• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Inferior Extraverted Sensing

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Consider for instance reading a book. if you were to "use Se" to read a book, you'd be insanely bored within minutes. But if you were to have no sensing occur at all, you'd be blind. So, what really happens when you read a book?



ps. watched about 10 seconds of the video, then the repression of sensing kicked in.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
That the person attends little to extroverted perceiving, has a distaste for it in general, and controls it poorly has nothing at all to do with whether or not it occurs for them.

Yes, I agree. Because INxJ's are unskilled with objective perception does not mean they don't perceive. This is what my argument hinges on, regarding their state of being Se-inferior - that INxJ's are simply bad at perceptive object-oriented thinking - or at the very least, do not wholly value the trait. I detailed some of my reasoning on the first page, and I'll touch again on it towards the bottom.

Which is my argument to you, [MENTION=16405]Kamishi[/MENTION]. I could have a thousand proclaimed INTJ's coming in reiterating their inability to efficiently function in their environment. It does nothing to convince me away from my position on why introverted intuitives are Se-inferior. Why would I take the butcher's word for it when I can stick my head up the cow's ass?

Consider for instance reading a book. if you were to "use Se" to read a book, you'd be insanely bored within minutes. But if you were to have no sensing occur at all, you'd be blind. So, what really happens when you read a book?

When I study a reference work on physics, I can delve near one hundred percent into the realm of Se. Almost any physical science is the same, from geology to neurology to quantum mechanics. Much of science fiction is Se-oriented, at that - Michael Crichton, Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke. It is only when I get to more subjectively assertive matters (maybe a Rand novel) can I grow bored, because I do not generally view information as something to be idealized. It is something to be discovered, generated and propagated.

Take an experience I had with an INTJ from the forum. Both of us shared an obvious taste for the King series "The Dark Tower". At the very first illumination of conflicting subjective beliefs regarding the themes of the story, I was pegged as being 'wrong', with the ensuing conversation meaning to serve the purpose of who was 'more right'. A user who values Se (or Ne, again) would be highly motivated to explore the variances in perception, it wishes to be shown contrary evidence just as much as it intends to do this for others. Being wrong is part of the sensationalist experience Se values. This is what makes him INTJ and me ISTP - he was closed off to the experience of reconciling beliefs, while my principle drive is to seek reconciliation. It is why NTJ's are valued and skilled as managers; they lack the conviction to reconcile themselves to their environment. Ni makes for very intellectually authoritarian peoples - Rand, Marx, Hitler, Osama, Paul Ryan, so forth. But perhaps I digress.


Earlier I said I would touch back on the subject of Se-inferiority:

"From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men... They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility."

"Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel."

"Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies."

"His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees."


These are all more examples of Se-inferiority. Se is the complete opposite - Se demands reality, demands objective experience, demands reason and demands logic. Ni doesn't. This is why Ni dominants are Se-inferior... not because they have the unfortunate existence of being operated by a dynamic parallel processing device largely ill-equipped to handle the complexity of modern existence, i.e. the human brain.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Yes, I agree. Because INxJ's are unskilled with objective perception does not mean they don't perceive. This is what my argument hinges on, regarding their state of being Se-inferior - that INxJ's are simply bad at perceptive object-oriented thinking - or at the very least, do not wholly value the trait. I detailed some of my reasoning on the first page, and I'll touch again on it towards the bottom.

Pffft, your argument hinges on subjective perception being objectively weaker to the extent the person fails to consume objective perception.

Here's a mind-bender: where everyone says repressed, they mean converted. Repressing, or suppressing immediate sensory information is a key step in allowing other perceptions to arise. The strength then of Ni, or any "function", is, in effect, the extent to which they strip out every other kind of cognition available to the person. This however is impersonal cognitive mechanism, not personal choice. Lifestyles will likely arise as a result of these kinds of cognitive mechanisms, but if, say, a person happens to fuck up by giving in to their exaggerated distaste for participation in the outside world, that's different from saying Ni is teh fail. That'd be about the same as saying black isn't very good at white because it's not white.

All people are subject to about the same amount of raw input, give or take according to biology and circumstance. They all convert that raw, impersonal input into something else. None of them attend directly to everything in the raw stream.

let us pray.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
When I study a reference work on physics, I can delve near one hundred percent into the realm of Se.

