My present musings on the Ni-Se and Ne-Si divide

[Expat]

Disclaimer: these are again my musings. Since I haven't thought as much about this as about the Fe-Ti and Fi-Te divide, and/or because I'm not irrational, these thoughts are more half-baked.

Obvious remark: everyone thinks of "present reality", of the future, of dreams, and tries to improve reality and reach their dreams - to some extent.

Some definitions:

- both Ni and Si refer to sequential cause and effect correlations. In one area of quantum theory, that is precisely one definition of the time flow.

- Si and Se are close to reality; in that they are close to how our five senses perceive immediate reality.

- Ni and Ne are further from reality, for the same reason.

- Both Ni and Si are dynamic.

So, one way to define Ni and Si is:

Si: dynamic "time flow" closest to the senses, that is, to present reality
Ni: dynamic "time flow" far from the senses, from present reality.

On Ne and Si:

Si is the perception of "present", "real", "close to the senses", "here-and-now" dynamic time flow.

Ne are "static snapshots" within, and escaping from, this here-and-now flow: how to shape the present reality into something closer to our wishes?

On Ni and Se:

Ni is the perception of "non-present" time flow, not close to the senses: the future, the past, or some imaginary world; dreams.

Se are "static snapshots" of reality, "bringing us down" from the Ni flow: the realization that Ni isn't "real" yet, and that it's still necessary to get there.

The Ne-Si perception:

The "down to earth" Si dynamic flow, in its pure form, is a "relaxed", vegetative state: the total surrender to immediate sensorial perceptions.

The Ne "snapshots" within this flow reveal how this dynamic flow can be brought into improved situations.

Essentially: the Si flow is good; Ne snapshots show how to make it better.

If you are caught only in the Si flow: you'll never make it better.

If you are caught only in the Ne snapshots: you'll never come "down to earth" to enjoy the peace of a dynamic Si flow.

The Se-Ni perception:

The "dreamy" Ni dynamic flow, in its pure form, is a "relaxed", vegetative state: the total surrender to inner, non-sensorial, non-immediate perceptions.

The Se "snapshots" within this flow reveal that the Ni flow is not real, and at the same time, that it must still be achieved.

Essentially: the Ni flow is good, Se snapshots show that it's not real.

If you are caught only in the Ni flow: you'll never do anything to make it real.

If you are caught only in the Se snapshots: you'll never know what is it that can make you reach the peaceful state of relaxed flow.

In other words:

Ne-Si: a "down to earth" state of relaxed enjoyment of the present, "real" time flow, "interrupted" by Ne "visionary" realizations that it can be improved.

Se-Ni: a "visionary", "dreamy" state of relaxed enjoyment of the non-present, "dreamy" time flow, "interrupted" by Se "down to earth" realizations that it's not real and has to be yet achieved.

Si: down-to-earth, Ne makes you "take off" until calming down back to Si.
Ni: Visionary, Se makes you "crash-down" and want to "climb back" to Ni.

(where "climb back" is actually only an imaginary situation, since you were never "in" Ni in the first place, not in "reality").


Ne-Si: a contented enjoyment of the present-time flow, interrupted by "jumps" that make you thing of something to improve it.

Se-Ni: a focus on a "desired reality", a "dream", or "future", with "jumps" reaching out at it, making you want to actually get there.

How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present".

How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

Ne-Si: the enjoyment of the present with the insights on how to improve it make it "reasonable"

Se-Ni: the lack of contentment with the present, with eyes focused on a not yet achieved "dream" or "future", and the awareness that it's not real yet, make it "resolute".

The downfall of Si without Ne: contentment with the Si present flow with no initiative to improve it, to make it more enjoyable, more interesting, amusing, better

The downfall of Ne without Si: not being able to "sit back and enjoy" the present flow.

The downfall of Ni without Se: the "dreams" and the "future" will ever remain unachieved, perhaps without even realizing it

The downfall of Se without Ni: not being able to actually see what is it that needs to be achieved, and how far away from it you are.

[Minde]

I still have problems with applying how you describe Ne to myself...

...but let me think about it some more.


Do you mind if I throw problems at your ideas?

