musings on Se

[chemical]

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.

[Pookie]

It's like... the easiest thing to see in people.

[chemical]

Well Se is not known to be hidden yes, though it can be miclassified.

[JWC3]

Why is making an objective assessment without first setting something into motion impossible for Se types?

[chemical]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that (the impossibility) is necessarily true or false, it's more the substance how static versus dynamic intuition might play in as an idea to the Einstein-Bohr (ILE/ILI) distinction. Like that idea that it may be impossible would be more alarming to one type than another.

[JWC3]

Just to clarify, I wasn't saying that (the impossibility) is necessarily true or false, it's more the substance how static versus dynamic intuition might play in as an idea to the Einstein-Bohr (ILE/ILI) distinction. Like that idea that it may be impossible would be more alarming to one type than another.

Why?

[chemical]

Why

Why Einstein-Bohr is representative of all this? Basically this is all just a speculative explanation of the contrast between the probabilistic view of the Ni-Te version over the Ne-Ti's deterministic version (alluded to in Forms of Cognition by Gulenko). My speculation is the idea there is that Ni doesn't form laws to create subjective understanding of objects, it forms perceptions not based on a direct stimulus but based on superimposing subjective states in time. Thus, the idea that, having observed and affected an object thus (Se) implying philosophically that our knowledge of the object's potential states depends on the subject (introverted intuition) of observation, not just the object, and thus a more probabilistic outlook (since the subject's vantage point of observation is always changing, as opposed to the subjects conference of reason which has the mark of universality) on what we really can and cannot definitively say about the object's states is natural to the Ni-Te point of view of description, compared to the Ne-Ti one.

It's just an idea really. My main point here was really just to clarify Se independent of all this speculation (first main paragraph of OP), but feel free to ask more about my speculation or add your thoughts, since it's kinda interesting.

In a more down to earth way though, these psychological differences show up even in other DA versus say CD types (FiNe versus say EIE I think are examples, though I could be making this up, off memory). It's one reason I think EIE are portrayed as manipulative, even if perhaps undeserving, because there is a sense in which the dynamical point of view on reason has even been portrayed as somewhat more noncommittal to the true rationalist point of view. When supposedly rational connections are objectively given rather than a function of the subject's understanding relative to himself/herself, they attain a more empirical flavor, as opposed to the flavor of the subject conferring the mark of reasonableness guided by his own factors, there's a sense his judgments are made to flow with the object.

It's why the ILI are often said to have a certain fact-orientation, despite being abstract minds at heart.

[JWC3]

Just to clarify, you're saying that Ni-Te concerns itself with change over time (superimposing subjective states in time) and percieves such things with more accuracy (probablisticly(?)) Than do Ne-Ti types?

[chemical]

Yes to the former, no to the more accuracy! It is a different way of seeing things, not necessarily more accurate, but yes it is dynamic.

[silke]

It's like... the easiest thing to see in people.

Not so, as was shown by Aqua's experiment when he was posing as a Se dominant ~85% of this forum's members cannot tell Se apart from Ne and are easily thrown off course by 'stereotypionics', which included even some of the veteran typers.

This "easiest thing to see" has in actuality been proven all too difficult.

[chemical]

There's also the thing that even if someone's not posing and is honest, while Se may be not so hard to recognize in high positions, in a low position it's a lot more implicit. After all, a IXI mentally processes through Si, not Se. They value and welcome Se as a possible complement to their base perspective.

It's been my view that this complementary nature can be kind of esoteric sometimes, and nowhere does this strike me as more evident than with Ni/Se.

Like, I really don't agree with the idea that a Ni-base is going to welcome Se wherever it shows up. There's a reason Se is exactly not their base perspective. It's not like some blatant obnoxious partying Se-lead can walk up to a ILI sage and expect some kind of good reception. On the other hand, the ILI sage may have a Se disciple who brings action to their visions which don't have a tangible form, and really how to bring this to reality isn't trivial. It would have to be a special relation between the two. Ni is really, really oblivious to Se, so when someone focuses all their contemplation on Ni, they don't really know how Se will help in the dualizing their Ni vision necessarily. Nor does the Se type really see the entirety of the Ni vision. Together, when things really click, though, you can get pretty amazing results.

[Iris]

There's also the thing that even if someone's not posing and is honest, while Se may be not so hard to recognize in high positions, in a low position it's a lot more implicit. After all, a IXI mentally processes through Si, not Se. They value and welcome Se as a possible complement to their base perspective.

It's been my view that this complementary nature can be kind of esoteric sometimes, and nowhere does this strike me as more evident than with Ni/Se.

Like, I really don't agree with the idea that a Ni-base is going to welcome Se wherever it shows up. There's a reason Se is exactly not their base perspective. It's not like some blatant obnoxious partying Se-lead can walk up to a ILI sage and expect some kind of good reception. On the other hand, the ILI sage may have a Se disciple who brings action to their visions which don't have a tangible form, and really how to bring this to reality isn't trivial. It would have to be a special relation between the two. Ni is really, really oblivious to Se, so when someone focuses all their contemplation on Ni, they don't really know how Se will help in the dualizing their Ni vision necessarily. Nor does the Se type really see the entirety of the Ni vision. Together, when things really click, though, you can get pretty amazing results.

So how does that work for Se mobilizing? I would not say that I have no idea how Se will bring about my Ni vision.