The realm, sure. But not the experience.

Almost any physical science is the same, from geology to neurology to quantum mechanics. Much of science fiction is Se-oriented, at that - Michael Crichton, Asimov, Arthur C. Clarke. It is only when I get to more subjectively assertive matters (maybe a Rand novel) can I grow bored, because I do not generally view information as something to be idealized. It is something to be discovered, generated and propagated.

Take an experience I had with an INTJ from the forum. Both of us shared an obvious taste for the King series "The Dark Tower". At the very first illumination of conflicting subjective beliefs regarding the themes of the story, I was pegged as being 'wrong', with the ensuing conversation meaning to serve the purpose of who was 'more right'. A user who values Se (or Ne, again) would be highly motivated to explore the variances in perception, it wishes to be shown contrary evidence just as much as it intends to do this for others. Being wrong is part of the sensationalist experience Se values. This is what makes him INTJ and me ISTP - he was closed off to the experience of reconciling beliefs, while my principle drive is to seek reconciliation. It is why NTJ's are valued and skilled as managers; they lack the conviction to reconcile themselves to their environment. Ni makes for very intellectually authoritarian peoples - Rand, Marx, Hitler, Osama, Paul Ryan, so forth. But perhaps I digress.


Earlier I said I would touch back on the subject of Se-inferiority:

"From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men... They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility."

"Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel."

"Reality has no existence for him; he gives himself up to fruitless phantasies."

"His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees."


These are all more examples of Se-inferiority. Se is the complete opposite - Se demands reality, demands objective experience, demands reason and demands logic. Ni doesn't. This is why Ni dominants are Se-inferior... not because they have the unfortunate existence of being operated by a dynamic parallel processing device largely ill-equipped to handle the complexity of modern existence, i.e. the human brain.

Dude, please. An INTJ judged and now it's time to trash the type? Come out of the closet, ENTP!
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Pffft, your argument hinges on subjective perception being objectively weaker to the extent the person fails to consume objective perception.

You are correct, the subjective perception can be very strong in terms of utility regarding a wide range of subjects.

Here's a mind-bender: where everyone says repressed, they mean converted. Repressing, or suppressing immediate sensory information is a key step in allowing other perceptions to arise. The strength then of Ni, or any "function", is, in effect, the extent to which they strip out every other kind of cognition available to the person. This however is impersonal cognitive mechanism, not personal choice. Lifestyles will likely arise as a result of these kinds of cognitive mechanisms, but if, say, a person happens to fuck up by giving in to their exaggerated distaste for participation in the outside world, that's different from saying Ni is teh fail. That'd be about the same as saying black isn't very good at white because it's not white.

All people are subject to about the same amount of raw input, give or take according to biology and circumstance. They all convert that raw, impersonal input into something else. None of them attend directly to everything in the raw stream.

Perhaps we will arrive at a philosophical crossroads, soon, for Jung predicts the exchange far in advance:

"Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation."

let us pray.

Pray for what?

Dude, please. An INTJ judged and now it's time to trash the type? Come out of the closet, ENTP!

All I have done is post some quotes from Jung, characters from celebritytypes, and related a personal experience. It's not like I've really made anything up out of spite. I've got more experience to share, should you not be satisfied. I am free being any type whoever wishes me to be, from ENTP to ISFJ.

For your opinion, as was stated prior, I don't believe many to be caricatures of the ideas expressed. They are that, caricatures.

Oh, except the managing thing. I don't know what to say, NTJ's drive horses well.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
All people are subject to about the same amount of raw input, give or take according to biology and circumstance. They all convert that raw, impersonal input into something else. None of them attend directly to everything in the raw stream.

Disagreed. It's not about convertion. The data never transforms and why would it? The actual nature and impression of the chair is never going to be anything but a chair. Instead, I would argue it is more about the interpretation or focus on the data, how one spends the most energy to understand it. How do we understand the chair? The data is simply a source of various possibilities to be interpreted.

Yes, I agree. Because INxJ's are unskilled with objective perception does not mean they don't perceive. This is what my argument hinges on, regarding their state of being Se-inferior - that INxJ's are simply bad at perceptive object-oriented thinking - or at the very least, do not wholly value the trait. I detailed some of my reasoning on the first page, and I'll touch again on it towards the bottom.