[marooned]

If you are caught only in the Ni flow: you'll never do anything to make it real.

[aestrivex]

in short -- what's there makes some amount of sense, but it's far, far too simplistic.

[aestrivex]

hmm is that better or worse than going into a lot of detail?

for my tastes, the part on Ni/Se is too vague and doesn't contribute to understanding what the essence of those functions is. i will leave the question, however, ultimately, to one's subjective discretion.

[Park]

How Si-Ne sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

I suppose you mean "How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "

[Expat]

I suppose you mean "How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "

Yes. Changed. Thanks.

for my tastes, the part on Ni/Se is too vague and doesn't contribute to understanding what the essence of those functions is. i will leave the question, however, ultimately, to one's subjective discretion.

As with the Fe-Ti and Fi-Te text, I wanted to emphasize the differences, in a symmetrical way, so that hopefully one's side PoV became clear to the other.

I will add some examples of what I see as each side's perception, hopefully that will help.

[Expat]

I still have problems with applying how you describe Ne to myself...

...but let me think about it some more.


Do you mind if I throw problems at your ideas?

Bring it on.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ne-Si: a "down to earth" state of relaxed enjoyment of the present, "real" time flow, "interrupted" by Ne "visionary" realizations that it can be improved.

Se-Ni: a "visionary", "dreamy" state of relaxed enjoyment of the non-present, "dreamy" time flow, "interrupted" by Se "down to earth" realizations that it's not real and has to be yet achieved.

It seems as though the introverted function plays the main role the majority of the time ie it's the baseline state of the interaction, and the extroverted function gives it a rudder to steer it's direction everyso. I can see that working actually.

Do you think this is more in line for dominant Nx-Sx, or just as applicable when in the creative position also?

[Expat]

It seems as though the introverted function plays the main role the majority of the time ie it's the baseline state of the interaction, and the extroverted function gives it a rudder to steer it's direction everyso. I can see that working actually.

Well, I'm not sure how the EPs will relate to that; but my view is that a constant or state of mind is one of constant, say, "impulsive activity", so I found it more natural to use the state of relaxed, or reflective, or flow as the baseline.

Do you think this is more in line for dominant Nx-Sx, or just as applicable when in the creative position also?

I think it's alspo applicable when in the creative position, at least to see the difference, but perhaps the rationals will have more difficulty seeing themselves on either side. Not sure.

[Suomea]

...

[Expat]

I'm listening to suggestions and questions.

[redbaron]

How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present".

I think this is how my SEI friend sees me sometimes. Minus the too ambitious part. I can practically hear it running through his mind "why can't you just be happy?" I'm trying all right!? But things never live up to their potential and it bothers me!

How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

And this is how I see him: too contented with the present, never thinking of possibilities. Stuck in his own little world. I can tell that he wants to break out and do new stuff but he can't.....

The downfall of Ni without Se: the "dreams" and the "future" will ever remain unachieved, perhaps without even realizing it

This is me. Ni without Se. I try to muster it up but I can't. It's like a handicap. And it becomes annoying after awhile to watch my IEI brother and SLE sister-in-law go after their dreams, basically doing anything they set their mind to doing, seemingly effortlessly.

[Park]

I think it's also applicable when in the creative position, at least to see the difference, but perhaps the rationals will have more difficulty seeing themselves on either side. Not sure.

It sure does seem that way for you. It's funny because I thought the creative function is always where the focus is (despite of subtypes) and is the easiest to separate, so taking that into account (together with the Te-Fi/Ti-Fe divide you wrote) you would appear more INTp to me than ENTj. But I guess subtypes (and (i)rationality) do make a difference.

[Ezra]

Definitely Se/Ni. More sure of this than I am of Fe/Ti or Te/Fi.

Very clear and well-organised Expat. Sometimes perhaps a touch too vague, but overall, I think it's a good job; unlike the Ti/Fe and Te/Fi explanation, it left me with no doubt in my mind as to which I prefer.

Also, I think I am far more adept in Ni than in Se. This was very clear to me.

[FDG]

I like the descriptions, but I really cannot decide which side I would feel better belonging to...

