Inferior Extraverted Sensing

[Kalach]

With stories like that you're going to have to seriously consider being ENFP.

 

[WALMART]

Overt identification with information can be a messy business. Perhaps you should consider letting your Ni go?

I've got some true Se-fails for you that adhere to Jungian writings, should that please you.

 

[Kalach]

Don't care. The program is too obvious.

 

[Kalach]

For those playing along at home, the program is "poke it til it bleeds"

The bizarre postulates about the doings of Se are meaningful but secondary to seeing how cranky or embarrassed a bunch of people interested in a supposedly troublesome aspect of their own personality can end up being as they get jiggled around. This is the work of Ne.

It will end in tears.

 

[Entropic]

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 would say that at this point that INTJ isn't just a best fit, but the fit. I have done so much introspection the past year that I do not doubt Ni dominance anymore. I do however have a well-developed Te auxiliary. That I am not Te-dominant becomes obvious because I ultimately reject Te as a dominant perspective over Ni.

While I agree with the sentiment that people are not as clear-cut in their type as the MBTI might perhaps lead others to believe; I also find that people tend to as a whole be sufficiently biased cognitively to type them one way or another, although it gets a little wishy-washy with auxiliary-tertiary because sometimes they "swap" with people relying more on what would otherwise be considered the tertiary e.g. ENTJ whose cognition is more akin to Te-Se than Te-Ni. Then one might argue whether ESTJ could be a better fit since it describes a Te dominant who favors sensation as the auxiliary.

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.

For the video? Fi inferiority looks very different, especially if it is the inferior function, not inferior as in simply unconscious as tertiary. The reason why this is an example of inferior Se with Fi is because the reaction towards the sense world is extremely childish and thus belies its archaic nature. A dominant or auxiliary sensor would not react this way because to them, this is nothing special or common per se. They wouldn't exaggerate their reactions to this degree. I've had reactions like these myself like when my town was struck by a combination of thunderstorm and hailstorm, and when I realized I started to run around on my balcony in excitement quite similar to how you see in this video.

Inferior Fi in contrast is a pain in the ass, usually. They become extremely moralistic when butthurt and refuse to let go of their sense of ethics. Consider the story I was told some time ago when some of my friends were discussing the possibility of aborting children with birth defects and the Te dom in our friendship circle became butthurt like hell and anal because to him, all life was sacred. It got to the point eventually when he refused to discuss the issue further because there was just no way he was going to give up his ethical perspective. This is an example of genuine inferior Fi because when the Te dominant starts relying on Fi as a perspective, it will have an extremely idealistic and childish nature applied to it. Another possibly even better example is the second Iron Man movie and Tony Stark happily exclaims that he privatized world peace without once contemplating what this actually means, ethically. He was just happy that he managed to save people and create some kind of peace. Or another typical example is the inferior Fe type just wanting people to get along just because.

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.

I am not sure I agree that this is actually Se. It almost seems Ne-esque? Why would Se make such connections or even think of them before they have been observed? Se with Ni would rather see the purpose of the mug e.g. it is something you drink from. In retrospect, I wonder if this perspective of yours is filtered through your dominant function. Dominant irrational perception would simply observe reality as is, at least when it comes to Se I think. Not so much staying open to possibilities per se, since there are no possibilities to observe in the present moment more than what is going on right here and right now. I understand what you are saying but I think it's different observing what is and being open to possibilities for change, since observing what is is simply observing what is. Possiblity-seek seems somewhat predictive in nature to me, but I would argue that pure irrational perception without the inference from judgement does not make such claims.

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.

Se types don't like trying to see the deeper meaning in what is, because it would mean to strip the actual object itself from content. Whereas to me as an Ni type, focusing on the physical aspect of the content strips the object of meaning.

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.

I am honestly not sure what kind of cognition I would attribute to this because I fail to see any cognitive preference at all in what you describe. If anything your reaction seems Ji + Se-esque, being impatient and seeking immediate results. If I had to type this at all though, I would say that your reaction seems more akin to some kind of head-energy anxiety, I lean 6 or 5 like.

 

[Entropic]

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.

So do you support the idea or do not support the idea of objective reality?

