# Se and Ne, both present at once?!



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

firedell said:


> Wasn't that basically what I said? Just another way of wording it? :s


i suppose, i guess i thought mental is too confused with Introversion, where as imagination points to the abstract a bit more, but ultimately can be just as confusing im sure.


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Souled In said:


> i suppose, i guess i thought mental is too confused with Introversion, where as imagination points to the abstract a bit more, but ultimately can be just as confusing im sure.


I get where you are coming from, but that was what I tried to imply anyway.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

if you had to put functions in one word what would it be
cause when i think of them i think of as Se facts and Ne as processes


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Souled in said:


> How does one be concrete and abstract though?


Umm, you're concrete some of the time and abstract some of the time.



> People say this all the time.


They say it because Jung said it.



> It makes a lot more sense to me that NE is not going to just pair with Si next, its going to pair with Ji, and Se will pair with Ji.


I don't think that actually comes from Jung. It just comes from the later MBTI people. But even to the extent that it is probably true, it does not contradict what I said.

I would venture to say that you can't do much of ANYTHING without using both sensing and intuition functions. It's just that with certain activities, and with all people in general, one function will tend to dominate.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

dimane said:


> if you had to put functions in one word what would it be
> cause when i think of them i think of as Se facts and Ne as processes


S function -- facts
N function -- hypotheticals
e attitude -- oriented toward the observable/feelable
i attitude -- oriented toward the hidden, and the harder to quantify
T -- truth
F -- pleasantness, personal


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Umm, you're concrete some of the time and abstract some of the time.
> 
> They say it because Jung said it.
> 
> ...


we cant focus on more than one thing at a time

if that leads you to another question, refer to your first comment in your above quote


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Souled In said:


> we cant focus on more than one thing at a time


One, that is an unsupported assertion, and two, it's a bit beside the point because I did not say we focused on two things at once.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

firedell said:


> Both functions are about the present moment at it's basics, what I understand what separates it is this:
> 
> Se: Physical Now.
> Ne: Mental Now.


The reason they are called “cognitive functions” is because they’re all mental, not physical and not based on emotions. Both consider possibilities. The difference is Se considers possibilities to act upon and Ne merely considers possibilities, but not necessarily act on them because during the process, they may discover another possibility just as good as the one being presented.


dimane said:


> can anyone describe functions in action


There are some examples located in *this thread*. But you may also look at the examples *here*:



> Extraverted Sensing (Se) - Writing that is richly descriptive can also evoke extraverted Sensing as can other mental stimulation. Extraverted Sensing - occurs when we scan for information that is relevant to our interests, then we mentally register data and facts such as baseball statistics, the locations of all the restaurants in town, or the names of all the actors in the popular television shows. Associated behaviors include eating a whole box of chocolates for the variety of tastes; playing an instrument for hours with pure enjoyment, not for practice; voracious reading or continual asking of questions to get specifics.
> 
> Introverted Sensing (Si) - The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences and one registers that there is a similarity or a difference - for example, noticing that some food doesn't taste the same and is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when you see someone who reminds you of someone else. Sometimes the feeling-tone associated with the recalled image comes into your awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, your body responds as if reliving the experience. This could be seen as a source of feelings of nostalgia or longing for the way things were.
> 
> ...


----------



## firedell (Aug 5, 2009)

Functianalyst said:


> The reason they are called “cognitive functions” is because they’re all mental, not physical and not based on emotions. Both consider possibilities. The difference is Se considers possibilities to act upon and Ne merely considers possibilities, but not necessarily act on them because during the process, they may discover another possibility just as good as the one being presented.


That is what I meant.  But I was explaining it in a basic form. Saying Se is about physical opportunities, to "act", and Ne is about mental possibilities, rather than maybe actually actually acting on it compared to those with Se. I was just saying think about Se being a physical function, and Ne a mental function.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Souled In said:


> concrete---------------------------abstract
> S--------------------------------------N
> 
> Picture a painting of a house.
> ...


It definitely makes me happier to imagine a vivid painting of a house with colors and detail than it does to blur and morph half of it into a spaceship.

Yeah, the Se and Ne mentalities are supposed to oppose one another, like the same mind can't hold both at once.

I've never heard of SNE. Is this something you made up yourself?


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> S function -- facts
> N function -- hypotheticals
> e attitude -- oriented toward the observable/feelable
> i attitude -- oriented toward the hidden, and the harder to quantify
> ...


