[Kitfool]

I'm starting to get the feeling that the dominant function is like a parent that doesn't fully trust the inferior function, so it never really lets it get too far on it's own, and never really lets it grow up.

What a brilliant comparison! That is exactly what it is.

But what I don't understand is...How is it even possible feel that way about Se, the most straightforward, honest, uncomplicated function in existance? It makes so much sense for me that Ni is my inferior function because it is confusing and paranoid and dark and vague, but Se!? So simple. I mean, obviously that has much to do with me BEING an Se dominant, but how? I know I just kind of asked you this in my thread, but how does Se feel to you? Or anyone reading this with Se as their inferior? Does it feel the same for everyone? Being "in the grip" of your inferior function? What is it about Se that makes you UNCOMFORTABLE?

 

[Kitfool]

I hate having to deal with too many facts/details at once, because I don't know what to do with them. I don't know how to order them or what's supposed to be important or what can be ignored. I have very little, or no, preface for the intended purpose of this information. It's like someone coming up to you and dumping a load of firewood in your arms without so much as a howdy-do. All you're left with is an armload of firewood and a lot of confusion. "What am I supposed to do with all this! What was that all about anyway?"

I also don't always trust what's in immediately front of me. I cannot easily believe that what's right there in front of me is all I need to concern myself with. Surely there is more to it than that. It must mean something. There must be some kind of connection between this thing right here and some other thing I've perceived. To be told there is no connection is to cause me to scoff and think, "Yeah right. You just haven't seen what that connection is. Worry not, I'll find it for both of us."

When Se does see it's day, it's usually overused to the point where Ni is almost eclipsed from the process. It's an infantile reaction to what I'm perceiving through that function. I may make a decision too quickly and without considering the consequences simply because I felt pressured to decide right at that moment. I may create a project, only to neglect a number of important details that were irrelevant to the main goal, but vital to allowing that project to properly function simply because I didn't even notice those details missing. Properly incorporating Se into my life involves recognizing that I will probably miss something of that nature and I should forgive myself for not getting the real-world application of whatever it was right the first time. I should make myself double check my work and run it through several test runs to be sure I haven't forgotten anything (though I dislike doing this, because I inherently find any bug testing tedious and annoying). Or, even better, have a friend be my eyes and help me see what I cannot.

When stressed, my experience will be over-detailed, over-saturated with facts that have little bearing on the matter at hand, over-complicated. I have to use the mantra "Keep It Simple Stupid" quite often in order to reign in my need to apply far too much information where it isn't necessary, because I'm worried that someone won't understand my meaning.

When Se works for me, it works amazingly. For example, I learned to paddleboard by mentally applying what I understood from kayaking to this new sport. As soon as I had the paddle in my hands, I was going just fine as if I'd done it all my life. Or the time when I snatched the basketball right out from under the school's star point guard. I did it without thinking and it happened so smoothly even I was surprised (we were playing co-ed, so, mind you, this was also a 6 1/2 foot tall young man). Moments later, Se "crashed" and I passed it clumsily, didn't notice where the ball was, and generally went back to being very mediocre at the sport.

So, when Se works, it works just fine. I'm able to apply concepts and models in a practical fashion such that the result is both functional and meaningful. But that's the problem with Se being inferior. It either works and is absolutely amazing and something miraculous happens that no one, not even me, could have expected, or it doesn't work at all and I'm floundering until I get my head wrapped around the current environment.

How do you even function without the details? I've never quite understood how that works. If I am to make an informed decision, I obviously need all the details. For me to come to any conclusion, it would be reckless of me to do so without having all the details. So how does Ni work without a lot of attention to sensory/immediate details? I may never understand. D: It's like you just draw conclusions from thin air, or because something feels right...That doesn't seem like a very reliable method! Perhaps intuitives are simply able to look at things from differing perspectives and draw original conclusions outside of the obvious? So do you often ignore the obvious?

