Ne vs Se

[valaki]

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 [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION]'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.)

 

[Starry]

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*. )

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.

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 )

 

[valaki]

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?

 

[INTP]

Seeing [MENTION=5871]Southern Kross[/MENTION]'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).

 

[Starry]

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.

 

[five sounds]

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?

 

[valaki]

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?

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

OK, just making sure.

 

[HongDou]

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.

 

[INTP]

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.

 

[Cygnus]

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.

 

[yeghor]

*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.

I think that Ne is sending out multiple scenarios/possibilities onto external objects and analyzing the data reflected back onto itself...It's running a simulation in it's mind and analyzing the outcome of the simulation...making connections between the data sent and data reflected back...it's "actively" poking the external object for reactions/cracks/fissures...thereby weeding out multiple possibilities into a few probable ones...

An ENTP for instance may be reading and making connections between Ne and Fe data...The external object reacts angrily, sadly, happily when I do X, Y, Z...

An ENFP OTOH may be doing the same for Ne and Te data...INTJs associate Te with logistical/utilitarian data...ENFPs may perhaps shed more light on how reading Te data play out for them...

Ni on the other hand in INFJs is "passively" synthesizing incoming Fe and Se data into a single connected pattern and checking whether there's a discrepancy/inconsistency between the two...(like between declared intent and real intent for instance...like between what is being said and what is being implied...like between what the mouth says and what the entire body language says)

A Se-dom ESTP is perhaps gathering and making connections between Se and Fe data and uses those connections to analyze and decide on his/her stance towards external objects...He/she sends out Se data (an indimidating body language for instance) and then analyzes external object's reaction to that Se data...and then decides whether the external object poses a threat or not...

A Se-dom ESFP is perhaps doing the same for Se and Te and uses it to navigate his/her way in the external world...

These are not final/definite conclusions...just theories about how it may work...

 

[Betty Blue]

Se-nsual vs Ne-ver ending.

Letz take ova da real worldz.

 

[Southern Kross]

*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.

This is interesting. So you're saying that for NPs to hone their perception they must first learn and develop critical theory skills? So we take in structures of reading the world and then learn to apply them. That is an interesting thought. I think you're right.

And so this is the equivalent of a SP training their mind to read their environment. Like a baseball player who faces and swings his bat at many pitches; after a while his mind learns to read the way the ball moves and he can instinctive respond, swinging his bat in just the right way so as to strike the ball with maximum impact. It's about internalising the way of things so you can learn to respond instinctively to the world around you.

[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] you're looking at this from a odd and unexpected angle. I'm not sure what you're thinking here. What do you mean that Pe is about poking holes in things? This is a strange image to me - it seems so destructive and antagonistic, and not at all how it feels to use it. Perhaps these things look different from the outside.

 

[yeghor]

[MENTION=20531]yeghor[/MENTION] you're looking at this from a odd and unexpected angle. I'm not sure what you're thinking here. What do you mean that Pe is about poking holes in things? This is a strange image to me - it seems so destructive and antagonistic, and not at all how it feels to use it. Perhaps these things look different from the outside.

It's just a theory SK...Our external functions are ways that we interact with the external world...I assume they are not just outlets for expression but also inlets for external information...Once taken inside, the data is handled and analyzed by our internal functions...???

I as an INFJ (i.e. Fe-aux) for instance am using Fe to send Fe packets into the environment and absorbing back the Fe reaction reflected back on to me (or rather filtering the reflected data thru my Fe-aux filter)...Yeah...they are filters that work both ways....

My antogonistic description of Ne/Se is based on my interactions with RL ESxPs and ENTPs...Ne/Se-aux may be weaker in effect relative to Ne/Se-dom therefore the former perhaps might not be coming across as that antagonistic...

Dominant extraverted functions perhaps have greater effect on the external world and the people in it whereas in aux position they are more passive and shadowed by the dominant introverted function...

I am just putting ideas forward in raw form for discussion...

 

[PeaceBaby]

Pe, as a perceiving process, is passive. It does not actively ping anything. It does not actively scan anything. It's like standing in front of a firefighter's hose and letting the water come full blast.

