For example, I really believe this feature in my product will lead to success, but a report was released recently that shows no one wants this feature in their products. It's merely a guide post, though - I really, truly do believe the product will succeed solely using this feature. This is Ne. It makes judgement calls based off of preferences, however these preferences are resolved - faith or what have you.
Contrarily, Se is the cold, business like approach to preferences. No risk/reward system, perhaps. That's a drag, 'cause I do enjoy novelty in products.
Why would you not want your judgements evidenced? That makes absolutely no sense to me, and doesn't sound like anything that should be called 'rationalism'.Needing "similar historical cases" in fact, speaks of the paralytic over-reliance on "evidence" that pushes me away from empiricism, and attracts me to rationalism.
Case in point: Black Swan Theory
It thrashes rationalism up and down the court of play, in case you don't feel like looking into it.
I understand the concept, but I'm not sure if you addressed my assertion. Granted - it is an independent thought of mine, but three other's I've discussed with have individually corroborated the thinking, and I "see" the connotations very well. Te and Se go hand in hand - look at Jung's commentary on Charles Darwin, a Te/Se if there ever were such a thing. Other functions paired with Se will diminish the purely rational thinking ascribed by the duo, even Ti/Se, Ti being a function that appeals to the subjective reader.No. We have the rational functions of Feeling and Thinking, and the irrational functions of Intuition and Sensing. The two rational functions are opposed to each other, as are the two irrational functions. Sensing, however does not oppose feeling or thinking, nor does thinking oppose intuition or sensing. A rational function and an irrational function don't work against each other in the same way that the two rational functions do.
But again, this is my subjective interpretation.