# Ne vs Se in different theories



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

So, Sarah and me started conversing about this topic and I thought it'd be better to put it into a new thread as it was off topic in the original one. She's divided on being Se or Ne, I'm less divided about myself being Se or Ne, I think it just depends on the definition of the whichever theory for me so it could change between two different theories. ;P


I'm quoting from her: 

_"Last night I again read Jung's comments about the perceiving functions and maybe I'm missing something he said somewhere else, but nowhere did it say that Ne's look at something and have all sorts of possibilities, meanings and connections spring to mind on a regular basis."_


My reply to that:

_"I noticed this same thing. Though I suppose connections are useful to sense the possibilities. Jung's text says something about how Ne perceives into the object extra properties (that is, the possibilities). It is even impossible to tell what was originally part of the object and what wasn't. It doesn't go into detail on that, though. I suppose someone else later deduced that brainstorming etc. is needed for that... This is a pretty logical deduction. Without brainstorming I definitely don't pick out that many possibilities. That's my experience.

On the other hand, it is also possible that even if you don't habitually brainstorm, you can still pick out this or that possibility without brainstorming, simply because it's *salient *in a certain way, and then you get set on following and possibly achieving it and it's the most stimulating thing for you in the world. While being set on it, you can't try to focus on the possibities of other objects, instead it's a kind of an extreme valuation of the current possibility object. Then when you reached there or found that there was no possibility anymore, you'll drop it asap and find another. This is of course a linear approach, not like the brainstorming version of Ne... Anyway, all this would be exactly me. 

So that's now two different versions of possible interpretation of Jung's original text. Which would be better? The first one may be better, because it does offer you a better capability for picking out the possibilities. Otoh, a lesser capacity to actually follow them, because you will think of another possibility and not have time to follow the first one. We'd need to decide if the ability of finding them or the ability of following them is more important for defining Ne. I can see most interpretations went with the former."

_
Now the *main question* is, does Jung state _anywhere _that brainstorming is needed to pick out a salient possibility? A possibility can be inherently salient without any of that. Right?


Also, Jung describes Se as people simply focused on the sensory and Ne as people set on finding and following and achieving new possibilities, but then later JCF theories all seem to describe Ne as brainstorming in their head and not set on following them. Let's also add Socionics into the mix, Socionics defines Ne in this brainstorming version too, and Se as set on achieving things, including big visions, while ignoring hedonistic sensory pleasures. I find this a really interesting version of jungian interpretation, because this again sounds more like Jung's Ne. Though of course it is not the same, because Socionics Se egos are still adept at handling sensory details. Though of course nowhere does Jung say that the Ne dominants can't be adept at it, the direct Sensing would be just more unconscious.


Oh I'll also add another version of interpretation: Ne can also be defined as brainstorming then making memes out of the ideas, that is, spreading them to others in an inspirational way and then others may follow up on them, so in that sense the possibilities can still be followed upon, while Ne generates again other ones. Jung did mention this too, mentioned that the Ne user may never see the fruit of their ideas, instead move on to another idea, while others reap the fruit of the idea. Yet, he did mention the option of the Ne user staying with it and seeing the fruit. Would that require a stronger Sensing component though? Or would it just require the Ne user being addicted to the current possibility object?


It's also of importance that according to Jung, Ne is a lot like Se, except for it to be Intuition, the Sensing part must not fully inhibit the perception of the possibilities inherently present in the object. So, it can be that for some Ne people the degree of inhibition is different, than for others. Jung does not define exactly at what level it should be so I suppose it is not black-white. Though the one thing that may be black-white is that Sensing itself would have to be done on an unconscious level, but I'm not sure if I interpreted that right. It would make sense though, because then that would be part of the reason why the Ne user is supposedly not stimulated much by direct sensory stimuli.


I'm really curious to see what other people who've researched this topic more can say about the ways of interpreting Jung's Ne.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Well Jung's Se is simply sensation. Most of the confusion around this issue comes from the way MBTI and JCF re-interpret these functions which is very, very different from Jung. 

In Jung's world, the analogy I'd use is comparing Ne to Se, is to compare hand to a foot. They serve two very different purposes. People often think, because of MBTi and newer theories, that Ne is a metaphysical version of Se. But this is not true. Se involves how we process sensual data. Taste, smell, sight, sound, touch. And whether or not we further impose a subjectivity onto that data (which would be Si) or accept the data as is (Se). With Sensation we are always dealing with the tangible, physical world as experienced.

Intuition always deals with perception of things that are not tangible or physical. So Ne doesn't see anything. This is a common misconception. Remember MBTI and JCF are trying, often to link behaviors to functions, so Intuition in these theories had to be recognized in tangible ways, so they began to attach things to intuition like brainstorming or creativity and so forth that actually don't have much to do with that function. People will often say, "my Ne sees a door and then the possibilities of what that door can be." But this is incorrect. Your Ne does not see the door. You see the door via your five senses. To say your Ne 'sees' something in this manner is sort of like saying you walk with your hands. That is not the purpose of the hands that is the purpose of the feet. Intuition simply is a way to perceive things that are not physically evident, usually expressed as hunches, gut-feelings, notions, impressions, but note these things must not be apparent in the physical world. This is why Intuition opposes Sensation because Sensation only deals with those things that are physical and exist, where Intuition deals with those things that are not evident. 

So if an Extraverted Intuitive journalist has a hunch about how a story he is working on will unfold, or an Extraverted Intuitive agent has an intuition about how his client will perform on a sports team down the road, this is intuition because there may not be any physical evidence to back up these notions. It's said the Ne-types can make men, because they _see _things in them that may not actually be there (otherwise the evidence would come from Sensation). It's sort of like someone who says "its going to rain tomorrow," without any evidence to back this up. This is an example of Extraverted Intuition (a sensation type might say this too, but it will likely be founded in Intuition + Sensation data, they might say "when the clouds get like this," or "when the wind blows this way I know its about to rain," which is assigning an intuitive symbolism to a sense perception, which often walks the line of superstition). But dominant Intuitives do not need the sensual data to make a claim. You might hear a dominant intuitive say something like "he's about to throw an interception," and when people ask "how do you know?" (of the person actually subsequently throws the pick, they might ask "how did you know?") the Intuitive might not have a good answer, they'll say "I just had a hunch or feeling." That is Jung's intuition and it operates very differently from Sensation, which is firmly rooted in the physical world. Sensation relies on physical evidence, Intuition does not and as such these categories are sort of contradictory (at least at surface level) and why people who prefer one, will typically have major issues with the other.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Well Jung's Se is simply sensation. Most of the confusion around this issue comes from the way MBTI and JCF re-interpret these functions which is very, very different from Jung.


So I take it, your reply to the question is that no, Ne user doesn't have to do brainstorming all the time, doesn't have to be creative or anything. I guess I was correct about this then.

However, I find it hard to believe that the Ne user doesn't use sensation data. It should be used at least unconsciously to pick up something and from that make the hunch come up. That is, it picks up things and automatically infers the guesses from them. Also, Ne is extraverted perception, so it is not just in your head, it is relying on the world as it is around us. 

Or did I misunderstand Jung here? The other option is that if it is not observations then it is magic that makes the Ne user have the hunches. I'm sorry I'm not going to believe that.

So please let me know what is the Ne user supposed to use for creating the hunches if it is not based on actually observed (that is, in a way physically sensed) data.

Also what did you mean by this misconception "Ne is a metaphysical version of Se"? What does that mean exactly?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> So I take it, your reply to the question is that no, Ne user doesn't have to do brainstorming all the time, doesn't have to be creative or anything. I guess I was correct about this then.
> 
> However, I find it hard to believe that the Ne user doesn't use sensation data. It should be used at least unconsciously to pick up something and from that make the hunch come up. That is, it picks up things and automatically infers the guesses from them. Also, Ne is extraverted perception, so it is not just in your head, it is relying on the world as it is around us.
> 
> ...


Here is what Jung says:


> Everyone is, admittedly, orientated by the data with which the outer world provides him ; yet we see that this may be the case in a way that is only relatively decisive. Because it is cold out of doors, one man is persuaded to wear his overcoat, another from a desire to become hardened finds this unnecessary; one man admires the new tenor because all the world admires him, another withholds his approbation not because he dislikes him but because in his view the subject of general admiration is not thereby proved to be admirable; one submits to a given state of affairs because his experience argues nothing else to be possible, another is convinced that, although it has repeated itself a thousand times in the same way, the thousand and first will be different. The former is orientated by the objective data; the latter reserves a view, which is, as it were, interposed between himself and the objective fact. Now, when the orientation to the object and to objective facts is so predominant that the most frequent and essential decisions and actions are determined, not by subjective values but by objective relations, one speaks of an extraverted attitude. When this is habitual, one speaks of an extraverted type.


So Jung acknowledges that anything that exists outside of the mind of the person comes from the outside world. But Intuition exists, almost solely in the mind of the person (even if the hunch or notion regards something in the outside world in the case of Ne). 

On Ne he says that Intuition in the extraverted attitude will be directed at an outer object (ostensibly perceived by Sensation).


> *Intuition as the function of unconscious perception is wholly directed upon outer objects in the extraverted attitude.* Because, in the main, intuition is an unconscious process, the conscious apprehension of its nature is a very difficult matter. In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrating vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay 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.*





> 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. *Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed.*


What I interpret this to mean is that dominant Extraverted Intuition being an objective function must rely on outer objects in order to function. But because you already have a function that does this, Sensation, in order for Intuition to work, one has to suppress the sensation (essentially simply use it as a stimuli for intuition). What happens is Sensation perceives an object, but then, as Von Franz puts it, the intuitive has to kind of ignore what is really there, or half-shut your eyes, to let the intuition come through. The Ne-dom's orientation to the outer world vis-a-vis perception becomes so oriented around seeing things intuitively, that they suppress their sensation to the point consciously where they mistake Ne for Sensation, which is further compounded by the fact that Si is subjective perception. 



> I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision.


If Si is simply perceiving via the five senses in a subjective manner, ie, 'the world as I see it,' or a 'perception is reality mindset,' then the purpose of Ne is give the person a notion or instinct that there might be more to the objective world than what their sensory understanding dictates. Ne tells Si, that just because you see something in a subjective or individualized way, doesn't mean that it is that way. Ne gives us the hunch that there might be more there than what we think, which is why it is crucial for it to be objective and pointed at outer objects not inner objects (like memories, affects, emotions, etc. - these are probably bad examples of inner objects because Jung is speaking much more of things like archetypal influences but in this scenario you would essentially have two functions pointed at the inner world and nothing to orient or direct the person's perceptions to the real world). 

With Ni/Se its inverse. Se sees the world for what it is, without projecting anything from within. Thus any subjectivity of perception, or relating of the world to inner objects must come from Ni. Ni helps remind Se that things may not always be what they objectively appear to be. Or that an object may, for example have a symbolism that isn't apparent (like having rabbits feet or lucky dice - these are reading symbolism into objects). If Ni was unchecked the whole world would become symbolic (in much the same way that unchecked Si would see the entirety of sensual perception as subjective) and every object would have to have some subjective symbolism or underlying meaning, so Se is there to say essentially "hey sometimes an apple is just an apple." Just like Ne reminds the Si-type that "just because the apple means 'purity' to you, doesn't mean it means that in every circumstance, and that there is the _possibility_ that the apple might be something different than how you see it." In both cases unchecked Ni and Si would cause the person to float off into the ether of their own subjective experiences completely untethered to the real objective world, thus the Ni-type has Se to provide a plain, objective, as-is perspective to keep the Ni-type down to earth, and Si has Ne, providing possibilities about outer objects that keeps the Si-type from being too caught up in their own way of seeing things. 

With regard to Ne and Se


> Where intuition has the priority, every ordinary situation in life seems like a closed room, which intuition has to open. It is constantly seeking outlets and fresh possibilities in external life. In a very short time every actual situation becomes a prison to the intuitive; it burdens him like a chain, prompting a compelling need for solution.