I disagree with T being truth and F being pleasantness...that sounds more like Ti's _search_ for truth and Fe's _need _for harmony...T is logic and F is values or morality. F isn't always pleasant, lol, and T isn't always truthful or even correct about what the factual truth may be.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

Ne brainstorming doesnt seem like real extraversion. I mean if look at Ti it seems more like extraversion because there both focused on the environment and neither affects it


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

dimane said:


> Ne brainstorming doesnt seem like real extraversion. I mean if look at Ti it seems more like extraversion because there both focused on the environment and neither affects it


I guess it would depend on one's connotation of the word brainstorming. The word itself however, connotes creative thinking in a group setting not while alone:


> brain·storm·ing   [breyn-stawr-ming] - conference technique of solving specific problems, amassing information, stimulating creative thinking, developing new ideas, etc., by unrestrained and spontaneous participation in discussion.


Contrast this to how Jung describes Ti:


> This thinking may be conceived either with concrete or with abstract factors, but always at the decisive points it is orientated by subjective data. Hence, it does not lead from concrete experience back again into objective things, but always to the subjective content, External facts are not the aim and origin of this thinking, although the introvert would often like to make it so appear. It begins in the subject, and returns to the subject, although it may [p. 481] undertake the widest flights into the territory of the real and the actual. Hence, in the statement of new facts, its chief value is indirect, because new views rather than the perception of new facts are its main concern.


I think we tend to muddle the process of intuiting in an extraverted way, the same as we do in the introverted manner. Some of this is based on poor distinctions of sensing and intuiting where Keirsey and Myers refers to the former in an extraverted way and the latter in an introverted way. However Jung was clear in his descriptions that Ni is a process different than Ne:


> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

didnt jung say extraverted intutives describe Se when they do stuff


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

fourtines said:


> F isn't always pleasant, lol, and T isn't always truthful or even correct about what the factual truth may be.


Well, I'm not saying that one group is always honest and the other always nice. But ultimately, T is about judging something based on its correctness, and F is about judging something (or someone) based on how much the judger (and possibly society as a whole) likes it.

If a thinker states an untruth even while using his thinking function, it is because there is some practical reason for deception. If a feeler is mean to someone while using the feeling function, it is because the feeler is not pleased with the person, and possibly because the person intentionally did something to offend the feeler.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> But ultimately, T is about judging something based on its correctness, and F is about judging something (or someone) based on how much the judger (and possibly society as a whole) likes it.


Your definition of T only applies to Te. For introverted thinking a conclusion does not have to be correct, because Ti is considering the essential qualities not how they are measured by some objective standard. You're Feeling analysis is basically correct. 



> If a thinker states an untruth even while using his thinking function, it is because there is some practical reason for deception.


Again this is more Te than Ti. Ti wouldn't know if something were observably true or not (and wouldn't care). For example, Carl Jung is likely a Ti-type (probably IxTP) and his theories are basically impossible to be validated empirically but that's not the point. He was attempting to ascertain the essence of the unconscious, something that by its very definition is unmeasurable in a quantitative sense. This a very Ti methodology. Te psychoanalysis is more like Big 5 which uses objectively observable measures of psychoanalysis, but doesn't do much to determine essential qualities (you get a snapshot of a person in that moment with Big 5 but not the overall essence of the person like you do with the function archetypes).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

dimane said:


> didnt jung say extraverted intutives describe Se when they do stuff


Actually he said:


> ... if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] 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.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Your definition of T only applies to Te. For introverted thinking a conclusion does not have to be correct, because Ti is considering the essential qualities not how they are measured by some objective standard. You're Feeling analysis is basically correct.


For Ti, the conclusion has to be internally or theoretically correct. For Te, its accuracy needs to be empirically measurable -- which in practice often means that the purity of the logic will get discarded in the name of pragmatism.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> For Ti, the conclusion has to be internally or theoretically correct. For Te, its accuracy needs to be empirically measurable -- which in practice often means that the purity of the logic will get discarded in the name of pragmatism.


Well yes internally correct. Correct in the sense of _this is correct because I say it's correct_. But not empirically correct. 



> which in practice often means that the purity of the logic will get discarded in the name of pragmatism.


Maybe. But this is kind of a Ti way of looking at it. What it sounds like you are describing is a Te situation where the most logical thing and the most efficient thing might be one and the same. Because again Te isn't interested in essence, so it really doesn't matter whether or not the most pure manifestation of the logic is being employed. But in a Te paradigm it doesn't matter.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> For Ti, the conclusion has to be internally or theoretically correct. For Te, its accuracy needs to be empirically measurable -- which in practice often means that the purity of the logic will get discarded in the name of pragmatism.