It would seem that models of cognition fall apart conceptually if there is no such article.

Why would models of cognition fall apart conceptually if there is no objective reality?

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.

So you think that all information appears a priori? Then how can we tell what is reliable at all when it comes to any body of knowledge? Clearly we observe/experience something though. We can argue the source of this or what it is, but regardless, I do believe there is input from somewhere and I do not believe that we can experience this input in its purest form because upon experience itself, we will reformulate it to make it fit our minds. I don't find this extremely strange at all, and neuroscience is capable of explaining this to a degree, because humans process information differently in the brain. If certain areas are more active than others, these areas will process the information and thus also interpret the information as we experience it. So someone who processes information through the emotional centra will focus more on their emotions but someone who processes the information through the logical centra will focus more on its structure.

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.

But don't you see, Se is also a bias. Se focuses on the extroverted sensation world. It sees the colors, the shapes, takes in the textures and so on. Se is not objective per se, because the way Se operates is still a narrow range of what the object is. The object is not just Se experience, but all of the experiences we have from any cognitive function perspective and possibly more too than what is explained by Jungian typology. I think a lot of people make the mistake to think that Se is somehow the hallmark of objectivity. Se is not objective. It is only objective in the sense that it does not process the sense world through the lens of introversion so red is simply red. But pure objectivity as seeing the entirety of the object is something Se is incapable of doing because there is more to the object than its Se properties.

 

[WALMART]

For those playing along at home, the program is "poke it til it bleeds"

The bizarre postulates about the doings of Se are meaningful but secondary to seeing how cranky or embarrassed a bunch of people interested in a supposedly troublesome aspect of their own personality can end up being as they get jiggled around. This is the work of Ne.

It will end in tears.

Okay, Kalach.

Though for your opinion, my primary concern is with intuition in general. Has been for a long time. I could rail against Ne just as easy, though yeah - I don't find it half the problem of what's wrong with the world as I do Ni. This is to say I don't or can't value it - fight fire with fire. It simply isn't a facet of humanity I inherently value.

I state this as a human being who employs intuition and what I alone can ascribe as rationale. I don't understand why you have to relate so personally about Jung's work, because I haven't strayed very far from it yet. This thread is on Se-inferiority - the weaknesses of the Ni-dom, something I have been waiting to muse about for a long, long time.

I would say that at this point that INTJ isn't just a best fit, but the fit. I have done so much introspection the past year that I do not doubt Ni dominance anymore. I do however have a well-developed Te auxiliary. That I am not Te-dominant becomes obvious because I ultimately reject Te as a dominant perspective over Ni.

Cool. Introspection is nice. I think I would personally prefer Te/Ni.... But Ni/Te seems nice as well. It's a good question indeed, are functions derived from what we value or are they derived from unconscious tendency?

While I agree with the sentiment that people are not as clear-cut in their type as the MBTI might perhaps lead others to believe; I also find that people tend to as a whole be sufficiently biased cognitively to type them one way or another, although it gets a little wishy-washy with auxiliary-tertiary because sometimes they "swap" with people relying more on what would otherwise be considered the tertiary e.g. ENTJ whose cognition is more akin to Te-Se than Te-Ni. Then one might argue whether ESTJ could be a better fit since it describes a Te dominant who favors sensation as the auxiliary.

Yeah, for sure. That's a large gripe of mine with the system, one of many, subjective typing and such. It starts to grow so fuzzy interpersonally I'm not sure how effective the system even is outside of a clinical setting administered for psycho-therapeutic reasons.

For the video? Fi inferiority looks very different, especially if it is the inferior function, not inferior as in simply unconscious as tertiary. The reason why this is an example of inferior Se with Fi is because the reaction towards the sense world is extremely childish and thus belies its archaic nature. A dominant or auxiliary sensor would not react this way because to them, this is nothing special or common per se. They wouldn't exaggerate their reactions to this degree. I've had reactions like these myself like when my town was struck by a combination of thunderstorm and hailstorm, and when I realized I started to run around on my balcony in excitement quite similar to how you see in this video.