So this is why Ne and Se cannot co-exist. Because Se thrives in the actual situation. It is the strength of the sense perception, the stimulus itself that allows the Extraverted Sensation to function. The intuitive seeks to downplay the actual situation, always preferring to see the outer object from the standpoint, essentially of 'what isn't there' or 'what could be there' or 'what might be there.' So we see that Ne/Si are complementary pair, basically two sides of the same coin to form a perceptive whole (as are Ni/Se), whereas Ne/Se would be contradictory pairs both striving to operate in the objective world but with contradictory purposes. One function seeking the purity of the as-is physical experience, the other seeking to downplay the as-is nature of objects in favor of possibilities. 



> They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, *appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.*


Even if the person themselves mistakes their intuition for sensation, as perhaps a Ne-dom might be inclined to do (or perhaps imagine the Se/Ni baseball player who believes his dirty socks really cause him to have a hitting streak and actually believes this to be empirical fact - which is sort of the same thing) Intuition always perceives the unconscious, even if it is directed at outer objects. This is because perception of outer objects physically is handled by Sensation (unless you have some sort of magical ESP that allows you to perceive the physical world through a process other than the five senses). Extraverted Intuition is the unconscious being directed at outer objects.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> So I take it, your reply to the question is that no, Ne user doesn't have to do brainstorming all the time, doesn't have to be creative or anything. I guess I was correct about this then.
> 
> However, I find it hard to believe that the Ne user doesn't use sensation data. It should be used at least unconsciously to pick up something and from that make the hunch come up. That is, it picks up things and automatically infers the guesses from them. Also, Ne is extraverted perception, so it is not just in your head, it is relying on the world as it is around us.
> 
> ...


The process of intuition is unconscious in the sense that one is not aware of the mechanisms that allowed it to produce the end result (this last part is conscious if differentiated). As to what sorts of data (whether internal or external to the mind) are used in this background process is not clear. A lecture from Dario Nardi's study with the EEG showed a type of rapid asynchronous pattern between different parts of brain highlighting a sort of "cross-contextual" pattern associated with a differentiated Ne (this is to be contrasted with a synchronous pattern from that of Ni). The distinction between asynchronous v.s. synchronous w.r.t. the context surrounding the object may lead to perhaps the deluge of possibilities of what an object can become v.s. the evolution of a vision that became / intersected the object. In any case, it's anyone's guess as to what sorts of encoded data within the brain are marginalized in these processes.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> (...)
> 
> Even if the person themselves mistakes their intuition for sensation, as perhaps a Ne-dom might be inclined to do (or perhaps imagine the Se/Ni baseball player who believes his dirty socks really cause him to have a hitting streak and actually believes this to be empirical fact - which is sort of the same thing) Intuition always perceives the unconscious, even if it is directed at outer objects. This is because perception of outer objects physically is handled by Sensation (unless you have some sort of magical ESP that allows you to perceive the physical world through a process other than the five senses). Extraverted Intuition is the unconscious being directed at outer objects.


Thanks, I guess you said the exact same things about Jung's text that I did in my first post here. 


However, this last section I left in the quote, I would like to get this clarified. Is the Ne user's guess different from the baseball player example because the guess is not connected to anything concrete? More like, a result of a lot of that unconscious processing, so it cannot be linked to one specific thing. Right?


And then what does this mean: "perceive the unconscious". Also, "unconscious directed at outer objects". What is "unconscious" defined as here? Is it defined just as the processing of everything to come up with the hunch or guess as a result?

Also, in this case, why is the process of intuition supposed to be an unconscious thing? I mean, is it simply because it's more efficient for the brain to process lots of observed data on an automatic low level? Consciousness after all is just there to control all the other processes (well that's one interpretation and one I like) and that control isn't designed to deal with so much data at once.


Or did Jung think of something else when talking about intuition as being unconscious? I suppose not something mystical again...


Another thing - I recall reading somewhere that Jung called people intuitive when they gave him inferences about things while claiming they had no idea how they got to the guess. But Jung did not have a way to prove that they really had no idea. Maybe those people just wanted to appear mystical. Then another option is of course that these people were like this because Sensation for them was more unconscious so they did not realize how exactly they got hunches that could easily have been inferred by simply putting two and two together from directly observing physical details. Example (sorry I'm probably not recalling the details as is, but that doesn't matter): there was remnants of a cigar left in an ashtray in Jung's room and when an intuitive woman came in, she claimed that she just had a hunch someone has been there before. Like, she was not aware of the objective evidence that could be used to directly infer this guess.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> The process of intuition is unconscious in the sense that one is not aware of the mechanisms that allowed it to produce the end result (this last part is conscious if differentiated). As to what sorts of data (whether internal or external to the mind) are used in this background process is not clear. A lecture from Dario Nardi's study with the EEG showed a type of rapid asynchronous pattern between different parts of brain highlighting a sort of "cross-contextual" pattern associated with a differentiated Ne (this is to be contrasted with a synchronous pattern from that of Ni). The distinction between asynchronous v.s. synchronous w.r.t. the context surrounding the object may lead to perhaps the deluge of possibilities of what an object can become v.s. the evolution of a vision that became / intersected the object. In any case, it's anyone's guess as to what sorts of encoded data within the brain are marginalized in these processes.


Nardi? Now that's another theory with another definition. See how his Se and Si definitions are not Jung's versions either.

Another thing... are you saying that the hunch/guess as an end result is only conscious for strong N users (that is, when N is differentiated)? I guess I misunderstand that, right?


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

@*itsme45 *

Yea, all 8 functions start out in the unconscious or background. Differentiating one of the 8 functions is akin to orienting your mind towards that particular set of mental states. Jung interprets this as a "wound" to the psyche to which I interpret in a physiological sense as analogous to a synaptic pruning process. The side effect is that the opposing functions remain suppressed or possibly unable to differentiate perhaps due to structural reasons that I'm not sure of. In any case, the dominant function is always differentiated and so fully conscious which naturally inhibits its opposite. The auxiliary(s) may or may not differentiate depending on many factors (environment, genes) but will never reach the level of awareness or use as the dominant. 

So for undifferentiated N/ie, yes it's working in the unconscious by default but the threshold or bar for awareness is set too high.

Of interest:
MBTI Jung Mental Functions | Lenore Thomson Bentz
Carl Jung Psychological Orientation | Lenore Thomson Bentz


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Yea, all 8 functions start out in the unconscious or background. Differentiating one of the 8 functions is akin to orienting your mind towards that particular set of mental states. Jung interprets this as a "wound" to the psyche to which I interpret in a physiological sense as analogous to a synaptic pruning process. The side effect is that the opposing functions remain suppressed or possibly unable to differentiate perhaps due to structural reasons that I'm not sure of. In any case, the dominant function is always differentiated and so fully conscious which naturally inhibits its opposite. The auxiliary(s) may or may not differentiate depending on many factors (environment, genes) but will never reach the level of awareness or use as the dominant.
> 
> So for undifferentiated N/ie, yes it's working in the unconscious by default but the threshold or bar for awareness is set too high.


OK, I know about that.

However, I've yet to hear about people who have never had conscious intuitive guesses. Or you just meant that for dominant intuition it always gets conscious.  Jung himself says that unconscious functions still dip into the conscious dynamically at times... doesn't have to be differentiated for that.

Btw for me the auxiliary is at least as conscious/aware as my supposedly dominant function.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> OK, I know about that.
> 
> However, I've yet to hear about people who have never had conscious intuitive guesses. Or you just meant that for dominant intuition it always gets conscious.  Jung himself says that unconscious functions still dip into the conscious dynamically at times... doesn't have to be differentiated for that.
> 
> Btw for me the auxiliary is at least as conscious/aware as my supposedly dominant function.


Its the same trouble with all inferior functions. One is not oriented towards it so when it does reach consciousness, it is either triggered by either some strong impulse from the unconscious or from a weakened / stressed dominant function. i.e., the bar for conscious awareness is dynamic but by virtue of one's dominant function orientation and type, its ceiling is by default set high.

Also from looking at my own type, I found that the only way to determine the dominant function is to look at a historic self (from an early age 6-14). The auxiliary(s) may seem to get all the attention like a child playing with a new toy but its just temporal+personal bias.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> Also, in this case, why is the process of intuition supposed to be an unconscious thing? I mean, is it simply because it's more efficient for the brain to process lots of observed data on an automatic low level?


Here's what Daryl Sharp says if this helps


> Intuition may receive information from within (for instance, as a flash of insight of unknown origin), or be stimulated by what is going on in someone else.The first is a perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject, the second is a perception of data dependent on subliminal perceptions of the object and on the feelings and thoughts they evoke.[Ibid., par. 771.]​


What is unclear is whether or not this relates primarily to the personal unconscious or the collective unconscious. Jung seems to dance around both, saying, for instance that Ni (and all introverted functions) relate at least on a small level to the influences of the archetypes. But I guess we can assume that since the archetypes will always take their form in an individual through complexes, that really the specific character of a person's intuition is generally always informed by their own personal unconscious.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> Its the same trouble with all inferior functions. One is not oriented towards it so when it does reach consciousness, it is either triggered by either some strong impulse from the unconscious or from a weakened / stressed dominant function. i.e., the bar for conscious awareness is dynamic but by virtue of one's dominant function orientation and type, its ceiling is by default set high.
> 
> Also from looking at my own type, I found that the only way to determine the dominant function is to look at a historic self (from an early age 6-14). The auxiliary(s) may seem to get all the attention like a child playing with a new toy but its just temporal+personal bias.


Jung didn't really mention what the dynamics depends on, or I didn't find it if he said anything on it. The text makes it sound like it can be a really complex flow of functions. (Makes sense...)

Nice idea on looking at childhood, however, things are not always as simple as you'd think... age 6 for me is too late for that; my auxiliary was already getting the same amount of attention. (Well it got even more attention from age 18 but it was already a lot before that too.) Really the only way I know I'm extraverted is that I do get "more" out of interacting with the world than if I don't do that. Yeah I suppose this is also affected by stress on the dominant function due to some life circumstances I've had.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Here's what Daryl Sharp says if this helps
> 
> The first is a perception of unconscious psychic data originating in the subject, the second is a perception of data dependent on subliminal perceptions of the object and on the feelings and thoughts they evoke


Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively _infrequently _noticed, as the person defaults to perceive _seemingly _concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?


----------



## Pointless Activist (May 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively _infrequently _noticed, as the person defaults to perceive _seemingly _concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?


Well, Ne is always on, no matter if you consciously know it or not. You may not see the possibilities right away in your conscious mind, but your brain is working through them with Ne(and filtering the useless ones out for the primary function if you are an INXP. If you are an ENXP, however, you are much more in tune with Ne and see all of the possibilities more often because you don't have that Fi or Ti to filter the ideas first). If you pay attention to it, then you will just notice how many possibilities you can come up with. I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

itsme45 said:


> Ok, another question, what does it mean if someone is not much stimulated by sensory perceptions but instead stimulated by perceived possibilities, however these possibilities are relatively _infrequently _noticed, as the person defaults to perceive _seemingly _concrete sensations, yet when one (or more) perceived possibility is present, the resulting stimulation can be really high? Is that Ne or Se?


My guess is its probably Ne (or just intuition) but where Sensation dominates. So like if we apply that to MBTI perhaps you have a person whose auxiliary function is Si but their tertiary is Ne. Or even perhaps they are Si dominant and Ne inferior. I suppose at a point we would have to consider the general character of the function. Whether or not the intuitions tended overall to be negative (which would indicate the person was likely a Si-dominant) or more neutral. This is a tough one though because the person themselves may not recognize their own negative intuitions in such a case (or more likely since the function is extraverted) project it on to the outer world rather than recognize it as products of their own thought-processes. Generally speaking if the intuition is reactive it indicates an overall Sensation preference. 



> oncrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition, like abstract sensation, necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose.


(When he says concrete Jung generally means primarily influenced, by the unconscious, raw and archaic and undeveloped. Abstract basically means developed or under conscious control. But I'm grossly oversimplifying here, just to provide the basic differences between how we use concrete and abstract and how Jung used them). 


The thing with me though is that sometimes we take the whole Ne as possibilities thing much, much too far. If you are choosing to operate in the intuitive realm, downplaying the immediate sensory data, you are sort of by default operating from the standpoint of possibility, but intuition may not be the _only_ way to achieve that. For example fantasies also operate in the realm of possibility and may not be related specifically to intuition. The thing I think people have to be careful of with the whole Ne = possibilities thing is that if we take this too far we begin to imply that types that don't have a Ne/Si preference have no sense of possibilities and we know this not to be true. 