[chemical]

So how does that work for Se mobilizing? I would not say that I have no idea how Se will bring about my Ni vision.

It's not always necessarily the case of course, but I just mean, the way it is portrayed as if things are as simple as Ni forecasts and Se puts into action due to the Ni person being too sluggish or whatever in description after description seems to be too skin-level a characterization of Ni/Se. As in, I'd not even necessarily consider most things people describe as this sort of abstract forecasting as even mostly intuition. They could involve a multitude of information elements.

And to answer your question, I'd say it could make a really big difference when Ni is not your base. A lot of what can be discerned as developed functioning involves complexity of what you see through an information element. And generally the base/suggestive gap is really significantly higher than the creative-hiddenagenda one. Depending on the particular individual, it can be such a big gap that it's hard to even conceive closing. In some cases it'll be more moderate. But I'd say if you aren't so immersed in an intuitive perspective that it really overtakes the sensation perspective very perceptibly, then it's kind of meaningless to talk of being intuitive base. You can do it for kicks.

[Pookie]

Just to clarify, you're saying that Ni-Te concerns itself with change over time (superimposing subjective states in time) and percieves such things with more accuracy (probablisticly(?)) Than do Ne-Ti types?

Personally, i think Ni-Te percieves the evolution of immediate events with more accuracy than a Ne-Ti. I've noticed Ne-Ti can pull out insights, seemingly out of nowhere, that are incredibly precise. But accuracy wise, i think it's pretty clear cut Ni-Te of the two.

[Aylen]

Like, I really don't agree with the idea that a Ni-base is going to welcome Se wherever it shows up.

Yeah, it's not always welcome. Sometimes I try to reject it but it can be persistent. Maybe I just want to spin things around in my imagination but Se may say wake up and do something with it, so annoying, at times. Self generating Se feels like an impossible task without external motivation.

5. Extroverted sensing

IEIs have little natural or automatic awareness concerning their ability to make use of their willpower or position and exercise their will in opposition to others. Such a task is bothersome and they appreciate someone taking up the role for them and executing it well.
IEIs are awed in the face of someone adept at using their willpower or position and exercising their will in opposition to others. IEIs are drawn to people who exude this self-confidence and personal presence; just being with them is enlivening. These are the people who dream big dreams and are capable of achieving them, who aren't fazed by the obstacles that so often stand in the IEI's path.
The IEIs' own world is one of indecision and hesitation when it comes to taking action and striking out on their own. What best removes this hesitation is when someone else really wants them to do something. The IEI then relies on the other person's strong desire to mobilize them to action, as if the force of their desire were their own.

[Ananke]

I wrote a long post on Ne and Se once upon a time, seen from a Se+Ti perspective. I'll repost it here, as it seemed like a good place for it. It might not be perfect, but I thought it fitted this thread:

The difference between Ne and Se

Ne and Se are both irrational and extraverted functions. There are - imo - quite a lot of good descriptions of Ne and how it works, while the descriptions of Se often just describe "symptoms" of using Se or Se-ego characteristics. I thought to compare the two and try and explain them both on the same level. I was challenged to do so by another user, and thought to give it a try. Enjoy!

The difference between irrational and rational functions
The major difference between irrational and rational functions, is the way these functions reach conclusions.

Fe, Fi, Te and Ti are all rational, and this means they are step-by-step functions.
When you use a rational function, you know why you have an insight - or a judgement - as the process leading to the insight/judgement is quite conscious. An example of this would be a person seeing a happening or situation, and using Fe or Te to assess it. Fe or Te will see how this happening or situation will influence new happenings or situations. For example, Fe notices how a specific word, said in a specific way, will influence a person hearing it, and how that will have an effect on him/her and how (s)he will influence others again after that. Ti and Fi are static, so not looking at dynamics of the situation like Fe and Te, and introverted, so not looking at the extroverted world as much, but also step-by-step. For example, this post will be a good example of Ti, as it shows a step-by-step analysis of the differences between Ne and Se, starting from describing what irrationality is (and how it is different from rationality).

Ne, Ni, Se and Si are all irrational, and this means they are sudden-insight functions.
When you use an irrational function, you don't know why you have an insight so much, as the process leading to the insight is quite unconscious. An example of this, would be a person seeing a happening or situation, and using Ni or Si to assess it. Ni or Si will have associations with similar happenings and situations and how they started and how they went. For example, Ni notices a person having certain traits, and gets small films played in their heads about events leading to how this person got to have those traits. Se and Ne are static, and aren't looking at the dynamics of the situation like Ni and Si, also they are extraverted, and looks more at the extroverted world, but they are also association-driven. I'll talk more about Ne and Se below.

The EP functions - Ne and Se
Se and Ne are both irrational functions, and thus both work through the unconscious.

An object, a happening, a situation, a state, a stated concept - these are all "objects" in socionics terms, and thus the realm of extraverted functions by definition, as in they are "objective" reality - concrete or abstract. Some people might object to this, saying that a concept can't be an object, but it most definitely can. It is a "field" only if it is a personal thought, as in the case of Fi, Ti, Si or Ni, but it becomes an "object" once it is seen by somebody else, in their minds. This piece of Ti, I write here now, is an "object" in your minds at the moment, and is processed by extraverted functions first. Then you might internalize it immediately and put it into your subjective worlds, using Ni, Si, Ti or Fi, when storing it in the unconscious (Ni, Si) for later or when judging it (or me) using Ti or Fi.

