[Se] Se = "What could be" vs. Ne = "What can't be"

[strychnine]

I'm an Se auxiliary user (ISFP) and the following shorthand distinction has always confused me:

Se = What is
Ne = What could be

because my mind is always scanning the environment, as Se does, for what could be. I'm not interested in the present moment/environment for itself; I'm interested in what it suggests. In what it could be molded into, realistic or not. In the potential it holds. In what it could be.

I was talking to my friend and he said at some point in our conversation, "Can you believe that? Four bucks for a bottle of pasta sauce." I observed myself immediately disregarding that nugget of information in favor of a larger context. I immediately thought of ways we could reduce our food expenses and living expenses in general. Ways we could increase our income. What I said was, "Are there any safe trailer parks around here?" He was confused, but the thought process was very linear - living in a mobile home park will save money. To me, that is Se. It's sparked by the present moment (pasta sauce) and immediately moves beyond it into "what could be", the potential, the possibilities.

We just got our first snow of the winter, and my friend (a different friend) was complaining about the snow build up. I was like, "Hey, why don't we just get heated roads and driveways all over the state, then we won't have to clear the snow?" That also deals with a problem that patently "is" the case - excessive snow - and resolving it. Obviously, it's a rather unrealistic solution, not least due to the immense cost of converting all the roadways lol, but determining whether something will or won't work is in the realm of judgment, not perception (Se). I still perceived that road idea in the moment, thanks to Se.

Other recent examples include flux for my house (bulbs that autochange the color spectrum they emit based on time of day), window shades or tints that go depending on the time of day (come up at sunrise, go down at sunset, and otherwise user-programmable) ... both so that you are immersed in darkness or red light before you go to bed, and in sunlight or white/yellow light shortly before you wake up. I don't try to uncover these "ideas"; they're just there, in the environment, and Se just picks up on them.

TL;DR: I am writing all of this only to suggest that we need a new and better distinction between Se and Ne. Because if you ask me whether I look at "what is" or "what could be", I'm going to answer the latter every time, but I'm an SP. And, to my Se mind, Ne types don't look at what could be; they look at the impossible, at things that cannot be.

Off the top of my head, a first suggestion is:
The 5 senses = What is
Se = What could be (and some of what can't be)
Ne = What can't be (and some of what could be)
That way we account for the overlap. I do delve into some things that simply cannot be.

Does anyone have suggestions for a better distinction?

 

[pizzathegreat]

What you're describing is Ne..

 

[Amargith]

Err, Ne would be highly impractical if it worked that way and its not...and its a typical way Se users critise Ne because they dont value nor trust it, i might add. That doesnt make the criticism or perception true, however, it just speaks to your unease with using Ne yourself - provided you are in fact ISFP.

Its true that Ne looks at all possibilities to avoid filtering out things too early on, which leads to out of the box thinking, but it does narrow down the right option for proper application, after that.

I always thought of Ne as 'going doen a bunch of rabbit holes' while Se looks to me like 'making the most of the moment' and 'seize the day'

Both work with opportunities, but one is in the present, immediately responding to the situation at hand, while the other is in the future, to determine which rabbit hole to take now and eventually end up in wonderland.

 

[Betty Blue]

I'm an Se auxiliary user (ISFP) and the following shorthand distinction has always confused me:

Se = What is
Ne = What could be

because my mind is always scanning the environment, as Se does, for what could be. I'm not interested in the present moment/environment for itself; I'm interested in what it suggests. In what it could be molded into, realistic or not. In the potential it holds. In what it could be.

I was talking to my friend and he said at some point in our conversation, "Can you believe that? Four bucks for a bottle of pasta sauce." I observed myself immediately disregarding that nugget of information in favor of a larger context. I immediately thought of ways we could reduce our food expenses and living expenses in general. Ways we could increase our income. What I said was, "Are there any safe trailer parks around here?" He was confused, but the thought process was very linear - living in a mobile home park will save money. To me, that is Se. It's sparked by the present moment (pasta sauce) and immediately moves beyond it into "what could be", the potential, the possibilities.

We just got our first snow of the winter, and my friend (a different friend) was complaining about the snow build up. I was like, "Hey, why don't we just get heated roads and driveways all over the state, then we won't have to clear the snow?" That also deals with a problem that patently "is" the case - excessive snow - and resolving it. Obviously, it's a rather unrealistic solution, not least due to the immense cost of converting all the roadways lol, but determining whether something will or won't work is in the realm of judgment, not perception (Se). I still perceived that road idea in the moment, thanks to Se.

Other recent examples include flux for my house (bulbs that autochange the color spectrum they emit based on time of day), window shades or tints that go depending on the time of day (come up at sunrise, go down at sunset, and otherwise user-programmable) ... both so that you are immersed in darkness or red light before you go to bed, and in sunlight or white/yellow light shortly before you wake up. I don't try to uncover these "ideas"; they're just there, in the environment, and Se just picks up on them.

TL;DR: I am writing all of this only to suggest that we need a new and better distinction between Se and Ne. Because if you ask me whether I look at "what is" or "what could be", I'm going to answer the latter every time, but I'm an SP. And, to my Se mind, Ne types don't look at what could be; they look at the impossible, at things that cannot be.

Off the top of my head, a first suggestion is:
The 5 senses = What is
Se = What could be (and some of what can't be)
Ne = What can't be (and some of what could be)
That way we account for the overlap. I do delve into some things that simply cannot be.

Does anyone have suggestions for a better distinction?

Actually I'm in agreement for the most part. I do think Se notices things in the present, thinks of it's functionality and the possibilities of how it can be maximised/bettered. Ne would go off on more abstract tangents, or take things into different places altogether. So with Ne maybe you would start with the bottles of pasta sauce and take it to global levels of poverty (bigger picture) rather than a more immediate and practical resolution. Se is VERY useful in this way and often why Se doms do so well on work ladders. They have the ability to take very practical matters and change them quickly into something productive. I do not think MBTI credits Se in this way. But yes I think you are quite right.

 

[RobinSkye]

What you've just described is that you're INFP. No, Se does not care about what can develop, it simply measures what the current state of things is. "It is what it is."

 

[VagrantFarce]

I actually don't think this reflects it at all.

Ne & Se are both, in some sense, about leaving a priori-thinking behind. You're not taking baggage into the world, you're constantly emerging as part of it. You move, act and react alongside everything else. It sees itself as active, acting against Introverted Perception's seeming passivity. From an introverted perception point-of-view, both are about taking a leap of faith into the world. Where they differ is in how they understand the world to be emergent.

• Se might experience the world and describe it in base, "obvious" terms - vibrant, soft, harsh, violent, tasty, loud, quiet, bright, dark - it is experienced as-is, as it happens, in great detail, moment to moment. There's no greater context unfolding beyond the reality we throw ourselves against. It stands opposite of Ni, which seeks to unite perception under a larger, "meaningful" context, but one that comes from within.
• Ne is emergent in terms of context - but unlike Ni, which is about disconnecting from the world and "unifying" context from within, Ne seeks to unshackle itself from presumption and leap out into the world, striding forth always in search of a greater context to introduce. It stands opposite of Si, which seeks to "ground" perception from within in terms of what is concrete or reliable.

I think what you're assuming is that those that prefer Se aren't able to come up with ideas, or that Ne types are only absent-minded dreamweavers - both of which are only half true.

 

[erm]

I'm an Se auxiliary user (ISFP) and the following shorthand distinction has always confused me:

Se = What is
Ne = What could be

because my mind is always scanning the environment, as Se does, for what could be. I'm not interested in the present moment/environment for itself; I'm interested in what it suggests. In what it could be molded into, realistic or not. In the potential it holds. In what it could be.

Yeah that is a terrible distinction. No one is about "what is", everyone becomes an Ne user by that definition.

It's the Perceiver part that means exploring possibilities, not Ne. Judgers prefer collapsing possibilities and fit the "what is" bill a lot better.

I was talking to my friend and he said at some point in our conversation, "Can you believe that? Four bucks for a bottle of pasta sauce." I observed myself immediately disregarding that nugget of information in favor of a larger context. I immediately thought of ways we could reduce our food expenses and living expenses in general. Ways we could increase our income. What I said was, "Are there any safe trailer parks around here?" He was confused, but the thought process was very linear - living in a mobile home park will save money. To me, that is Se. It's sparked by the present moment (pasta sauce) and immediately moves beyond it into "what could be", the potential, the possibilities.

We just got our first snow of the winter, and my friend (a different friend) was complaining about the snow build up. I was like, "Hey, why don't we just get heated roads and driveways all over the state, then we won't have to clear the snow?" That also deals with a problem that patently "is" the case - excessive snow - and resolving it. Obviously, it's a rather unrealistic solution, not least due to the immense cost of converting all the roadways lol, but determining whether something will or won't work is in the realm of judgment, not perception (Se). I still perceived that road idea in the moment, thanks to Se.

Other recent examples include flux for my house (bulbs that autochange the color spectrum they emit based on time of day), window shades or tints that go depending on the time of day (come up at sunrise, go down at sunset, and otherwise user-programmable) ... both so that you are immersed in darkness or red light before you go to bed, and in sunlight or white/yellow light shortly before you wake up. I don't try to uncover these "ideas"; they're just there, in the environment, and Se just picks up on them.

Yep that's textbook Se activity. Ne isn't far removed from that kinda stuff, it's fundamentally just the same thing but more abstract/less to do with reality, which does lead to very different behavior a lot of the time

TL;DR: I am writing all of this only to suggest that we need a new and better distinction between Se and Ne. Because if you ask me whether I look at "what is" or "what could be", I'm going to answer the latter every time, but I'm an SP. And, to my Se mind, Ne types don't look at what could be; they look at the impossible, at things that cannot be.

Off the top of my head, a first suggestion is:
The 5 senses = What is
Se = What could be (and some of what can't be)
Ne = What can't be (and some of what could be)
That way we account for the overlap. I do delve into some things that simply cannot be.

Does anyone have suggestions for a better distinction?

Well I've seen a few ways. I like:

Se = imagination (concrete mental activity that uses the 'internal' senses)
Ne = conceptualization (abstract mental activity that doesn't use the 'internal' senses)

It's a more specific version of the concrete/abstract distinction for S/N and is treated as a dichotomy scale. Se starts in imagination and moves to conceptualizing the principles and what not around it, and Ne makes up principles (or remembers them) and brings up imaginable scenarios around it (eventually). They are both "shaped" in the same perceiver way, in that they thrive on possibilities, tend to be quick and not very methodical or stable about things.

That distinction then leads to the typical behaviors of Ne and Se types. Like Se focusing on examples and hands-on learning for ideas vs Ne focusing more on principles and detached learning. I'm heavy on Ne and am really loathe to give examples of this distinction right now, whereas you used loads of examples off the bat (that is the closest I'm getting to an example atm, and would be my Fi making it personal).

 

[strychnine]

Err, Ne would be highly impractical if it worked that way and its not...and its a typical way Se users critise Ne because they dont value nor trust it, i might add. That doesnt make the criticism or perception true, however, it just speaks to your unease with using Ne yourself - provided you are in fact ISFP.

Its true that Ne looks at all possibilities to avoid filtering out things too early on, which leads to out of the box thinking, but it does narrow down the right option for proper application, after that.

I always thought of Ne as 'going doen a bunch of rabbit holes' while Se looks to me like 'making the most of the moment' and 'seize the day'

Both work with opportunities, but one is in the present, immediately responding to the situation at hand, while the other is in the future, to determine which rabbit hole to take now and eventually end up in wonderland.

Ne itself is impractical, but Ne users are not, as they have Si, Ji, and Je to evaluate their Ne ideas with. I don't use Ne at all, so I don't have any unease with it. I actually think it's awesome. God knows we need more idealists and dreamers in the world, people who dream big and aren't afraid to go after their visions. I think Ne and Se are very complementary, not in the same person of course, I mean in different people who are working together towards the same visions.

But no, Se is not about opportunities in the present or seizing the moment; it's sparked by the present, as I described in my OP, but quickly branches out to contexts other than the present. I am also very future-focused and find it both difficult and undesirable to focus on the present experience. In that way Se is superficially similar to Ne.

Se might experience the world and describe it in base, "obvious" terms - vibrant, soft, harsh, violent, tasty, loud, quiet, bright, dark - it is experienced as-is, as it happens, in great detail, moment to moment. There's no greater context unfolding beyond the reality we throw ourselves against. It stands opposite of Ni, which seeks to unite perception under a larger, "meaningful" context, but one that comes from within.

This sounds like lower Se in Ni types (NJs), not highly-developed Se in Se types (SPs). I couldn't come up with those adjectives if I tried, and I rarely experience things "as-is" (I can't even comprehend that to be honest). I'm rarely aware of sensory details. What you're describing sounds like what NJs would say on the rare occasions they were immersed in Se.

I think what you're assuming is that those that prefer Se aren't able to come up with ideas, or that Ne types are only absent-minded dreamweavers - both of which are only half true.

To the contrary, I myself prefer Se as I said in the OP, and I gave examples of a few small "ideas" that I came up with. So I'm absolutely not assuming that Se types can't come up with ideas; I would myself be a counterexample to such an assumption.

That distinction then leads to the typical behaviors of Ne and Se types. Like Se focusing on examples and hands-on learning for ideas vs Ne focusing more on principles and detached learning. I'm heavy on Ne and am really loathe to give examples of this distinction right now, whereas you used loads of examples off the bat (that is the closest I'm getting to an example atm, and would be my Fi making it personal).

Great post!! I agree with most of your points, except I don't understand what you mean by "internal senses" so some elaboration on that would be appreciated. Internal senses sounds more like Si than Se.

Other than that, I have some minor issues with the quoted paragraph because it seems to perpetuate some false Se stereotypes. My preference is not to give examples at all; I did in this instance because I find it helps other people understand what I'm saying, but I really don't like it. I don't usually remember specific instances, I remember the "whole thing", so it's difficult for me to pinpoint specific instances where things happened. At work I'm often called "vague" or accused of "glossing over specifics" because...well, I do gloss over specifics in favor of generalities. That's not an Ne/Se distinction; that'sa Ji/Je distinction. As a Ji dom, I abstract principles from my experiences to such an extent that I often disregard, and thus don't remember, the experience specifically. I know NJs who do remember specifics very well, far better than I do, so it seems to be related to their higher Je.

Also, I'm not exactly hands-on; I like to keep my hands off of "real world" things and I even did my degree in philosophy so I could avoid having to do anything "hands-on". Now I work a more hands-on job - thankfully not a manual or physical one but one that requires me to deal with a lot of specifics - and I'm trying to move into R&D. Just to break another sensor stereotype

Other than those nitpicks - great post!


-------------------

Edits

What you're describing is Ne..

What you've just described is that you're INFP. No, Se does not care about what can develop, it simply measures what the current state of things is. "It is what it is."

The 5 senses measure the current state of things. That's not even a cognitive function.

Drop your intuitive bias, please and thank you.

 

[Amargith]

Sure, Ne from your perspective might look impractical. For me as an Ne-dom...it is decidedly not. It is my bread and butter. And it was highly practical in acing school with minimal effort as it is build for rapid information absorbtion, for instance. Also, everyone uses all functions, the mastery and role they play however is very different - hence the suggestion of unease. I know that when a situation calls for Se...I'm not exactly at my most comfortable either, due to the lack of mastery and what I experience to be its limitations.

Meanwhile, your Se gets help from your Ni - which would very much care about the future and the vision it can create with the info that Se feeds it, just as much as my Ne gets help from the other functions

 

[pizzathegreat]

But no, Se is not about opportunities in the present or seizing the moment; it's sparked by the present, as I described in my OP, but quickly branches out to contexts other than the present. I am also very future-focused and find it both difficult and undesirable to focus on the present experience. In that way Se is superficially similar to Ne.

Again, you're describing Ne.

Se is possibilities for action in the present, living in the present moment, absorbing data in the world objectively without a filter.

Ne is the future focused possibilities of what could be, and it continuously branches out.

If you find it undesirable to focus on the present experience, you are not an Se user. I don't know how you came up with these definitions, but they're wrong.

 

[Oaky]

People have posted good posts. I'll post concisely.

A constant real time rendering of an idea is Ne. A constant real time rendering of a sense is Se.
A subjectively imprinted sense on a rendered idea is Si. A subjectively imprinted idea on a rendered sense is Ni. //Si and Ni are not properly defined rather than how it is often used with Se and Ne.

Wonderful gathering of beauty in the thought of alternate perception.

 

[strychnine]

Sure, Ne from your perspective might look impractical. For me as an Ne-dom...it is decidedly not. It is my bread and butter. And it was highly practical in acing school with minimal effort as it is build for rapid information absorbtion, for instance. Also, everyone uses all functions, the mastery and role they play however is very different - hence the suggestion of unease. I know that when a situation calls for Se...I'm not exactly at my most comfortable either, due to the lack of mastery and what I experience to be its limitations.

Meanwhile, your Se gets help from your Ni - which would very much care about the future and the vision it can create with the info that Se feeds it, just as much as my Ne gets help from the other functions

Ok. Fair enough. Sorry if I hurt your feelings. FYI 80% of people I know, myself included, aced school with minimal effort - that's because school is a joke.

I can't recall a time I used Ne, Fe, Ti, Si - my shadow functions. I've only used Te very badly under stress. I've also never really experienced what NJs and other ISPs describe as Ni, so I'm not sure how to comment on that. Yes, the functions all help each other, Ji/Je help each other too. I think I exist basically in Fi, tbh.

Again, you're describing Ne.

Se is possibilities for action in the present, living in the present moment, absorbing data in the world objectively without a filter.

Ne is the future focused possibilities of what could be, and it continuously branches out.

If you find it undesirable to focus on the present experience, you are not an Se user. I don't know how you came up with these definitions, but they're wrong.

Ok, we're just going to have to disagree then. I'm an Se user. And if you relate to my way of thinking, you might be an ISTP. Very common mistype.

Edit: I might well be mistyped, but the only other type I'll consider is ISTP. I'm not mistyped on N/S, but T/F, sure. I relate to both Ti and Fi almost equally, and inferior Te and inferior Fe almost equally.

 

[1487610420]

Obvious answer is:

you're mistyped.

 

[strychnine]

Obvious answer is:

you're mistyped.

Obvious answer is:

You have an intuitive bias!

CBA to do a spoiler.

After the way I've been treated on this forums, "intuitive" is practically an insult.

And this isn't a type-me thread. I wish I could report these posts.

 

[/DG/]

You have an intuitive bias!

I don't have "intuitive bias" (very much a sensor here), and even I think you have your definitions a bit mixed up. It's understandable, as many aren't all that clearly defined.

And this isn't a type-me thread. I wish I could report these posts.

Eh? I'm not seeing anything offensive in this thread, just responses to the OP. You proposed differing definitions of Se and Ne, and others are merely expressing their disagreement.

 

[miss fortune]

I'm quite good at noticing everything that is in my environment and how I can alter it or use it to get what results I'm going to want... realizing what's coming and then taking inventory of what I have that can make things run more smoothly...

according to this thread that's some odd bastardized combination of the two?

Se notices opportunities just as well as Ne does, just more tangible opportunities... how else could unscrupulous used car salespeople get away with things?

 

[strychnine]

I don't have "intuitive bias" (very much a sensor here), and even I think you have your definitions a bit mixed up. It's understandable, as many aren't all that clearly defined.

Eh? I'm not seeing anything offensive in this thread, just responses to the OP. You proposed differing definitions of Se and Ne, and others are merely expressing their disagreement.

It's not offensive to disagree, far from it. It's offensive to suggest I'm mistyped because you disagree with my definitions. That's ridiculous.

Just because Se isn't animalistic raw perception like intuitives imagine it to be doesn't mean I'm mistyped. If you want to know why so many sensors mistype as intuitives, just look at this thread.

 

[/DG/]

It's not offensive to disagree, far from it. It's offensive to suggest I'm mistyped because you disagree with my definitions. That's ridiculous.

No it isn't. That doesn't make sense. If you're working from a flawed definition, how is it offensive to think that the conclusion is invalid?

It's like this, suppose I use this as the definition of a pumpkin: A small, fluffy, four-legged animal. If I go around calling this a pumpkin, why in the world would it be offensive to disagree?

I do agree that many people are mistyped as intuitives when the really are sensors, but for a different reason than the one you are suggesting.

 

[strychnine]

No it isn't. That doesn't make sense. If you're working from a flawed definition, how is it offensive to think that the conclusion is invalid?

It's like this, suppose I use this as the definition of a pumpkin: A small, fluffy, four-legged animal. If I go around calling this a pumpkin, why in the world would it be offensive to disagree?

I'm going to have to quote myself here: "It's not offensive to disagree, far from it. It's offensive to suggest I'm mistyped because you disagree with my definitions. That's ridiculous."

I do agree that many people are mistyped as intuitives when the really are sensors, but for a different reason than the one you are suggesting.

Then why? Because people are biased N > S. That's the reason. And that's what I'm seeing here.

 

[/DG/]

I'm going to have to quote myself here: "It's not offensive to disagree, far from it. It's offensive to suggest I'm mistyped because you disagree with my definitions. That's ridiculous."

I've already read that bit and responded to it. Perhaps you should scroll up a bit.

Then why? Because people are biased N > S. That's the reason. And that's what I'm seeing here.

Yes, this is true, but it doesn't relate to the incorrect definition you are suggesting.

Intuitives are supposed to be the rarer type. Naturally, people want to feel special and thus want an excuse to feel that way. Additionally, Ns are often thought of as more intelligent than Ss. To sum up: N = "special snowflake that is better than everyone else" (note that this is not actually how I view Ns). People have written pages on this stuff, and I'm really not one to present it in an eloquent manner.