> The psychic function that perceives possibilities inherent in the present. (Compare sensation.)Intuition gives outlook and insight; it revels in the garden of magical possibilities as if they were real.["The Psychology of the Transference," CW 16, par. 492.]
> In Jung’s model of typology, intuition, like sensation, is an irrational function because its apprehension of the world is based on the perception of given facts. Unlike sensation, however, it perceives via the unconscious and is not dependent on concrete reality.
> In intuition a content presents itself whole and complete, without our being able to explain or discover how this content came into existence. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension, no matter of what contents. . . . Intuitive knowledge possesses an intrinsic certainty and conviction.["Definitions" CW 6, par. 770.]


Here Jung isn't talking about Ne specifically but just the nature of intuition in general. I think one of the reasons people get mixed up with Ni is because they think only Ne operates in the realm of possibilities, and while he definitely spends a lot of time talking about Ne and possibilities he also says


> Just as the extraverted intuitive is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change, so the introverted intuitive moves from image to image, chasing after every possibility in the teeming womb of the unconscious, without establishing any connection between the phenomenon and himself. Just as the world can never become a moral problem for the man who merely senses it, so the world of images is never a moral problem to the intuitive.


The only difference is that the possibilities with Ni may not be related to an external object. I think a lot of people miss this when they talk about Intuition only focusing on the word 'possibilities' but not on the nature of those possibilities as being of the inner world or their own inner images, or related specifically to outer objects. You hear a lot of people say "my Ne does x" and they may not actually be referring to something that Ne would really do, they in many cases might be referring to some inner image (or something other than intuition altogether like imagination).


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

This post is mainly to @itsme45 to explain how I think, since we were talking on another thread and our posts got off purpose, though of course anyone is free to read this and respond. Since I got way behind with posting, this is going to be very long in my attempt to catch up. @itsme45, I was going to answer more of your post comments and questions but I didn't get any sleep last night so it's hard to type and think clearly and I just picked a few to answer, especially when you asked me something specifically.




itsme45 said:


> How does it take away your ability to function in terms of accomplishing things? :O [Referring to my comment that I seem to use both Fi and Ti, which makes me less effective in the real world.
> 
> Btw, how can you keep a balance between Fi and Ti? They are oriented soooo differently. They totally exclude each other for me. Most of the time Ti wins effortlessly. Even when in a situation Fi would be more useful.


Since I came to the tentative conclusion that I thought I might be using Ti and Fi more than Te and Fe, I've read both at PerC and other places that in the real world, the function order sometimes manifests differently than the typical function stacking. If I am truly using Ti and Fi, I start with the function that's easiest, which could be either, such as by taking my emotions out of the equation and looking at the situation as objectively as possible and working out, say, cause and effect if it goes this direction or that direction, playing with logical possibilities, working out that if followed through according to plan, this would be the likely result. Then as a double check, I use the other function, such as seeing if what I came up with aligns with my values. It seem to me if either is left out, the picture is only partial and the result has more chance of either failing or hurting someone. If Fi and Ti are conflicting, I usually try to go with Ti, but not 100 percent.

To me the Ti and Fi functions are confusing in sorting out which are being used, and since I don't always know which I'm using, it's difficult to figure out if I'm more T or F. I seem to act like I'd think an F would, being passionate, making connections with living things, being silly and carefree and very appreciative of beauty (maybe none of that is F? but it seems like like/dislike type of decisions as to where to put energy), then I back off and take myself out of the equation, try to see the logic of the situation, and make my decision based on that. I go back and forth, and both are me.

I said using Fi and Ti more than Fe and Te affected my ability to take my ideas outwardly because I gather information (Ne or Se, not sure which) and work it out in my mind more than in real life. I'd probably do best in some field where I can observe and report, as I talked about on another thread, or subjects like philosophy or psychology.

A few days ago I took one of the function tests floating around the forum. This is what I came up with:

introverted Thinking (Ti) ****************************************** (42.7) excellent use
extraverted Sensing (Se) *************************************** (39.7) excellent use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************************** (38.7) excellent use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ************************************** (38.7) excellent use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************** (29.1) average use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) ******************** (20) limited use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ******************* (19.9) limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) ********** (10.8) unused

Of course there are no completely accurate function tests since none can ask enough questions that would cover all function characteristics of everyone who takes the test. Also, I'm not an introvert. 




itsme45 said:


> Well I can see how Sensing opposes Intuition. I easily get stuck on the sensory appearance of objects and so I don't think of associating out of the box defined by the senses. I can associate between abstract concepts, that is, do brainstorming better on an abstract level, because there are no sensory details for them in my mind.


If I got a job where I had to brainstorm ideas, I'd likely be fired within the first hour.  I'm open minded and can easily accept an out-of-the-box, other-than-sensing idea as a possibility for having a reality beyond the senses, but seeing possibilities beyond what I've read or heard about isn't my strong point. And though I believe in many spiritual ideas, such as NDEs and Zen enlightenment, the physical always pulls at me so I struggle between the two for dominance/importance, though intellectually the former is most important. An ISxJ relative believes in the same type of things, so beliefs beyond the physical aren't just for N's. And that's where it gets confusing for me. Books almost always clearly delineate S/N by S's trusting in sensing and N's trusting in just about anything, lol. I found out early in life that there is more beyond the physical. As I said somewhere else, the fact that I'm alternative has always pushed me into believing I'm N, but that doesn't make total sense because, for example, ISFP's in the art or movie world tend to be exposed to alternative ideas and will come to have some trust them, and in fact are somewhat known for being alternative in lifestyle and thinking. I don't understand why the line seems to be written so strongly between S's and N's, especially since it stops me from being able to easily find my dominant. I wasn't connection or possibility oriented when I was a child, but maybe my weird upbringing put a stop to it before it was formed. Or maybe that type of thing can't be stopped and I was born Se and exposed to and took on an Ni view of the world for my survival. I might need to have a typing expert talk with me to sort out what's going on, though that would still only be someone's opinion.




itsme45 said:


> I definitely hold the highest trust in the observable. You don't? Then what do you trust the most?
> 
> It's not work, I'm still a student.  I already posted in some thread of yours, heh.


I'll comment on the second one first. I was using "work" in terms of what you're working on, not a job. Though I did first type job and had to change it. 

In terms of trusting the most, it would be the physical. Don't most people, even if they have beliefs beyond? Though a lot of people, including S's, N's and me, believe in life after death, for most people there's likely a tiny bit of doubt, I would think. Like they're almost positive it's there but they'd really like to have it verified beforehand, lol. I've had a lot of psychic experiences and strong "knowing" ahead of time (which I've ignored to my detriment) and when they're verified, they're pretty close to as real to me as the physical. If they aren't verified, I toss them or leave them as unknowns. When I'm with N's, I tend to hold back more in that I'm open to most ideas but am not a true believer until the ideas have been proved. When I'm around S's, they roll their eyes at some things I bring up. I don't feel part of either group, am sort of an outsider but interested observer. I feel most connected with open-minded physically-oriented people.

BTW, you asked me if I could recall something that you said and I identified with, and I just spent some time looking but couldn't find it. Too many posts since then. 




itsme45 said:


> Could be inferior Ni too...? OK, it's not as simple as that for sure. Ni for me would have to be inferior and I don't believe in any odd weird things. I don't take any of that seriously.
> 
> Ha, interesting. I don't find anything mystical/amazing about sensory experiences. They just are as they are. I don't want to attach any meaning to them, that would just upset me. That is, for me the abstract and the concrete are very clearly delineated. Something is either tangible and concrete or intangible and abstract. If they were to be mixed up, I'd get annoyed. The only exception is if it is about feelings. I don't mind attaching meaning to feely stuff, I actually like doing so, but even that's hard to do by default, because I'm just this terribly skeptical person.


I had to get into odd things and lose my skepticism to survive. It wasn't a choice of believing or not believing, the whole issue hit me like a ton of bricks and it wasn't anything I could ignore but had to deal with it, so now I'm either a more typical N or an odd S in that regard. I've known more than one person who thought it was a bunch of hogwash, then researched alternative subjects when nothing else worked. One of them, after he accidentally discovered spiritual/psychic aspects of life that he wasn't looking for, took early retirement in order to learn more and sort out what was happening to him. It might be more difficult for S-types to have an open mind about things that can't be sensed, but I'm beginning to think the belief by itself isn't definitive proof of N rather than S.

When my ex-boyfriend, a clear, archetypal ESTP, was going to die, to him everything became mystical because it suddenly took on great specialness, most of all nature. It was out of character for him, but not an impossibility for S or any type, especially in the unusual situation. And yes, he did die soon after, though long after we were SO's. I used to hike without being in that state, though I oohed and aahed over views, but now both I and my INTJ husband hike as if nature is mystical and special (though he's an athiest), and slowly fell into it because of our life experiences.




itsme45 said:


> Mhm. You come off as F a lot of the time. Just to confuse you further. Hahaha. But it does seem to be Fi rather than any kind of Fe.
> 
> And then a load of N but dunno... here's the thing, are the S things the ones you take seriously, or are they more like amusement?


I did a post a while back that said unlike many people on other forums I visit, I treat people better on forums than I do in real life, which I know is kind of odd. It's not that I'm mean to people in real life very often, lol, I'm just more thoughtful or maybe caring on forums, likely because I have more in common with posters. As for Fi, I might be. My favorite is Ti, my least favorite Fe, if that makes any difference. Confusing, like all my typing experiences. As to N...maybe. I don't know and might never know if I got pushed into using Ni early in life and now can't sort N out from S since they both have some level of comfort, or if I'm a somewhat odd Ne because of life experiences.

I don't know what you mean by take seriously or more like amusement, or maybe that's an indication of my internal confusion. Both are important to me and I couldn't get rid of either and still be myself. Here's an especially confusing answer: If there is life after death, I picture doing mostly physical things for the greatest happiness. ha ha! I guess amusement is too weak a word for how I feel about the physical. It's not that I don't believe in things beyond, but the physical is where most of my attention goes on a daily basis, not out of need but out of pleasure. The "N" side of me shows up less often, more in terms of some underlying spiritual beliefs and working out off and on what are the possible significances underneath behaviors.

I don't know if this has anything to do with it, but my INTJ husband can frustrate me when he jumps to conclusions that I prove over and over have no basis in reality. I'm always, can't he use his Te for judgment on these things? So I take on the role of logician and pushing him to be more exact and specific so we can prove or disprove things. I want the exact word, exactly what someone said, or how do I know how to sort things out? Is that maybe T instead? And when I look at and can easily see people's underlying motivations, I'm listening to words and watching body language and putting together other things they've said. So that looking beyond seems more S, or maybe I'm misunderstanding.

Well, quite a bit more than I expected to write, but I was way behind in responding to your posts. And obviously, I'm still confused. 

Edit: That's a good question you asked this morning at 5:58, @itsme45.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Solar Storm said:


> Well, Ne is always on, no matter if you consciously know it or not. You may not see the possibilities right away in your conscious mind, but your brain is working through them with Ne(and filtering the useless ones out for the primary function if you are an INXP. If you are an ENXP, however, you are much more in tune with Ne and see all of the possibilities more often because you don't have that Fi or Ti to filter the ideas first). If you pay attention to it, then you will just notice how many possibilities you can come up with. I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.


Hehe, I still ask "why?" all the time. But I attribute that to Ti, because I usually just want to know how something works; this means how things fit together, the underlying principles, and then if I can also see the whole thing inside a much larger framework, I'm most satisfied then. While looking for that, I'll also ask "what about this way or that way?". However, you can still take things at face value in this process and also for the goal of understanding... simply need to determine which possibility is the correct one. I'm definitely irritated if there are too many possibilities without having a chance to sort them out.

So anyway, just because one asks such questions, it doesn't mean Ne... does it? -.-


----------



## Pointless Activist (May 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Hehe, I still ask "why?" all the time. But I attribute that to Ti, because I usually just want to know how something works; this means how things fit together, the underlying principles, and then if I can also see the whole thing inside a much larger framework, I'm most satisfied then. While looking for that, I'll also ask "what about this way or that way?". However, you can still take things at face value in this process and also for the goal of understanding... simply need to determine which possibility is the correct one. I'm definitely irritated if there are too many possibilities without having a chance to sort them out.
> 
> So anyway, just because one asks such questions, it doesn't mean Ne... does it? -.-


Eh, not trying to insult anyone.... Sorry. *crawls back into hole* And who said I ever stopped? Well, Ne sees the possibilities and usually takes the open window instead of the open door, to put it simply.