[Expat]

Definitely Se/Ni. More sure of this than I am of Fe/Ti or Te/Fi.

Very clear and well-organised Expat. Sometimes perhaps a touch too vague, but overall, I think it's a good job; unlike the Ti/Fe and Te/Fi explanation, it left me with no doubt in my mind as to which I prefer.

Also, I think I am far more adept in Ni than in Se. This was very clear to me.

I'd strongly suggest not to use those descriptions to determine whether you are more adept in Ni than Se. As niffweed also noted, they are not good for that purpose. They're "biased" towards Ni and Si as the "baseline" state, perhaps due to my own dynamic perception. As I pointed out, maybe the static EPs will not really relate to it. If you can see the Ni-Se side as yours, I think that's already enough.

I like the descriptions, but I really cannot decide which side I would feel better belonging to...

then they're not very good.

Everyone can "navigate" between them, but I thought that each other's PoV should be "alien" enough for everyone to see which is not you.

[FDG]

then they're not very good.

Everyone can "navigate" between them, but I thought that each other's PoV should be "alien" enough for everyone to see which is not you.

I could be getting confused, because I may be thinking that what is a Si-enjoyment state is actually a Ni-vegetative one. I definitely only relate to the dynamic types anyway!

[Minde]

Bring it on.

Ok.

Generally speaking, I feel much closer to how you describe Ni than Ne.

I also, not surprisingly I suppose, feel closer to Si than Se. However, I also feel closer to Si than Ne.

Not sure about Ne vs. Se.


That said, in general, when you describe both ways together, I lean a little more toward Si/Ne.

Here are some specific comments:

On Ne and Si:

Si is the perception of "present", "real", "close to the senses", "here-and-now" dynamic time flow.

Ne are "static snapshots" within, and escaping from, this here-and-now flow: how to shape the present reality into something closer to our wishes?

On Ni and Se:

Ni is the perception of "non-present" time flow, not close to the senses: the future, the past, or some imaginary world; dreams.

Se are "static snapshots" of reality, "bringing us down" from the Ni flow: the realization that Ni isn't "real" yet, and that it's still necessary to get there.

Now, this way of describing Se seems like just being practical. Not foreign to me. In fact, I can understand and identify with all of the above, though slightly less so with Si.

The Ne-Si perception:

The "down to earth" Si dynamic flow, in its pure form, is a "relaxed", vegetative state: the total surrender to immediate sensorial perceptions.

The Ne "snapshots" within this flow reveal how this dynamic flow can be brought into improved situations.

Essentially: the Si flow is good; Ne snapshots show how to make it better.

If you are caught only in the Si flow: you'll never make it better.

If you are caught only in the Ne snapshots: you'll never come "down to earth" to enjoy the peace of a dynamic Si flow.

If Si is being peaceful and relaxed, then I'm much more Si than Ne, on average. The only thing I can think of to counter that is that occasionally I get told I worry too much.

Now what I just described could be attributed to temperament, maybe, but if that's so, then there's still something wrong with the Ne/Si descriptions if they can't fit a Ne/Si person.

The Se-Ni perception:

The "dreamy" Ni dynamic flow, in its pure form, is a "relaxed", vegetative state: the total surrender to inner, non-sensorial, non-immediate perceptions.

That's quite familiar to me.

The Se "snapshots" within this flow reveal that the Ni flow is not real, and at the same time, that it must still be achieved.

Again, this just seems like practicality to me. Of course you're not there yet, and of course you need to actually do something to get there.

Si: down-to-earth, Ne makes you "take off" until calming down back to Si.
Ni: Visionary, Se makes you "crash-down" and want to "climb back" to Ni.

(where "climb back" is actually only an imaginary situation, since you were never "in" Ni in the first place, not in "reality").

This part is confusing.

Ne-Si: a contented enjoyment of the present-time flow, interrupted by "jumps" that make you thing of something to improve it.

Se-Ni: a focus on a "desired reality", a "dream", or "future", with "jumps" reaching out at it, making you want to actually get there.

How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present".

How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

It's in these that I can see myself slightly more on the Ne/Si side of things.

