Se vs Ne - are Se types more sure of themselves?

[Kristiina]

this is inspired by a talk I had with someone and I need to make sure that I'm not wrong about versus .

This is what I proposed: and are both ways to describe objects without personal evaluation (as opposed to judging functions) and without taking into consideration the object's link to other objects (as opposed to introverted functions). observes the undisputable REAL aspects. Something either IS or ISN'T true. There is no "maybe", although the answer depends on the exact question. observes the potential COULD BE aspects. There are many overlapping truths. When there's a Ne statement, the opposite might also be true.

This means that if a person is constantly very sure about things, then they are probably Se type. For Ne types there is no absolute truth in anything. They are the "never say never", "don't say anything you might regret later" kind of people. And even if they make a statement, if you ask if the opposite is true, they will also agree! Se types say that the opposite is wrong and their version is right.


In short:
- true vs false statements and black and white thinking
- various overlapping truths and many shades of gray.


- - - - - -

Alternative explanation to vs that contradicts my version.
Se is about concrete information and Ne is about abstract information. Se types are sure about statements they make about physical/real/concrete traits of objects and Ne types are sure about statements they make about abstract/imagined inner traits of objects. types can be just as categorical and make as many true/false statements as types.

[Ezra]

I don't think the latter part necessary contradicts what you said. It's aiming for a different viewpoint. You're essentially partly talking about LEM for Se, and Ne valuers attempting to show this is wrong.

The other description is about the different kinds of information each function processes; it has nothing to do with truth values.

Nice clear, concise description though, Kristiina.

[Kristiina]

I don't think the latter part necessary contradicts what you said. It's aiming for a different viewpoint. You're essentially partly talking about LEM for Se, and Ne valuers attempting to show this is wrong.

The other description is about the different kinds of information each function processes; it has nothing to do with truth values.

Nice clear, concise description though, Kristiina.

thanks.

and LEM for Se valuers seems right to me. But the other description does contradict, because I say that Se types view things as true/false and Ne types don't. The other description says that Se and Ne types make equal amount of true/false statements, but they just make statements about different topics. IMO, you can recognize an type by noticing that they try to force even the abstract things into (narrowminded) true/false statements.

[Ezra]

thanks.

and LEM for Se valuers seems right to me. But the other description does contradict, because I say that Se types view things as true/false and Ne types don't. The other description says that Se and Ne types make equal amount of true/false statements, but they just make statements about different topics. IMO, you can recognize an type by noticing that they try to force even the abstract things into (narrowminded) true/false statements.

I still don't think that's contradicting. You've said "Se and Ne types make equal amount of true/false statements", but that just means they both make lots of true/false statements, not that Ne types don't make anything but true or false statements. See what I mean?

[Kristiina]

I still don't think that's contradicting. You've said "Se and Ne types make equal amount of true/false statements", but that just means they both make lots of true/false statements, not that Ne types don't make anything but true or false statements. See what I mean?

it does contradict!
I say - Se types make true/false statements, Ne type doesn't
opposing view - they make equal amount.

there is no "both make lots" in "Ne types don't make any".

[strrrng]

I don't think it's about being sure of yourself as much as it is being sure of reality. Se works with Ni in this way: Ni creates a subjective context, and since it's internal, is more unique to the individual (whereas Si's subjective context is based more on a standard, of sorts). Se, being external, treats reality as this separate, objective thing that simply is. So, once Ni beliefs are introduced into reality, it is done in a seemingly absolute way (whereas Ne does it in a lighter way, based more on the external context of the situation).

Point being, the Se-Ni feedback loop will appear more definite, and thus Se types may seem more certain of themselves, but I believe it is just their style.

[Kristiina]

I don't think it's about being sure of yourself as much as it is being sure of reality. Se works with Ni in this way: Ni creates a subjective context, and since it's internal, is more unique to the individual (whereas Si's subjective context is based more on a standard, of sorts). Se, being external, treats reality as this separate, objective thing that simply is. So, once Ni beliefs are introduced into reality, it is done in a seemingly absolute way (whereas Ne does it in a lighter way, based more on the external context of the situation).

Point being, the Se-Ni feedback loop will appear more definite, and thus Se types may seem more certain of themselves, but I believe it is just their style.

well said. ...hence, when someone is making absolute statements of what reality is, I tent to hover towards them and feel reassured that everything in the world is still in the right place.

Mhh... Another definition for Ne and Se, which works well with my theory.
- truth is truth. Always. That's because world is what it is.
- truth depends on the external context of the situation. This is what causes many overlapping truths!

[strrrng]

Se - truth is truth. Always. That's because world is what it is.
Ne - truth depends on the external context of the situation. This is what causes many overlapping truths!