----------



## paper lilies (Dec 6, 2011)

Solar Storm said:


> I have actually wondered if I was an Se, but I realized that Se takes everything at face value. As a child, I was always asking, Why? What about this way or that way? etc. That is how I saw the difference. Not sure if it would work well for many other people.





Solar Storm said:


> Eh, not trying to insult anyone.... Sorry. *crawls back into hole* And who said I ever stopped? Well, Ne sees the possibilities and usually takes the open window instead of the open door, to put it simply.


I ask "why" and say "what about this way or that way" as well.
So, this is either a natural human thing or I am mistyped. 
In my point of view, I didn't see your original post as insulting (laughs) you don't need to crawl into a hole.


----------



## Pointless Activist (May 22, 2012)

paper lilies said:


> I ask "why" and say "what about this way or that way" as well.
> So, this is either a natural human thing or I am mistyped.
> In my point of view, I didn't see your original post as insulting (laughs) you don't need to crawl into a hole.


*still inside of hole* Eh, I might be wrong. Se might be more "Hey, lets do this right now!" and "This possibility works for the current situation!"(probably not as cheesy as those, however) and Ne might be, "hey, this might work for the future, lets see how this choice works in the long term, and what could happen at each step." That might be a better description. I know what you are going to say, "But that second part sounds like me too!" and, yeah, it's in human nature to think about that. The difference is that you are actually saying, "These things could happen" instead of wondering, "What will happen?"


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Se and Ne are incomparable on every level other than both being two different forms of "Pe." One is rooted in the concrete, while the other is rooted in anything that's possible beyond the concrete. I think Ne types tend to be more detail-oriented than Se types (due to Si), while Se types tend to be more description-oriented than Ne types, due to Se having a broader scope of the sensory than Si, which has a more specific scope of the sensory. Ne and Ni are quite similar, although unlike Ni, Ne can never divorce itself from the objective (I think Ni types tend to have much more esoteric world-views than Ne types, which sort of just take the familiar in a new direction). I wouldn't be surprised if there are a lot of Ni types that occupy the airwaves of late night talk radio pushing their uber bizarre world views (usually religious), LOL (let's just say I suspect there are from my nights trying to creep myself out with late night talk radio).


Incomparable... hm some articles here talked about how they are 80% the same.  You see that is confusing, I hear this statement then that.

Interesting what you say about detail vs description. I'm definitely the latter. I'm detail oriented only in topics I know well... those details don't stick immediately, just after a while.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sarah said:


> I have no idea why I score high on Ne. :0 But why do I score high on Se, also? I can't remember where the test was, so I can't go back and see what type of questions were asked. It could be my Ni is higher than is typical with Se or maybe the way I look at the world, being open to possibilities in both the S and N realm, gave me a higher score without checking to see if I was actually generating possibilities and connections on a regular basis rather than just understanding, being interested in and believing others' possibilities. It's hard to know... I do approach the world with awe and interest, and not just on the physical side. It's hard to know what to say so someone can help me definitively decide between Se or Ne, and how much years of delving into N out of necessity could change an Se.


That test is here: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes - from Dario Nardi's site.

The Ne questions in it: 

2. Offer various unrelated ideas and see what potential they might suggest.
16. Enjoy playing with random interconnections and patterns.
23. Engage life's magical moments and meaningful coincidences as they happen.
30. Keep following tangents and new ideas without limiting yourself to one.
37. Weave into the current dynamics of a situation aspects of other, random contexts. 
47. Trust what emerges from brainstorming.

And the Se questions for comparison:

1. Freely follow your gut instincts and exciting physical impulses as they come up.
15. Enjoy the thrill of action and physical experience in the present moment.
24. Quickly move to take advantage of immediate options for action.
29. Instantly read visible cues to see just how far you can go.
38. Spur action and pull off results simply by making your presence felt.
48. Easily get in sync physically with people and things around you.

So, questions 2, 16, 30 and 37 directly refer to the Ne brainstorming process. 47 also, but you could interpret it as trusting the result of other people's brainstorming, heh... question 23 sounds a bit more passive, but I guess not everyone would see things as meaningful coincidences.

I score low on Ne because I don't see myself in many of the Ne questions: my issue with question 2 is that it says "unrelated" ideas, as the ideas I have are not unrelated to each other; issue with question 16 is "random" interconnections, but the ones I have do not feel random; issue with question 37 is that I certainly don't play randomly with contexts, I focus on the present context, on fleshing out that one without mixing "unrelated shit" into it. Question 30 and 47 are okay for me, though. If you take out the key words "unrelated", "random", I would score higher on Ne in that test.

Now this Ne definition is by Nardi but I think it's much the same as in any cognitive function/MBTI theory (including even Socionics). Jung himself doesn't emphasize the randomness and going in every direction all the time (brainstorm), though... is this what is confusing to you in terms of determining Ne vs Se for yourself? Because in every other theory it virtually defines Ne. Well maybe in Lenore Thomson's theory it does not at first sight, but in her Ne exercises, it does. Have you seen those, btw? I failed miserably at the Ne exercises, but the Se exercise felt my usual self ;P

Btw, I just saw a definition (some JCF theory and also Socionics) that is interesting because it compares Ne and Se so well: Ne rebuilds its perception of world by its ideas, not with the goal of creativity (!), but simply just to rebuild it to introduce NEW perspectives (then of course this may be put into/achieved in practice but this is not the goal, as I said creativity is not the goal), and Se just wants to discover/interact with the world as is, Se wants to know more of the world too, but not by rebuilding its perception of the world. I think this would be a very good distinction between the two and would probably apply to original Jung definition too. (Going to have to think on that one.) Btw, Se with Ni may seem like rebuilding the perception but it's still just the perception of the world as it is, not changing all the time.

Also, the thing that confused me in Jung's writings but maybe it shouldn't have: Ne as defined by Jung is the function that makes new things happen/achieves new/novel things and Se is defined as being unable to get past ordinary things, never making novel creations. Now I suppose Se as the pure function would be like that, but perhaps inspired by Ni it would be capable of the novel? Really that part of Jung's stuff is sooo black and white about Ne vs Se. -.-




> At times I seem more S than you, others you seem more S. Part of it could be that I'm likely older and we had different early lives (...)


Yeah, my life also has not been ordinary so far and I don't think it will ever be, so I'm just as un-traditional as you are.  




> (...) You see why trying to figure out my type is so mixed up? I don't believe I think like an N in a function sense but my beliefs extend far beyond what typical Se's normally would. Am I an Ne who doesn't think much about the future and loves spending a significant amount of time focusing on what is, or am I an Se and because of life situations I'm very non-mainstream and think for myself wherever it leads me, even far beyond the physical?


I'm sure Se's can be pretty religious* due to inferior Ni's influence. I once met an ESTP guy somewhere (he tested as ESTP and did come off as an ESTP), well I started talking to him about cognitive psychology and he expressed disinterest/distaste, he thought it was such an atheist science. He much preferred to be oriented towards religion. -.- So yeah, Se dominants can be like this just fine..... 

*: by "religious" I don't necessarily mean standard religions, just the attitude to the nonphysical/spiritual.

Also, maybe your experiences led you believe N things because you've had the chance to experience it for yourself? That is, you experienced it through Se as dominant function so you have no reason to not believe. Tbh, me in your situation, I would have been more skeptical, I don't know what that alternative stuff is that worked for you, but I know I would easily be able to offer materialist explanations for it, no matter what it is. (Aw, now you see my strong skeptical side... I sound so much like S, huh?)




> I'm still not sure about seriously/amusement Se...it's hard to say what's going on. But I have to leave soon so I'll think about it. And I'll check out the LiquidLight post, if I can find it...thanks!


The post is a few posts above, post #15.

Let me know if you figure it out about serious vs amusement, though the thing you said above about how you "ran away" to get into Se activities and how you relied on them later, sounds like Se as taken seriously thus dominant function.




> BTW, the insight I had last night made me happy since it brought me more "clarity," lol. I didn't realize it was such an important aspect to my life, that after being fun-loving, it's one of my strongest drives, maybe the strongest. Edit: Oops, that's from my Functions thread, an insight about clarity.


Clarity, huh, Ti? 




> I found something from LiquidLight, though I'm not sure this is the post you meant: "This is why Intuition opposes Sensation because Sensation only deals with those things that are physical and exist, where Intuition deals with those things that are not evident." I have spent a lot of time dealing with things that aren't evident, stemming from others' ideas and then later my direct experiences, and I enjoy it. I wonder if that of necessity makes me Ne, or if I could developed my Ni to that extent?


I like to deal with such things myself. Se dominants still have Ni, yeah. Supposedly the dominant/inferior frame is what really determines things here, the inferior can be just as important in terms of influence as the dominant.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> My guess is its probably Ne (or just intuition) but where Sensation dominates. (...)


So again thanks for that post of yours, I liked how you mentioned it may be Ni and not Ne; I don't know if you had a chance to read my detailed reply about it but my main question really would just be about this simple issue as follows.

The thing that confused me in Jung's writings but maybe it shouldn't have: Ne as defined by Jung is the function that makes new things happen/achieves new/novel things and Se is described as being unable to get past ordinary things, never making novel creations. Now I suppose Se as the pure function would be like that, but perhaps inspired by Ni it would be capable of the novel? Really that part of Jung's stuff is sooo black and white about Ne vs Se.

So, let me know if I got this right, Se/Ni (dominant Se, inferior Ni) would sometimes get to where Ne can by default and even enjoy realizing these visions (realizing of a novel possibility) *more* than the basic Se stuff? "More" is a key word here...


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

@itsme45, the post above this is something I also asked and is a key to whether Se or Ne is my dominant, so I hope LiquidLight or someone knowledgeable can answer this.

Just as Ne's could at some point start practicing mindfulness and take up running to get in touch with the physical, both of which could expand how they look at the world, it seems an Se could decide to embark upon a course of study that would include aspects not reachable via the physical, thus opening their mind to many more possibilities. Maybe finding the dominant should ignore what we've become capable of through growing/being pushed into functions and focus instead on how we were originally, before starting a growth process that expands how we see the world. Maybe this doesn't come up as much on PerC because a lot of people here are young and possibly have more pure functions.

I know an ISFJ in real life who is very engrossed in the study of astrology and other esoteric studies. She likely approaches it differently than an N would, but the studies by themselves have likely broadened who she is and what functions she has easier access to. And as far as I can recall for myself, until my life changed drastically I don't recall much other than Se. It was afterwards that I began to see the world differently and have become confused because I can see possibilities, but maybe not like N's do. I see a for example an esoteric possibility and am thrilled by it, maybe read some books, but I don't generate a lot of possibilities on my own, am just open to them. Maybe I should take Se as my obvious pure function in childhood rather than confuse it by saying I wasn't myself for the first 20 years then my dominant started up once I started hanging out with N's.

These discussions on functions has give me a jump ahead on understanding Jung/MBTI. I remember at a forum someone was arguing that an ESFP inherently can't have a high IQ, and though I knew it was wrong I didn't have the knowledge to argue it because I didn't understand functions well. Now I could squash the argument in one post. 

Thanks for your long post -- I'll answer later tonight or tomorrow.


----------



## Pointless Activist (May 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Ah okay... and this happens for you a lot of the time? Almost constantly? (Eh I realize it's not dominant for you though.)


Me getting confused? Almost constantly, yeah. :blushed: As for the idea creation, it's almost all of the time, and I have actually been wondering if it is my dominant function, and I think it might be, which would make me an ENFP. But, at any rate, It's unconscious most of the time, and happens in a snap, with everything being understood seemingly at once. I discovered Ne is like sensing(forget Si or Se) But instead of step by step getting to an answer(much more trustworthy in my opinion) It jumps and leaps to the answers(Which is still good, but can be a bit untrustworthy if you don't develop it).