Hm. I'm not sure. I've understood precisely what you are getting at, and I'm just not sure if I agree. I bike to my college campus pretty frequently at night, 2 or 3 AM in the morning, and just earlier tonight the lake in the center of campus really caught my eye, perhaps the moon being so bright lately. I just sat there for thirty minutes in wonder marveling over all kinds of things about the universe. I jumped up and down the steps to the lake and I biked around its perimeter to see what it looked like from the other side.

If anything, what you describe sounds like developed Se - making you not Se-inferior, perhaps. Ni-dom still, sure, but not Se-inferior. Se delights in new experience, it is most in its element when it recognizes a new available perception or something such as this. You linked Se and Te earlier together, and I have as well.... perhaps your developed Te has raised your Se out of the inferior state?

So we've got three perceptions, now - Se-inferior means A) it is difficult or rare to appreciate reality for what it is, B) you are a sensotard or C) you prefer intellectually contrived definitions over objective experience. My apologies if I misinterpreted your intent with these listings, of which yours is A.

I am not sure I agree that this is actually Se. It almost seems Ne-esque? Why would Se make such connections or even think of them before they have been observed? Se with Ni would rather see the purpose of the mug e.g. it is something you drink from. In retrospect, I wonder if this perspective of yours is filtered through your dominant function. Dominant irrational perception would simply observe reality as is, at least when it comes to Se I think. Not so much staying open to possibilities per se, since there are no possibilities to observe in the present moment more than what is going on right here and right now. I wouldn't consider that being open to possibilities per se, since observing what is is simply observing what is. Possiblity-seek seems somewhat predictive in nature to me, but I would argue that pure irrational perception without the inference from judgement does not make such claims.

No doubt, if my mind said "They could drink apple juice, or orange juice, or eat stew from it, or throw it against the wall" yes, that would be very Ne-esque, but that isn't quite the picture I was attempting to detail. Se fails to postulate anything about their intent at all. It remains open to all possibility by not narrowing possibilities. It sees the cup as a cup and little else.

And this is why Se can be a very, very facile function, and why many do not view Buddhist philosophy, for example, as a worthy pursuit. The duality between intuition and sensation can be summed up quite like this:

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."

Se types don't like trying to see the deeper meaning in what is, because it would mean to strip the actual object itself from content. Whereas to me as an Ni type, focusing on the physical aspect of the content strips the object of meaning.

Aye. It would fun to explore tertiary/inferior Ni in XSTP's.

I am honestly not sure what kind of cognition I would attribute to this because I fail to see any cognitive preference at all in what you describe. If anything your reaction seems Ji + Se-esque, being impatient and seeking immediate results. If anything, your reaction seems more akin to some kind of head-energy anxiety, I lean 6 or 5 like.

It's rough remaining patient in mind when you've got a swearing bodybuilder in your backseat telling you how stupid you are

I tested 6, and 8 before that, many moons ago. Perhaps you are correct, but (and we talked about this earlier), ISTP 9 is my ideal state of being. Fake it 'til you make it.

 

[WALMART]

Se is not objective per se, because the way Se operates is still a narrow range of what the object is. The object is not just Se experience, but all of the experiences we have from any cognitive function perspective and possibly more too than what is explained by Jungian typology. I think a lot of people make the mistake to think that Se is somehow the hallmark of objectivity. Se is not objective. It is only objective in the sense that it does not process the sense world through the lens of introversion so red is simply red. But pure objectivity as seeing the entirety of the object is something Se is incapable of doing because there is more to the object than its Se properties.

Yeah. Jung still labels it an irrational function, for this intriguing reason. Which is a lot of what my Se-fail stories stem from, as my Ni-fail stories do.

 

[Kalach]

So do you support the idea or do not support the idea of objective reality?

Are the voices in my head asking me questions again?

 

[Kalach]

I could rail against Ne just as easy[...]

Doubt it. The description you've given of "Se" describes guess what.

I state this as a human being who employs intuition and what I alone can ascribe as rationale. I don't understand why you have to relate so personally about Jung's work, because I haven't strayed very far from it yet. This thread is on Se-inferiority - the weaknesses of the Ni-dom, something I have been waiting to muse about for a long, long time.

Well then good luck. So far the weakness of the orange has been it's not an apple.