I disagree. Just because Se is more definite, that does not mean everything is absolute. Remember, it works with Ni, the most abstract function. Se-Ni is more likely to illustrate a truth that is correct in context (Ni sees internal context) in an absolute way, whereas Ne-Si is more likely to illustrate a truth that is related to a more or less arbitrarily defined context (Si...external) but in a more accurate, or less absolute, way (Ne)

[Joy]

this is inspired by a talk I had with someone and I need to make sure that I'm not wrong about versus .

This is what I proposed: and are both ways to describe objects without personal evaluation (as opposed to judging functions) and without taking into consideration the object's link to other objects (as opposed to introverted functions). observes the undisputable REAL aspects. Something either IS or ISN'T true. There is no "maybe", although the answer depends on the exact question. observes the potential COULD BE aspects. There are many overlapping truths. When there's a Ne statement, the opposite might also be true.

This means that if a person is constantly very sure about things, then they are probably Se type. For Ne types there is no absolute truth in anything. They are the "never say never", "don't say anything you might regret later" kind of people. And even if they make a statement, if you ask if the opposite is true, they will also agree! Se types say that the opposite is wrong and their version is right.


In short:
- true vs false statements and black and white thinking
- various overlapping truths and many shades of gray.


- - - - - -

Alternative explanation to vs that contradicts my version.
Se is about concrete information and Ne is about abstract information. Se types are sure about statements they make about physical/real/concrete traits of objects and Ne types are sure about statements they make about abstract/imagined inner traits of objects. types can be just as categorical and make as many true/false statements as types.

I think all of this is accurate.

I don't think that any of it means that Se types are more sure of themselves than Ne types are though... they're just more sure of their information, since Se deals with readily apparent (physical) states and Ne deals with possibilities. Se types could appear more sure of themselves as a result though.

[Kristiina]

so many definitions, so much words, I can't get the right feeling from it and I'm still not sure if I can draw conclusions from it.

If someone is constantly making very clear and sure statements I assume they are type and they can not be type. The statements are very clear and closed phreases, "this is so.". There's no "If" or "maybe". All the statements are just very clear. I associate it very clearly with strong Se, weak Ne. Does it mean I make false typings? (fortunately this has been the basis of typing for only 3 similar people and it won't be too much of a catastrophe to retype them. I just don't want to type other people based on their types.)

[Expat]

The problem I see with this approach is that, for instance, LIIs can also be very "this is so" even if based on rather than . For instance, Robespierre.

[Joy]

so many definitions, so much words, I can't get the right feeling from it and I'm still not sure if I can draw conclusions from it.

If someone is constantly making very clear and sure statements I assume they are type and they can not be type. The statements are very clear and closed phreases, "this is so.". There's no "If" or "maybe". All the statements are just very clear. I associate it very clearly with strong Se, weak Ne. Does it mean I make false typings? (fortunately this has been the basis of typing for only 3 similar people and it won't be too much of a catastrophe to retype them. I just don't want to type other people based on their types.)

In this situation I'd look at the type of information they are making statements about.

I do think sensory types (especially Se valuing) and Ti/Fe types are going to be more likely to make statements like than than intuitive (especially Ne valuing) or Te/Fi types.

Based on what you're saying (if I understand you correctly), I'd say those people are:

Beta ST > Beta NF > Delta ST > Alpha SF or ESI > Alpha NT > Gamma NT or SEE

[Joy]

The problem I see with this approach is that, for instance, LIIs can also be very "this is so" even if based on rather than . For instance, Robespierre.

Basically, I'm suggesting that it's related to Se and Ti. The types most likely to say "this is so" as such are (imo) Se + Ti types.

[strrrng]

The problem I see with this approach is that, for instance, LIIs can also be very "this is so" even if based on rather than . For instance, Robespierre.

exactly.

anyone can be absolute, depending on the context. I supposedly have the least "definite" ego functions, but I can nonetheless be very absolute when expressing ideas I am confident in.

Can we just leave it at the fact that Se is the most concrete function and Ne likes to play with external contexts? Otherwise, this discussion will become very convoluted.

[Joy]

External + Static = tendency to see things as absolute

[Kristiina]

exactly.

anyone can be absolute, depending on the context. I supposedly have the least "definite" ego functions, but I can nonetheless be very absolute when expressing ideas I am confident in.

Can we just leave it at the fact that Se is the most concrete function and Ne likes to play with external contexts? Otherwise, this discussion will become very convoluted.

lol, no, because I need to make sure I type LSIs correctly.

[Kristiina]

The problem I see with this approach is that, for instance, LIIs can also be very "this is so" even if based on rather than . For instance, Robespierre.

how do you tell the difference between Ne and Se based statemets?

[Creepy-Diana]

.

[Kristiina]

diana, it does add to the discussion, thanks for posting.

