Se in my view is one of the most distorted information elements in presentation. Se is about force and kinetic energy, and this is unfortunately turned into the "forcefulness" adjective in various descriptions and forum discussions, leading it to be associated with some kind of power craze. It can be associated with those things, but in my view causes problems when people type themselves.
The idea behind this kinetic energy sensitivity is simply that Se is pure objective sensation, which is about dealing with objective stimuli from the sensory-equipped organs. Its very low level forms include associations with instinct, and its high level forms involve the ability to turn this interplay between instincts and stimuli which trigger them into something of a more sophisticated nature, where complicated observations based on what these sensation-capable organs tell you about the objective environment come into the picture, and one is able to know how to affect its components. As one is observing these components in a direct, physical way, one gets readings on how to effect change/movement in the environment. This isn't to say in a forceful way in the sense of being abrasive, pushy, etc which are extraneous traits. Rather, the term force refers to the readings you get on how to move the object. In fact, how and how much force to apply can vary tremendously, sometimes it has to be really subtle. It could be as simple as moving someone towards an ethical aim (ESI). It needn't be in a manipulative way either
The Ne/Se divide seems like it can come up in subtle ways. For instance, to the Ne type, the idea that simply making an objective observation is impossible without setting the object in some kind of motion (perhaps not to be taken literally), affecting it in some way, thus needing to consider it as a changing entity which cannot be described in entirety by fixed laws written by the observer., may be hard to accept, since Ne strives to know every potentiality conveyed by the stimulus, and note the universal laws at work there (Ti/Fi).
This last bit is inspired by a little discussion on the Einstein-Bohr debate relevance to alpha-gamma NT differences I had earlier.