Like Pi, it's an irrational process, meaning, it is open until a rational process takes over from the dominant position (or as a secondary function, a rational function turns to it in service of itself.) "Taking over" can either be productive or interfering. "Taking over" is where cause and effect happens, not in the perceiving process itself.

 

[yeghor]

Pe, as a perceiving process, is passive. It does not actively ping anything. It does not actively scan anything. It's like standing in front of a firefighter's hose and letting the water come full blast.

Like Pi, it's an irrational process, meaning, it is open until a rational process takes over from the dominant position (or as a secondary function, a rational function turns to it in service of itself.) "Taking over" can either be productive or interfering. "Taking over" is where cause and effect happens, not in the perceiving process itself.

Does that mean perceiving processes are the only type of processes thru which one can gather information from within or without?

I was more like thinking that our external functions (be them judging or perceiving) are the boundaryies of our ego that make contact with the external/physical world...They are our facade, our interface with the world...therefore they would/should be capable of working both ways, to flavor (format) our output to the external world as well as to filter and allow incoming information...

Whereas our internal functions are parts of our ego that aren't visible to the external world...They deal with what our external functions allow inside ourselves thru the ego boundary...

As for Ne/Se-dom, I've seen that they are actively gauging my reactions to certain stimuli (scenarios/possibilities) that they consciously choose to send my way...they are proactively trying to decipher what's beneath my facade/interface...to find out what makes me tick...

Ni-dom does the same but in a more passive/reactive manner...it gathers data already available in the background (or whatever comes in its way) but doesn't try to elicit further data thru some forced reaction...it doesn't try to force the external object to react...

So based on this, INFJs gather Fe-Se raw data from the external world and use Ni-Ti to analyze and make sense of that data...??

 

[Azure Flame]

I'm taking ninjutsu with an ENTP 8w9. The difference is, he kills people without understanding why, and I kill people knowing exactly why my arm is flying in x direction.

oh, also he believes he isn't touching anything because he is just made of atoms and he is surrounded by other atom clusters trying to intercept his own atom clusters.

Eventually I will destroy my sensei and take his power.

 

[valaki]

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

Erm... there's an autosave function, so you could've just pressed restore

Unless you mean you accidentally deleted the whole thing, though even then it could be restored if acting quickly enough

Too bad though

ill just post this

OK I got that one.

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.

Uhm yeah, that was posted already. What's an Se direction/goal like? And a Ti one? (I mean I can generally see what these would be, but if you got something more to say about it, I'll be curious to hear it.)

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.

The term is still pretty clear in terms of how it's related to mastery of something and to consciousness. And so when considering that, how is it reconciled with the idea of a refined (=differentiated) function being more conscious?

Though I can see one reason why consciousness is good for a differentiated function, because its (consciousness') function is control over processing stuff. And so having consciousness for a (jungian) function obviously means more control over direction of things .

I still have the issue mentioned about automaticity though.

But if this is what you were writing about for an hour before it got lost, well, I guess bad luck I can only hope you feel like writing a bit of it again

Mhmm and I got another issue about it, the way intuition is explained (in MBTI anyway), it often reminds me of simple automaticity though I'm sure the two shouldn't be the same thing.

Differentiation on a neural level would be not forming separate neural pathways in the brains for things.

What would it be on a neural level, then?

 

[valaki]

A Se-dom ESTP is perhaps gathering and making connections between Se and Fe data and uses those connections to analyze and decide on his/her stance towards external objects...He/she sends out Se data (an indimidating body language for instance) and then analyzes external object's reaction to that Se data...and then decides whether the external object poses a threat or not...

That's enneagram, not Se.

Jungian Se has got nothing to do with intimidation, Jung actually describes Se doms as "jovial fellows" or something like that.

Socionics Se is an entirely different animal

 

[INTP]

I'm taking ninjutsu with an ENTP 8w9. The difference is, he kills people without understanding why, and I kill people knowing exactly why my arm is flying in x direction.

oh, also he believes he isn't touching anything because he is just made of atoms and he is surrounded by other atom clusters trying to intercept his own atom clusters.

Eventually I will destroy my sensei and take his power.

I dont think this is an Se-Ne difference. I mean my ENTP friend is the same as yours, but me on the other hand, i need to know(and do know ) exactly how to hit(and why to hit like that) before even trying(and also prefer to know where i would hit if i would hit someone before trying).