 

[WALMART]

Doubt it. The description you've given of "Se" describes guess what.

I'm not sure. I think I'm Se, at least. We aren't good at guessing games.

Well then good luck. So far the weakness of the orange has been it's not an apple.

Or that we haven't talked much about the inferior states of apples at all.

 

[Entropic]

Cool. Introspection is nice. I think I would personally prefer Te/Ni.... But Ni/Te seems nice as well. It's a good question indeed, are functions derived from what we value or are they derived from unconscious tendency?

I would say they are derived from neither. Functions are not unconscious or the creation of the unconscious since Jung makes a very clear case to separate conscious and unconscious content of the mind. Rather, functions are innate abilities of how humans understand the world just like we are genetically capable to see with our eyes. As we grow as human beings, we need to find ways to cope with the world and functions play a role in that functions act as an ego defense mechanism. It helps us to make sense of the world around us and sort out the information that we perceive. To take on a specific function perspective over that of another is thus the result of ego conscious preference since it is a perceived choice that we made, even if are not aware of this choice per se. Awareness is separate from consciousness in this context.

Yeah, for sure. That's a large gripe of mine with the system, one of many, subjective typing and such. It starts to grow so fuzzy interpersonally I'm not sure how effective the system even is outside of a clinical setting administered for psycho-therapeutic reasons.

Did you ever look at socionics? It shows how powerful Jungian typology can become when properly developed.

Hm. I'm not sure. I've understood precisely what you are getting at, and I'm just not sure if I agree. I bike to my college campus pretty frequently at night, 2 or 3 AM in the morning, and just earlier tonight the lake in the center of campus really caught my eye, perhaps the moon being so bright lately. I just sat there for thirty minutes in wonder marveling over all kinds of things about the universe. I jumped up and down the steps to the lake and I biked around its perimeter to see what it looked like from the other side.

If anything, what you describe sounds like developed Se - making you not Se-inferior, perhaps. Ni-dom still, sure, but not Se-inferior. Se delights in new experience, it is most in its element when it recognizes a new available perception or something such as this. You linked Se and Te earlier together, and I have as well.... perhaps your developed Te has raised your Se out of the inferior state?

No, this is not a case of developed Se. The fact that I find these instances rare and they do not pre-occupy my conscious mind and that Se does not rule my sense of perception as a whole suggests inferiority. I would argue that the word "development" is even often misused in these instances because by "developed" what we really refer to is differentiated, but if my dominant perception is ruled by Ni, I cannot and will never differentiate Se into my ego as an ego conscious perspective since it is the very perspective that I reject.

Any type with Se as a part of their function stacking can do the above but what separates them from ego-conscious to inferior Se types is how and why they do it. You won't see ego Se types run around yelling over how awesome the thunderstorm is. While the thunderstorm itself might be a powerful experience that they enjoy, when one is naturally attuned to this kind of sense data you are also capable of separating what kind of Se content is valuable or reasonable over other kinds of Se content.

Just like how inferior Ni can appear as paranoia and reading intent that's not there and the dominant Ni type would automatically dismiss the inferior Ni type for this reason since I know when they are reading too much into things, a dominant Se type can tell an inferior Se type similarly when they are getting over-excited and reading too much into sense stimuli. There is a level of normalization when it comes to your dominant perspective.

So we've got three perceptions, now - Se-inferior means A) it is difficult or rare to appreciate reality for what it is, B) you are a sensotard or C) you prefer intellectually contrived definitions over objective experience. My apologies if I misinterpreted your intent with these listings, of which yours is A.

What do b) and c) even mean? How meaningful are they as actual typology classifications? Couldn't they actually just be stuffed into a much better, broader and well-developed category that is inferior sensation?

No doubt, if my mind said "They could drink apple juice, or orange juice, or eat stew from it, or throw it against the wall" yes, that would be very Ne-esque, but that isn't quite the picture I was attempting to detail. Se fails to postulate anything about their intent at all. It remains open to all possibility by not narrowing possibilities. It sees the cup as a cup and little else.

I am still slightly irked when you suggest Se is open to any possibility by not narrowing possibilities but I see what you mean and I agree with your general idea.

