Things change over time and possibilities depend on these things that change. P(Ne/Se) is about keeping the eyes open for things changing(rather than seeing static things) and N is about concentrating on the possibilities(rather than facts(S)).
As Linda Berens and Dario Nardi claim here, "With Se, there is an emphasis on possibilities for actions to take. With Ne, there is an emphasis on possibilities to be considered for action". Naomi Quenck (author and developer of the MBTI Step II) also says based on Jung's work, one cannot consider actions and actually act on them at the same time.
A way to look at it I was recently given (as I too was confused about "possibilities" being mentioned for both, when we usually think about only Ne with that term), Se is possibilities that exist with things as they exist right now. Like a football player who sees who is in a position that he can pass the ball to.
Se "does" or acts, but is not about changing present reality like Ne is.
It's like Se reacts to situations already changing, while Ne looks at how to change them. Ne is inferring (that's the definitive term for N) a pattern of "possibility" from the situation, rather then just acting on it as it is.
[...] Are you more focused on:
what is possible
what is actual
How did I answer that question? I liked 'what is possible' because there are so many things that I just don't like about the real world. I am dissatisfied with many things and I wish things were different than they actually are. So ANYBODY who feels disgruntled and dissatisfied with the world as it is will say they like the idea of 'what is possible' instead of 'what is actual,' and they will be labeled an intuitive. I always have a list of 'possibilities,' or options, or different ways something could be done, but that doesn't make me an intuitive.
In fact, I might argue that intuitives like to think about things that are IMpossible! They like logical contradictions and putting together ideas to create things that don't really exist. 'What is possible' doesn't describe that - it would be described as 'what is impossible.'
Much of the conflict between sensors and intuitives happens when an intuitive suggests an idea that is too abstract and general to work in reality, and the sensors tell them it's impossible and they need to work out the details.
Meanwhile, the intuitives think that they themselves are suggesting other 'possible' ways of doing things or seeing things, and that everyone else is seeing only what is already there. So the test question says 'what is possible/actual.' And the sensors would respond by saying that the intuitives' ideas are impossible, and listing a whole bunch of details to show why some idea can't be done in reality.
The word 'possible' might mean something different to intuitives than it does to sensors. [...]
My life has become easier since I dared to make decisions. I dont think that "deciding" is so much related to p or j at all, but I think that p or j's have different preconditions for developing strength in that department.
I came to know with age that deciding means to compromise to settle for one opinion and with that develop something progressive. So the phase of "could be, could be not" basically ended for me when I passed the age of 25. In the real world indecisiveness doesnt get you very far, if you want to achieve a responsible position in your working environment.
Pness nowadays isnt so much about "maybe" for me no more, but about flexibility of opinion and your decisions. I go by the idea: every decision thast can be changed easily is a good one.
I have learnt that having an opinion means actually to take on responsibility for a thing or idea and given the vast amount of ideas there are out there, one has to settle for some and try things out to at least have some sort of progress. I think this is a lesson all P's need to learn at some point in their lifes.
Pe expands. our worlds are ever-expanding. unlike Pi, which reduces. both aim towards One eventually, but we are working outward towards the Whole, while they are working inwards towards the Singularity. it makes our lives harder in that we have trouble deciding, yet easier in that we are more open to change.
Yes I do believe J tendencies can be learned, but the preference will always remain. That speaker moves into some training he's developed to aid that, but I have not seen it myself. I know that I organize and plan some aspects of my life (usually work) very well, but it does take tremendous effort - not natural. Not sure if tert Te development has helped this along, or just being pounded over the head for years with the undesireable consequences that come with constant perception, lol.
I'm pretty classic Pe with the "maybes", getting stuck in considering every angle & not wanting to rule anything out too fast; but there does come a point where I will make a decision or form a rather solid opinion. Because I've considered so much info & so many alternate ideas, it's hard to budge that decision simply because most any argument against has already been considered thoroughly. Even still, the decision tends to be a general preference, meaning there's still all kinds of wiggle room for how to enact it.
This misconception has lead to SPs mistyping as Ns. The word "possibilities", used without further description, is misleading.