Ne-Si: the enjoyment of the present with the insights on how to improve it make it "reasonable"

Se-Ni: the lack of contentment with the present, with eyes focused on a not yet achieved "dream" or "future", and the awareness that it's not real yet, make it "resolute".

The downfall of Si without Ne: contentment with the Si present flow with no initiative to improve it, to make it more enjoyable, more interesting, amusing, better

I don't make things more enjoyable, interesting, or amusing. Not from my perspective, anyway. In fact, I tend to put a damper (usually unintentionally) on those things. I do want things better, and sometimes I have ideas on how to do so, but usually those ideas are impractical or undesirable for whatever reason.

The downfall of Ne without Si: not being able to "sit back and enjoy" the present flow.

I'm pretty good at being relaxed and enjoying things as they are. More so than a lot of people, it seems. So, again, I relate more to Si than Ne.

[UDP]

then they're not very good.

Everyone can "navigate" between them, but I thought that each other's PoV should be "alien" enough for everyone to see which is not you.

I feel like I understand what you are getting at very well; to me the dichotomy of this thread is very apparent, and I believe your representation of it is reasonable.

I think Niffweed's comment about it being simplistic is relevant, but, perhaps because I had discussed this with you before, I know where you are coming from. This thread makes sense to me. I basically see you as trying to illustrate the dichotomy, (primarily between ((as the title says)) ni-se and ne-si, with much less attention on the specific parts - the functions: ni, ne, si, se - that are involved in the general dichotomy)
. The individual functions, as you said to Ezra, are not really on display, nor was that really the main point.


It seems the best way to interpret the post would be as a whole, rather than focusing on individual sentences.

Does that mean you should work on rehashing the sentences one by one? I'm not sure. Who is the intended audience for this post? There may not have been one as you were just writing your musings out here, yes. It seems someone who has decent experience in understanding socionics already would best be able to deal with this. And by that I mean understanding the nature of dichotomies in general, and why if you are Ni valuing you are not Si valuing, and so on.


It seems like that post (as with most other things I've seen), is more of a confirmation or reinforcement of ideas; if you already have the "right idea" about what the dichotomy is about, it will reinforce it and it would generally make sense. But if you are less solid, that may not be clear enough to clearly explain which side of the dichotomy you fall on.

If you were trying to come up with a clear way to distinguish, generally, so even a novice or person off the street could figure it out, then it may need some work - but I am not sure if that's what you were trying to do, and, such a thing might not be possible given the complex nature of socionics.

[Expat]

@ UDP: yes, it wasn't my purpose to write an introductory guide to those functions.

@ Minde: what you're saying suggests that I haven't referred to Ne in terms that resonate with you, as we had already previously noticed. And, also, since I use Si and Ni as the baseline state, it makes sense that a rational introvert (ie who has them as not-so-weak and no-so-strong functions) would identify with both.

The thing is, for INFjs, that (as I see it) you perceive reality primarily as in how you connect to people in a static way, my "laser beams". And it is in the context of connecting to people - that reality - that your Ne is most obvious, not in, say, the LSE terms of improving the design of an object.

So, think of the "static snapshots" in terms of Ne-Fi, and then perhaps it makes more sense to you?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

@ Minde: what you're saying suggests that I haven't referred to Ne in terms that resonate with you, as we had already previously noticed. And, also, since I use Si and Ni as the baseline state, it makes sense that a rational introvert (ie who has them as not-so-weak and no-so-strong functions) would identify with both.

Why would they have not so strong and not so weak functions? Is that kind of like a non-person (ie no particularly strong or weak points to them?)

The thing is, for INFjs, that (as I see it) you perceive reality primarily as in how you connect to people in a static way, my "laser beams". And it is in the context of connecting to people - that reality - that your Ne is most obvious, not in, say, the LSE terms of improving the design of an object.

I've noticed this with my EII friend, that his Ne is different from other Ne types I know, in this way. Interestingly put.

[Expat]

Why would they have not so strong and not so weak functions? Is that kind of like a non-person (ie no particularly strong or weak points to them?)

I think that the 6th and 8th qualify as "not so strong and not so weak" generally. The 6th is weakish and very valued; the 8th is strongish but not very valued. That's all I meant.