----------



## saffron (Jan 30, 2011)

Sarah said:


> @itsme45, the post above this is something I also asked and is a key to whether Se or Ne is my dominant, so I hope LiquidLight or someone knowledgeable can answer this.
> 
> Just as Ne's could at some point start practicing mindfulness and take up running to get in touch with the physical, both of which could expand how they look at the world, it seems an Se could decide to embark upon a course of study that would include aspects not reachable via the physical, thus opening their mind to many more possibilities. Maybe finding the dominant should ignore what we've become capable of through growing/being pushed into functions and focus instead on how we were originally, before starting a growth process that expands how we see the world. Maybe this doesn't come up as much on PerC because a lot of people here are young and possibly have more pure functions.
> 
> ...


For what it's worth, I agree with @LiquidLight that whatever form of intuition you may use, it's secondary to sensing. I just don't see much Ne in your posts, and I can't imagine being a Ne dom and not relishing in brainstorming. 

I'm an older Ne dom, and I have changed over the years by practicing mindfulness and running, yoga, various other sports etc... not to mention just maturing and learning to use the various parts of my brain that were necessary to meet challenges. With that said, Ne is a fairly obvious leading function. As an example, when I was 4 and taking an IQ test to start kindergarten a bit early, the tester showed me some pictures with an obvious problem for me to identify. He actually came out to tell my mom how funny my answers were, because I gave a whole list of problems before I gave the obvious answer, i.e. first of all, second of all, etc..... and to top it all off (obvious). Ne is all about the novel or new potential. The obvious is not very note worthy or stimulating. 

You would have probably, as a child, had the alternate experience of teachers loving you and the way your brain works and resenting you for challenging their perspective or conclusions. You would have noticed how exhausting it is to others when you actually express all of the perspectives you see in a situation. You would likely have a history of not fully completing homework to "your potential," unless you had someone riding you with serious consequences.

I recently saw an interview with the South Park creators. There was an enormous amount of Ne evident. They wanted to be filmmakers, they were drawn towards comedy and they wanted to push boundaries. But they started in a very PC climate and had to find a way to be edgy but still marketable yet truthful. They brainstormed and came up with the idea that 10 year old boys are by nature not PC and say whatever reflects the current culture. They give all perspectives ranging from the fanatics on both sides, and the moderates and it's a commentary on society through the back door. 

Personally, the idea of taking something to the nth degree and then reigning it back so that it's relatable is the ultimate goal and challenge.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Thanks, @saffron, that was very helpful. Some of what you said sounds like me as I am now, but I think I'm realizing it took many years after I reached adulthood to start using N on my own. Before that, being around so many N's was like I was lost in a world in which others saw meaning and what was underneath, where I saw little to none. It was like a foreign language and I was being left out. I got by because I read and experienced a lot and so could discuss the alternative topics, and I was fun loving and talkative. It wasn't until after years of reading and talking to Ns that I was able to get to the place of understanding what was going on around me at more than a superficial level. I used to think it was because my childhood was so suppressive, but now I think it could have been that I didn't have N easily available and so had to work at it.

I'm going to take away the ENTP category by my name for now, lol.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Solar Storm said:


> Me getting confused? Almost constantly, yeah. :blushed: As for the idea creation, it's almost all of the time, and I have actually been wondering if it is my dominant function, and I think it might be, which would make me an ENFP. But, at any rate, It's unconscious most of the time, and happens in a snap, with everything being understood seemingly at once. I discovered Ne is like sensing(forget Si or Se) But instead of step by step getting to an answer(much more trustworthy in my opinion) It jumps and leaps to the answers(Which is still good, but can be a bit untrustworthy if you don't develop it).


Haha no I wasn't asking about the confusion.  Hmm, I didn't think Ne was about suddenly understanding?


----------



## Pointless Activist (May 22, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Haha no I wasn't asking about the confusion.  Hmm, I didn't think Ne was about suddenly understanding?


It isn't. It is essentially just jumping to the end of the ideas because of how fast the possibilities come. It's hard to explain, for me at least. You should probably ask someone more suited to explain. So, essentially: Ne: fast and large jumps, Se(as far as I understand): step-by-step and thorough, at least more than Ne is.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Well Jung's Se is simply sensation. Most of the confusion around this issue comes from the way MBTI and JCF re-interpret these functions which is very, very different from Jung.
> 
> In Jung's world, the analogy I'd use is comparing Ne to Se, is to compare hand to a foot. They serve two very different purposes. People often think, because of MBTi and newer theories, that Ne is a metaphysical version of Se. But this is not true. Se involves how we process sensual data. Taste, smell, sight, sound, touch. And whether or not we further impose a subjectivity onto that data (which would be Si) or accept the data as is (Se). With Sensation we are always dealing with the tangible, physical world as experienced.
> 
> ...


I wish I could thank this post a million times!, thank you, LL!


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> Well Jung's Se is simply sensation. Most of the confusion around this issue comes from the way MBTI and JCF re-interpret these functions which is very, very different from Jung.
> 
> In Jung's world, the analogy I'd use is comparing Ne to Se, is to compare hand to a foot. They serve two very different purposes. People often think, because of MBTi and newer theories, that Ne is a metaphysical version of Se. But this is not true. Se involves how we process sensual data. Taste, smell, sight, sound, touch. And whether or not we further impose a subjectivity onto that data (which would be Si) or accept the data as is (Se). With Sensation we are always dealing with the tangible, physical world as experienced.
> 
> ...


This makes sense to me. Because I grew up in a more rural environment, I tend to be keenly aware that it smells like rain, or that the light comes through the window a certain way at a particular time of day. But that is sensory data giving me that "foretelling" information, it's not a hunch.

Does Se impose its will more than Ne? Because I've noticed that when I was a younger person I would mix-up something I just wanted to MAKE happen as an "intuition" ...but it wasn't an intuition, it often never came true, and if it did, it's because I made it happen.

I think that's more like having an Ni vision and carrying it out with the Se, as opposed to Ne, yes?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I spend a lot of time with Se doms/aux so I have often noticed lots of differences between our perceptions. 

Sensors seem to notice almost everything at surface level, if they're discussing where a place is, for example, a particular shop, they say which road its on, they can remember most of the shops you pass on the way there. That there's a phone box on the corner, a side street, a house with leaded windows, a white van usually parked across the road, etc. 

I remember the road, I remember the white van (because once kids had wrote "I'm too fat n lazy to wash my van" in the dirt on the back and it amused me). I remember the phone box (I'd used it before). I don't remember the house or the side street because they have never been relevant to me or for any reason made an impression. 

I believe that is what Jung meant by Ne is not unlike Se. I see what the Se user sees when I notice things, but I only notice things because they make an impression on me or fit in with my aim. Which is why it is Ne and not Se.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

fourtines said:


> This makes sense to me. Because I grew up in a more rural environment, I tend to be keenly aware that it smells like rain, or that the light comes through the window a certain way at a particular time of day. But that is sensory data giving me that "foretelling" information, it's not a hunch.
> 
> Does Se impose its will more than Ne? Because I've noticed that when I was a younger person I would mix-up something I just wanted to MAKE happen as an "intuition" ...but it wasn't an intuition, it often never came true, and if it did, it's because I made it happen.
> 
> I think that's more like having an Ni vision and carrying it out with the Se, as opposed to Ne, yes?


Well the weather forecasting thing... I can go out for a run when it's cloudy but I usually have a hunch as to when it will start raining... I see that I still have time to get the run in before it really starts. I go out and the hunch often works out. Maybe sometimes doesn't, I don't keep statistics of this. 

And no I don't know how I guess at it. I see the clouds, I see nothing else beyond that, I just guess. I suppose maybe the shade of the clouds? I really have no idea. See this sounds like intuition because I absorbed the sensory details (the ones necessary to make the guess) in an *unconscious* way. 

I don't think I often work that way though. Sure I have hunches, everyone does... but I don't trust them many times until I saw step by step the way to the conclusion. (In the above example I don't bother with doubting the hunch because I don't care so much: if it rains and I get wet while running, that's still acceptable.)

Whether Se imposes its will more than Ne - yes, Socionics explicitly makes that part of the Se definition, willpower. That would exactly be because Se's deal with the material things so they naturally impose their will on these material things. What isn't yet existing in the material form, painfully doesn't exist to Se at all so they need to make it exist. At least this is my interpretation. Yes I suppose it is Se/Ni with making the vision come true, this is exactly what I've been asking here but the experts didn't have time to reply yet. ;P

By the way you made me recall an old memory of myself as a small kid. I was maybe 4-5 years old. Something was not the way I wanted it, and it could not be the way I wanted it, simply because it just was not that way in reality. I said to my mother something along these lines "but this JUST has to be this way!!". Like I wanted to believe what was not actually so. She gave up after a while and just said "okay it is that way". She also shrugged and said something along those lines to my sister too, about me: "ok let her be, she can believe so if she wants". At that moment I suddenly realized I was being an idiot and afterwards I never thought of anything in that way. Reality is just the way it is. If you want it different, then put in effort to change it. There is no use of daydreaming.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I spend a lot of time with Se doms/aux so I have often noticed lots of differences between our perceptions.
> 
> Sensors seem to notice almost everything at surface level, if they're discussing where a place is, for example, a particular shop, they say which road its on, they can remember most of the shops you pass on the way there. That there's a phone box on the corner, a side street, a house with leaded windows, a white van usually parked across the road, etc.
> 
> ...


Oh great this again about Se's noticing everything. Don't make me restart the doubting of myself. -.- 

I'm like you with regards to this. I just don't care about all those down-to-earth simple details. They don't entertain my mind, they don't take my attention long enough for these sensory details to even become a conscious perception. I only note what makes an impression on me. And that's not often if I just walk along an ordinary street. I am just like this, I'm walking, staring ahead, looking around at times, but almost no sensory perception comes to the conscious because they just didn't trigger anything in my brain/mind that would have made an impression big enough for me to direct my consciousness onto it. 

Thus by default the image I'll store of the road is just some general and very abstract impression of the curves and shapes, where abstract means it would be hard for me to depict these in a drawing in a precise manner, it would have to be done in an approximating manner instead; overall, hardly any real object images or concrete details are stored - yet this is enough to allow me to navigate very well. I don't get lost easily and love navigating.  I truly find it weird how little conscious detail is enough to do the job so well. Ah and naturally I also don't bump into things, I always just *know* where I am spatially oriented between objects around me. (This is a subconscious knowledge though.)

Now of course if I go along the same road many times, I may remember more details, but this is a terribly slow process, that is I need a lot of repeated walks over months or years on the same road before I pick up and store more sensory details. 

Yet I'm not a typical intuitive person who's full of hunches that would be fully trusted and my possibility sensing is limited. And I also enjoy the present context and action like Se-doms and SP's in general do. I just don't have the orientation on the concrete details. Imagine someone who is in the here and now, not thinking beyond it, and who can and will act very quickly and precisely and loves doing so, but missing the details on a conscious level. Most of the details needed in a job will be dealt with on a more subconscious level. Well the one that's directly inside my current focus may be conscious obviously but the rest? Meh... That's me. So what the hell. 

Btw as a kid I was probably more conscious of details and more interested in them. This is hard to determine in retrospect, obviously. But I still have this suspicion that I was more standard Se back then. So, I like to explain it by the claim that my stimulation threshold is higher now for some reason. I dunno. OK. Whatever.

Does your Ne produce a looooot of possibilities all the time?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Oh great this again about Se's noticing everything. Don't make me restart the doubting of myself. -.-
> 
> I'm like you with regards to this. I just don't care about all those down-to-earth simple details. They don't entertain my mind, they don't take my attention long enough for these sensory details to even become a conscious perception. I only note what makes an impression on me. And that's not often if I just walk along an ordinary street. I am just like this, I'm walking, staring ahead, looking around at times, but almost no sensory perception comes to the conscious because they just didn't trigger anything in my brain/mind that would have made an impression big enough for me to direct my consciousness onto it.
> 
> ...


I don't perceive lots of possibilities all the time. Sometimes there aren't many possibilities. When I do think of lots of possibilities then it is like 'brainstorming'. I do it often when interpreting other peoples motives, behaviour or perceptions. Which is another difference I've noticed between the sensors I know and myself. 

They interpret a behaviour as a result of what's happening at the time, if it makes sense to do so. 

