The "divide" is Pe and Pi, not N or S

[Venom]

The following is an almost symmetrical schematic that I hope clearly explains both verbally and non-verbally that I feel Si and Ni are more related than Ne and Ni. This may sound like blashphemy to those who feel "only N's ever understand me!" However, after reading through functions and trying to realize what the essential elements of difference were:

its data, and how that data is twisted (or not twisted). In this sense, Si and Ni seem to be more of the same genus than Se and Si do. The difference within regards how that data is twisted (or not twisted). Read on for a sort of schematic:


>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pi<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Si <----Pi----> Ni
--------------->
trade off concrete, chronological ordering only for less chronological "forward guessing"/liquid application of data.
<-------------
trade off forward application for more concrete and chronological cataloging

Ni is more dynamic and is almost like "more free flowing/ambitious" Si (ambitious =! the success sense)
Si is more static and is almost like "down to earth/conservative" Ni (conservative =! the political sense)
Both are based on "what you know" (you're the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)



>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pe<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Se <----Pe---> Ne
--------------------->
trade off concrete vision for pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits"
<-------------------
trade off pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits" for more concrete vision of the world

Ne is more dynamic and is almost like "unrestrained" Se
Se is more static and is more like "restrained" Ne
Both are based on "what you see" (the environment is the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Questions, comments or critiques???

 

[entropie]

hahaha, you said Pee in the thread title

 

[Two Point Two]

Si -----------Ni
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
Se-----------Ne

Left is concrete/pragmatic, right is abstract/dynamic.

Up is inward-focused, down is outward-focused.

Why prioritise distinction on one dimension over the other? Pi-people will relate to the Pi-ity of Pi- people; Ns will relate to the N-ness of Ns, and etc.

Based on your description, it seems that both forms of N trade off something concrete for something more dynamic, and both Ss trade off something more dynamic for something more concrete, so there's a commonality there, too. Whether you relate better to someone with the same Pi/Pe or the same N/S as you in a given instance may depend on what you're trying to express.

Edit: It may also depend on strength of preference-aspect. I mean, I may prefer Ni, but be more inward focused than I am N, and so what I do is high on the square and a little to the right, while another Ni-dom might be more strongly N but not so strongly inward-focused, and they would be far to the right and not quite as high up. These two different Ni-doms may vary with respect to whether Si or Ne is a more relatable perspective.

 

[BlueScreen]

I believe the Jung one actually splits it more at E/I also. With extraverted functions focussed more on the objective data at hand, and introverted more on what it can subjectively interpret from it. ie. introverted involves internal factors and interpretation more in the perception/judgement.

 

[Thalassa]

I am in complete agreement with this.

 

[Polaris]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pi<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Si <----Pi----> Ni
--------------->
trade off concrete, chronological ordering only for less chronological "forward guessing"/liquid application of data.
<-------------
trade off forward application for more concrete and chronological cataloging

Ni is more dynamic and is almost like "more free flowing/ambitious" Si (ambitious =! the success sense)
Si is more static and is almost like "down to earth/conservative" Ni (conservative =! the political sense)
Both are based on "what you know" (you're the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)

This sounds a lot like what I was thinking recently. Both processes relate to inner perception and how it shapes the data you take in, but whereas Si needs stability in its perception, Ni will draw connections between various Si-like perceptions, allowing it to transform its vision at a constant rate. This resembles the kind of relationship between Ne and Se, in that Ne seems to draw links between perceptions that are by themselves physical and concrete.

So actually, Ne has as much in common with Ni (both connective) as it does with Se (they're external). The same can be said of Si in respect to Ni and Se: these are all separations of one dimension only; you can cut them either way and get an equally strong divide. This contrasts with what happens if you take two P-functions that share no letters in common: you end up with a separation of two dimensions, which is the strongest kind possible within this context. So long story short, I would have to disagree with the thread title: N and S are just as strongly divided as Pe and Pi.

 

[compulsiverambler]

Si -----------Ni
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
Se-----------Ne

Left is concrete/pragmatic, right is abstract/dynamic.

Up is inward-focused, down is outward-focused.

Why prioritise distinction on one dimension over the other? Pi-people will relate to the Pi-ity of Pi- people; Ns will relate to the N-ness of Ns, and etc.

Based on your description, it seems that both forms of N trade off something concrete for something more dynamic, and both Ss trade off something more dynamic for something more concrete, so there's a commonality there, too. Whether you relate better to someone with the same Pi/Pe or the same N/S as you in a given instance may depend on what you're trying to express.

Edit: It may also depend on strength of preference-aspect. I mean, I may prefer Ni, but be more inward focused than I am N, and so what I do is high on the square and a little to the right, while another Ni-dom might be more strongly N but not so strongly inward-focused, and they would be far to the right and not quite as high up. These two different Ni-doms may vary with respect to whether Si or Ne is a more relatable perspective.