Not only that but I find details and facts fascinating. If I am interested in a topic, I want to know every little fact and detail. If I listen to a song or look at a painting, I try to notice everything there is to notice.

How can you not trust what is in front of you when it is RIGHT THERE??

Do you think that Se doms are more likely to pick up new skills with ease, but Ni (or Ne?) doms are able to quickly grasp a concept? I too can quickly grasp a concept, but that is because I will do extensive research in search of every little detail to help me understand it better. In algebra for example, my INFJ brother in law will try to teach me some complicated operation and leave out details that to me are important to know and to him are implied and he never even thought about it before, but he just expects me to see the pattern, but I need to know WHY you do that and every property of the problem and the way the pieces are able to interact...

 

[Kitfool]

Haha, Se is not simple. At least not to me. I mean, as an ENFP Se is totally alien to me. It's buried deep inside me somewhere. Somewhere I can't really see. Inferior Si is bad enough. But Se seems exhausting. I don't understand and cannot even comprehend how a Se-dom really perceives. It goes against my nature, really.

To you, though, I suppose it would seem simple. To me Ne seems simple and easy to use and understand. It certainly seems that way in comparison to Ni, although apparently that's not the case. x3

Are you stalking me, Julia Bell?

I agree that Ne is simpler than Ni! Though I don't really understand Ne either. I understand the concept, but it still makes no sense. My ENFP mom says some pretty off the wall things sometimes, and I'm just like...Where did that come from? XD

 

[Kitfool]

I dislike Se BECAUSE it's so straight-forward. Basically, with me, Se is just always getting in the way. "I HAVE to pay attention, or else I might miss something that'll be important later." That's how Se works for me. When it cuts on, it takes forever to cut back off. As a result, I get distracted extremely easily when I'm trying to do work. I get distracted by everything: slight noises, other people chattering, a random smell, how much space I've already taken up on a piece of paper (THE piece of paper hat I'm supposed to be doing my work on). I love my Se. Without it, I wouldn't have any friends and I wouldn't be enthusiastic about anything (wouldn't notice anything to enthusiastic about), but it just feels like it gets in the way all too often.

That seems to be a common them with inferior Se; being oversensitive to external stimuli and being overwhelmed by sensory information. So...It's like, when your Se comes out to play, it can directly impede your Ni by distracting your mind with excessive sensory information?

 

[Kitfool]

That's a good way of considering Ni right there. Ni is very much about looking at perspectives of things. Just as you might turn an object in your hands to look at all the sides, Ni turns ideas in our heads to see the different sides.

I don't so much as ignore the obvious as classify it was less important than other potential meanings. The obvious is usually the last part I consider, because I make the assumption that most people do not intend the obvious. Usually this is true. Furthermore, it aids me in finding a shortcut in doing something. Maybe I don't have to do anything in sequence. Maybe if I look at what this obvious item means and link it together with some other concept that's similar, I can skip a bunch of steps ahead and save myself a lot of work.

You have been very helpful in helping me understand Ni. That is a great way to explain it!

Lol, well it's just not as important as what isn't there. Perhaps a very good thing for Se-doms (and Ni-doms in the reverse) to learn would be to learn to see what isn't there at the same time they see what is there. Often times what isn't said is even more important than what is said. There are lots of gaps in between things we see, and that's where some really interesting things lie.

I definitely believe that to be true, but can we do both at once? Can Ni and Se work simultenously?

Yes, I think that's very likely true more often than not. I'm good and picking up what you're generally supposed to do with a skill, but the execution is what will cause me trouble for some time until I've really practiced it enough. So, I can do something almost right if it's my first time doing it, but getting the proper technique takes me a lot longer. I have to find my own way of physically doing whatever it is, rather than just doing what someone tells me to do (for some mysterious reason, that just never works...it's like my brain cannot follow those directions to the letter if I already think I know what to do). And once I have the actual execution down (which takes me much longer than it might take an Se-dom), I take that idea and apply it to other things to make learning faster.

So it's like you're trying to incorporate Ni into a physical skill where it doesn't naturally belong, but that's the way you function in general so you make it work to your advantage...I think my dominant Se does make me very naturally take to new skills, but I have to thoroughly understand what is expected of me. I wouldn't usually try to improvise, especially if being taught by someone who already knows what they are doing.

I must admit that if I'm not watching myself, I fall into the same traps your brother does when teaching someone something. For that reason, I preface almost any teaching session with: "If you are confused, lost, or need more detail at any point, just stop me and ask for clarification. I don't always know when I'm being too vague." Because I really do want people to ask me if they get lost. I have no problem retracing my steps and going into further detail, solely because I know I will forget to do so if I'm not careful.

It's really, really hard for me to put every single detail into consideration in this context, because I'm fighting my natural impulse to skip over stuff and say, "Oh, that's easy enough to see right there. They don't necessarily need to know that part." When, in fact, there are quite a few people who do.

It's funny because he took a MBTI test a while back and it said he was an ISFJ, but I've always had my suspicions about him being an intuiter because he is very out there in my opinion. Well, when he was tutoring me, that kind of confirmed it for me. His teaching style was so contrary to my learning style. I kept asking him a bunch of questions that seemed inane to him, but it was like I needed to understand WHY math is the way it is, and he just intuitively GETS it without really understanding why it works the way it does, or seeing any need to put it into simple terms. I was like "You can just DO that? Why couldn't we do that before?" "What do you mean? That's just the way it is." "But WHY? I'm not going to be able to replicate it if I don't understand the logic behind it!" "Well I don't understand your question! What more is there to understand!??" "Nevermind."

On that note, I seem to have written you another book, good lord. But I am rather enjoying this interplay we're discussing. It's like we need to come to the same place in order to achieve balance in ourselves, but we're coming from opposite directions. I find that fascinating and strangely wonderful.

Oh I wholeheartedly agree, and appreciate you input! We could both benefit from learning a little more about our inferiors, I'm sure. And funny story, I for some reason assumed you were an INTJ at first and I was wondering why you were being so co-operative and patient, and then I was like ohhhh. INFJ, that makes more sense. XD No offense, INTJs.

Anyway, talking this out with you is giving me a much better idea of what it means to have Ni.

 

[Kitfool]

:ninja:

Hehe...

Well, I actually didn't say Ne was simpler than Ni. I simply feel it is that way sometimes because Ne is so utterly natural to me. But to the Ni-user, Ni would be easy to grasp but Ne would be a mystery and totally exhausting. I'm sure that for you, Si probably looks more complex than Se. I do not think it is that way. All of the functions are "simple", it's just when it's not your dominant or auxiliary it's hard to wrap our minds around the concepts of using the "simple" thing. So in our minds it becomes complex and frustrating. And seemingly impossible. Like I just don't understand how the heck you can think like that.

It might be easier to explain the concept of Extroverted functions to people because Extroverted functions are objective, but that doesn't make the Extroverted functions "easy" and "straightforward" in use.

I really meant that the DEFINITION of Ne is simpler for me to understand, not that the function itself was simpler. Not that I would know. XD I think you have a point there, about extraverted functions being easier to define than the introverted ones. For the longest time I didn't relate to Fi because I didn't understand the definition. Now that I really understand it, I strongly relate to Fi. When I would read about Fi I would always see the word 'value' tossed around, and I don't consider myself a person who has many values, and morality is very low on my list of concerns. When I looked more into it, and into myself for that matter, I realized that even the word 'values' is subjective. My values are few and simple, but I strongly adhere to them and wish others would do the same.

Anyway, I suppose the dominant function of any type feels simple to them, but Se is quite obviously the most straightforward! In my (true) opinion. I see things, I accept them as fact, and I incorporate them into my internal database of things that are true where they remain until they are proven otherwise. Easy peasy.

Si I do see as slightly more complicated than Se, but I understand it just fine, partly because I know many Si types.