Which is my argument to you, @<a href="http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/member.php?u=16405" target="_blank">Kamishi</a>. I could have a thousand proclaimed INTJ's coming in reiterating their inability to efficiently function in their environment. It does nothing to convince me away from my position on why introverted intuitives are Se-inferior. Why would I take the butcher's word for it when I can stick my head up the cow's ass?

Proclaimed, huh? I never once intended to argue the point that inferior Se types are not able to efficiently function in the sense world by the way. Knowing myself and who I am, putting value on the sense world is the least likely thing I would do, especially as a type 5 I think. Ni and 5-ness kind of go together. I can imagine how to operate perfectly in the sense world but once I need to translate this knowledge into anything practical it tends to just fail beyond belief. I don't know how to translate what I'm seeing in my mind and apply it properly in the actual sense world. There are other aspects as well of course, such as forgetting where I put my keys or my phone (nevermind my inability to remember to charge my phone and have my family members try to call me several times and asking if I'm alive), remembering to eat, slight sense of hypochondria (especially that which is capable of invading the body e.g. parasites) and I don't know what else. The world of inferior sensation is just a strange one. I rather just not think of it at all.

The point I was raising is that you were making the claim that Se has nothing to do with the sense of "being in the moment" which I attest from personal experience is simply not true, especially because of how obviously it stands in contrast to Ni as a dominant perspective that is anything but being aware of the present moment. I'm more aware of drawing patterns of observed phenomena in the past and telling what will happen in the near to far-away future than I am telling what is going on right now. Having to consciously focus my perspective this way is clearly painful and it's only in childish moments of inferior eruption where I can enjoy such occurrences. I think perhaps even moreso because of Fi is also supporting inferior Se. This video may be exaggerated but it still captures the positive experience of inferior Se with Fi quite well. Notice its childish and archaic nature:

 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
You are correct, the subjective perception can be very strong in terms of utility regarding a wide range of subjects.

lol.

The lurking "but" there is the anti-Jung.

Perhaps we will arrive at a philosophical crossroads, soon, for Jung predicts the exchange far in advance:

"Thus, just as it seems incomprehensible to the introvert that the object should always be decisive, it remains just as enigmatic to the extravert how a subjective standpoint can be superior to the objective situation."

Sadly, I didn't say the subjective viewpoint wins. I said all viewpoints are compromised, but that none of them therefore fail. They definitely fail to be one another. They definitely fail to encompass the strengths of viewpoints they are not. But they don't in general fail. None of the "functions" are defined so hopelessly compromised that they cannot function in their own right.

But there's more. They all actually do do something adequate with respect to available reality. And wherever anyone manages to include that axiom in their understanding of functions and functioning, they've got their Jung right.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Disagreed. It's not about convertion. The data never transforms and why would it? The actual nature and impression of the chair is never going to be anything but a chair. Instead, I would argue it is more about the interpretation or focus on the data, how one spends the most energy to understand it. How do we understand the chair? The data is simply a source of various possibilities to be interpreted.

Same difference maybe? As soon as you say "chair", you're no longer dealing with raw data.

There has to be some transformation of data. There's some jump between impersonal processes such as you find in the nervous system and personal processes such as you find in a cognitive system. Once the "data" is registered in consciousness, or even in the unconscious, it surely is something different--qualitatively, at least--from any raw content of the nervous system.

or not. Maybe it just appears different.
 

Entropic

New member
Joined
Aug 20, 2012
Messages
1,200
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
8w9
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Same difference maybe? As soon as you say "chair", you're no longer dealing with raw data.

Then what is data? In order to successfully communicate we need labels, but the labels themselves don't need to actually be transformation of meaning because they can still infer to the primary impressions or ideas, again, depending on how you interpret the label. "Chair" is by itself meaningless, just like the word "data" is. There are many ways I can describe a chair and people will still be able to infer that it is a chair I am describing. Why? Because I am referring to an idea that we can collectively understand even if this understanding of the idea is still personal to a degree. You can in my opinion, always infer to the raw data at hand no matter what you call it.
There has to be some transformation of data.