When Se and Ne sees such an "object" these functions both trigger associations. What decides if you are using Ne or Se, is what kind of associations you have.

• Ne triggers associations with things you have thought before, or with concepts you have heard or thought before. Ne (and Ni) is a form of unconscious thinking. We often use "I think" about intuitive insights, and I think the reason is in what I just explained.
• Se triggers associations with emotions you have had before, or with things you have felt or seen before. Se (and Si) is a form of unconscious emotionality. We also often use "I feel" about sensory insights.

In other words, IF the KIND OF associations you are having, are built on

• emotions, sensory inputs or bodily states from earlier in your liife, then you are using Se.
• thoughts, conceptual ideas or learned information, then you are using Ne.

As you can see, it can be hard for an EP to evaluate if they are having one or the other type of associations, since the P-functions are so unconscious in nature, and it is hard to follow the associations coming up. Most often, XXXps will not have a clue why they "know" something, and it can be quite hard to see the difference between Se and Ne (or any other functions of the same temperament), since they may reach similar conclusions, and since they work in similar ways. Different life experiences, different interests and different intelligence levels also means it is - in my opinion - near impossible to spot the difference between these pairs of functions through trait descriptions. Not that it's not possible to describe "average use" of a function, it is, but most people aren't average, and Jung knew this and said it was really hard work to figure out somebody's preferred functions, as people learn to behave certain ways that may or may not be typical, depending on a whole lot of external and internal reasons.

Spotting the difference between Se and Ne
To show how you can spot the difference between Se and Ne, I'll give an example of an ILE and SLE laughing their asses off, when opening the local newspaper, seeing a picture of a tyre vendor. The picture was badly photoshoped, with a burning background and the vendor was standing with his eyes crossed (some issues with eye sight) staring up and away from the camera as if he was blind, Stevie Wonder style. He held his hands on a tyre in front of him. It was a really bad ad...

SLE: "ahahahaha.... It looks as if he's reading the fortune of people in the lines of their tyres"
ILE: "ahahahaha.... I really don't think I'd want him to balance out my tyres."

As you can see, the SLE statement is Se-based. The SLE sees the picture and interprets it through things he has seen before. Maybe a picture previously seen of a fortune teller spacing out while holding a crystal ball with fire/purple/red/lightning in the background. You probably have all seen such pictures. His associations were based on things seen before, and the specific "feel" of the picture. Mixed with the sight of the vendor holding his hands on the tyre, seeing that there were lines there, it made him associate as he did.

The ILE, however, uses Ne-based associations. He sees a cross-eyed person and notices his work as a tyre vendor, and thinks about how this person might end up changing his tyres if he buys tyres from him, and then makes the association that this guy will not manage to balance out the tyres well. His association is based on a concept - that "cross eyed" means "unbalanced".

Se and Ne descriptions

as a base (1st) function (ILE and IEE)

The individual is skilled at generating intellectual interest and curiosity in others and using others' curiosity to get them to do things.
He easily sees parallels between different situations, areas of knowledge or skill, and people, and likes to establish contacts across different fields of knowledge and social groups, which allows him to be part of many things at once. He enjoys considering differing viewpoints and perspectives and seeing if they can be reconciled.
He enjoys the beginning stages of just about anything - new projects, acquiring new skills, experiencing new people and relationships. Preparing for and launching something new is seen as having greater value than the process of experiencing what one already has and finishing what one has begun. The concept of "finishing" seems foreign to him. Instead of taking care to finish things and tie up all loose ends, he tends to drop things when he can't handle them any longer or realize that he has neglected them for too long (this might be equally related to suggestive introverted sensing).

When I use Ne, I feel as if I'm unpacking things, or making new/other things pop out of other things. It's a bit like how children get thrilled and big-eyed and laughs when something turns out to be something else or contain something other than expected. As I watch ILEs or IEEs go on and on with enthusiasm and laughing manically, spinning more or less useful associations, I on my hand, get associations to such kids, and I wonder if Ne has this magical fun element to them all the time. A brilliantly clever Ne-statement can thrill anyone in the room, and intrigues a lot in that "unexpected inside" kind of way.

I think that Ne-associations are a bit like that - they pop up in the head of the Ne-ego as "potential insides" of the object they are watching - be it a concept, an object or a situation - or maybe rather - they pop OUT of it.

as a base (1st) function (SLE and SEE)[/h]The individual feels at home among people who are actively doing something and interacting with each other directly (visibly), and is able to organize people, move them around as necessary, and guide them in achieving a specific goal. He or she likes obedience and even subservience in others, since it allows him to "make things happen" more effectively.
He is keenly aware of territorial conflicts and confrontational behavior occurring around him. He very quickly becomes confrontational when others try to make him move or get him to do something in an aggressive or confrontational way. He quickly recognizes when people are trying to get each other to do something or are trying to organize him for some purpose. He also spontaneously uses aggression to achieve his own goals.
He wants to make all decisions himself about what he will do, wear, eat, look like, etc., and resents any attempts by others to make these decisions for him. However, he is willing to make use of other peoples' ideas, advice, and creativity, as long as he plays the most visible role.
He enjoys testing his will in challenging situations and views life as a sort of obstacle course, full of adversity and challenges, that must be weathered and conquered.

