User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 63

Thread: Ne vs Se

  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I dont know who associates Se with gut feelings, but thats just stupid. Sure Ni can(and will in many situations) be "fed" by Se, but its not Se that gives the gut feelings, Se gives conscious perceptions.
    Seeing @Southern Kross's description below, that's the kind of gut feeling I meant. It's not possible for all the little details in the environment to be fully conscious at all times, Se just selects what's important and goes by that. And that process is not done by conscious steps. Of course the Se user is conscious of the environment around them.

    I see Jung says in your quote: "The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed" ... However I don't think cognitively it's possible to have everything fully conscious in one moment, e.g. when you are looking at a room that has 100 objects in it. It would take more than just one second for sure. On a subconscious level it's possible of course, and that's what I was talking about above. What do you think?

    Btw that reminds me. When you know/use something very well, you'll be able to do it on autopilot, automatically, without it being fully conscious. Now with functions, why is there the idea that when a function is differentiated, it's more conscious? Doesn't that idea go against the fact I mentioned here? (I talked to you earlier about how I see other stuff in psychology not working out well with MBTI, this is one example of that.)

  2. #22
    Undisciplined Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Uhh I don't relate to either. I don't like to use generalizations in this fashion about people.

    I can have instinctual understanding of stuff in this fashion. Well the girl example is really bad though, because that just would never make any sense to me that all girls are the same about whatever. (Except for what girls all have *by definition*. :p)

    So where I do this kind of learning is more to do with other objects. Unless I misunderstand the example.

    I think the only thing that you are misunderstanding with regards to the original example and my subsequent use of it... is that it is referring to unhealthy expressions of Se and Ne...and is not a 'sweeping generalization' in and of itself. IOW, relatively healthy Se doms may be prone to generalizations when in the midst of stressful situations...relatively unhealthy Se doms may never generalize a thing...and so forth. But I have seen and read enough to know that there is definitely a correlation. The fact that you, personally, do not relate does not change this. Also unchanged: the fact that all types (all humans) come to generalized conclusions with regards to their environment. This is called survival. Here we are merely addressing the point at which Se makes this choice...and where Ne becomes lost and confused.


    Quote Originally Posted by five sounds View Post
    lol is it bad that i might choose the latter over making sweeping generalizations?
    As long as it isn't bad that I might choose the former to being stuck forever...

    I have an ESFP 8w9 friend/associate that has concluded all white people are racists. Is she part of any hate group against whites? Does she treat the white people she meets throughout the course of a day poorly? No. This is something she believes (I would say needs) which allows her to navigate the world in a way that feels safe and right to her (I'd like to add here that she has a PhD in African American and Ethnic Studies.) She is not interested in formulating close relationships with white people. <-How much is she really missing out though?

    Every once and a while a white person slips by her 'are all racists' blockade... like I did. Apparently, my specific history combined with my ethnicity makes me 'non-white' in spite of the fact physical anthropology would say otherwise (I will say this though that all my relatives came through Ellis Island marked as 'non-whites' <--even my blond, blue-eyed great grandfather so...maybe she's onto something )

  3. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starry View Post
    I think the only thing that you are misunderstanding with regards to the original example and my subsequent use of it... is that it is referring to unhealthy expressions of Se and Ne...and is not a 'sweeping generalization' in and of itself. IOW, relatively healthy Se doms may be prone to generalizations when in the midst of stressful situations...relatively unhealthy Se doms may never generalize a thing...and so forth. But I have seen and read enough to know that there is definitely a correlation. The fact that you, personally, do not relate does not change this. Also unchanged: the fact that all types (all humans) come to generalized conclusions with regards to their environment. This is called survival. Here we are merely addressing the point at which Se makes this choice...and where Ne becomes lost and confused.
    Ah, well, just a correlation.

    Note I didn't say I don't do any generalized conclusions, I said I just don't do it in this fashion.

    Btw the bolded, did you make some typo there?

  4. #24
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Seeing @Southern Kross's description below, that's the kind of gut feeling I meant. It's not possible for all the little details in the environment to be fully conscious at all times, Se just selects what's important and goes by that. And that process is not done by conscious steps. Of course the Se user is conscious of the environment around them.

