it is judging the interpretations of others, it is simply "noticing" them. Much like how Jungian Ni does not make predictions per se, so much as it notices the general mold or archetypes that events are falling into.
> 
> No where in Lenore's description does Ni assert "this interpretation is correct" or "this one is wrong." It notes the expected interpretations, and the interpretations that are being ignored, or that are hidden by comparison.


That's fair. I thought of this afterwards:



Jung on Intuition said:


> Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while *abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations.*


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

monemi said:


> Don't you think you lack imagination given that in all that time, you never thought to go in the fountain?



No, but that's besides the point.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> Well I wouldn't say that I'm the norm by any means, but I trust your experience. Personally, having Asperger's and all, I consider myself to be an outlier. In my particular case, I wouldn't say that I'm dismissive or that I have the corner on imagination, but I would agree with you that it never occurred to me that what you described is imagination. Which is why I thought it was fascinating. I love new perspectives that I hadn't considered before.


Example of dismissive attitude below. 



surgery said:


> No, but that's besides the point.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

surgery said:


> No, but that's besides the point.


Why would it be beside the point if you stated:



> From my perspective, as an NFP, they seem to be rooted in literal reality as well. *I would often describe them as lacking an imagination,* although that's not completely inaccurate. They can imagine things, it just seems like their imagination is limited to things that actually exist, what can actually be experienced and things that are in the foreseeable future.


I would agree with your initial disagreement because obviously you don't lack a general imagination; however, I would agree with @monemi that the latter part of your response seems rather dismissive especially since you brought it up first.

NOTE: I am not trying to pick on you or gang up on you, I genuinely want to understand where you are coming from.

According to Jung, imagination appears in all forms:



> Imagination is the reproductive, or creative, activity of the mind generally, though not a special faculty, since it may come into play in all the basic forms of psychic activity, whether thinking, feeling, sensation, or intuition.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> Why would it be beside the point if you stated:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think this is a mistake on my part. In my original post, I didn't intend to write "I would often describe them as lacking in imagination, although it's not completely inaccurate." It should have read "accurate" instead. My point was that, before really studying type, I would have described Sensors as unimaginative. But since then I've learned to recognize my own bias about what imagination means. But because of my typo, my point didn't get across as well as I thought it had.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

surgery said:


> I think this is a mistake on my part. In my original post, I didn't intend to write "I would often describe them as lacking in imagination, although it's not completely inaccurate." It should have read "accurate" instead. *My point was that, before really studying type, I would have described Sensors as unimaginative. But since then I've learned to recognize my own bias about what imagination means.* But because of my typo, my point didn't get across as well as I thought it had.


Fair point. I understood what you meant despite the typo (and I think @monemi did too). The point that you were trying to convey (bolded above) was unclear to me. The writing was not in past tense, which led me to believe that this is your current view. Thank you for clearing that up.


----------