When I use Se, I have noticed a similar to Ne kind of thing happening. This morning, I looked at a picture frame that was covered with crackling gold paint surrounded by dark wood. I stared at it, and somehow, I felt as if I zoomed inwards, seeing some old time setting, when such frames were more common. Then I zoomed back to the picture, and zoomed back inwards, and saw a dinosaur, as they have similarly cracked up skins as the gold paint had. It feels a bit like constantly focusing and defocusing, triggering associations of other things seen before.

I think Se-associations are a bit like that - they come through constant focus/defocus in and out, seeing associations with other, similar things, getting more and more insight into the object, in some way. Only it happens so fast (and mostly unconsciously) it is near impossible to notice.

I guess you all know ESxx-types who almost instantly come up with a comment like "Hey Gargamel" (the evil Wiz from the Smurfs) when talking with a person who has a big hooked nose and dark undone hair, or any other such comparisons, normally for playful purposes. (All extraverted sensors have 4-dimensional Se, so I talk about ESxx-types rather than Se-egos).

Se, just as Ne, can be quite brilliant at coming up with insights that are quite hard for other functions to see in the object perceived. Example: I see a woman dressed in visible underwear or a guy beefed up to show off, and my associations goes to trashy and flashy, and I think about how the Europe has become so plastic fantastic: That what in the 90-ies was perceived as "bad taste" now is "cool". These are judgements Ji-functions in a Ne-ego could have had, too, I think? And I might end up saying the exact same thing an IXE would say. Difference being the way the associations are triggered: Unconscious image to image/state to state (Se) or unconscious thought to thought/concept to concept (Ne). In my opinion, it's not that easy to tell if somebody is Ne- or Se-ego based on behavior, but if you can see what kind of associations the EP function uses, then you can see what function (Ne or Se) was used to form the Ji-judgement (or the Pe comment).


(I copied in the Wikisocion definitions so you can contrast to what I write, but won't comment on them more.)

[chemical]

Ananke, yes a lot of this info you posted is really useful. It's exactly the kind of thing people need to know, actually. The intro to irrational and rational functioning at the beginning coupled with the differences between Ne and Se association-forming is really useful because yes, this conveys the essentials of how people synthesize reality.

The really interesting thing about socionics that isn't there in the less advanced versions of Jungian typology is that say, a Se-lead, while having a big blind spot to Ni, is actually not so blind to Ne, and actually this fits more with my observations than not.

Coming to think of it, I think it is actually quite natural that Ne influences Se from a superego standpoint, and it's better not to associate negative or positive emotion to it perhaps (some sources will claim you sort of hate your superego functions, but I'd say more accurately, you tend to try to see their information from the standpoint of the ego, so their existence is more like a mirror to show you what you're ignoring in the perspectives you're forming). It's as simple as the fully reality-oriented Se-lead shop-owner who has a good nose for objective possibilities on how to improve the shop. He isn't driven by seeing potentialities, but they arise quite naturally. Where he struggles is with subjective focus coupled with intuitive focus - that is too far away. The two genuine weak points for someone are their opposite type and their opposite-to-base information element. That is, ESTp has opposite INFj, hence Fi-{Ne} ends up being their weakness, and similarly Ni does. The theory however suggests that you do need something in common with your main disposition for a IE to be worthwhile to you I guess, since at least Ni shares irrationality albeit of the opposite kind, whereas Fi-{Ne} is truly the opposite.

One thing I'll comment is that, while your description is right, that the process of perception is indeed unconscious, the origin of the perception remains conscious in sensation. But it is true that it is not a directed process like logical thinking or rational ethics.

[Ananke]

The thing people need to know in addition, is that we either see dynamic or static reality, never both. Meaning I - as an SLE - have the exact same conscious functions as an EII or LII or SEE or ILE or any EP or IJ. We live in the same "dimension", but focus on different static information in that dimension (internal (Fi, Ne) or external (Ti, Se), introverted (Fi, Ti) or extraverted(Se, Ne)). We don't see dynamic reality at all. Nor do dynamic types see static reality.

In some Jungian typology descriptions - original MBTIs in particular - a lot of qualities that belong to Se are mentioned as Ne, and Se gets simplified. I would guess MBTI is originally described by Ne-egos who included their own Se-traits in Ne-descriptions (as their Se is conscious) and thus "stole" from Se to their Ne-description. I also think that explains why their Se-descriptions often are so "simple", as it is partially based on 2d or 1d Se in themselves (and on what is left from what is already stolen to their Ne-descriptions).

I score higher on N-traits than on S-traits in MBTI tests - actually around 85-90% N, and mistook myself for an ENTP for long because of that, but I am SeTi. MBTI psychologists say I'm a clear Ne-base. They are wrong. I used this example to illustrate why I think MBTI has mistaken S-traits for N-traits.

One thing I'll comment is that, while your description is right, that the process of perception is indeed unconscious, the origin of the perception remains conscious in sensation. But it is true that it is not a directed process like logical thinking or rational ethics.

Hmm... Not sure I understand what you mean, but if I interpret you correctly, you say that Se knows where the perception comes from? As in, if Ne comes up with an unconscious association, the association isn't visible in origin, but if Se comes up with one, it knows what triggered the association?

In that case I have to disagree.