Why transformation instead of re-interpretation? Transformation suggests that the data as is is no longer, and I don't think this is true. We clearly extract meaning from the objective world, but the way we understand the objective world seems to for most of the part, be subjective even if an extrovert might disagree.
There's some jump between impersonal processes such as you find in the nervous system and personal processes such as you find in a cognitive system. Once the "data" is registered in consciousness, or even in the unconscious, it surely is something different--qualitatively, at least--from any raw content of the nervous system.

Why must it be? Again, it depends on how you define data to begin with.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Well... dunno.

But the assertion that there is something independent of us that we all partake of similarly is an article of faith. Probably a good article of faith. It would seem that models of cognition fall apart conceptually if there is no such article. But what's the reason for asserting a direct relationship? Why would the content of cognition and the content of the real world have some direct relationship? For as long as the relationship is consistent and reliable, it doesn't have to be direct at all. And conceptually speaking, it seems a fairly long journey from impulses in a nervous system to conscious cognition.

It seems like the only way to ensure any kind of direct relationship between the content of the mind and the shape of the outside world is to have Se operate independent of other cognition. No transformation. No additional input. No human.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Just to be contrary with all this Vicky Jo bashing, I started looking at more of her stuff. This video on Inferior Se is interesting.

Do other INTJs do the things described? I also liked the part about how you fabricate a story about why/how you messed up. I used to do that.


The ‘overconfidence’ spiel at [4:56] is maybe more Te. I sometimes seriously underestimate how long it will take me to do something, but rarely ever overestimate my ability to do things.

And this tangent she keeps going on, about how seeing inferior Se in her husband was driving her nuts because he was “reflecting her inferior processes”…..that’s seems really weird to me. If someone has the same inferior processes- that’s when I’m actually most understanding because it makes total sense to me how they could fall short. I won’t even see it as ‘falling short’ (in myself or someone else) until I’m around someone in whom it isn’t an inferior process- and then it looks like a superpower. At the most, I’ll get agitated that a blind spot me and that person share prevents us from participating in the world in a normal way (like the rest of the world got some memo that we missed out on)- but I certainly don’t get angry at the other person for it, it would just remain a bizarre “I think other people know something we don’t” feeling. What drives me nuts is when someone has an ‘inferior process’ that I can’t relate to- because I won’t understand how they’re having so much trouble with something that seems 'obvious' to me. [And as an aside- ENFP got mentioned a couple times now, and now that I think about it she does seem like a very Te heavy ENFP to me. Those Te heavy ENFPs tend to be clumsy interpersonally and a bit more bossy/aggressive than they realize.]

They both describe how the whole farcical trip was the product of mishearing [6:44], and that is something I can relate to. If I have a lot of things going on, I tend to start mixing incoming details up like crazy.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The ‘overconfidence’ spiel at [4:56] is maybe more Te. I sometimes seriously underestimate how long it will take me to do something, but rarely ever overestimate my ability to do things.

And this tangent she keeps going on, about how seeing inferior Se in her husband was driving her nuts because he was “reflecting her inferior processes”…..that’s seems really weird to me. If someone has the same inferior processes- that’s when I’m actually most understanding because it makes total sense to me how they could fall short. I won’t even see it as ‘falling short’ (in myself or someone else) until I’m around someone in whom it isn’t an inferior process- and then it looks like a superpower. At the most, I’ll get agitated that a blind spot me and that person share prevents us from participating in the world in a normal way (like the rest of the world got some memo that we missed out on)- but I certainly don’t get angry at the other person for it, it would just remain a bizarre “I think other people know something we don’t” feeling. What drives me nuts is when someone has an ‘inferior process’ that I can’t relate to- because I won’t understand how they’re having so much trouble with something that seems 'obvious' to me. [And as an aside- ENFP got mentioned a couple times now, and now that I think about it she does seem like a very Te heavy ENFP to me. Those Te heavy ENFPs tend to be clumsy interpersonally and a bit more bossy/aggressive than they realize.]

They both describe how the whole farcical trip was the product of mishearing [6:44], and that is something I can relate to. If I have a lot of things going on, I tend to start mixing incoming details up like crazy.

I think you can engage in projection related to your inferior process especially when under stress. Imagine two Ni doms in the grip of the inferior together at the same time :).
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Hey you.

