Intellectual pertinence of the Se function

This is but a rough draft of a development I will not be able to pursue myself until more favorable times, but since it has yet to come out anywhere I know in a way that I find entirely satisfying, I would like to post it as a reminder of its potentiality as well as a suggestion to my peers to share their opinion on the subject or some proper references. I should add that, given my own type experience, and the nature of some of my questioning, I chose to focus on the Se function, but perhaps some of it could resonate as well with the Si function. Also, I have been identified by the mean of the visual reading method as relying more on my introverted functions than the one concerned here, so it is very possible that my immediate understanding of it could be restricted and then subjected to a biased distinction tainted by these correlated processes.

To be direct, I believe that most of the descriptions of the Se function are not only confusing sensory focus with sensuality or sensual craving (which could very well emerge from other instances of the psyche or brain), but more so are lacking in identifying some of its specific cognitive properties and perhaps counter-intuitive abstracting power. If we were to ignore the fact that some people consider altogether that Se types have no access to abstraction, even some of the more balanced theorists are on the verge of considering that it is in the nature of Se to be at ease mostly in action or in the concrete, worldly sphere. One thing which is testimony to this prejudice is that whenever someone appears as an intellectually gifted Se type, most of the commentators (myself included) are inclined to attribute this success to the intervention of strong other functions, or as being unrepresentative of his or her type.

Some of the latest observations by Dario Nardi seem to confirm this specialization : Se types are subject to a specific "Tennis hop pattern" and even a blue "expert" pattern while handling crisis and practicing physical activities. But, is it to say all of it ? Fi types are also exhibiting an "expert" pattern while listening, but this is obviously far from encompassing all of the more abstract and refined aspects that have been attributed to this function. I believe I can speculate that a lot of Fi types would be far from seeing this particular trait as central to their personality and cognitive process and very reductive in regard of the richness of their inner life and judgement.

To find out about it, I am willing to test some hypotheses about the cognitive strength of Se in the making of rationally sounded and in some respect abstract judgement (with the help of others users, perhaps we could discuss this term in its jungian definition and see the precise role of Se in the wake of an abstracted feeling judgement). Of course, some of them are already quite clearly suggested by the theory behind VR (link) and by the observations of Jung or Dario Nardi. Nevertheless, I feel that it is as good as a subject as any other to elaborate onto, given the amount of misunderstanding that is constantly emerging from it.

For now, I believe I have isolated two possible assets of the Se perspective on rational thinking that I would like to put under our scope. Firstly, Se (and perhaps Si as well) may not only favor attention to detail in the input it considers (whereas thinking/feeling meticulousness is more about the intrinsic coherence of its judgement itself), but also to the singularity of this input. To put it in a more comprehensible way, while intuition, as its more direct counterpart, would easily make generalizations, and put phenomenons into categories or under an overarching principle or scheme based on similitude, sensation would point to singular data, examples (often experiences) that are exceptions to it and suggest to the mind that the first insight is not as universal as it appears and that a deeper thinking would require some revision or relativism, that variation between occurrences can be as significant as regularity or even the starting point of a more subtle regularity. It would put an emphasis on the meaning of the specific occurrences outside of generalizations, some of them the person can see and touch, some of them being the product of a removed imagination, in a way that could prevent overly systematic or detached thinking, and be the foundation of a new perspective. It could be as true of ideas, concepts included, as it is to assessment of people or group of people.

My second argument is closely related to this first point, as Se would be concerned not only about the current context, but some form of context at large depending on the boundaries of the thinking experiment. While intuition would be able to put a principle that go through the reality considered, or to create a bland context where it stands in itself as a relation between concepts, an intellectual utopia, sensation would be inclined to garnish this reality with contextual details potentially disrupting its intellectual validity. Hence the reason why Se types would tend to have some elements of realism or resistance in their imagination (even if it is the contextual realism of a fantasy world that authorize some suspension of belief on some details and not some other) and philosophy in a way that still differs from the Te types (and could be the subject of a discussion of its own). While intuitive types would tend toward virtualisation at large, sensation types would tend toward a form of actualisation, even in a very abstract or imaginative frame. Of course, this might appear as much as a tool of refinement than an obstacle to open thinking depending of the way it would be used.

Please, do not consider this as an attempt to confiscate the qualities described to the Se types. Not only all people are using their sensation function in a certain way, but I am far from definitive in my assumptions.

Edit : In the spirit of what I have been trying to explicit, I believe that there could be some kind of similar relationship between the senses and the use of singularity and context in abstract reasoning, that there is between emotions and value judgments. Researchers like Daniel Goleman describe that emotions depend of the deep brain and morals on the neocortex, even if there is a strong communication between the two.