- A simple example of Se would be telling more or less the weight of something, right? I know exactly how much a bottle of water will weigh and where to hold it to keep it in balance in my hand, and I can confidently lift it. I guess an ILE can do that, too, more or less.
- I also know exactly how to place a lot of boxes and bags in a car so that it will all fit, even if an ILE says it cannot fit.
- Or I know exactly how to make the bank give me better interest rates for a loan, even if an ILE says it is impossible to negotiate further.
These were real examples, btw, from my life. Still, if you ask me HOW I know the exact force to use (physical, mental), I can't really tell. I can backtrack it somewhat, using Ti, but it isn't really known where the knowledge comes from. It's more like body knowledge - when you have learned to bike, you'll know it forever. That's how Se is, too. You can't really explain WHY. It's just there. I guess I "improvise", but actually I am real time reading the situation and knowing how and what to do through Se, but to myself I just seem to act randomly, based on "instinct". I have no clue how I know things. I just do. I just act.
The same goes for more complicated "objects" like a historical situation or a conversation between friends or anything I observe. I get a lot of information, but I don't know how or from where.

The difference between Ne and Se is internal vs external. It means that Ne associates internal traits (concepts or thoughts from the past ---> linking seemingly unrelated "objects" based on some sort of similarity) and Se associates external traits (situations or emotions from the past --> linking seemingly related "objects" based on some sort of similarity). Otherwise they are both highly unconscious (instinctual/intuitive in nature) just like Ni and Si are, too.

[chemical]

but if Se comes up with one, it knows what triggered the association?

No, that's exactly, exactly not what I'm not saying. The associations are not even Se or Ne, they are generally prone to occur in an irrational state of mind. Se is aware of an object stimulating you, that is all. The process of perception itself is not governed by conscious means, hence the associations that must be made for the perceptive process to occur go on unconsciously.

With intuition, the origin of the perception is unconscious, with sensation it is conscious, only meaning what is transmitting the perception, not the associations that must go on for it to occur. With both, the process of perception is so spontaneous as to certainly not be mediated by consciously drawn associations, which would only occur in rational activity.

[Ananke]

No, that's exactly, exactly not what I'm not saying. The associations are not even Se or Ne, they are generally prone to occur in an irrational state of mind. Se is aware of an object stimulating you, that is all. The process of perception itself is not governed by conscious means, hence the associations that must be made for the perceptive process to occur go on unconsciously.

With intuition, the origin of the perception is unconscious, with sensation it is conscious, only meaning what is transmitting the perception, not the associations that must go on for it to occur. With both, the process of perception is so spontaneous as to certainly not be mediated by consciously drawn associations, which would only occur in rational activity.

Hmm.. I still think you are talking about internal vs external traits, rather than unconscious vs conscious. Internal traits are "invisible" traits of an "object" (objects are anything from physical objects to a situation to an idea). Ne watches these "invisible" traits (internal), while Se watches the "visible" traits of the object.

As for Ni - introverted intuition, this gets even more complicated to understand, since Ni it introverted and thus subjective. Ni deals with subjective, invisible and irrational reality. Ne is still objective (based on external stimuli (extraverted)), yet "invisible" (internal) and irrational (filtered through the unconscious). Se by contrast is objective (based on external stimuli (extraverted)), but watches visible traits (external) and filter through the unconscious (irrational).

Otherwise I agree with what you said about irrational functions.

[chemical]

Well both those dichotomies are involved in my point - I was not using the terms internal/external but you're right those are present (I'm familiar with Se = external statics of objects etc). You are simply using more vocab since you're phrasing it by socionics terms, I by Jung, where the ideas are the same but he did not use the "external statics" sort of definition.

Unconscious/conscious are getting used in 2 ways, not one.

[Ananke]

Well both those dichotomies are involved in my point - I was not using the terms internal/external but you're right those are present (I'm familiar with Se = external statics of objects etc). You are simply using more vocab since you're phrasing it by socionics terms, I by Jung, where the ideas are the same but he did not use the "external statics" sort of definition.

Yeah, I had a feeling we more or less agree, since I found your opening post excellent.

Jung was TiNe (imo) and thus his understanding of dynamic reality was a bit weak (Fe and Si in particular, though he seems to have disliked Te and Ni a lot, too) and his understanding of his weaker conscious functions (Se and Fi) aren't too excellent either. That said, Jung has the fundaments correct, better than MBTI and socionics.

I think a way to understand sensing vs intuition is by thinking of sensing as unconscious "metaphors" and intuition as unconscious "concepts". That really does help, at least for me. Si and Se are "metaphorical" in nature - they "connect" similar situations, moods, happenings unconsciously - previous experiences become unconscious representations ("metaphors") that lead to understanding new experiences faster, better and deeper. Ni and Ne are "conceptual" in nature - they connect similar concepts unconsciously - concepts from the past are linked with concepts based on present experiences.

I guess a deeper understanding of the functions is needed to really grasp what I mean by that, but I think you get it better than most people here, so I'll stop musing.

[chemical]

Yeah, I had a feeling we more or less agree

I agreed 100% with your post at least what my attention level permits me to read. I was describing Se/Ne exactly in terms of the external/internal idea, except doing it without that vocabulary, just to elaborate.

Jung was TiNe (imo)

I'm curious to hear your ideas on this actually.

And I actually think I might get what you're saying about metaphors. Metaphors, unlike similes, do not perceive a similarity, but tend to be associated with actuality. When one experiences the irrational associations occurring during sensory perception, there is a sense in which all these associations are projected to be based in an actuality, or if you like, explicit experience rather than implicit one.
Someone especially aware of his mental states could look inside what he's doing and notice this metaphorical nature (whereas some sensation types may simply react to stimuli without being aware of the nature of perception).