[strrrng]

External + Static = tendency to see things as absolute

lol another great one-liner. Se is only one function, and it works in a feedback loop with Ni, which is internal and dynamic = a tendency to see the essence.

So, we can't look at it one way or the other completely.

[Joy]

lol another great one-liner. Se is only one function, and it works in a feedback loop with Ni, which is internal and dynamic = a tendency to see the essence.

So, we can't look at it one way or the other completely.

That's why Se needs Ni (and Ti needs Fe).

[Blaze]

Se sees the object with the five senses, focusing on concrete data that can be measured, and then looking at what the object will do in the present.

Ne sees the object also, but extrapolates potentialities. focus is on the extrapolations not the object as is, then what the object might do in the future, given this or that situation.

[strrrng]

Se sees the object with the five senses, focusing on concrete data that can be measured, and then looking at what the object will do in the present.

Ne sees the object also, but extrapolates potentialities. focus is on the extrapolations not the object as is, then what the object might do in the future, given this or that situation.

Ne is not about "the future"....it looks at internal qualities, which are subjective. Anyone can look into the future; it's just a matter of the method you do it in.

[Expat]

how do you tell the difference between Ne and Se based statemets?

Well take a look at this speech by Robespierre (the first one I found in a casual search):

We want, in a word, to fulfill natures's desires, accomplish the destiny of humanity, keep the promises of philosophy, absolve providence from the long reign of crime and tyranny. Let France, formerly illustrious among the enslaved lands, eclipsing the glory of all the free peoples who have existed, become the model for the nations, the terror of oppressors, the consolation of the oppressed the ornament of the world - and let us, in sealing our work with our blood, see at least the early dawn of the universal bliss -that is our ambition, that is our goal.
What kind of government can realize these wonders? Only a democratic or republican government - these two words are synonyms, despite the abuses in common speech, because an aristocracy is no closer than a monarchy to being a republic. . . .
Democracy is a state in which the sovereign people, guided by laws which are of their own making, do for themselves all that they can do well, and by their delegates do all that they cannot do for themselves. . . .
Now, what is the fundamental principle of popular or democratic government, that is to say, the essential mainspring which sustains it and makes it move? It is virtue. I speak of the public virtue which worked so many wonders in Greece and Rome and which ought to produce even more astonishing things in republican France - that virtue which is nothing other than the love of the nation and its law.
But as the essence of the republic or of democracy is equality, it follows that love of country necessarily embraces the love of equality. . . .
But the French are the first people of the world who have established real democracy, by calling all men to equality and full rights of citizenship; and there, in my judgment, is the true reason why all the tyrants in league against the Republic will be vanquished.
There are important consequences to be drawn immediately from the principles we have just explained.
Since the soul of the Republic is virtue, equality, and since your goal is to found, to consolidate the Republic, it follows that the first rule of your political conduct ought to be to relate all your efforts to maintaining equality and developing virtue; because the first care of the legislator ought to be to fortify the principle of the government. This everything that tends to excite love of country, to purify morals, to elevate souls, to direct the passions of the human heart toward the public interest, ought to be adopted or established by you. Everything which tends to concentrate them in the abjection of selfishness, to awaken enjoyment for petty things and scorn for great ones, ought to be rejected or curbed by you. Within the scheme of the French revolution, that which is immoral is impolitic, that which is corrupting is counter-revolutionary. Weakness, vice, and prejudices are the road to royalty. . . .

It is full of certainties, "this is so", but at the same time of a more "abstract" nature, not so "concrete".

Now this speech by Stalin (again the first one I found):

Today our country is in a far better position than it was 23 years ago. Today it is many times richer in industry, food and raw materials. Today we have allies who jointly with us form a united front against the German invaders. Today we enjoy the sympathy and support of all the peoples of Europe fallen under the yoke of Fascist tyranny. Today we have a splendid army and a splendid navy, defending the freedom and independence of our country with their lives. We experience no serious shortage either of food or of arms or equipment.

Our whole country, all the peoples of our country, are backing our army and our navy, helping them smash the Nazi hordes. Our reserves in manpower are inexhaustible. The spirit of the great Lenin inspires us for our patriotic war today as it did 23 years ago.

Is it possible, then, to doubt that we can and must gain victory over the German invaders? The enemy is not as strong as some terror-stricken pseudo-intellectuals picture him. The devil is not as terrible as he is painted. Who can deny that our Red Army has more than once put the much-vaunted German troops to panicky flight?

If one judges by Germany's real position and not by the boastful assertions of German propagandists, it will not be difficult to see that the Nazi German invaders are facing disaster.

Hunger and poverty reign in Germany. In four and a half months of war Germany has lost four and a half million soldiers. Germany is bleeding white; her manpower is giving out. A spirit of revolt is gaining possession not only of the nations of Europe under the German invaders' yoke, but of the Germans themselves, who see no end to the war.

