# Thread: Se wants to develop Ne

1. Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest
I think this is a terrible analogy.

I'm pretty sure that Ne sees things that are related that aren't physically similar or categorically utilized for simillar activities in the physical realm.

Sorry. Think of something more abstract, or more "different."
That's just one of the prime misunderstandings people here have, due to reading some vague descriptions. Ne and Ni isn't some mysterious bullshit. It's a plain simple function.

Mayber further explanation will convince you. There is nothing physical about a "ball", it exists but it's not perceived by any sense. It's like "God" except God's existence is highly debatable. It's like the number "1." This number, or numbers in general, represents a large portion of reality. A ball, a person, a city, a pie, a picture, a flower. They all follow the property of being a single object, "1."

To make it a bit more fun, consider my explanations as an illustration as well. I use different examples but they are all conclusively are related by one real idea. That Ne is about finding real(as oppose to perspective-dependent) abstract relationships. That's all it takes for Ne.

2. Originally Posted by Craft
That's just one of the prime misunderstandings people here have, due to reading some vague descriptions. Ne and Ni isn't some mysterious bullshit. It's a plain simple function.

Mayber further explanation will convince you. There is nothing physical about a "ball", it exists but it's not perceived by any sense. It's like "God" except God's existence is highly debatable. It's like the number "1." This number, or numbers in general, represents a large portion of reality. A ball, a person, a city, a pie, a picture, a flower. They all follow the property of being a single object, "1."

To make it a bit more fun, consider my explanations as an illustration as well. I use different examples but they are all conclusively are related by one real idea. That Ne is about finding real(as oppose to perspective-dependent) abstract relationships. That's all it takes for Ne.
Yeah only people with Ne and Ni in their top two functions can figure out that two roundish things that bounce that are used in sports are related.

Please try again. This is almost embarrassing.

3. In fact, what you're describing sounds sort of like Si connections, it's pretty linear.

4. Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest
Yeah only people with Ne and Ni in their top two functions can figure out that two roundish things that bounce that are used in sports are related.

Please try again. This is almost embarrassing.
Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest
In fact, what you're describing sounds sort of like Si connections, it's pretty linear.
...really? Wait, Are you trolling?

Intuitive things are exclusive to intuitives? Lol, what the hell... I do hope your joking.

If not, then id like to introduce to you the idea that functions serve to allow people to make sense of reality. Everyone has T N S F, because they are all necessary for interpretation.

5. Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest
This is just a disgusting comment. Get over yourself.
I was mostly joking. I guess that's not acceptable...

It is at least theoretically easier for a person to develop their main functions though than to go into their shadow.

6. Originally Posted by Craft
...really? Wait, Are you trolling?

Intuitive thing are exclusive to intuitives? Lol, what the hell... I do hope your joking.
NO I am not trolling. Your analogy is just not Ne. It's more than likely Si. Because of past sensory impressions of a soccer ball, it is easy to work a similar object into your linear framework, i.e. a football.

Talking about the abstract nature of numbers, et al, may be more Ne, but your initial example is not.

7. Originally Posted by Marmie Dearest
NO I am not trolling. Your analogy is just not Ne. It's more than likely Si. Because of past sensory impressions of a soccer ball, it is easy to work a similar object into your linear framework, i.e. a football.

Talking about the abstract nature of numbers, et al, may be more Ne, but your initial example is not.
It is of the same nature. Functions are very much interrelated to each other in the sense that without Si, there is no Ne. The Si component in the initial example is simply the soccer ball and the football. I think what you're actually pointing at here is the level of abstraction, not the function itself. True, some things are less abstract, but this does not disrupt the idea that they require Ne to comprehend.

8. Originally Posted by Craft
It is of the same nature. Functions are very much interrelated to each other in the sense that without Si, there is no Ne. The Si component in the initial example is simply the soccer ball and the football. I think what you're actually pointing at here is the level of abstraction, not the function itself. True, some things are less abstract, but this does not disrupt the idea that they require Ne to comprehend.
Pretty sure that's Si, and she's asking how to develop her Ne. I'm sure that categorizing all lip products in the store together, whether they be balm, gloss, lip color, or lip liner, isn't Ne either...it's Si. It's categorizing similar objects in a linear fashion.

Your musings on the abstract nature of the word "ball" in relation to the concept of "God" and so forth is probably Ne, though.

9. Originally Posted by freeeekyyy
I was mostly joking. I guess that's not acceptable...

It is at least theoretically easier for a person to develop their main functions though than to go into their shadow.
Good to know that you're joking and not just being snarky and condescending. One never knows.

10. Originally Posted by Paz
You could always try doing what I do.

...

Not a mind reader? Here's an explanation:

My Se, or at least the qualities that I believe embody use of the Se, is very weak; I'm not very aware of my environment at all, and I usually end up glossing over the details, letting my mind wander, and then having an idea or realization hit me and entertain me endlessly. I suppose you could develop your Ne, or at least something resembling it in some way, by consciously using your sensing function, preferably Si, whatever you envision that to do for you, to answer the question "What does that remind me of?" The result, if you continue to look for similar interconnections or try to daydream, could come close to mimicking Ne.

Or, as has been said already, look for recurring patterns, themes, or related ideas in whatever you're presented with. That may not be much help to you in your attempts to actually develop this trait in yourself, but at least it'll give you a basic idea of what an end result should mirror.
I do a lot of the "what does this remind me of" thing. But, I generally think this is me bouncing along with Se. My mind can be quite active, especially with memories, when interacting, talking with others, etc. I'm more often, taken to the past. Would you have an Ne example?

I think I did use a lot of Ne, or replicated Ne thought, whilst dating my ex INFP. I wasn't very good at it, if it even was Ne. I felt like Ni was always more prevalent. And it is sort of that tip of the tongue feeling for me, as orangedapple describes. But I was picking up on patterns and themes, and kept trying to make sense of it all, but never quite could explain or articulate what I felt around me. But I suppose it's more Ni to try and make sense of it? And it was my Ni that lost trust in the vague Ne I was experiencing.

Originally Posted by freeeekyyy
Forget Ne and go Ni! It'll be easier on you mentally, and you get that nice tunnel vision/epiphany stuff.
You're probably right. I would actually be just as curious to see what Ni art is like. Sometimes when I look at art, I think, "That is soooo Ne. And bad ass!" But I don't really have those moments with Ni.

Originally Posted by Craft
That's just one of the prime misunderstandings people here have, due to reading some vague descriptions. Ne and Ni isn't some mysterious bullshit. It's a plain simple function.

Mayber further explanation will convince you. There is nothing physical about a "ball", it exists but it's not perceived by any sense. It's like "God" except God's existence is highly debatable. It's like the number "1." This number, or numbers in general, represents a large portion of reality. A ball, a person, a city, a pie, a picture, a flower. They all follow the property of being a single object, "1."

To make it a bit more fun, consider my explanations as an illustration as well. I use different examples but they are all conclusively are related by one real idea. That Ne is about finding real(as oppose to perspective-dependent) abstract relationships. That's all it takes for Ne.
Abstract relationships. Would you be willing to display how your mind jumps around, or how your thought processes play out in order to illustrate?

#### 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