A way to phrase what you are saying about intuition and concepts is that intuition perceives potentials, through these imaginary things called concepts which have the potential to become actualities.

[Ananke]

I'm curious to hear your ideas on this actually.

The evidences for him being TiNe are rather overwhelming, imo, but for some reason the forum consensus is that he is some Ni-ego, maybe because he talked about the psyche? I just don't see it. Ni is dynamic and talks about strenghts, weaknesses, behavior traits and streams of the consciousness, not about static archetypes controlling the psyche. That is static perception. He's clearly static, imo. Here are my other reasons for thinking he is TiNe:

- According to his own system he is TiNe (he said this in an interview that you can find on youtube). So, unless socionics and jungian functions are different, I think a man creating the system knew his type in this system.
- His assistant - Marie Louise VonFranz - wrote that a reason she so easily grasped Jung's theories and became so close to him in his work, is that she is the same type as him. She is clearly TiNe
- Jung's description of Ti is very good and concrete, his Ne description is also good. His other descriptions are more abstract and he has more trouble describing them, imo. He clearly gets a bit swirly and big-worded when he describes the dynamic functions (normal, since statics don't see the dynamic dimension well) and his descriptions of Fi and Se are simplistic (normal since these functions are less developed in a TiNe than Ti and Ne are, and thus harder to see the full depth of) - he probably would have gotten it even better, btw, if he had spent more time on typology, but he himself said he wasn't as interested in the ego-functions as he was in the unconscious
- He collected fairy tales and religious stories around the world and linked them to the collective unconscious and dream imagery. That is Ne creative in a nutshell (see discussion we had so far)
- He made Ti-systems to explain the psyche - both the ego functions and the archetypes are static understanding of reality, and he has made external explanations of them - tangible (not internal - intangible like ethicals would do).

[Reficulris]

When I use Ne, I feel as if I'm unpacking things, or making new/other things pop out of other things. It's a bit like how children get thrilled and big-eyed and laughs when something turns out to be something else or contain something other than expected. As I watch ILEs or IEEs go on and on with enthusiasm and laughing manically, spinning more or less useful associations, I on my hand, get associations to such kids, and I wonder if Ne has this magical fun element to them all the time. A brilliantly clever Ne-statement can thrill anyone in the room, and intrigues a lot in that "unexpected inside" kind of way.

I think that Ne-associations are a bit like that - they pop up in the head of the Ne-ego as "potential insides" of the object they are watching - be it a concept, an object or a situation - or maybe rather - they pop OUT of it.

Brilliant post (all of it) the quoted part above is actually a great description of Ne. To me personally it's this spinning out of options wich is maybe my greatest joy in life. I'm most happy when i'm brainstorming with someone to help them get a new idea and them liking that. Also things that actually surprise me (sometimes i fail at predicting an option) make me extremely happy. Finally, I've got a "magic cube" toy, which consists of a number of squares that can be moved around continiously. (can't really explain) and it's seemingly impossible to my mind to comprehend it and so when i'm holding it I usually end up spending literally hours just turning it around because it's so much fun! Also, the internet (esp sites like wiki or tv-tropes) are gold for Ne because there is always something new to click on and explore. Ne certainly has a magical side to it, cuz even when it's "useless" it's at least always "Interesting". That said, I think Se for me seems magical too, in a way that i'm usually looking up to Se ego's for the way the actually get things done and the seemingly "direct" connection between their wishes/desires (which they usually KNOW) and their actions whereas my behaviour is usually kinda unpredictable for me too even IF i know my wishes and desires (I usually do know them, its just that they change all the time).

[Reficulris]

I mean this: I have not listened to what the guy is talking about, but the thing he's holding and playing with is what I meant with Magic Cube

[chemical]

To Ananke - the interesting thing I note about Jung is that he pretty clearly (actually as clear as he really gets on this sort of thing it seems) identified himself, closer to the publication of Psychological Types, as not an intuitive but sensation type (though he always seemed to identify as a thinking type), going as far as to say intuition was an unconscious function in him. Thinking and sensation, with thinking uppermost. Later on, he changes this to thinking and intuition, nearer the end of his life, and notes at that point that the type is nothing static, meaning it changes throughout the course of life. I read this to mean that, even if there is such a thing as innate type, the precise manner in which psychological functioning represents consciousness changes in terms of priority in many cases. Now, part of me wonders if he always thought this about "nothing static," or if it was something he had to realize the real implications of later on in life. There is likelihood the socionists' description of innate type also takes a more static approach, which can't be surprising given two of the most famous socionists period are alpha NT. Of course I'm not saying a static type cannot anticipate that a type's details of functioning change (interestingly Gulenko even alludes to this in the recent interview, where the "energy" and "information" are filled gradually. What could this possibly mean? It seems to refer to the two things type addresses the management of, namely the energy refers to the energy type, information to information metabolism, and as both fill in over time, I suppose you could say the manner in which the "innate type" manifests becomes more "filled in," namely, it develops a more well-defined practical format. This very idea of a stable skeleton which "somehow gets filled in" does sound the kind of hypothesis an alpha NT would make. And, given Jung made one very major adjustment in his life regarding types, namely he used to identify all introverts with thinking types and all extraverts with feeling types, it's not inconceivable he adjusted how he thought of things for the probably roughly 30 years following publishing his book on types, made various clarifying remarks, and such, and that in developing the types perhaps he really did have a static view. Jung is sort of confusing to analyze for me. I do find it decidedly strange he never wrote of this nonstatic thing in his book if he truly knew it though at the time.