A Ti construct merely has to overlap with the Ti user's experience, and nothing else. Ti doesn't care for empirical correctness whatsoever. For instance, if all relationships we ever experienced (first hand, or through observation) failed Ti will thus conclude that interhuman relationships are a waste, or that marriage serves no purpose.

If a Ti user is constantly surrounded by people who he deems 'stupid' he'll eventually conclude that all of mankind is dumb.



> Again this is more Te than Ti. Ti wouldn't know if something were observably true or not (and wouldn't care). For example, Carl Jung is likely a Ti-type (probably IxTP) and his theories are basically impossible to be validated empirically but that's not the point.


Jung has most certainly been a Ti type I'd say, given his inability to get straight the point though he's likely an INTP, assuming his swollen phrasing and such wasn't a sole phenomenon of that time. He also made sure to specifically point out that his theory stems from *personal observation and experience with patients*, thus his conclusion match by aboves example provided in regards to how Ti works.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> Your definition of T only applies to Te. For introverted thinking a conclusion does not have to be correct, because Ti is considering the essential qualities not how they are measured by some objective standard. You're Feeling analysis is basically correct.
> 
> 
> 
> Again this is more Te than Ti. Ti wouldn't know if something were observably true or not (and wouldn't care). For example, Carl Jung is likely a Ti-type (probably IxTP) and his theories are basically impossible to be validated empirically but that's not the point. He was attempting to ascertain the essence of the unconscious, something that by its very definition is unmeasurable in a quantitative sense. This a very Ti methodology. Te psychoanalysis is more like Big 5 which uses objectively observable measures of psychoanalysis, but doesn't do much to determine essential qualities (you get a snapshot of a person in that moment with Big 5 but not the overall essence of the person like you do with the function archetypes).


I actually don't agree with this at all. Freud was likely a Te user, and his theories are among the most unprovable around, so I suspect that this is more so a reflection of personal interest than anything. I would take the vague ideas of Freud or Jung any day over the Big 5, or anything that attempts to unrealistically simplify the psyche, whereas my INTP twin is more objective and would prefer objective personality measures to vague, Jungian stuff (which is heavily symbolic, and seems to reek of dominant Ni to me - she finds it all creepy). Knowing many INTPs and ISTPs, they definitely seem to care about provable logic, quite a bit more than any N doms I know, although they focus more on the internal elements of the provable logic than using it for the sake of proving a position or idea they hold (a.k.a. proving something they subjectively believe, as a result of subjective introverted functions (Si, Ni, Fi, yougetthepicture). I think this is the essential difference between Te doms or auxes and Ti doms or auxes (especially doms), who explore logic for its own sake, whereas logic is merely a tool to prove something subjective that motivates the Te user at any given time for any given reason (they can deny this all they want, but the fact that Te users all operate on a more subjective level is actually true (internally), relative to Ti users - that's likely why they have the super objective Te function to begin with, to counter-balance their more subjective world-view and such). Logic is their means to an end, no matter how much they love it, whereas logic is more just the world-view of Ti users, especially the higher ones.


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

Being subjective though, I suppose Ti can vary a lot per individual, and perhaps the dominant Ti of ISTPs is less concerned with accuracy, since their tert. function is Ni, which is mainly gut feelings and such, but in INTPs, this has rarely been the case in my experiences with them, since they have tert. Si, which is the polar opposite of Ni and would be concerned with reliability and accuracy (security-based) over the faith-like qualities of Ni. I have noticed that the INTPs with weaker tert. Si can be pretty "out there," but in most of the ones I know, Si plays a pretty strong role in their psyches, and since it's introverted and directly interacts with their dominant Ti, they can be a bit conservative in accepting ideas that they aren't accustomed to (e.g. Einstein not accepting quantum physics to explain unclear aspects of his theories, since it seemed to "unorthodox" as a form of physics to him, even though it ended up being valid and helped his theories enormously). If they're highly uneducated though, I can see them being quite a bit more subjective in their ideas (philosophers). If they were so unconcerned with the accuracy of their thoughts at all, I can't fathom why there would be so many of them in the science field (from what I've read about Einstein in his early years, he sure seemed to love getting math questions correct - for fun - also, many INTPs I know seem to have a blast correcting faulty reasoning (my sister gets a kick out of watching others' illogical reasoning get annihilated by logic) - I don't enjoy this at all, unless it personally benefits me).