    I see Jung says in your quote: "The function of sense is, of course, absolute in the stricter sense; for example, everything is seen or heard to the farthest physiological possibility, but not everything attains that threshold value which a perception must possess in order to be also apperceived. It is a different matter when sensation itself possesses priority, instead of merely seconding another function. In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed" ... However I don't think cognitively it's possible to have everything fully conscious in one moment, e.g. when you are looking at a room that has 100 objects in it. It would take more than just one second for sure. On a subconscious level it's possible of course, and that's what I was talking about above. What do you think?

    Btw that reminds me. When you know/use something very well, you'll be able to do it on autopilot, automatically, without it being fully conscious. Now with functions, why is there the idea that when a function is differentiated, it's more conscious? Doesn't that idea go against the fact I mentioned here? (I talked to you earlier about how I see other stuff in psychology not working out well with MBTI, this is one example of that.)
    I underlined this: "those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology." so that you wouldnt reply what you just replied.

    When contrasting Si and Se with this, its like Se user will choose the brightest color to stand out the most/first in consciousness, but Si user will perceive strongest or first the color that has most subjective significance for the person(for example favorite color).
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  5. #25
    Undisciplined Starry's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,625

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    Btw the bolded, did you make some typo there?






    Okay actually...the bolded looks and reads like how I intended. Let me know if you would like clarification.

  6. #26
    Entertaining Cracker five sounds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    729 sx/sp
    Socionics
    IEE Ne
    Posts
    5,634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Starry View Post
    As long as it isn't bad that I might choose the former to being stuck forever...

    I have an ESFP 8w9 friend/associate that has concluded all white people are racists. Is she part of any hate group against whites? Does she treat the white people she meets throughout the course of a day poorly? No. This is something she believes (I would say needs) which allows her to navigate the world in a way that feels safe and right to her (I'd like to add here that she has a PhD in African American and Ethnic Studies.) She is not interested in formulating close relationships with white people. <-How much is she really missing out though?

    Every once and a while a white person slips by her 'are all racists' blockade... like I did. Apparently, my specific history combined with my ethnicity makes me 'non-white' in spite of the fact physical anthropology would say otherwise (I will say this though that all my relatives came through Ellis Island marked as 'non-whites' <--even my blond, blue-eyed great grandfather so...maybe she's onto something )
    so then it's most white people are racists. which is kind of fine with me. i mean, i'm not saying i agree with that statement in particular, but that kind of logic is cool with me. when it has to be an 'all ______ are ________', i immediately think of how that exists at varying levels on a spectrum on just how ____ each ______ really is. i just can't believe most things are that simple and straightforward. lol oh no am i stuck forever?
    Last edited by five sounds; 02-24-2014 at 08:05 AM. Reason: subject-verb agreement? yeesh.
    You hem me in -- behind and before;
    you have laid your hand upon me.
    Such knowledge is too wonderful for me,
    too lofty for me to attain.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    SeNi
    Enneagram
    8+7 sx/sp
    Socionics
    SeTi
    Posts
    940

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by INTP View Post
    I underlined this: "those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology." so that you wouldnt reply what you just replied.

    When contrasting Si and Se with this, its like Se user will choose the brightest color to stand out the most/first in consciousness, but Si user will perceive strongest or first the color that has most subjective significance for the person(for example favorite color).
    I saw that, so I should assume the part about "In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed" does not mean it all gets fully conscious, just not truly repressed then? Though what exactly does repression mean in this context?

    Have you seen the last part in my post about consciousness vs general psychology's concept of automaticity vs jungian concept of differentation?


    Quote Originally Posted by Starry View Post
    Okay actually...the bolded looks and reads like how I intended. Let me know if you would like clarification.
    OK, just making sure.

  8. #28
    untitled Chanaynay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Posts
    5,151

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by five sounds View Post
    so then it's most white people are racists. which is kind of fine with me. i mean, i'm not saying i agree with that statement in particular, but that kind of logic is cool with me. when it has to be an 'all ______ are ________', i immediately think of how that exists at varying levels on a spectrum on just how ____ each ______ really is. i just can't believe most things is that simple and straightforward. lol oh no am i stuck forever?
    This is very much my thought process too. I don't like confining things to generalizations, but most of all people. I think the biggest mistake one can make is letting generalizations enter one's interpersonal life.
    7w6 - 2w3 - 8w7 sx/so


  9. #29
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by valaki View Post
    I saw that, so I should assume the part about "In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed" does not mean it all gets fully conscious, just not truly repressed then? Though what exactly does repression mean in this context?