I think allusions to his being Ni aren't unfounded but some are better thought out than others (some are just like - he does esoteric mystical stuff and writes vaguely, Ni!). I'm not totally sure of his type in socionics which is why I asked.

[chemical]

If you would also be so willing Ananke, I'd like to hear of your experience of the dynamic Ni, as far as how you see Ni-seeking in yourself or your understanding of it from having understood the sense in which your static psyche seeks it.

[Ananke]

To Ananke - the interesting thing I note about Jung is that he pretty clearly (actually as clear as he really gets on this sort of thing it seems) identified himself, closer to the publication of Psychological Types, as not an intuitive but sensation type (though he always seemed to identify as a thinking type), going as far as to say intuition was an unconscious function in him. Thinking and sensation, with thinking uppermost. Later on, he changes this to thinking and intuition, nearer the end of his life, and notes at that point that the type is nothing static, meaning it changes throughout the course of life.

I believe types are inborn, but I do believe that we can use the functions of the dimension we belong to (dynamic or static), and that we can learn to understand the "conclusions" of the other dimension, and use them in our own - both realities exist and are real. I haven't seen Jung referring to himself as sensation type, but his archetype descriptions are nevertheless very close to how Se sees the psyche, imo. I certainly had that kind of view on the psyche as a child (seeing the psyche as "physical blocks moving inside myself". I would guess both Ne and Se will "project" static objects onto the psyche, though?

Ni-types do not seem to watch "objects" in the psyche moving, but streams of thoughts and events - fluxes of the psyche, rather. Ni isn't watching objects, it is watching movements of concepts, ideas, thoughts, not these objects in themselves.

I haven't looked into this part of socionics enough to give good answers, though, and I may change my thoughts on this in the future.

I read this to mean that, even if there is such a thing as innate type, the precise manner in which psychological functioning represents consciousness changes in terms of priority in many cases. Now, part of me wonders if he always thought this about "nothing static," or if it was something he had to realize the real implications of later on in life. There is likelihood the socionists' description of innate type also takes a more static approach, which can't be surprising given two of the most famous socionists period are alpha NT. Of course I'm not saying a static type cannot anticipate that a type's details of functioning change (interestingly Gulenko even alludes to this in the recent interview, where the "energy" and "information" are filled gradually. What could this possibly mean? It seems to refer to the two things type addresses the management of, namely the energy refers to the energy type, information to information metabolism, and as both fill in over time, I suppose you could say the manner in which the "innate type" manifests becomes more "filled in," namely, it develops a more well-defined practical format. This very idea of a stable skeleton which "somehow gets filled in" does sound the kind of hypothesis an alpha NT would make. And, given Jung made one very major adjustment in his life regarding types, namely he used to identify all introverts with thinking types and all extraverts with feeling types, it's not inconceivable he adjusted how he thought of things for the probably roughly 30 years following publishing his book on types, made various clarifying remarks, and such, and that in developing the types perhaps he really did have a static view. Jung is sort of confusing to analyze for me. I do find it decidedly strange he never wrote of this nonstatic thing in his book if he truly knew it though at the time.

Statics see even movement as "static" - static types talk about "non-static" the way Jung did - "type is nothing static" - he points out there is a change - that is a static way to talk about change - as if change is an object of it's own. I think his way of talking about changes between types is static, but I'd love to hear somebody give a good analysis for how it can be dynamic.

I think allusions to his being Ni aren't unfounded but some are better thought out than others (some are just like - he does esoteric mystical stuff and writes vaguely, Ni!). I'm not totally sure of his type in socionics which is why I asked.

Ni is not esoteric or mystical, imo. It is just a subjective perception of mental changes. For example.

[chemical]

Yeah; I've thought about it, and I think it is possible for even static types to infer the more continuous processes, but they don't store information this way or interact with it this way. I wonder how this can be observed in life. Like, I think it is very possible a static type may be able to infer his subjective state, because for instance TiNe needs to seek out Si, but it'll be in the form of a lower level function, and will be passed on to deal with the upper one. Maybe they'll be able to achieve a quick analytical breakdown of the procedure that must be undertaken to seek out Si. They may still be sluggish about doing it however, because it's a lot easier if you are truly aware of the perception of Si information of its own right.

Basically, I have a feeling we can "understand" our other processes without truly processing through them, given that even less conscious processes come to our attention, and we may, if we do process through them, need to rely on what feels more instinctual than truly like a controlled mental process.

It does make me wonder how the Ni-Te and Ti-Ne processes go on in a complementary way, one automatic and one directed. I have this vision that Ni+Te actually forms subjective impressions of the entire implementation process of a procedure, which is what makes it more fluid or something as opposed to breaking down some particular prescriptive point (or at least, I mean, this is sort of the natural inclination)? In some cases this won't be too different in actual outcome achieved than what a Ti-Ne type did perhaps, just how they focused on the information en route may differ. But in cases where an information metabolism style creates a fundamentally different output, these two could certainly get to something very distinct just based on how they see reality.