For example, listening to a story where the police stopped someone for speeding and wasn't prepared to cut them any slack, the sensor, initially thought the officers were just being assholes. Whereas I initially thought 'but then maybe they're frustrated stopping so many people speeding today, or they could have just dealt with a serious accident or maybe..... etc.' I looked beyond what was there (in the story) while the sensor got their conclusion from what was actually happening at the time. 

I'm not saying sensors don't look into other possibilities, just that it's not automatic with their perception. I find I can misinterpret situations because I'm too busy looking 'behind' what's there and sensors vice-versa.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

Sorry I took so long to get to the following. My husband put on movie after movie last night, so I watched with him. 




itsme45 said:


> That test is here: Keys 2 Cognition - Cognitive Processes - from Dario Nardi's site.
> 
> The Ne questions in it:
> 
> ...


Funny, the above questions showed up in a similar form in a book I received yesterday, "8 Keys to Self-Leadership," by Dario Nardi, so I guess I'll be delving into them more deeply. Now that I understand Ne better... For 2, I offer various unrelated ideas during the course of a communication, like when the subject jumps to something else and we both move on from the first subject and also will talk about any potentials that might (or might not) pop up, but now I don't think that's what the question means; I do 23; I do 30, but via reading books over a period of days to years, in a serial rather than closer to parallel sense, so if it was meant within a short time period during a series of thoughts, no I don't do it so would have answered incorrectly; I do trust 47, though it's others' brainstorming I trust, which likely wasn't the intent of the question, but it wasn't clear. Those would have been the ones I gave the strongest score to, but now I don't think Nardi and I were talking about the same thing.

As for Se... Yes to 1, 15, and 24. For 29, I took it to mean how far you could go in pushing other people, so I scored it lower because I don't manipulate to that extent, but now I realize it could mean a variety of things. I think I was thinking of a stereotypical description of an ESTP and the supposed tendency to manipulate, otherwise I would have rated it more highly, as in I do read the environment to see how far I can go in a physical sense, though I have tended to go further than I should at times. I don't know what 38 means...I don't think my presence is all that powerful. And I didn't know what they meant by 48, though I have my own idea for what it means to me, so I probably rated it in the middle.

Looking at the questions now, with more knowledge of what they could mean, I can see that I might have answered incorrectly. I've noticed in the past that if there's the wrong way to read something, I'll likely find it, lol. It's not that I have a lot of possibilities, more that I jump on the first thing that comes to mind and go with it, without understanding the other possibilities inherent in the question. It seems like the Nardi book might go into more detail using the above format for all types, so I'll have a better understanding once I go through his 3 books I just received, plus another written by someone else one.




itsme45 said:


> Now this Ne definition is by Nardi but I think it's much the same as in any cognitive function/MBTI theory (including even Socionics). Jung himself doesn't emphasize the randomness and going in every direction all the time (brainstorm), though... is this what is confusing to you in terms of determining Ne vs Se for yourself? Because in every other theory it virtually defines Ne. Well maybe in Lenore Thomson's theory it does not at first sight, but in her Ne exercises, it does. Have you seen those, btw? I failed miserably at the Ne exercises, but the Se exercise felt my usual self ;P


I googled and looked in my Lenore Thomson book but wasn't able to find the exercises. Could you tell me where they are? I failed miserably at the N exercise in Nardi's book 8 Keys. 

I guess it comes down to the creativity/brainstorming/frequent possibilities issue with Ne. If all it took were an open mind about all manner of Se and Ne things to be Ne, then I'd be one. But if it takes the former, I'm not one. I never identified with the "Inventor" label for ENTPs, but just thought it was one of the ENTP descriptions that didn't fit me well.

What it seems to be coming down to so far is that everyone has a different idea of what the functions and the types are and I don't know whose to follow. I'm in the middle behavior-wise so that if any method relies even a little on behavior, I could be any ExxP type. Inherently, none of the methods are better than the other, they're just all different. And how can I rely solely on Jung when Se's sound like cardboard cutouts without some Ni added and many Se's could potentially see themselves in Ne?




itsme45 said:


> Btw, I just saw a definition (some JCF theory and also Socionics) that is interesting because it compares Ne and Se so well: Ne rebuilds its perception of world by its ideas, not with the goal of creativity (!), but simply just to rebuild it to introduce NEW perspectives (then of course this may be put into/achieved in practice but this is not the goal, as I said creativity is not the goal), and Se just wants to discover/interact with the world as is, Se wants to know more of the world too, but not by rebuilding its perception of the world. I think this would be a very good distinction between the two and would probably apply to original Jung definition too. (Going to have to think on that one.) Btw, Se with Ni may seem like rebuilding the perception but it's still just the perception of the world as it is, not changing all the time.


I read so much that I gain new perspective on the world all the time. I don't know how to answer, beyond that. But of course it's other people's perspective that I agree with and take on as my own, since I'm not creative in a thinking sense, just open minded.




itsme45 said:


> Also, the thing that confused me in Jung's writings but maybe it shouldn't have: Ne as defined by Jung is the function that makes new things happen/achieves new/novel things and Se is defined as being unable to get past ordinary things, never making novel creations. Now I suppose Se as the pure function would be like that, but perhaps inspired by Ni it would be capable of the novel? Really that part of Jung's stuff is sooo black and white about Ne vs Se. -.-


I said a little about this a couple posts ago, and again, I don't understand Jung's viewpoint. What is meant by novel creations? I have a book called Psychetypes, by Michael Malone, where he lists off authors of all 8 functional types. Every author's work is looking at the world in a different way, even if it's a different look at what is, so what's meant by novel creations? Also, what about Se painters and other artists? They don't all paint, etc., exactly what they see, and I'm sure I could find novel creations in their work. I picked up bias against females in his writings on type, and I wonder if he had bias against Se's, also. I don't know enough about his theories to say, so it's just a question that's open for me.




itsme45 said:


> Yeah, my life also has not been ordinary so far and I don't think it will ever be, so I'm just as un-traditional as you are.


You can't be untraditional if you're an Se.  




itsme45 said:


> I'm sure Se's can be pretty religious* due to inferior Ni's influence. I once met an ESTP guy somewhere (he tested as ESTP and did come off as an ESTP), well I started talking to him about cognitive psychology and he expressed disinterest/distaste, he thought it was such an atheist science. He much preferred to be oriented towards religion. -.- So yeah, Se dominants can be like this just fine.....
> 
> *: by "religious" I don't necessarily mean standard religions, just the attitude to the nonphysical/spiritual.


Interesting...thanks! Darn, I was skimming through Nardi's 3 books last night, trying to find answers to my questions. I came across descriptions of SeNi and NeSi and I clearly fit SeNi. I also noticed, though, that he seemed to have little descriptions from Berens, none of which I fit. I think it will come down to a combination of understanding Ne, like my question above below the Lenore Thompson mention, and deciding which author seems to peg me the most clearly. I also need to know what it means by Se's needing to make an impact. I think I asked that a while back and don't remember the answer since I thought I was Ne at the time. When I start focusing on what I don't fit in the functions, it's so strong that it seems I couldn't see the world through any of the 8 functions.




itsme45 said:


> Also, maybe your experiences led you believe N things because you've had the chance to experience it for yourself? That is, you experienced it through Se as dominant function so you have no reason to not believe. Tbh, me in your situation, I would have been more skeptical, I don't know what that alternative stuff is that worked for you, but I know I would easily be able to offer materialist explanations for it, no matter what it is. (Aw, now you see my strong skeptical side... I sound so much like S, huh?)


I almost died when I was younger and when an N lifeline was offered to me, I grabbed onto it with both hands. It worked extremely well and so I started a study of the whole subject matter...the alternative world that mainstream is so leery of. If I had been an Se and it was clear to me almost immediately that weird possibilities sometimes worked, and I embarked upon a study that opened up my mind to non-Se frameworks, how would I even know at this point who I am, without looking back into my childhood? And I'd likely somewhat sound like and appear to be N by now. It seems even if my childhood was screwed up, there should have been some indications of Ne, but I don't think there was much of any...I just wasn't interested. In fact when I found someone who could help me, I had gone with my boyfriend to make sure he didn't get suckered into anything, lol. Now I'm between, not identifying well with Ne's in real life, nor with Se's either.




itsme45 said:


> The post is a few posts above, post #15.


Oh boy, I can't remember what this refers to and am too typing burned out to write much more. I did read her post, and at the end I sounded like Ni, but who knows? Thanks for checking back, and I'll research further later, to see what we were talking about.




itsme45 said:


> Let me know if you figure it out about serious vs amusement, though the thing you said above about how you "ran away" to get into Se activities and how you relied on them later, sounds like Se as taken seriously thus dominant function.


How do I separate it out, when Se draws me strongly enough and is so much fun that I left beyond most of my N studies quite a while back and have had trouble getting back into them in any serious sense? Does that make Se an amusement or deadly serious? lol Or did my life just change and I'm stuck here now?




itsme45 said:


> Clarity, huh, Ti?


aaawk! For another time, since that's just as confusing. 




itsme45 said:


> I like to deal with such things myself. Se dominants still have Ni, yeah. Supposedly the dominant/inferior frame is what really determines things here, *the inferior can be just as important in terms of influence as the dominant*.


If the bolded is true, then I'm more likely Se.


I'm curious to see if you have anything to say about the above, but it's not necessary if you're as confused as I am.  I need to make time to read the 4 books I received this past week, so at least I can say "I'm a Nardi Se" or "I'm a Nardi Ne." If nothing else, I'll report back when I'm done reading, whether it's a few days or a few weeks.

These threads have been like going to talk to an MBTI expert, so I'm glad I've had this opportunity to read people's viewpoints, and opinions on my type. Thanks for all your questions that have made me think, @itsme45.


Edit: @itsme45, I think I'm going to take some time to read Nardi's 3 books that just arrived before I post anything else about my type. If you have any insights, though, please feel free to post them.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> I don't think I often work that way though. Sure I have hunches, everyone does... but I don't trust them many times until I saw step by step the way to the conclusion. (In the above example I don't bother with doubting the hunch because I don't care so much: if it rains and I get wet while running, that's still acceptable.)


This reminded me of my INTJ husband's and my college experiences. When taking tests, he frequently had the answer just appear to him, without any step-by-step connection to what he'd been studying. He didn't entirely trust it, but it usually turned out well. The way I took tests was to remember exactly where in the book the information was located, what the page looked like, where the pictures on the page were located, and where on the page and even where in the paragraph the information was located. If I didn't have this direct connection back to the location, it made me nervous about using the information. A couple times the information just popped into my mind like it did with my husband, and I had a distrust of it, to the point where I'd struggle to connect it to the physical location. I think I use physical location to orient myself in many ways -- it seems to be important to my understanding of the world, though I do like to change physical location frequently for the stimulation and learning experience.

Se, or something else?


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I don't perceive lots of possibilities all the time. Sometimes there aren't many possibilities. When I do think of lots of possibilities then it is like 'brainstorming'. I do it often when interpreting other peoples motives, behaviour or perceptions. Which is another difference I've noticed between the sensors I know and myself.
> 
> They interpret a behaviour as a result of what's happening at the time, if it makes sense to do so.
> 
> ...


I see. In that situation, I would have thought that they are not supposed to cut slack according to the rules and they may not want to get caught breaking rules. So I would have gone past the current situation for a more general picture but this may be just Ti and not intuition. Otherwise, I do often try to go past the situation when interpreting it. My default is of course the present context but I can get the feeling that I need to look at this from somewhere else, from a point further removed from the situation itself. This feeling is an automatic reaction right away. Yet, many times this feeling stays subconscious and I don't act on it. In the example my thought would have been pretty automatic for me, though. Also, in cases where I look at the situation in this removed way, I don't brainstorm much on a conscious level, just somehow find an idea that makes the most sense to me. Suppose this is Se/Ni > Ne/Si.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sarah said:


> This reminded me of my INTJ husband's and my college experiences. When taking tests, he frequently had the answer just appear to him, without any step-by-step connection to what he'd been studying. He didn't entirely trust it, but it usually turned out well. The way I took tests was to remember exactly where in the book the information was located, what the page looked like, where the pictures on the page were located, and where on the page and even where in the paragraph the information was located. If I didn't have this direct connection back to the location, it made me nervous about using the information. A couple times the information just popped into my mind like it did with my husband, and I had a distrust of it, to the point where I'd struggle to connect it to the physical location. I think I use physical location to orient myself in many ways -- it seems to be important to my understanding of the world, though I do like to change physical location frequently for the stimulation and learning experience.
> 
> Se, or something else?