I've noticed this with my EII friend, that his Ne is different from other Ne types I know, in this way. Interestingly put.

Well that doesn't apply just to EIIs, their Ne is influenced by Fi, just like by Ti in LIIs.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Well that doesn't apply just to EIIs, their Ne is influenced by Fi, just like by Ti in LIIs.

Thats true. I've observed LII's coming up with new ideas and different methods of growth of a system (in a business context) but for EII's it seems more people connected, probs due to Fi filter. So it's seemed less Ne to me at times in terms of "seeing what isn't there" (which is kinda how I see Ne) in an impartial sense to a point but more in a people sense

Anyway, enough of my ramblings

[UDP]

Thats true. I've observed LII's coming up with new ideas and different methods of growth of a system (in a business context) but for EII's it seems more people connected, probs due to Fi filter. So it's seemed less Ne to me at times in terms of "seeing what isn't there" (which is kinda how I see Ne) in an impartial sense to a point but more in a people sense

Anyway, enough of my ramblings

When you consider the difference in duals - EII/LSE and LII/ESE - that should make a lot of sense. An LSE doesn't have the same interpersonal skills (or perhaps focus is a better word) that an ESE does. And so on.

[Minde]

@ Minde: what you're saying suggests that I haven't referred to Ne in terms that resonate with you, as we had already previously noticed. And, also, since I use Si and Ni as the baseline state, it makes sense that a rational introvert (ie who has them as not-so-weak and no-so-strong functions) would identify with both.

The thing is, for INFjs, that (as I see it) you perceive reality primarily as in how you connect to people in a static way, my "laser beams". And it is in the context of connecting to people - that reality - that your Ne is most obvious, not in, say, the LSE terms of improving the design of an object.

So, think of the "static snapshots" in terms of Ne-Fi, and then perhaps it makes more sense to you?

Kind of...

...not really.

"Static snapshots" of how to improve connections to people?


And, as a side note and a reiteration, I'm more likely to have an idea on how to improve the design of an object than how to have more fun.

[stevENTj]

Disclaimer: these are again my musings. Since I haven't thought as much about this as about the Fe-Ti and Fi-Te divide, and/or because I'm not irrational, these thoughts are more half-baked..

Expat - do you have a thread anywhere on your Fe-Ti and Fi-Te divide thoughts? I think about this a lot too and would love to hear your thoughts. Tried a quick search but didn't get any hits.

[Expat]

Expat - do you have a thread anywhere on your Fe-Ti and Fi-Te divide thoughts? I think about this a lot too and would love to hear your thoughts. Tried a quick search but didn't get any hits.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=17347

It's here in the Gamma forum as well.

[stevENTj]

cool thanks!

BTW I searched for "Fe-Ti Fi-Te" in thread title only in all forums. That shoulda come up but it didn't.

Edit: good stuff! will have to read through the whole thing later. thanks!

[Satan]

This is very complicated. Could somebody please make a simplified version for real people.

[Brilliand]

This is very complicated. Could somebody please make a simplified version for real people.

Ne-Si: Sees the world as it is (Si), and tries to improve it (Ne).
Ni-Se: Sees an ideal world (Ni), and tries to reach that goal (Se).

You don't have to read Expat's stuff straight through, though; I treat it as more of a reference.

[Satan]

Ne-Si: Sees the world as it is (Si), and tries to improve it (Ne).
Ni-Se: Sees an ideal world (Ni), and tries to reach that goal (Se).

You don't have to read Expat's stuff straight through, though; I treat it as more of a reference.

I'm divided. I think I'd rather see the world as it is. And try to improve it. Although I'd rather live in a fantasy world, and try and make it real.

[Ritella]

The thing is, for INFjs, that (as I see it) you perceive reality primarily as in how you connect to people in a static way, my "laser beams". And it is in the context of connecting to people - that reality - that your Ne is most obvious, not in, say, the LSE terms of improving the design of an object.

So, think of the "static snapshots" in terms of Ne-Fi, and then perhaps it makes more sense to you?