As Functianalyst writes on Personality Cafe:
Every action is a possibility until it's done. You could think of it like conversion of potential energy to kinetic energy... the potential is the possibility, and the kinetic is the action... but the action does not immediately spring into form as an action. It's a possibility first, then acted upon.
And as [MENTION=3521]Eric B[/MENTION] writes here: [emphasis mine]
The following isn't directly responding to your post... but might be relevant.
I also happened to find this post from [MENTION=12849]Retmeishka[/MENTION], an ISTP:
I find that last sentence spot on.
I consider ideas possible even if they are not possible at the present moment, e.g. if we don't have the technology to bring them to fruition yet. Another person might consider that same idea impossible, because it's not possible with the current state of the world.
And I think this issue where people interpret the same word differently gets right to the heart of typology...
I tend to think of very few things as impossible, perhaps if they are directly contradictory (P and not P).
Don't know what that makes me, and it doesn't really matter... I'm just saying that even the word "possibilities" means different things to different types.
[MENTION=7595]INTP[/MENTION] - Are you saying that an SP has to "use" Ni to scan for potential actions? The scanning is not from Se?
I know that all types have both S and N functions. Does what you have just said suggest or imply that Ss must focus more on facts than possibilities? Or can an S-type focus more on possibilities than facts, and still be considered S?
Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.
I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.
Jungs definition for functions are:
S tells you that something is.
T tells you what it is.
F tells you what it is worth.
N tells you where it came from and where it is going.
I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.
Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.Its not Se that sees the possibilities for action, its the Ni of Se user.
I know about the vision for action and vision for perception being different. Vision for action isnt Se, its Ni prerequirment for Ni. First of all, its unconscious, Se isnt, it leaves visual cortex from dorsal pathway, extraversion goes to opposite direction, towards visual cortex, not out of it(yea i know it sounds weird, but if you learn how brains work, you will understand why, also jungs idea of extraversion supports this). Ni comes from future projection area of the brains(according to dario nardi) and this is where this dorsal pathway leads to(actually this area is on the right side of the brains, Ne users seem to repress this sided dorsal pathway and use the left side(which leads to areas more involved with formation of Si.
Jungs definition for functions are:
S tells you that something is.
T tells you what it is.
F tells you what it is worth.
N tells you where it came from and where it is going.
I dont care about what berens, dario or especially ericb say about the function definitions, im more interested on jungs definitions and what makes sense from scientific and personal point of view. And jungs definitions make the most sense from neurological, logical and personal point of view.
"perhaps"
Se and Ni are two sides of the same coin. You can't really have one without the other (one person calls such tandems "ladies' earrings") at least somewhere in the background (hence, unconscious, or at least less conscious). So there's no contradiction.
S, and N perception, and T and F judgment are implicit in every bit of data. If something "is", then in a universe of time, it must also be "heading" somewhere as well. If its heading somewhere, then it must first be something that "is". And if something "is", and is determined to be such by rational creatures, then it must also have some sort of "worth" (even if lack thereof). And again, if something has "worth", then it must be something that "is".
It's our ego consciousness that divides all of this into i and e (yielding 8 function-attitudes) and focuses more on one of these perpsectives and orientations or the other.
So yes, when you see "possibilities" in emergent "what is" data, then there is also a storehouse of "where it's going" data working in the background. In the football example that was cited, an emergent "what is" is the primary, conscious perspective. "where it's going" is in the background. So it was primarily an "Se" perspective. Ni-preferring types are not as focused on a physical perspective like that, until they have really matured and developed their tertiary or inferior.
On the other hand, if I'm focusing on emergent "where it's going" data, then a storehouse of "what is" is in the background as well. You keep disputing people on this stuff, but there really is no real conflict. It's just a matter of interpretation and rephrasing of Jung's concepts (which are very dense and prone to misunderstanding as it is, so you can't blame people for trying to recast it in their own way. He had even changed some of his concepts, so he is not so absolute).