Yeah sounds like Se, I also orient a lot spatially. 

As for the test example, it is funny because I'm so in-between you two. The way I learn these abstract topics is by using an abstract mindset, not Se. It's Ti-Ni, I suppose. Anyway due to that, when I'm to do the test, I just know the answer but I know why I know the answer - it is because of the way I absorbed the information. I simply already processed the learning material on an abstract level very consciously, so the answer also comes to me on a conscious level. Thus I usually fully trust my answer. (And of course I know that it is actually the correct answer.) It is rare that the answer doesn't come on this conscious level to me, and then of course I also don't trust it. Oh and yes it's not easy to study this way by default, but I'm pretty used to it. 

Now where the Se is in all this is that I, just like you, often remember where on a page a concrete detail or a more generalized concept needed to answer the test question was located, at least approximately. However, I do not remember the pictures or much of the concrete details of how the page appeared originally, unlike you. Also it doesn't make me nervous if I don't happen to recall this spatial link to the information, it's kind of just a side thing. My memory is very location based anyway but it has nothing to do with me understanding the study material. Ah, though I do utilize it for learning the concrete details of the material but that's not understanding, that's rote memorization. For that, I make up categories and rely a lot on spatial orientation for placing and remembering the details. 

This learning of concrete details is also not just Se though, a lot of Ti is needed. It's again a learned strategy for me though... consciously learned just like with the Ti-Ni abstract processing. Both strategies work very well though.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> I spend a lot of time with Se doms/aux so I have often noticed lots of differences between our perceptions.
> 
> Sensors seem to notice almost everything at surface level, if they're discussing where a place is, for example, a particular shop, they say which road its on, they can remember most of the shops you pass on the way there. That there's a phone box on the corner, a side street, a house with leaded windows, a white van usually parked across the road, etc.
> 
> ...


What you're describing in yourself is Si, not Ne.


----------



## CaptainWayward (Jun 8, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> How do those children do it?
> 
> When I go to bed I just lie down, in a comfortable position and I may notice the comfort of the bed for a few seconds, then I forget about that and I'm just lying there and soon fall asleep (unless very stressed out). I don't really think of anything. I guess it's just Se or not even that. =) An ENFP once told me that he just lets himself fall asleep in the midst of random thinking, though.


Hehe, no idea. I think it may have something to do with their mental development and what they're cognitively capable of at the time in terms of function. 

Thinking usually keeps me up, but I suppose that's usually how I get to sleep now. I usually think for 30min - 1hr, depending on how caught up in my thought I get, and then I eventually fall asleep. When I was younger I used to imagine fantastic bouts of fantasy to fall asleep, kind of weird that it changed. Now it doesn't even seem I'm capable of focusing on a story without interrupting myself with some mental note that erupts into a bout of haphazard thought, but perhaps I don't find it as relaxing as I used to.

How do you experience the passage of time? I've seen other INTPs say they tend to get swept up in thought and lose track of time, sort of like a trance, but I always feel quite cognisant of the passage of time. Perhaps it's because I'm always looking at the clock and reading forums. xD


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> I have that book too, which other two books did you get? (...)


You posted to me 3 times with a lot of good questions that I really want to answer, but I'm in the middle of health issues now and it could be a couple days to a couple weeks or more until I'll be able to respond, at which time the threads might have gone past. I'm going to keep the posts in Word so I have easy access to them in case I can come back soon. BTW, I'm not usually much into movies either but have been more lately because I haven't been getting enough sleep to easily read.

I'll go through the Nardi books and see what I think about the S/N, T/F differences. I've been doing some studying today on various sites and if it wasn't for the issue about Ne's frequently/constantly coming up with ideas, I'd fit that function as much as Se. Curiosity about ideas is a large part of who I am, and I'm not sure if that's N or non-function related. One thing I do, which isn't stereotypical Se, is take many topics that aren't physically based (such as where to find wildflowers) to the idea/general pattern/philosophical level, though there's a chance something like that could be learned, such as an Se majoring in philosophy or psychology. It's hard for me to stay for long with the "what is" level when I talk because I like to get at what it means, but I live for the present and don't have brainstorming ideas or even many of my own creative ideas beyond talking about what I've learned. And my brain doesn't light up like a Nardi Christmas tree with ideas but more with looking out the window, so it's still somewhat of a confusion for me. But I'll be looking at these issues, plus the T/F one, and will report back when I'm better.

I like what you said at the end of your post: "My insight in general is just that you need to decide on what common definitions of functions are sensible to you. Basically reconciling them between the various sources. Throw out the bullshit, keep the essence of things. Yea not an easy task. " Those are good ideas, and probably what I'll end up doing. It's even possible Jung and MBTI won't cover who I am. If someone has learned to do multiple functions, maybe it isn't possible to separate out learned behavior and thinking patterns from native functions. I think I've been stuck on Jung/MBTI because of this clarity thing that's so important to me, and though I can take most things to a certain level of clarity, it isn't working for this problem so far. But I'm not going to give up yet and will continue reading. I think I'm looking for that insight that will explain everything. 

So anyway, I won't be back here for a bit. Good luck with your typing, and thanks again for your help. Though I haven't definitively sorted things out, I've learned a lot about functions and about myself.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

CaptainWayward said:


> Thinking usually keeps me up, but I suppose that's usually how I get to sleep now. I usually think for 30min - 1hr, depending on how caught up in my thought I get, and then I eventually fall asleep. When I was younger I used to imagine fantastic bouts of fantasy to fall asleep, kind of weird that it changed. Now it doesn't even seem I'm capable of focusing on a story without interrupting myself with some mental note that erupts into a bout of haphazard thought, but perhaps I don't find it as relaxing as I used to.


Ah, that is funny about the stories. When I was a kid, for some reason I usually didn't fall asleep for at least 30mins, so to pass the time, I told all sorts of fantasy stories to myself, just like you.  Now, if I was to launch into one, I'd fall asleep within one minute anyway.  Related to that... I was still a kid when I noticed that using strong visual imagery always makes me very sleepy even if I wasn't sleepy before that, so I used to employ this trick to fall asleep quicker. The stories were also visual, but not as strongly as in this trick so those didn't make me sleepy. They were just to pass the time.

I don't know what that imagery is, probably not function related though... it is images changing into each other randomly. I don't try to do anything with them, I just start by staring (with closed eyes) until an image appears then I just keep focusing and it will change slowly into another one, on its own, and then again another (the theme of the images of course changes too), and just one minute of this and I'm guaranteed to suddenly become very very sleepy.  All this of course excludes thinking of anything else, requiring a strong focus on the image, though maybe your crazy mind would still be able to find those random mental notes. 

Btw I don't know why it took me a while to fall asleep as a kid, I wasn't thinking much then either (beyond the stories), so it wasn't due to that. But the imagery trick was effective. =)




> How do you experience the passage of time? I've seen other INTPs say they tend to get swept up in thought and lose track of time, sort of like a trance, but I always feel quite cognisant of the passage of time. Perhaps it's because I'm always looking at the clock and reading forums. xD


Ah, time is a complex subject. I have a good sense of time when I pay attention, I make surprisingly good guesses about how much time passed. I just seem to have this intuitive sense of time sequences. It needs a little bit of conscious focus at times, but it is largely effortless. But if I'm very immersed in some activity (this would be the trance for me!  but thinking can be it too) then I may not pay attention for a bit. So I can be late when I need to go somewhere because I told myself "oh let me do just this before leaving", and it of course ends up a bit longer than it should.  Otherwise yeah, I like to keep track by looking at the clock too.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sarah said:


> You posted to me 3 times with a lot of good questions that I really want to answer, but I'm in the middle of health issues now and it could be a couple days to a couple weeks or more until I'll be able to respond, at which time the threads might have gone past. I'm going to keep the posts in Word so I have easy access to them in case I can come back soon. BTW, I'm not usually much into movies either but have been more lately because I haven't been getting enough sleep to easily read.


Ah, well, hope you get the issues sorted. 




> I'll go through the Nardi books and see what I think about the S/N, T/F differences. I've been doing some studying today on various sites and if it wasn't for the issue about Ne's frequently/constantly coming up with ideas, I'd fit that function as much as Se. Curiosity about ideas is a large part of who I am, and I'm not sure if that's N or non-function related. One thing I do, which isn't stereotypical Se, is take many topics that aren't physically based (such as where to find wildflowers) to the idea/general pattern/philosophical level, though there's a chance something like that could be learned, such as an Se majoring in philosophy or psychology. It's hard for me to stay for long with the "what is" level when I talk because I like to get at what it means, but I live for the present and don't have brainstorming ideas or even many of my own creative ideas beyond talking about what I've learned. And my brain doesn't light up like a Nardi Christmas tree with ideas but more with looking out the window, so it's still somewhat of a confusion for me. But I'll be looking at these issues, plus the T/F one, and will report back when I'm better.


_"Se majoring in philosophy or psychology"_ == me.  (Though I didn't consider philosophy for that long, heh.)
I don't know if you'll still read this reply now but that still sounds like a lot of Ni to me, via receiving a bit of help from others (Socionics even has an explicit theory on how Se looks to get Ni from others a lot).




> I like what you said at the end of your post: "My insight in general is just that you need to decide on what common definitions of functions are sensible to you. Basically reconciling them between the various sources. Throw out the bullshit, keep the essence of things. Yea not an easy task. " Those are good ideas, and probably what I'll end up doing. It's even possible Jung and MBTI won't cover who I am. If someone has learned to do multiple functions, maybe it isn't possible to separate out learned behavior and thinking patterns from native functions. I think I've been stuck on Jung/MBTI because of this clarity thing that's so important to me, and though I can take most things to a certain level of clarity, it isn't working for this problem so far. But I'm not going to give up yet and will continue reading. I think I'm looking for that insight that will explain everything.


Good luck figuring it out. =) Yeah, it won't cover your whole self, but it's not meant to.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Ah, well, hope you get the issues sorted.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Since you brought up Socionics...  Of the 4 quadras, this is me:

"Alpha Quadra [ENTP, ISFP?, ESFJ, INTJ?]: Enjoy freely exchanging new ideas and theories as a form of intellectual leisure. Like to systematize knowledge and create new categories and speculative hypotheses without necessarily intending to see their theories tested or implemented. Enjoy carefree emotional expression and sensory delights and is able to derive never-ending pleasure from simple things — funny stories, exotic dishes, family picnics and group outings, and visual and performing arts. Especially sensitive to and critical of mercantilistic views, ostentatious displays of wealth and status symbols, *rude and aggressive behavior, moral criticism,* [sometimes necessary] and people who suggest they are wasting their time on unproductive things. Spontaneous, disorganized activities "for the fun of it." *Light-hearted, non-serious atmosphere with very few "heavy" moments* [first part accurate, also enjoy serious atmosphere and heavy moments at times, just not all the time]. Skipping from topic to topic without focusing on the implementation of conclusions reached."

The site where I found it originally doesn't seem to exist anymore, but the 4 quadras are under no. 2:

HelloQuizzy.com: The Quick and Easy Socionics Personality Test

I know MBTI won't cover all of who I am, but no type covers even much of who I am so far. :O

Edit: I bolded the parts that aren't me. BTW, I'm like you, enthusiastic but not overly emotional, unless things are really going wrong. And I took that test above and fit much of ENTP, except where they got into talking about being creative -- I'm analytical. I once saw a Socionics description of ENTP as a seeker, which was like me, and in the book "Why Him, Why Her," Helen Fisher, it described my type as an explorer through the environment and ideas -- that was perfect. If I joined a group of Ne's to talk for hours, no one would realize I'm not one since I'd be gripped by the ideas and have likely read the books they've read, and if I joined Se's, same thing, and I've also read the books. Anyway, I seem to not be able to let this go and I need to recuperate. I hope to come back soon.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sarah said:


> Since you brought up Socionics...  Of the 4 quadras, this is me:
> 
> "Alpha Quadra [ENTP, ISFP?, ESFJ, INTJ?]: Enjoy freely exchanging new ideas and theories as a form of intellectual leisure. Like to systematize knowledge and create new categories and speculative hypotheses without necessarily intending to see their theories tested or implemented. Enjoy carefree emotional expression and sensory delights and is able to derive never-ending pleasure from simple things — funny stories, exotic dishes, family picnics and group outings, and visual and performing arts. Especially sensitive to and critical of mercantilistic views, ostentatious displays of wealth and status symbols, rude and aggressive behavior, moral criticism, and people who suggest they are wasting their time on unproductive things. Spontaneous, disorganized activities "for the fun of it." Light-hearted, non-serious atmosphere with very few "heavy" moments. Skipping from topic to topic without focusing on the implementation of conclusions reached."
> 
> ...