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Erbse said:


> A Ti construct merely has to overlap with the Ti user's experience, and nothing else. Ti doesn't care for empirical correctness whatsoever.


First of all, experience has basically nothing to do with it. Second, your statement that Ti has no concern for empirical correctness is an exaggeration. The distinctive feature of Ti is that it is more willing to organize facts into categories and theoretical models to enable logical understanding, which sometimes requires _filtering_ which facts are taken seriously and which are essentially discarded. All the introverted functions involve filtering. Si takes in the senses but only hangs on to the ones which it considers important -- generally because they correspond with past sensations. Ni considers possibilities but filters them into which ones are likely, and examines those in more depth. Fi acts based on emotions that are filtered through the individual's personal goals or values. Ti examines facts logically, and internally assigns importance to certain facts so as to maximize internal, logical understanding of a chaotic world. (Te tries to pacify and bring order to the outer world by force.)


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> One, that is an unsupported assertion, and two, it's a bit beside the point because I did not say we focused on two things at once.


Of course it is supported.

If you really wanted to be rational, you would have asked me to define the context or definition of "thing."

Secondly, if you don't know what im talking about, how do you know if it relates to what you are saying or not.

I realize I'm not really helping here, but I feel like you are being stubborn so I'm not exactly going to reach out to you either.

Anyway, I can try to explain again. When you focus on two things at once, they become "unified."

As does Se and Ne in that respect, meaning yes it can be done in one way, using a dimensional scale though, or categorically if you create a separate unit other than standard MBTI theory.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

fourtines said:


> It definitely makes me happier to imagine a vivid painting of a house with colors and detail than it does to blur and morph half of it into a spaceship.
> 
> Yeah, the Se and Ne mentalities are supposed to oppose one another, like the same mind can't hold both at once.
> 
> I've never heard of SNE. Is this something you made up yourself?


yeah i made that up as a way of describing what i was talking about

but basically, if you say S and N are a dichotomy, then the more you are one the less you are the other

That means you are never truly S or N unless you are 100%.

Categorically yes you can say you are one or the other, but dimensionally you can say that you are both, in that you are say 99% N 1% concrete.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Souled In said:


> I realize I'm not really helping here, but I feel like you are being stubborn so I'm not exactly going to reach out to you either.


Well I don't need you to "help." I just need you to explain what the hell you're talking about if you expect me to take your comments seriously. But I've forgotten what you were even seeming to argue with me about, so I don't particularly care about it anymore.


----------



## Up and Away (Mar 5, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Well I don't need you to "help." I just need you to explain what the hell you're talking about if you expect me to take your comments seriously. But I've forgotten what you were even seeming to argue with me about, so I don't particularly care about it anymore.


We were talking about lucky charms and applejacks I believe. If you mix the two, yes you can eat both at the same time, but not as much of each.


----------



## Erbse (Oct 15, 2010)

Obsidian said:


> All the introverted functions involve filtering.


Not really. Filtering takes place via judging functions, regardless of attitude (Fi / Fe / Ti / Te) - Perceiving functions inherently indefinitely absorb away in their respective direction.

This also why perceiving dominated people are labeled 'irrationals' while judging dominated people are the 'rationals'. By that I don't refer to the J/P letters used in MBTI.


----------



## DoctorYikes (Nov 22, 2010)

Wide range of rants, here. 

I like bits of this one:

"Se "does" or acts, but is not about changing present reality like Ne is. 
It's like Se reacts to situations already changing, while Ne looks at how to change them. Ne is inferring (that's the definitive term for N) a pattern of "possibility" from the situation, rather then just acting on it as it is."

In many ways, I take the world as a given. Not necessarily set in stone, but the snapshot of the moment is what it is. A is A. Give me a crowd, and I'll slip on through it without putting a great deal of thought into the matter. The obstacles (people) are how the world is at that moment, and I act in reference to those givens. This makes me pretty good at dealing with whatever pops up. On the down side, it would hardly occur to me to go off into the realms of theoretical crowd control, or more efficient ways of diverting foot traffic, or... I have lousy examples here because I just don't naturally think that way. My initial brain setting is that things are what they are, and immediately go about the problem of navigating the situation. Literally, or no.

I've occasionally lamented my lack of creativity, particularly when I was younger. But really, finding the efficient way around a problem isn't innately less creative than finding the way to eliminate it. 