I don't really identify with that description. I think a better description of how an EII's Ne manifests itself would be that an EII shows interest in improving the design of things iff the project is relevant to the EIIs ideals and it's of a more theoretical/abstract nature. For example, an EII might really like educational reform but s/he might have a "why do i care?" attitude when presented with a management consulting project that would help a company increase its profit.
In the context of human relationships, I don't so much use Ne to improve my relationships, but rather to come up with possible reasons for a person's behavior.

[Ritella]

Okay, this is how I perceive the pairings. Can people from all 4 quadras comment on the accuracy of this?

to preface: My motivation for this this description is the idea that, though the elements can be defined independently, their potential is maximised when they work in conjunction with another element. I was hoping to get a better sense of the elements by considering how they are best complimented. The idea is sort of that
complimentary elements are those that exist in duals' leading or creative functions(Ne and Si, Se and Ni).
Conversely, there are element pairings that are un-complimentary (Ni and Si or Ne and Se). I to try to explain why quadras can't exist with either pairing. The line of reasoning was "It wouldn't be beneficial because...". (I'm _not_ thinking of the descriptions in terms of what happens when an individual tries to use both elements. In that case, the "occupying the same space" theory suffices as an explanation for why Ni and Si, for example, can't be used together.)
So, in the following I am attempt to describe both why quadras can't exist with certain element pairings and what certain element pairings do look like when they come together in a quadra.

why can't you have Ni with Si (in the same quadra)? too passive
Si needs possible ways to improve upon the present-i.e. physical harmony, but Ni can only see the effect that the present will have on the future. Ni needs a cause to examine an effect but Si is too busy experiencing reality to act on it.

why can't you have Ne with Se (in the same quadra)? too much (?)
Se needs someone to tell it what to act on, but Ne generates all possibilities rather than helping Se hone in on one. Ne needs to examine/observe all possibilities, but Se stifles this by unnaturally forcing its own agenda.

Ni + Se narrows in.
observe happenings in the real world. consider what is most favorable/profitable. act upon that recommendation. assess the effect of this cause throughout time. (Se, Ni, Se, Ni)

Ne + Si expands.
experience the physical world. hypothesize possibilities for improvement. establish harmonious relations/ambience in the physical world. (this facilitates the) generate(ion)/express(ion of) theoretical possibilities. (Si, Ne, Si, Ne)

Perceptions of each other:
limited, abrupt, narrowed in (Ni + Se) vs. easy going, wishy washy/indecisive (Ne + Si)

[Ritella]

Anyway, Se doesn't need someone to tell it what to act on we're not idiots. What we don't want is someone going off in a bunch of directions at once, we want to be able to work with someone towards something, and be allowed to put ourselves into that. For ISFj, Ni and Te can get rid of the "clutter" in the path so to speak, but Ne is busy throwing stuff all over the place until there's no path at all.
.

Okay, sorry if the description sounded offensive. I do think we're saying about the same thing- getting rid of clutter is similar to suggesting what to focus on. Though, I think I still prefer the latter description because I don't see how Ni would actually "get rid" of anything. What do you think?

[Logos]

Well, I can describe one ENTp-ISFj situation for you. The ENTp won't let you finish anything - the ISFj person once started on something wants to dig in and get that done - ENTp is scattered always trying to drag you off on some other thing right in the middle of what you're doing. He doesn't understand someone's need for things like getting out and running, and doing things, and tries to make you be all laze about like. "Leave that for later" from the ENTp drives the ISFj mad as things pile up all over the place. ENTp seems simultaneously unable to be happy with how things are by always coming up with ways to "improve" things that don't need it, yet doesn't want to let the ISFj actually do anything. The ISFj feels caged in and frustrated, the ENTp feels like the ISFj is overly critical and not relaxed enough.

Anyway, Se doesn't need someone to tell it what to act on we're not idiots. What we don't want is someone going off in a bunch of directions at once, we want to be able to work with someone towards something, and be allowed to put ourselves into that. For ISFj, Ni and Te can get rid of the "clutter" in the path so to speak, but Ne is busy throwing stuff all over the place until there's no path at all.

That's certainly one way to look at it. I'm not sure how accurate of a depiction that is, but it certainly is from an ESI perspective and I would not expect the objectivity to be that much better from an ILE perspective.