Oh yea that makes it more complicated, ha. I guess we differ a bit there as I'm not really Alpha. Anyway, could you be ISFp (Si+Fe) in that system? Their definition of Si and Fe is very different. I'm not saying ENTp because Ne in that system is defined by the mind state of constantly searching for and finding new connections. ISFp instead likes to receive that Ne stuff from them. I don't even mention the other two types as they are Rationals.

It's ok if no type covers you, it just means you're a complex person, which is cool.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

I added an edit while you were typing.  I'm clearly Alpha, not any of the others, which is why I don't think I fit ESTP. Since Ne's who have taken the MBTI test aren't specifically told that being creative and/or being flooded with ideas is a necessary part of the type, I think a lot of people are in my position of being a very half-assed Ne, if they even are one. As I told my husband last night, I fail at both Se and Ne, yet I'm definitely Pe. One of those generalists who can do anything and can fit in anywhere and have a great time but aren't particularly good at anything.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Sarah said:


> Edit: I bolded the parts that aren't me. BTW, I'm like you, enthusiastic but not overly emotional, unless things are really going wrong. And I took that test above and fit much of ENTP, except where they got into talking about being creative -- I'm analytical. I once saw a Socionics description of ENTP as a seeker, which was like me, and in the book "Why Him, Why Her," Helen Fisher, it described my type as an explorer through the environment and ideas -- that was perfect. If I joined a group of Ne's to talk for hours, no one would realize I'm not one since I'd be gripped by the ideas and have likely read the books they've read, and if I joined Se's, same thing, and I've also read the books. Anyway, I seem to not be able to let this go and I need to recuperate. I hope to come back soon.


Maybe Ti subtype of ENTp? How much of ISFp fits? You're definitely complicated! =)

Btw yeah I also tested as ENTP in some MBTI tests before and many people didn't really question the Ne based on my talking style. Though some other people did not see any Ne about me and I think they were more correct. 




Sarah said:


> I added an edit while you were typing.  I'm clearly Alpha, not any of the others, which is why I don't think I fit ESTP. Since Ne's who have taken the MBTI test aren't specifically told that being creative and/or being flooded with ideas is a necessary part of the type, I think a lot of people are in my position of being a very half-assed Ne, if they even are one. As I told my husband last night, I fail at both Se and Ne, yet I'm definitely Pe. One of those generalists who can do anything and can fit in anywhere and have a great time but aren't particularly good at anything.


What you say could be yeah. I do sometimes feel the same as you about Ne vs Se. Btw where do you fail at Se? :O just that you are not "concrete enough" in your worldview? Or anything else? 

Well I'll let you recuparate.


----------



## Karen (Jul 17, 2009)

itsme45 said:


> Maybe Ti subtype of ENTp? How much of ISFp fits? You're definitely complicated! =)



I'll look it up.  And yes, many people say that in rl, though I'm not to myself.

I think I disabled PMs here because I have a habit of disappearing for weeks, so I'll check around for it and if I find it and it's okay with you, I'll send you a quick PM later today.

Edit: Oops, I guess I disabled it at other sites but not here, lol. I've spent time at so many forums that I usually turn off as many features as possible so I don't have to keep checking, but with this one "things" pop up off and on.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> What you're describing in yourself is Si, not Ne.


What makes you think that?


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> What makes you think that?


Because it was all related to the 5 senses, not any hunch or establishing some kind of meaning beyond what's meeting the eyes to the situation, but it was clearly subjective because you were only noticing what you "cared" to notice, basically.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Because it was all related to the 5 senses, not any hunch or establishing some kind of meaning beyond what's meeting the eyes to the situation, but it was clearly subjective because you were only noticing what you "cared" to notice, basically.


The subjective factor that Jung assigned to his descriptions of the introverted functions has nothing to do with what people 'care' to notice. Which I'm sure you're aware of. He explicitly stated that introverted functions are not concerned with the ego as was the common assumption, but primordial images. So I can't see how you got from what I 'cared' to notice = subjective = Si 

My explanation was simply a comparison of how Se users and myself perceive our surroundings, based on my own experience, which I did state in my first sentence btw. Si users also notice much more than I do. I didn't intend to give an example of Ne specifically (although, actually I still think I did) my intention was to simply to compare what Se's notice to what I notice when Ne is functioning in a basic way. 

I was trying to explain how objects are of little importance to my awareness, simply 'as they are'. The phone box I remembered because at one time I had acknowledged its existence since it had offered a possibility that I was looking for. The van I noticed and 'built' on what I saw, beyond what was concrete. I didn't see kids, I only imagined them writing it, I imagined them laughing and perhaps running away, I also imagined the 'fat lazy owner',etc. Which was what amused me about it. The house has never offered anything, so it had not made a conscious impression, so I couldn't recall it. 

My point being that, Se notices more things around them, objects simply 'as they are', whether they hold any possibilities or not.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> The subjective factor that Jung assigned to his descriptions of the introverted functions has nothing to do with what people 'care' to notice. Which I'm sure you're aware of. He explicitly stated that introverted functions are not concerned with the ego as was the common assumption, but primordial images. So I can't see how you got from what I 'cared' to notice = subjective = Si
> 
> My explanation was simply a comparison of how Se users and myself perceive our surroundings, based on my own experience, which I did state in my first sentence btw. Si users also notice much more than I do. I didn't intend to give an example of Ne specifically (although, actually I still think I did) my intention was to simply to compare what Se's notice to what I notice when Ne is functioning in a basic way.
> 
> ...


Actually, as an Se type myself, I think there is a factor of noticing things you don't particularly care to notice that goes along with Se, being objective sensing (I mean, I don't have much of a preconceived sensing ideal I seek in experiences and such - I just use Se to explore what might satisfy me from the objective and what doesn't (Si is my last function, btw). I mean, obviously, no function can be isolated in a person's type, so objective functions will operate with reference to the subjective, but the way the function manifests is objective and under the control of the subjective, which supports the notion that an objective and a subjective perception function always work together and an objective and a subjective judging function always work together. Jung didn't say this specifically as far as I'm aware, but there is more of a matter of ego invested in subjective experiences, since ego cannot be divorced from the subject - so what may be subjectively experienced from the objective will be processed through the subjective with permission from the ego. Noticing stuff in general is largely not any S function until you rationalize it though, so you can't really type general observations until there's some element of rationalization going on, but what you are describing in general sounds like Si, due to your Ne motivations (Si and Ne ALWAYS work together no matter what).

You're right about Se though, yes.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> Actually, as an Se type myself, I think there is a factor of noticing things you don't particularly care to notice that goes along with Se, being objective sensing (I mean, I don't have much of a preconceived sensing ideal I seek in experiences and such - I just use Se to explore what might satisfy me from the objective and what doesn't (Si is my last function, btw). I mean, obviously, no function can be isolated in a person's type, so objective functions will operate with reference to the subjective, but the way the function manifests is objective and under the control of the subjective, which supports the notion that an objective and a subjective perception function always work together and an objective and a subjective judging function always work together. Jung didn't say this specifically as far as I'm aware, but there is more of a matter of ego invested in subjective experiences, since ego cannot be divorced from the subject - so what may be subjectively experienced from the objective will be processed through the subjective with permission from the ego. Noticing stuff in general is largely not any S function until you rationalize it though, so you can't really type general observations until there's some element of rationalization going on, but what you are describing in general sounds like Si, due to your Ne motivations (Si and Ne ALWAYS work together no matter what).
> 
> You're right about Se though, yes.


Yes it could be Si and Ne working together. Although, I'm inclined to believe that the the differences between the perceiving functions aren't as vast as reading the descriptions would make them appear. Otherwise, they would be quite obvious to everyone in daily interactions with others. 

My understanding of the distinction between Ne & Se comes from this part here; 



> 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. Hence, for intuition really to become paramount, sensation must to a large extent be suppressed.


That part I believe has been quoted already, discussing that sensation must be repressed. This next part explains Ne isn't sensation because it's not a direct sense reaction from the object like Se;



> I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.


Jung seems to be implying here that the difference between Se and Ne is which objects gives the the subject the strongest sense impressions. Se receiving them from the strongest actual physical sensation and Ne receiving them from what intuition 'builds' onto them.


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I was trying to explain how objects are of little importance to my awareness, simply 'as they are'. The phone box I remembered because at one time I had acknowledged its existence since it had offered a possibility that I was looking for. The van I noticed and 'built' on what I saw, beyond what was concrete. I didn't see kids, I only imagined them writing it, I imagined them laughing and perhaps running away, I also imagined the 'fat lazy owner',etc. Which was what amused me about it. The house has never offered anything, so it had not made a conscious impression, so I couldn't recall it.


What possibility did the phone box offer that you were looking for?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> What possibility did the phone box offer that you were looking for?


I needed to use the phone :wink:


----------



## itsme45 (Jun 8, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I needed to use the phone :wink:



Argh... I thought Ne was about more esoteric possibilities


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

itsme45 said:


> Argh... I thought Ne was about more esoteric possibilities


I think there a various aspects of Ne that are in different descriptions which causes some extra confusion. 'Brainstorming' and idea generation, noticing patterns, weaving webs of understanding and relating/linking seemingly random concepts, etc. They aren't all present in every situation.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Neverontime said:


> Yes it could be Si and Ne working together. Although, I'm inclined to believe that the the differences between the perceiving functions aren't as vast as reading the descriptions would make them appear. Otherwise, they would be quite obvious to everyone in daily interactions with others.
> 
> My understanding of the distinction between Ne & Se comes from this part here;
> 
> ...


I don't think Jung specified "which objects," but he's saying that objects that can be viewed as guide points to propel an Ne dominant toward the achievement of a future vision are what Ne can align with, but they don't do this to experience the objects as they are - it's more like they maneuver their way through the objects as if they are in the way with little to no regard for their actual qualities, but with regard to the future potential they hold in terms of helping them generate possibilities. So being "in the moment" in terms of absolute concrete experience means just about nothing to Ne dominants - for instance, if so-and-so moves in so-and-so literal fashion in a certain direction, this means nothing to them until they can intuitively connect it to something more subversive (I'm pretty sure all of us here know this kind of person IRL who always feels the need to be subversive about everything down to the objective and most banal of things in the outer world, and I'm guessing these are usually the Ne dominants). What is "more subversive" to them is usually with reference to experiences the person had (Si) that intuitively conjure a great amount of potential relation to the situation at hand, despite being inapplicable to it (at least "for now").


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

JungyesMBTIno said:


> I don't think Jung specified "which objects," but he's saying that objects that can be viewed as guide points to propel an Ne dominant toward the achievement of a future vision are what Ne can align with, but they don't do this to experience the objects as they are - it's more like they maneuver their way through the objects as if they are in the way with little to no regard for their actual qualities, but with regard to the future potential they hold in terms of helping them generate possibilities. So being "in the moment" in terms of absolute concrete experience means just about nothing to Ne dominants - for instance, if so-and-so moves in so-and-so literal fashion in a certain direction, this means nothing to them until they can intuitively connect it to something more subversive (I'm pretty sure all of us here know this kind of person IRL who always feels the need to be subversive about everything down to the objective and most banal of things in the outer world, and I'm guessing these are usually the Ne dominants). What is "more subversive" to them is usually with reference to experiences the person had (Si) that intuitively conjure a great amount of potential relation to the situation at hand, despite being inapplicable to it (at least "for now").


Ahh well, I don't really agree to the Si being about past experiences theory as such. I'm more inclined towards Jungs collective subconscious theory. Si as 'past experience' would contradict his descriptions of introverted functions in general and it never did sit right with me.


----------