I completely agree. Neither of the two dimensions is always more significant than the other in my experience. I have friends who are extremely Pe-focused and have no discernible preference between Ne and Se, and I know people who have preference for both forms of N over either form of S and vice versa. Pes without much N/S preference get on most easily with any kind of Pe and the non-specific Ns and Ss get on better with any kind of N or S.

 

[NewEra]

Si -----------Ni
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
I..................I
Se-----------Ne

Left is concrete/pragmatic, right is abstract/dynamic.

Up is inward-focused, down is outward-focused.

Why prioritise distinction on one dimension over the other? Pi-people will relate to the Pi-ity of Pi- people; Ns will relate to the N-ness of Ns, and etc.

Based on your description, it seems that both forms of N trade off something concrete for something more dynamic, and both Ss trade off something more dynamic for something more concrete, so there's a commonality there, too. Whether you relate better to someone with the same Pi/Pe or the same N/S as you in a given instance may depend on what you're trying to express.

Edit: It may also depend on strength of preference-aspect. I mean, I may prefer Ni, but be more inward focused than I am N, and so what I do is high on the square and a little to the right, while another Ni-dom might be more strongly N but not so strongly inward-focused, and they would be far to the right and not quite as high up. These two different Ni-doms may vary with respect to whether Si or Ne is a more relatable perspective.

Yeah, I agree with this. Si is a different animal from Ni, Se, and Ne. Same for all of them, and like you said, a lot of it has to do with strength of preference. It's not so cut and dry.

 

[JustHer]

hahaha, you said Pee in the thread title

hehhehe.

PEE.

 

[Yloh]

Interesting, I now wonder if there is a similar issue with Je and Ji.

Anyways, what you wrote makes sense to me. A lot of people think J/P is the most important letter in terms of relationship issues while others think S/N is the most important.

Thinking on those lines it would make since for the Ni to be able to connect to both the Ne and Si. Both Ne and Si have something similar to Ni, so they can respect each other. Ni and Se, however, are VERY different and can have some conflicts. Unless the Ni and Se are both trying to get to the exact same goal, I could see it being much more difficult for them to get along.

I wonder if NPs feel most bothered by SJs and the other way around. Do SPs feel most bothered by NJs and the other way around?

I will admit SPs can get on my nerves more than any other type by how they approach life. I just feel they are too lazy and they get confused by how I look at things. Never the less, I do appreciate them very much, and I learn a lot from them.

 

[Two Point Two]

While Ni and Se, and Si and Ne, share nothing in common themselves in this context, a Ni user has Se in their top four processes, but not Si or Ne - and so it is with the others.

Perhaps this is encouraging. Perhaps we should, with just a little effort and cooperation, be able to understand everyone.

 

[Venom]

While Ni and Se, and Si and Ne, share nothing in common themselves in this context, a Ni user has Se in their top four processes, but not Si or Ne - and so it is with the others.

Perhaps this is encouraging. Perhaps we should, with just a little effort and cooperation, be able to understand everyone.

part of my point is that for example:

Se/Ne doms actaully have a lot more in common than some Ne/Ni doms do. That for example, because Se and Ne are so close in my construct (ill admit its just a theory), an ESFP and an ENFP are quite close.

 

[Two Point Two]

part of my point is that for example:

Se/Ne doms actaully have a lot more in common than some Ne/Ni doms do. That for example, because Se and Ne are so close in my construct (ill admit its just a theory), an ESFP and an ENFP are quite close.

I know - I've already given my input on that point in an earlier post. Why do you prioritise Pi/Pe over N/S, when both could theoretically be relevant?

My point here was in response to Yloh saying that where we might have difficulty is with people who favour the perceiving function that shares neither N/S nor Pi/Pe with our prefered perceiving function.

 

[the state i am in]

part of my point is that for example:

Se/Ne doms actaully have a lot more in common than some Ne/Ni doms do. That for example, because Se and Ne are so close in my construct (ill admit its just a theory), an ESFP and an ENFP are quite close.

in social behavior yes. culturally behavior and representations, no. fuck. no.

i find culture to be far more important to me than social roles in groups. so i ALWAYS choose Ns.

but as has been pointed out, i can understand and recognize Se bc it is a function of mine. and Si shares many many orientation to life that i immediately recognize and can communicate to my istj friends and my isfj acquaintances. so there is some understanding.

but the cultural ways in which i access those understandings have to be translated into a very cut and cry, concrete, way. then further ordered according to Te types, Fe types, and some Ti and Fi types.

there's judgment pairs and perception pairs. Ne is the most immediately useful for me bc it concretizes communication, reconstructs it in a totally different way by locating ideas in objects, creating new representations. inp Ne-Si is especially useful bc their Si helps us remember and notice where we've been and are going. Ne is extrapolative for turning seeds of ideas into materials, whereas i interpolate more information into an idea from a wide-range of materials and then only keep the germinal seed. Ni-Ni is only good when you share common perceptions, the actual percepts, the cultural representations, tho you do recognize the structure of the others ideas and the ability to sift, merge, blend conceptually.

plus social groups can be balanced in many ways, and pure similarity is off-putting. why would i want to surround myself w/ watered down versions of myself?