[chemical]

Following up last post - yes I think Ni-Te was roughly right the way I put it. The key is Te is object-oriented because it is more about the logic of algorithms/procedures/programs, namely this objective situation leads to that leads to that, and so forth. Algorithms are how you determine/compute something often, and they are procedural in nature, whereby the logic is showing one can validly get from one state to another. Ti logic on the other hand is not procedural in the realm of objects, and is more generally about ideological consistency, meaning the logic is just a rational codification tool for the subjective understanding, rather than showing a procedure is valid.

Now I think, like any dichotomy, there are degrees anywhere. To some extent, any logical construct involves both procedure/program and consistent demonstration of a subjectively derived idea. When these become truly distinguishable we can speak of Te and Ti, and they become distinguished when the aims are clearly object-oriented versus subject-oriented (sometimes, demonstrating a procedure/program doesn't go too far away from demonstrating subjective understanding).

I should say that I'm having problems/complaints with Te/Fe getting overly close to something irrationally-oriented though, meaning there does exist a clear distinction between rationalizing the objective activity of a procedure and actually engaging the procedure through sensation. You could say this is the difference between understanding the algorithmic logic of how to build a car, seeing the logic of functionality and procedure involved, and actually doing it, which may involve unfriendly encounters with sensation, reacting to stimuli in a continuous procedure, mentally forming the right associations and doing it. I bet this is hard to intuitive types. They may have a good eye towards understanding practical logic without actually being able in the sensory domain (as Jung would call this, "practical intellect").

Similarly, Fe is not (or in my view should not be) merely the knowledge of emotional states, no. I actually think the knowledge of emotional states is much more irrational than that. Much as Te isn't just observing objective activity, but the logic behind the activity, conceptualized by the mind as a procedure. Rather, Fe is the ethics behind these emotional states. To even have an ethic, one must have a humanely oriented (not in the sense of "good" but just human) subject, with a certain rational intelligence about what these states are about, that is, giving them rational meaning (I think merely knowing what leads to an emotional state can be achieved with more basic perceptive associations if the state is a "basic" one). The more and more this complicates, the more nuanced the reasoning becomes not merely as to what (emotionally oriented) procedure to bring forth, but also why it is rational to bring it forth that way, and what the aim is (in analogy to the nuance Te can achieve when constructing algorithms and evaluating their efficiency). Of course the example socionics sources like to give is acting, probably because this just illustrates the flow of one mood to another and the extreme knowledge one must have of the processes behind moods going from one place to another, the psychology of it, and so forth, on a non-static level so as to really create the moods in definite objects. The static logic types do not see these processes, they can at most infer emotional states from static data (still irrational) and draw static relations between them (there exists a certain kind of attraction/repulsion which brought about this change) while gaining knowledge of the nature of the objective procedure mediating between the two (sort of discrete states, due to their lack of subtlety).
Fe is basically the algorithmic view of feelings - rather than looking at what the feelings suggest about a fundamental need or relatedness and "axiomatizing" this, it monitors how the feelings progress. I guess it's why Gulenko (I think?) emphasized, if you really want to strengthen Fe, go watch the actors. Now simple stuff can be learned by anyone just by personal data point collection, but really "getting" the dynamics of emotions is more complex.
I think a simpler example of Fe is simply entertaining guests or whatever. With horrible Fi, you don't know their general natures and needs, but obviously this isn't how ethical types work - they have decent abilities in both static/dynamic. But the specialty of the Fe-lead is maintaining for the entirety of the time a certain emotional flow that is thoroughly rationalized (note - this doesn't mean everyone has a good time, complex isn't always good, it just means there's a certain nuance to the aimed effect). I guess it's possible the Fe-Ni could work well for acting out a play with a certain global meaning. Whereas Fe-Si could work better for more immediate associations, where the emotional ethics aims to realize a sensory rather than intuitive reality. The more outward-oriented the Fe type gets in entertaining guests though, the more they just spontaneous respond to the mood present (parroting Jung here).

[Ananke]

If you would also be so willing Ananke, I'd like to hear of your experience of the dynamic Ni, as far as how you see Ni-seeking in yourself or your understanding of it from having understood the sense in which your static psyche seeks it.

You know how ENTps want their personal nurses that also make them feel good?
I want my personal shrink that understands me and knows all my personal cognitive patterns and that also makes me feel good.....

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

meh I don't view Se as pushy and abrasive, but I do view it as... barbaric and gutteral? I'm IEI so I'm kinda overly sexualized, like a good difference between an IEI and a LII is the IEI will be uncomfortable around a lot of trivia, the LII will be uncomfortable around sexual talk. Se and Te polrs are superficially similar but the more in depth you go the more you realize how different they really are.

Also it's weird , I was conditioned to dislike and feel uncomfortable in situations that my alpha parents do, that I don't really naturally have... so there is kind of this insecurity, it's also why I'm very alpha like at times. (and strrrng mistaken me for a SEI) One time there was this SLE who got out of his car once and immediately my parents felt threatened, I didn't though in fact it made me relax lmao and all the guy did was get out of his car and it was a stranger. around sles my body relaxes and I speak more self confidently. <3

I do wish the stereotype of 'asshole bully' and 'victim' would leave the types altogether. I know a really popular IEI, he gaslights and bullies other people really easily there is no victimness about him, he is really against that sort of thing hardcore... and there's this stereotype that an SLE will be this douche in a backwards baseball cap that invades your physical space... it's just nonsense imo. Psychological conflict isn't really about being obviously mistreated as it is thinking two people can work out (they can't really) when their values are so opposed.