And this is why Se can be a very, very facile function, and why many do not view Buddhist philosophy, for example, as a worthy pursuit. The duality between intuition and sensation can be summed up quite like this:

"Tiger got to hunt, bird got to fly; Man got to sit and wonder, 'Why, why, why?' Tiger got to sleep, bird got to land; Man got to tell himself he understand."

I am not sure I agree that the proverb really captures the dual nature of how intuition and sensation interplay.

Aye. It would fun to explore tertiary/inferior Ni in XSTP's.

Not sure I want to since weak intuition tends to annoy the hell out of me when I detect it in others, especially if they try to rationally reason.

It's rough remaining patient in mind when you've got a swearing bodybuilder in your backseat telling you how stupid you are

Or you could simply have told him off which I would have had.

I tested 6, and 8 before that, many moons ago. Perhaps you are correct, but (and we talked about this earlier), ISTP 9 is my ideal state of being. Fake it 'til you make it.

No. You can't fake enneagram.

Yeah. Jung still labels it an irrational function, for this intriguing reason. Which is a lot of what my Se-fail stories stem from, as my Ni-fail stories do.

Not sure I follow this. Irrationality has nothing to do with irrational behavior or anything of the sort if I were to try to apply what you are saying here to the anecdote you offered as an example of Ni fail.

Are the voices in my head asking me questions again?

If you're not interested in having a serious discussion I won't bother more with you. Such an Ni type you are.

 

[Kalach]

Aww.

Okay, fine. I'll play. Would you care to comment on the difference between "convert" and "reformulate"

 

[Kalach]

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.

And yet, ESTPs and, to a lesser level of fame, ESFPs are readers of people. They do it well enough that they can be steps ahead of whoever is suffering them presently. How so, mon bro? For if that talent is Se + good ol archaic Ni and archaic Ni is bereft of some ability to be any good at anything, then they'd have to be fairly poor at knowing what comes next given the pattern of physical signs they see.

That they don't consciously control the inferior function hardly makes it missing in action. So what's really going on for the poor and poorly dressed inferior Se people, eh?

 

[WALMART]

Did you ever look at socionics? It shows how powerful Jungian typology can become when properly developed.

Yeah. I'm near my infancy of study. It seems to be a well-thought out system, and the subsequent dogma shows it - some of my primary concerns. Still intriguing, nonetheless. A lot of free information floating about.

No, this is not a case of developed Se. The fact that I find these instances rare and they do not pre-occupy my conscious mind and that Se does not rule my sense of perception as a whole suggests inferiority. I would argue that the word "development" is even often misused in these instances because by "developed" what we really refer to is differentiated, but if my dominant perception is ruled by Ni, I cannot and will never differentiate Se into my ego as an ego conscious perspective since it is the very perspective that I reject.

Any type with Se as a part of their function stacking can do the above but what separates them from ego-conscious to inferior Se types is how and why they do it. You won't see ego Se types run around yelling over how awesome the thunderstorm is. While the thunderstorm itself might be a powerful experience that they enjoy, when one is naturally attuned to this kind of sense data you are also capable of separating what kind of Se content is valuable or reasonable over other kinds of Se content.

Just like how inferior Ni can appear as paranoia and reading intent that's not there and the dominant Ni type would automatically dismiss the inferior Ni type for this reason since I know when they are reading too much into things, a dominant Se type can tell an inferior Se type similarly when they are getting over-excited and reading too much into sense stimuli. There is a level of normalization when it comes to your dominant perspective.

Hm. Perhaps they are more somber about it given they've experienced it before/recently.

I disagree with your concluding assessments. Ni in the dominant position does not mean you utilize intuition well inherently. It means you are intermingled with the aspects of Ni Jung describes at elevated levels. Bad intuition is also not a facet of tertiary/inferior intuition, such as paranoia or what you speak of. I'll touch on it below.

What do b) and c) even mean? How meaningful are they as actual typology classifications? Couldn't they actually just be stuffed into a much better, broader and well-developed category that is inferior sensation?

B is what is described in the video, on the whole. C is what Jung ascribes. They could, but they would no longer be Jungian cognitive functions. They are meaningful from an arena of psycho-therapeutic thought, for identification of patient mentalities and isolating the variables that cause them cognitive distress.