So I watched the video, the parts of it I could stand. It was weird, and not illuminating. They seemed to be talking much more of abdication of responsibility than inferior sensing. Still, if they can stay married by calling it type difference...


I'd almost say ENTP for her, but amped up INFJ in teacher persona works too.
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think you can engage in projection related to your inferior process especially when under stress. Imagine two Ni doms in the grip of the inferior together at the same time :).

But I don’t have to imagine it. I’ve had enough close INFJ friends to know what that’s like- and in large part, it’s why I’ve said I don’t think I could ever handle being in a relationship with another INFJ. It’s like the blind leading the blind, an overwhelming vague feeling like “I think other people know something that we don’t.” And when I’m stressed, it does get very irritating- but it’s weird to me that she seems to be angry at him. I guess I'd have to kind of already resent someone quite a bit to act the way she acted towards him, or something.

Getting angry at someone else for something that makes sense is….weird, to me (because as many INFJs have said- as soon as something makes sense to us, that’s when we instantly stop being angry). eta: the exception would be if it were something selfish or thoughtless- but getting sloppy with details due to inferior Se doesn't fall in that category.

She mentioned maybe making another video in which she is the one who gets self-effacing. That’d be interesting to see. If she ever got around to it.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
And when I’m stressed, it does get very irritating- but it’s weird to me that she seems to be angry at him. I guess I'd have to kind of already resent someone quite a bit to act the way she acted towards him, or something.

Getting angry at someone else for something that makes sense is….weird, to me (because as many INFJs have said- as soon as something makes sense to us, that’s when we instantly stop being angry). eta: the exception would be if it were something selfish or thoughtless- but getting sloppy with details due to inferior Se doesn't fall in that category.

She mentioned maybe making another video in which she is the one who gets self-effacing. That’d be interesting to see. If she ever got around to it.

I think you meant "that makes no sense"?

Anyway, yeah I would get pissed if I were him and let her know it but who knows, maybe he understands/accepts her for being that way.
 

Tiltyred

New member
Joined
Dec 1, 2008
Messages
4,322
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
468
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
HA! The husband knew where they were. He just knew. :) O quel coinkydink. It's not a coinkydink. He got the facts wrong but he was actually driving to where the guy actually was. I love it.

And P.S., Srsly, Vicky Jo's sitting there in her underwear. Girl needs to put a shirt on. :p
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Honestly, what an obnoxious video.

She's basically just shaming her husband on the internet.

I live in LA, drive all over the place, and have absolutely no problem getting where I need to go.

I'm not saying this episode has nothing to do with his inferior Se, but inferior Se doesn't dictate that you can't fucking take directions and get where you need to go; frankly, the guy seems like a spaced out enneagram 9, and like this is causing a lot of his issues.

He's also a fucking douche/pussy for putting up with this woman's shit.

And, like many others have said, I'm not sure she's actually an INFJ.

Lastly, if we're typology "amateurs", what the fuck exactly is she?
 

Z Buck McFate

Pepperidge Farm remembers.
Joined
Aug 25, 2009
Messages
6,048
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I think you meant "that makes no sense"?

Actually no, when things make sense- and it's something innocuous (like inferior function weakness)- then it just seems weird to me to get angry. That's especially true the more I can directly relate to it.
 

OrangeAppled

Sugar Hiccup
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
7,626
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I associate absent-mindedness much more with Pe, not lack of Pe... The average SP seems more disorganized & forgetful than an NJ. I won't go into any theoretical spiel; this is just observation of patterns of behaviors.

----

Anyhow, VJ's grasp of Fi is way too crap to be ENFP or any Fi type. I've never come across an ENFP with such terrible grasp of Fi, even the ones who know little about the theory. Most IxTJs have a better grasp of Fi than her.

She is an extroverted feeling type, likely an ENFJ.
 
W

WALMART

Guest
Proclaimed, huh?

I considered the term "self-described" but that precludes someone has not been professionally typed. After that, all one can do is proclaim. I wanted to iterate the fact that rarely do people embody a set function order as MBTI ascribes, let alone a single function.