[Ritella]

The Te does that part.

How does "Te" get rid of stuff?
what about in the Beta quadra?

[Ms. Kensington]

If you are caught only in the Se snapshots: you'll never know what is it that can make you reach the peaceful state of relaxed flow.



How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present".

How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

Ne-Si: the enjoyment of the present with the insights on how to improve it make it "reasonable"

Se-Ni: the lack of contentment with the present, with eyes focused on a not yet achieved "dream" or "future", and the awareness that it's not real yet, make it "resolute".

The downfall of Si without Ne: contentment with the Si present flow with no initiative to improve it, to make it more enjoyable, more interesting, amusing, better

The downfall of Ne without Si: not being able to "sit back and enjoy" the present flow.

The downfall of Ni without Se: the "dreams" and the "future" will ever remain unachieved, perhaps without even realizing it

The downfall of Se without Ni: not being able to actually see what is it that needs to be achieved, and how far away from it you are.

I can see myself in all these descriptions except the last one, Se without Ni. That would be in keeping with myself as a strongly intuitive person of Ne-Si quadra, since I would have strong Ni? But maybe that wouldn't work because you're not talking about our attitudes or the way we feel about functions, but about how a function (element) would work without the other in the pair.

I also wanted to comment on this:

How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present".

I think I can deal with this sort of thing when there is a "point" or "goal" that i can see. To me this is more connected with the judging functions rather than perception. with some Ni-ers I might remind them of their health or tell them they are worrying too much about their health. I don't usually tell them they are never contented or not down to earth, but I might say that they need to watch their rest level if it gets too extreme (im not the best judge of a person's health/bodily limits or a person who values it way above completing a goal myself, so these comments are not too often either). I see Se people as too concerned about their territory, the power aspect of things, fyi.

[Ms. Kensington]

Well, I can describe one ENTp-ISFj situation for you. The ENTp won't let you finish anything - the ISFj person once started on something wants to dig in and get that done - ENTp is scattered always trying to drag you off on some other thing right in the middle of what you're doing. He doesn't understand someone's need for things like getting out and running, and doing things, and tries to make you be all laze about like. "Leave that for later" from the ENTp drives the ISFj mad as things pile up all over the place. ENTp seems simultaneously unable to be happy with how things are by always coming up with ways to "improve" things that don't need it, yet doesn't want to let the ISFj actually do anything. The ISFj feels caged in and frustrated, the ENTp feels like the ISFj is overly critical and not relaxed enough.

Anyway, Se doesn't need someone to tell it what to act on we're not idiots. What we don't want is someone going off in a bunch of directions at once, we want to be able to work with someone towards something, and be allowed to put ourselves into that. For ISFj, Ni and Te can get rid of the "clutter" in the path so to speak, but Ne is busy throwing stuff all over the place until there's no path at all.

hm.. well im not sure about an ENTp, but I can talk about INTjs. I think it's not my intention to halt people in their projects. In my opinion the Ne-Si people pay attention to their short term goals because the long term goals change, and the Ni-Se people don't see their goals as changing. This is from my simplified perspective of course. I am still trying to understand how Ni and Se is more narrow in terms of goals myself. I do know that several Ni-Se people have interacted with Ne-Si people (not just myself) and their conflicts involve timing of doing things. Washing dishes-- "i was going to do that". They have different senses of timing, for sure. I've seen ISFps get fed up with the dishes too ("i cant stand it") as well.


To me, ESFps do need people to tell them what to act on. ESFps in my experience are very indecisive as to what to pursue. This could be Te ha and Se though. My experience with ISFjs is that they are always there to tell people things they know that pertain to the other person's goal that is not realized yet. If you tell an ISFj you want to do something, they will be the first ones to tell you options that exist in the real world. I've seen this in ISTjs too but not as much as in ISFjs. I think an intuitive or Ne person might tell you other options that probably exist or different ways you could reach a goal, but refer to a specific place peripherally.

[Brilliand]

Because of the good response to Expat's Fe-Ti/Fi-Te thread, I've decided to bump this one as well. (I have these links on my userpage on wikisocion.)