The German invaders are straining their last forces. There is no doubt that Germany cannot keep up such an effort for any long time. Another few months, another half year, one year perhaps-and ******ite Germany must collapse under the weight of its own crimes.

This is of a far more "concrete" quality.

The only answer I can give is that it's necessary to see if the person is coming from a or perspective. The "this is so" quality, on its own, is not enough.

[Steve]

Can we just leave it at the fact that Se is the most concrete function and Ne likes to play with external contexts?

Excellent - Ne does exactly that. It plays with inherent properties of different contexts in a somewhat subjective way. And it is in a feedback loop with Si, because I think Si provides a lot of the context for Ne to work in.

What's interesting about Ne and Si is that there's a balance of information elements. With Ne, you have internal static objects - objects are things that are seen as separate from the observer, but at the same time having it be an internal quality includes a somewhat subjective element to it. Same with Si (both subjective and objective elements). Also, the same with Ti and Fe - Essentially External Fields and Internal Objects seem to have an inherent balance about them.

That's why I think Alpha seems the most non-intense and harmonious and balanced, whereas Gamma seems the least, because with Ni and Fi you have total subjectivity and with Se and Te you have total objectivity. Gamma's functions' information elements are polarized while Alpha's are balanced. Beta and Delta are mixes in between.

[Logos]

Basically, I'm suggesting that it's related to Se and Ti. The types most likely to say "this is so" as such are (imo) Se + Ti types.

Do LIEs not also have a tendency to say "this is so"?

[Joy]

In absolutes? I haven't observed much of that.

[Logos]

I suppose declarative types can sound absolute.

[Joy]

Yeah. I often have to make an effort not to. If I don't, people tend to misunderstand and insert words like "always", "all", "never", "none", etc. into my sentences. At least online.

[Kristiina]

Well take a look at this speech by Robespierre (the first one I found in a casual search):



It is full of certainties, "this is so", but at the same time of a more "abstract" nature, not so "concrete".

Now this speech by Stalin (again the first one I found):



This is of a far more "concrete" quality.

The only answer I can give is that it's necessary to see if the person is coming from a or perspective. The "this is so" quality, on its own, is not enough.

I already thought I might have mistaken a bunch of LIIs for LSI, but this is meaningful.

Roberspierre's talk sounds so pussy to me. It's full of round talk and empty words. Stalins talk resembles those people a lot more. It's clear and concrete and full of real statements.

"essence of the republic or of democracy is equality," is not a statement to me. It's just words. The entire speech is just empty words, extremely boring. If this is indeed what INTj "statements" are like, then I was right and only beta ST make REAL statements.

[JRiddy]

External + Static = tendency to see things as absolute

lol another great one-liner. Se is only one function, and it works in a feedback loop with Ni, which is internal and dynamic = a tendency to see the essence.

So, we can't look at it one way or the other completely.

Perhaps a way to took at this is that static external elements tends to see things as discrete. This doesn't always mean it takes a "this is so" attitude, but it does tend towards categorization. I've noticed an especially strong tendency to "group" people and things, often based on pre-conceived categories, in Se-SLEs, because the role of Ni is (relatively) downplayed, and in Ti-LIIs, because the harmonizing element of Si is less important.

[Expat]

Roberspierre's talk sounds so pussy to me. It's full of round talk and empty words. Stalins talk resembles those people a lot more. It's clear and concrete and full of real statements.

"essence of the republic or of democracy is equality," is not a statement to me. It's just words. The entire speech is just empty words, extremely boring. If this is indeed what INTj "statements" are like, then I was right and only beta ST make REAL statements.

Right, then it's clear that that's what you meant.

[Jimbean]

@ Diana, that is a very good way of putting it! About possessiveness related to Se, Rick talked about this during the New York conference, and he believes that being inherently possessive is related to Se.

[Jimbean]

This a good thread!

One difference I have noticed between male and types, is in their vocal quality. types have shitty vocal qualities while types have firm vocal qualities.

[JRiddy]

This a good thread!

One difference I have noticed between male and types, is in their vocal quality. types have shitty vocal qualities while types have firm vocal qualities.

Thanks, jerk. . Haha, I know what you mean though. And, I can see how it could be perceived that way. I'm working on some voice-function relationships, and i'm gonna post them when i feel that they're not so stereotypical.

[ScanDave]

I have been told my vocal quality is sexy.

[Joy]

Of course there are going to be exceptions, but generally speaking I do find Ne ego type male voices to be somewhat mousy. (And Ni ego type male voices, except EIE's.)

[mikemex]

I wonder what exactly does this thread tries to prove.

[strrrng]

I wonder what exactly does this thread tries to prove.

lmao

[Kristiina]

I wonder what exactly does this thread tries to prove.

That types are cooler than types. thanks for helping the cause!