I didn't say Se saw possibilities in that last post. I was granting you that Ni saw the possibilities, but the primary perspective was Se "emergent data", and that thus the two functions work together. The way you're taking it, the athlete (which is a field good for Se types) would have to in effect "switch gears" when he "uses Se" to see "what is" before him, and then "use" Ni in recognizing where it's going. That's actually the way the "folk typologists" (remember that term?) who are misled use the concepts. But that's not what it's about.Its not Se that sees the possibilities, its Ni, using the analogy of different side of the same coin doesent change this, its still different sides.
That's talking about physical motion, not the type of "motion" Jungian iNtuition deals with (i.e. conceptual). Are you suggesting that each person "uses S" when seeing something, and then "uses N" when he sees its position in physical space change (physical motion)?Also these two things in neurological level are two different operations, jung was able to differentiate the two, by seeing the difference in S and N.
S and N perception is combined into one, which comes to consciousness. Like i told already, S only sees 'what is', N tells you where it came from and where it is going.
So you could say that N detects motion, combines those separate images of 'what is' into fluid perception.
Dont believe that they are separate systems? Read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akinetopsia
Of course, its as I said...Its stupid to even argue about this
I don't see how he's "right" and they're "wrong". "Closer" to what? Mainstream psychological knowledge? They don't seem to be embracing him that much. The main problem I can see with the interpreters is not clarifying things enough. (And some of those oversimplified definitions, when they do attempt to clarify). But with Jung, clarifying can be hard.because this is so basic things and i cba to explain how brains operate. Ill give you one tip tho, move away from those stupid wanna be jung theories, they are simply misleading and you clearly have been misled big time, but i have already told you that multiple times. And dont just read about typology, read about current stuff in field of psychology if you really want to see how this stuff goes. And im not saying that jungs concepts are absolutes, im just saying that if you read jung instead of berens, thompson etc and look at what jung says in the framework of current knowledge about psychology, you will see how close jung actually got with his stuff and how far off those modern day (mis)interprations about jungs stuff are.
Yes I do believe J tendencies can be learned, but the preference will always remain. That speaker moves into some training he's developed to aid that, but I have not seen it myself. I know that I organize and plan some aspects of my life (usually work) very well, but it does take tremendous effort - not natural. Not sure if tert Te development has helped this along, or just being pounded over the head for years with the undesireable consequences that come with constant perception, lol.
This is how I tend to think, but it can be difficult to actually have interactions with people that reflect this thinking. People often project a lot of certitude in discussions regardless of type. Even at single type sites that are exclusively "P's" it is rare to see this withholding of judgment. I wonder if there can also be an internal sense of uncertainty that can be overcompensated for in external discussions? Discussions filled with maybe's and exploring the uncertainties are wonderful, but these can be difficult to find. I wonder about that. What do you think?Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".
But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.
But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".
Dependencies. Everything seems dependent on everything else to fully make sense. In order to understand something fully, it seems to me that I have to also understand EVERYTHING else. And given that I don't understand everything at present, and that I probably CAN'T understand everything even if I tried, I have to view the things I would otherwise say I "know" as maybes. This means that what J types might consider "facts", the P is forced to view as possibilities -- even if a possibility with a very high probability of being true -- such that the probability that it's untrue is negligible. Yet, it's still a possibility, not a "fact".
But in the meantime it's like everything new that I learn unlocks a piece of the puzzle, and if I were to learn everything (which I won't) it will all stitch together perfectly to make a coherent, consistent whole.
But until we can fully understand everything, we cannot claim to have fully understood any one thing... and what remains only partially understood is a "maybe" in the mind of a P. So everything remains a "maybe".
And this is my working hypothesis as to why we Ps tend to view the world in "maybes" while Js tend to see things more definitively.
Even P's that game the system are taking advantage of their understanding of the natural flow of the system, rather than just looking at the system as something to be overriden.
I'm not sure what types we're even talking about to begin with. The MBTI J/P dichotomy is a mess. Jung had Rationals and Irrationals - and the dom perceivers (be it Extro or Intro) were the Irrationals...the ones full of "maybes", if you will. Here, it's all redefined, and only the extroverts are described correctly when talking about Jungian theory. A mess.
I'm some Perceiver who doesn't care to fix the mess though. I just see it.