I never once intended to argue the point that inferior Se types are not able to efficiently function in the sense world by the way. Knowing myself and who I am, putting value on the sense world is the least likely thing I would do, especially as a type 5 I think. Ni and 5-ness kind of go together. I can imagine how to operate perfectly in the sense world but once I need to translate this knowledge into anything practical it tends to just fail beyond belief. I don't know how to translate what I'm seeing in my mind and apply it properly in the actual sense world. There are other aspects as well of course, such as forgetting where I put my keys or my phone (nevermind my inability to remember to charge my phone and have my family members try to call me several times and asking if I'm alive), remembering to eat, slight sense of hypochondria (especially that which is capable of invading the body e.g. parasites) and I don't know what else. The world of inferior sensation is just a strange one. I rather just not think of it at all.

The point I was raising is that you were making the claim that Se has nothing to do with the sense of "being in the moment" which I attest from personal experience is simply not true, especially because of how obviously it stands in contrast to Ni as a dominant perspective that is anything but being aware of the present moment. I'm more aware of drawing patterns of observed phenomena in the past and telling what will happen in the near to far-away future than I am telling what is going on right now. Having to consciously focus my perspective this way is clearly painful and it's only in childish moments of inferior eruption where I can enjoy such occurrences. I think perhaps even moreso because of Fi is also supporting inferior Se. This video may be exaggerated but it still captures the positive experience of inferior Se with Fi quite well. Notice its childish and archaic nature:



Good post. I honestly wasn't positive about what direction you wanted to go with that earlier comment, but it's clarified quite well here. I don't agree with the video being an example of inferior Se - that is an example of Se in general, perhaps. I think you nailed it with the Fi comment. I would go with Fi a trillion times over before anything, but almost certainly not Se-inferiority.

I suppose Se is the most in the moment, in a sense - but I prefer not to think of it as some high-level acuity to the physical realm in the manner the video in the OP suggests. It's more like if Se sees someone going for a mug, they wish to stay open to the possibility they will pour apple juice, milk, eat soup, or even throw it against a wall - while Ni is more into applying patterns as you've stated, such as equating coffee mugs to coffee. Se does not like making these connections in such an intuitive fashion, even so far as repressing intuitive reactions to circumstance - Jung predicts Se finds them archaic and grotesque.

Take an experience I had recently with a perhaps Ni friend. We were getting fast food and pulled up to the first window to pay. I paid, and the guy who took my money said "Wait right here, I will be right back with your food". So I'm waiting, and after two long minutes the Ni in my backseat starts getting irate, telling me to pull up to the second window, the guy is probably waiting for us to pull up. I tell him several times the guy explicitly instructed me to wait there, and my friend in the passenger seat confirms this, but the Ni is having none of it. He starts mumbling curses to himself, boiling about how wrong I am, repetitively expressing how 'fucking stupid' the situation is. My face grows hot in contemplation; in my mind I start doubting my perception - "did he actually instruct me to pull forward? Should I pull up regardless? He is right, this is quite odd..." Then I think to myself "Okay, if the guy was actually waiting for me he would have A) opened the window and waved me forward or B) walked my food back to the first window anyways. There is a car behind me, he obviously isn't just going to let me hold up the line this way. Plus, it's three in the morning - they are probably taking so long because they are making this food fresh since they are not all that busy." So I decide to ignore Ni (including my own) and wait.

Sure enough, about a minute later, the guy opens the window and hands me the food cheerfully. I felt like turning around and smacking the guy in my backseat for causing me so much cognitive dissonance, but I realize this is just Ni being Ni. He had no intent to reconcile the fact that the man explicitly instructed me to wait to the patterns he had recognized in the past. This is a textbook example of Ni suppressing objective sensory experience in the manner Jung describes. So Se is in the moment, to this regard, in the sense that it correctly objectively understands and interprets such experience.

I have postulated while recanting this story if it could be attributable to Si - but no, it couldn't. Jung states Si to be over reliant on Se, Se is Si's unconscious attitude - perhaps too trusting of sensory experience, much as the way Ni is too trusting of its intuitive experience. Now - it may be I am going quite out on a limb with this story being attributable to Ni altogether, but I feel confident in my thoughts and I would welcome a rebuttal should anyone disagree.

It seems like the only way to ensure any kind of direct relationship between the content of the mind and the shape of the outside world is to have Se operate independent of other cognition. No transformation. No additional input. No human.

+1

Buddha recognized this many years ago, and it takes decades of concentrated effort to theoretically achieve.
 
Top