I'm not convinced that separating the judging from the perceiving functions is particularly useful, if it is possible. It's at least difficult for me to engage in a great deal of thinking about what, say 'Se' does without referencing the dynamic interplay with Ti. Or vice-versa.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Actually he said:... if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] 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.
> 
> sorry im not really sure what that means do you think could put it in simpler terms


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

He's basically saying the strong intuitive will perceive is intuitions as if they were real occurrences This may not be a huge problem with dominant intuitives, so much as it can be problematic with people with intuition in the inferior who may not necessarily be able differentiate a prediction or possibility from reality - I think of the person who gets on a plane convinced it's going to crash - that's probably out of control Ne or Ni going on.

Dominant intuitives might manifest this by overstating their abilities, jumping into dicey situations because they rely so heavily on their intuition to guide them as opposed to actual abilities or skills.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Erbse said:


> Perceiving functions inherently indefinitely absorb away in their respective direction.


Not according to Jung. If you read "Psychological Types," he makes no mention of a "direction" for the perceiving, and since you have already said you disagree with the filtering idea then I don't even know for sure what you mean by "direction."


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> Not according to Jung. If you read "Psychological Types," he makes no mention of a "direction" for the perceiving, and since you have already said you disagree with the filtering idea then I don't even know for sure what you mean by "direction."


Here's the issue you have to look at more than _Psychological Types_. When Jung talks about direction he is referring to psychic energy and whether it is pointed back at the person or out at the world. Introverted functions then by this definition are those that are self-referencing (really ego referencing).


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

dimane said:


> Functianalyst said:
> 
> 
> > Actually he said:... if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] 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.
> ...


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

LiquidLight said:


> When Jung talks about direction he is referring to psychic energy and whether it is pointed back at the person or out at the world. Introverted functions then by this definition are those that are self-referencing (really ego referencing).


Well, I guess, but that is so vague that it doesn't seem to mean anything. I think my filtering definition is better.


----------



## dimane (Jun 11, 2011)

ok so they act the same


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

Obsidian said:


> Not according to Jung. If you read "Psychological Types," he makes no mention of a "direction" for the perceiving, and since you have already said you disagree with the filtering idea then I don't even know for sure what you mean by "direction."


Not sure what you mean Obsidian. Any time he refers to the object and subject, he is referring to as Liquid indicates energy, specifically he is referring to direction of the attitude of E or I.


dimane said:


> ok so they act the same


For the most part yes, as indicated in post number #2 and *here*. 


> Se and Ne are both simultaneous in nature and involve perception of many things at once. This can lead to random activity as the outer world is scanned for additional information. With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action.


But some Se users can equally appear like Te, and Ne can appear like Fe. In fact Jung made the gender biased claim that Te and Se is usually found among men, and Ne and Fe among females.


----------



## Obsidian (Aug 10, 2011)

Functianalyst said:


> Any time he refers to the object and subject, he is referring to as Liquid indicates energy, specifically he is referring to direction of the attitude of E or I.


If that's what y'all mean by "direction," then yeah Jung does talk about that. But it is too vague a definition.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

Obsidian said:


> If that's what y'all mean by "direction," then yeah Jung does talk about that. But it is too vague a definition.


I'm curious to know what you find vague. I dont wanna run off the rails and describe something that has nothing to do with what you're getting at.


----------



## Functianalyst (Jul 23, 2009)

I agree with Liquid. Jung is quite specific that when referring to energy direction, he is alluding to the attitudes E/I. He makes that known in his first paragraph:


> In the following pages I shall attempt a general description of the types, and my first concern must be with the two general types I have termed introverted and extraverted. But, in addition, I shall also try to give a certain characterization of those special types whose particularity is due to the fact that his most differentiated function plays the principal role in an individual's adaptation or orientation to life. The former I would term general attitude types, since they are distinguished by the direction of general interest or libido movement, while the latter I would call function-types.
> 
> The general-attitude types, as I have pointed out more than once, are differentiated by their particular attitude to the object. The introvert's attitude to the object is an abstracting one; at bottom, he is always facing the problem of how libido can be withdrawn from the object, as though an attempted ascendancy on. the part of the object had to be continually frustrated. The extravert, on the contrary, maintains a positive relation to the object. To such an extent does he affirm its importance that his subjective attitude is continually being orientated by, and related to the object. An fond, the object can never have sufficient value; for him, therefore, its importance must always be paramount.


Contrary to popular belief it's E/I that Jung first focuses on, followed by S/N, T/F. All introverting types focus on the abstract, even Ti types, whereas extraverting types focus on the here and now including Ne types. Ne does not go within, it can't because it's primary focus will always be on the object or something outside of the Self.


----------