From a realm of self-identification... I'm starting to believe that was never the purpose of the system upon outset.

I am still slightly irked when you suggest Se is open to any possibility by not narrowing possibilities but I see what you mean and I agree with your general idea.

It is perhaps an irksome concept, particularly from my idolized point of view, but take this: "His ideal is the actual; in this respect he is considerate."

Considerate of all possible futures, all possible perceptions, is what he alludes to.

I am not sure I agree that the proverb really captures the dual nature of how intuition and sensation interplay.

Hm. I see it, and will be thinking about it over the coming stretch of time.

Not sure I want to since weak intuition tends to annoy the hell out of me when I detect it in others, especially if they try to rationally reason.

One facet of intuition I am jelly of, the interplay of personal dynamics. I've sat next to someone of interest, thoughts churning, afraid to express them. Textbook repression of intuition.

Or you could simply have told him off which I would have had.

This would ruin the pleasurable, sensationalist mind I strive for.

No. You can't fake enneagram.

A nine can use the three ideal for growth, a five can use the two ideal for growth, and etcetera. I am not one to think you are locked into anything regarding the psyche - at least, in a sense that a captain can't steer his ship.

Not sure I follow this. Irrationality has nothing to do with irrational behavior or anything of the sort if I were to try to apply what you are saying here to the anecdote you offered as an example of Ni fail.

The irrational functions - Ne, Se, Ni, Si. The rational functions - Te, Fe, Ti and Fi. The former are irrational because they depend upon experience, they will never be perfectly in tune with reality unless you can accumulate one hundred percent of the universe's energy (or something ). The latter are rational because they are worked out from the experience the aforementioned. The irrational functions expand the scope of the mind both good and bad, the latter personally interprets it.

This is what I have gathered so far, at least - I have much more study to do regarding the subject.

 

[WALMART]

And yet, ESTPs and, to a lesser level of fame, ESFPs are readers of people. They do it well enough that they can be steps ahead of whoever is suffering them presently. How so, mon bro? For if that talent is Se + good ol archaic Ni and archaic Ni is bereft of some ability to be any good at anything, then they'd have to be fairly poor at knowing what comes next given the pattern of physical signs they see.

Ahead in what manner? Physical, task-oriented thinking, yeah. If you command an ESTP and a non-ESTP to grab a cup from the cupboard, it is likely statistically probable the ESTP will interpret and achieve this task first. This is why typological sports analysts find Se users desirable. But I don't think they're any better at reading people than any other type has the propensity to do, probably worse. If it is an above-common expression from Se-doms, this is perhaps resultant of Se being overconfident in its ability to perceive, something Jung describes. Both Se and Ni have equal propensity to be overconfident in their perceptions, just in different manners.

That they don't consciously control the inferior function hardly makes it missing in action.

Sounds correct. If there is extension of logic I would be glad to hear it.

So what's really going on for the poor and poorly dressed inferior Se people, eh?

Inferior-Se in the MBTI sense that any type's inferior function is hard set? Too subjectively varying from person to person, but conceptually, it means you are closer to what Jung describes of introverted intuition than the other three comparable dichotomies.

Inferior-Se in the sense Jung describes? They are webbed in thought, fanatics of information, highly skeptical of contrary manners of thinking, the intellectual turtles of the spectrum.

 

[Kalach]

Ahead in what manner? Physical, task-oriented thinking, yeah. If you command an ESTP and a non-ESTP to grab a cup from the cupboard, it is likely statistically probable the ESTP will interpret and achieve this task first.

lol.

It's statistically probable the ESTP will turn the situation around so they do the commanding and you get them a cup and maybe a sammich while you're there.

You're going to have to come clean about your type preferences before this conversation can continue. This bizarre, actually anti-S thing you've got going is sick. SICK! Your version of "Se" sounds like Ne and Ss are stupid? Reveal yourself ENTP!

 

[WALMART]

lol.

It's statistically probable the ESTP will turn the situation around so they do the commanding and you get them a cup and maybe a sammich while you're there.