    Have you seen the last part in my post about consciousness vs general psychology's concept of automaticity vs jungian concept of differentation?

    I just spent over an hour to write a huge wall of text explaining everything and it got fucked up and lost in the bit world and not going to do it again

    ill just post this
    Differentiation
    The separation of parts from a whole, necessary for conscious access to the psychological functions.


    So long as a function is still so fused with one or more other functions-thinking with feeling, feeling with sensation, etc.-that it is unable to operate on its own, it is in an archaic condition, i.e., not differentiated, not separated from the whole as a special part and existing by itself. Undifferentiated thinking is incapable of thinking apart from other functions; it is continually mixed up with sensations, feelings, intuitions, just as undifferentiated feeling is mixed up with sensations and fantasies.["Definitions," CW 6, par. 705.]

    An undifferentiated function is characterized by ambivalence (every position entails its own negative), which leads to characteristic inhibitions in its use.

    Differentiation consists in the separation of the function from other functions, and in the separation of its individual parts from each other. Without differentiation direction is impossible, since the direction of a function towards a goal depends on the elimination of anything irrelevant. Fusion with the irrelevant precludes direction; only a differentiated function is capable of being directed.[ Ibid., par. 705.]
    In this case, no element of objective sensation is excluded and nothing repressed (with the exception of the subjective share [p. 457] already mentioned). Sensation has a preferential objective determination, and those objects which release the strongest sensation are decisive for the individual's psychology. The result of this is a pronounced sensuous hold to the object.

    What comes to that term automaticity, it combines many different things to it and doesent separate for example habits, procedural memory and flow state, thus the term is undifferentiated. Differentiation on a neural level would be not forming separate neural pathways in the brains for things.
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  10. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,628

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by yeghor View Post
    Se-dom : sends out sensory data pockets to ping the environment and analyzes the sensory data reflected back from the environment (body language mostly?) and then acts on that...

    Ne-dom : sends out mental/conceptual (?) data pockets to ping the environment and analyzes the [insert proper adjective] data reflected back from the environment (trick questions to weed out alternate perspectives/possibilities?) and then acts on that...

    I've come to see Ne-dom function somewhat similar to sonic waves that certain animals use to navigate their environment...like bats or dolphins...

    Whereas Se-dom function would be analogous to animals that have keen physical sensory abilities like sight, smell, taste etc. in such a case...

    Why did certain animals develop ability to see better in dark whereas some others abandoned sight altogether I wonder?
    *LOUD, ATTENTION-VAMPIRIC SIGH*

    You guys just don't get it...

    An Se-dom, say an ESTP, could scan his environment for objective sensory data and then, using his Ti, analyze it. He could look at the texture or luster of an object, observe how it moves through the air, and if he honed his Se enough, predict how the physical object might behave under certain circumstances.

    Now the ESTP doesn't come out of the womb pre-trained to be a basketball champ or Spartan warrior. Sports of today are huge events demonstrative of how even a function like Se needs to be properly nurtured, or it's useless. The natural predilection for an Se toddler is to spring to his feet and run through the fields for hours. It is not, however, to leap perfectly through a series of hoops in the air with perfect precision. That is a learned Se skill.

    That said, the Ne uses his function in a parallel way. If Ne is properly honed, it most certainly can make very effective connections between events and their causes. It cannot, however, scan the physical environment on its own.
    Ne-users often prefer books to television, because the information provided is already refined for them.

    Ne-users are not scanning their environments for connections from birth. They are in fact making connections between information that is already explicitly stated, they just handle it better in this raw form than Sensors. Ne works vicariously.

    SPs need to learn how to read. They need to be taught how to connect their physical observations to concepts, or they will miss things in the world around them.

    NPs need to open their eyes. They need to be taught how to connect their concepts to their physical environment which they are unaware of, or they will miss things in the world around them.

    Don't let the statistics fool you, there are probably droves of mistyped NPs out there. The smart ones have learned to connect Ne to other functions and they're the only ones typing N.

Similar Threads

  1. INFP vs. ISFP(Ne vs Se).
    By LadyLazarus in forum What's my Type?
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 03-09-2014, 08:09 PM
  2. Si vs Se / Ni vs Ne
    By Ribonuke in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-13-2013, 12:30 PM
  3. Ne/Si vs Se/Ni
    By WALMART in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-27-2013, 03:49 PM
  4. Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]
    By Snow Turtle in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 06:37 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO