I considered the term "self-described" but that precludes someone has not been professionally typed. After that, all one can do is proclaim. I wanted to iterate the fact that rarely do people embody a set function order as MBTI ascribes, let alone a single function.
I never once intended to argue the point that inferior Se types are not able to efficiently function in the sense world by the way. Knowing myself and who I am, putting value on the sense world is the least likely thing I would do, especially as a type 5 I think. Ni and 5-ness kind of go together. I can imagine how to operate perfectly in the sense world but once I need to translate this knowledge into anything practical it tends to just fail beyond belief. I don't know how to translate what I'm seeing in my mind and apply it properly in the actual sense world. There are other aspects as well of course, such as forgetting where I put my keys or my phone (nevermind my inability to remember to charge my phone and have my family members try to call me several times and asking if I'm alive), remembering to eat, slight sense of hypochondria (especially that which is capable of invading the body e.g. parasites) and I don't know what else. The world of inferior sensation is just a strange one. I rather just not think of it at all.
The point I was raising is that you were making the claim that Se has nothing to do with the sense of "being in the moment" which I attest from personal experience is simply not true, especially because of how obviously it stands in contrast to Ni as a dominant perspective that is anything but being aware of the present moment. I'm more aware of drawing patterns of observed phenomena in the past and telling what will happen in the near to far-away future than I am telling what is going on right now. Having to consciously focus my perspective this way is clearly painful and it's only in childish moments of inferior eruption where I can enjoy such occurrences. I think perhaps even moreso because of Fi is also supporting inferior Se. This video may be exaggerated but it still captures the positive experience of inferior Se with Fi quite well. Notice its childish and archaic nature:
Good post. I honestly wasn't positive about what direction you wanted to go with that earlier comment, but it's clarified quite well here. I don't agree with the video being an example of inferior Se - that is an example of Se in general, perhaps. I think you nailed it with the Fi comment. I would go with Fi a trillion times over before anything, but almost certainly not Se-inferiority.
I suppose Se is the most in the moment, in a sense - but I prefer not to think of it as some high-level acuity to the physical realm in the manner the video in the OP suggests. It's more like if Se sees someone going for a mug, they wish to stay open to the possibility they will pour apple juice, milk, eat soup, or even throw it against a wall - while Ni is more into applying patterns as you've stated, such as equating coffee mugs to coffee. Se does not like making these connections in such an intuitive fashion, even so far as repressing intuitive reactions to circumstance - Jung predicts Se finds them archaic and grotesque.
Take an experience I had recently with a perhaps Ni friend. We were getting fast food and pulled up to the first window to pay. I paid, and the guy who took my money said "Wait right here, I will be right back with your food". So I'm waiting, and after two long minutes the Ni in my backseat starts getting irate, telling me to pull up to the second window, the guy is probably waiting for us to pull up. I tell him several times the guy explicitly instructed me to wait there, and my friend in the passenger seat confirms this, but the Ni is having none of it. He starts mumbling curses to himself, boiling about how wrong I am, repetitively expressing how 'fucking stupid' the situation is. My face grows hot in contemplation; in my mind I start doubting my perception - "did he actually instruct me to pull forward? Should I pull up regardless? He is right, this is quite odd..." Then I think to myself "Okay, if the guy was actually waiting for me he would have A) opened the window and waved me forward or B) walked my food back to the first window anyways. There is a car behind me, he obviously isn't just going to let me hold up the line this way. Plus, it's three in the morning - they are probably taking so long because they are making this food fresh since they are not all that busy." So I decide to ignore Ni (including my own) and wait.
Sure enough, about a minute later, the guy opens the window and hands me the food cheerfully. I felt like turning around and smacking the guy in my backseat for causing me so much cognitive dissonance, but I realize this is just Ni being Ni. He had no intent to reconcile the fact that the man explicitly instructed me to wait to the patterns he had recognized in the past. This is a textbook example of Ni suppressing objective sensory experience in the manner Jung describes. So Se is in the moment, to this regard, in the sense that it correctly objectively understands and interprets such experience.
I have postulated while recanting this story if it could be attributable to Si - but no, it couldn't. Jung states Si to be over reliant on Se, Se is Si's unconscious attitude - perhaps too trusting of sensory experience, much as the way Ni is too trusting of its intuitive experience. Now - it may be I am going quite out on a limb with this story being attributable to Ni altogether, but I feel confident in my thoughts and I would welcome a rebuttal should anyone disagree.
It seems like the only way to ensure any kind of direct relationship between the content of the mind and the shape of the outside world is to have Se operate independent of other cognition. No transformation. No additional input. No human.
+1
Buddha recognized this many years ago, and it takes decades of concentrated effort to theoretically achieve.