You're going to have to come clean about your type preferences before this conversation can continue. This bizarre, actually anti-S thing you've got going is sick. SICK! Your version of "Se" sounds like Ne and Ss are stupid? Reveal yourself ENTP!

Sounds nice. Maybe I can work on being ESTP, then.

Anti-S? Is this some kind of... Ni mind game I'm not getting? I abandoned all shreds of thought regarding myself ENTP long ago, though you are welcome to continue to express the sentiment.

 

[Kalach]

So, PersonalityPage, potentially not canon, but we'll get to the Jung eventually...

ESTPs have an uncanny ability to perceive people's attitudes and motivations. They pick up on little cues which go completely unnoticed by most other types, such as facial expressions and stance. They're typically a couple of steps ahead of the person they're interacting with. ESTPs use this ability to get what they want out of a situation. Rules and laws are seen as guidelines for behavior, rather than mandates. If the ESTP has decided that something needs to be done, then their "do it and get on with it" attitude takes precendence over the rules. However, the ESTP tends to have their own strong belief in what's right and what's wrong, and will doggedly stick to their principles. The Rules of the Establishment may hold little value to the ESTP, but their own integrity mandates that they will not under any circumstances do something which they feel to be wrong.

These "cues".... how does "Se" do that? How does a person living in the physical world as if it were renewed every second go about knowing what's a cue?

And, eventually, conversely, how does some poor schlub sitting in a basement, dreaming up really kind of fixed interpretive patterns about the world that don't bear much relationship to reality as it is now... how does that guy have any kind of interpretive strength at all?



The short answer is it really doesn't matter one fig how much the person dislikes having their inferior process come into dominance, it exists for them anyway and informs their dominant cognition whether they like it or not--and they don't like it. they can't control it. But it happens anyway.

Thus, probably the problems people have with "Ni vision" is a boatload more related to INTJs tending to close of perception options for other people by being judgmental, and nothing much at all to do with the content of... dun dun dUUUNNN
TEH VISIRN!!!1

 

[WALMART]

So, PersonalityPage, potentially not canon, but we'll get to the Jung eventually...

ESTPs have an uncanny ability to perceive people's attitudes and motivations. They pick up on little cues which go completely unnoticed by most other types, such as facial expressions and stance. They're typically a couple of steps ahead of the person they're interacting with. ESTPs use this ability to get what they want out of a situation. Rules and laws are seen as guidelines for behavior, rather than mandates. If the ESTP has decided that something needs to be done, then their "do it and get on with it" attitude takes precendence over the rules. However, the ESTP tends to have their own strong belief in what's right and what's wrong, and will doggedly stick to their principles. The Rules of the Establishment may hold little value to the ESTP, but their own integrity mandates that they will not under any circumstances do something which they feel to be wrong.

These "cues".... how does "Se" do that? How does a person living in the physical world as if it were renewed every second go about knowing what's a cue?

Se is a general attitude. It is not the act of absolute perception, which is why it is required to be and can only be paired with functions such as Ti/Te/Fi/Fe. This attitude leads to the things Jung describes, of them perceiving the objective realm abnormally clear. They don't get bogged down in thought, they are always pushing forth. It is why Se has tert/inferior Ni, they still have intuition, in a classical sense - but they refuse to let it clog up their future perceptions.

And, eventually, conversely, how does some poor schlub sitting in a basement, dreaming up really kind of fixed interpretive patterns about the world that don't bear much relationship to reality as it is now... how does that guy have any kind of interpretive strength at all?

Through what he has sensed. You can be an adept intuitor and an adept sensor. Probably would make for an ideal person, though I personally prefer sensing (obvi).

The short answer is it really doesn't matter one fig how much the person dislikes having their inferior process come into dominance, it exists for them anyway and informs their dominant cognition whether they like it or not--and they don't like it. they can't control it. But it happens anyway.

Thus, probably the problems people have with "Ni vision" is a boatload more related to INTJs tending to close of perception options for other people by being judgmental, and nothing much at all to do with the content of... dun dun dUUUNNN
TEH VISIRN!!!1

Yeah, I wholeheartedly agree. Do you recall the fight fire with fire comment, I referenced earlier? This is exactly what I was alluding to, I am glad you touched on it.