Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[Zarathustra]

I agree with onemoretime on this one. Ni and Si are actually pretty similar. They both gather external perceptions and internally organize these perceptions relative to the self, thereby making them personally meaningful (or personally lack meaning).

Ni is more similar to Si than it is to any other function, that's for sure. Likewise, Si is more similar to Ni than it is to any other function. The two have their differences, clearly, but they're not in complete opposition.

You know, is it really accurate to say Ni is more similar to Si than it is to Ne?

How do you know that's not like saying an orange is more similar to a pumpkin than it is to a grapefruit, because of its color?

Who determines which criteria (shape vs. color; introverted attitude vs. functional purpose [in this case, making abstractions/connections]) is more relevant to whether two things are more or less similar?

Such thinking is problematic (not just imo).

 

[Zarathustra]

(as you can see, I'm trying to bring what was originally a thread about Ni vs Si back to its origins. if i cannot do so, then i might just relabel it "all things functional analysis")

 

[uumlau]

You know, is Ni really more similar to Si than it is to Ne?

How do you know that's not like saying an orange is more similar to pumpkin than it is to a grapefruit because of its color?

Who determines which criteria (shape vs. color; introverted attitude vs. functional purpose [in this case, making abstractions/connections]) is more relevant to whether two things are more or less similar?

I think that's an important question. The "more similar" though presumes a priority of importance w/r to similarity.

In terms of commonality and communication with other human beings, I believe it's "more similar" to Ne.

Its main similarity to Si is that both are "kinds of memory," that one is using that which one has experienced before in order to perceive.

 

[Zarathustra]

I can see why some may consider them similar, but they really aren't, apart from their initial intake of information and data.

Read this and compare:

Introverted Sensing
Introverted iNtuiting

Many of the different functions can be compared in the manner in which you do, such as Fi and Ti, yet I wouldn't consider them similar at all.

Good post, but, once again, the language in the last sentence is problematic.

Not similar at all?

Fi and Ti are similar in at least some sense (as are Ni and Si), so why even attempt to falsely exclude any similarity at all from the realm of possibility?

Once again, Lex, not a personal attack.

I just think all sides of this argument need to step up their intellectual honesty and accuracy with regards to how they express themselves...

 

[Zarathustra]

I imagine Ni to be about changing perspectives. From this perspective or that, two things do or don't look similar. Changing a perspective brings to light previously hidden connections. But these words--"change", "look", "light", "hidden"--suggest a physical limitation that is inappropriate. Actual Ni perspective shift is a change of the framework and terms under which the "objects" are defined. (And they are "objects" because, at least for NJs, the intuition is working with an objectifying e function.) The degree to which any Ni user is any good at Ni use is the degree to which they can invent or discover substantial new frameworks and terms.

Si, I think, does something very similar. The content differs substantially, however. Also I think perhaps the Si user is not bent exactly on inventing and discovering new frameworks and terms, but on acknowledging and consolidating frameworks and terms. A small difference. They build from the detail up.



(I just made up both those sets of claims. They may not be true.)

I think they're both pretty accurate.

To paraphrase: Ni is more focused on discovery/invention of frameworks, while Si is more focused on acknowledging/consolidating of frameworks.

I think the former is right on, while I think the latter is a little off (considering your an Ni user, this would make sense). I think better terms for what Si does with frameworks would be identifying which one's make sense in a particular instance, and applying them. So, maybe, appropriateness-identification/application?

(I'm sure there are better terms out there. Anyone?)

 

[Zarathustra]

Ok, first of all, it makes no sense to say that two things are exactly the same and then say how they're different. It's a very sloppy use of language. If they're different at all, then they're not exactly the same.

Sim, I can't believe you gave a +1 to that kind of tripe, for the reasons I just stated above. (-1)

Lex, while I believe I'm more on your side of this issue than not, I don't think that phrasing is all that useful either. "Same in terms of function" vs. "what they do is the same". Also sloppy language. (Please don't take this as a personal attack and go off topic, cuz it wasn't meant to be.)

Look people: Si and Ni are similar. How are they similar? In that they're both introverted perceiving functions. Hey! What a novel idea.

The user brings in information, and then processes that according to some internalized framework. That's the greatest extent of their similarity.

Then come the differences (also known as those things that make them not exactly the same).

Ni is more generative, more creative, is looking to build new frameworks, find new connections, push the boundaries, look at things from as many different perspectives as possible to find the one that will be most useful in a particular situation, and more.

Si is less generative, less creative, is looking to use an existing framework or frameworks, establish how old connections fit the current situation, keep the boundaries where they are, look at things from the same perspective (or set of perspectives -- I won't say Si users have only one perspective, cuz that would be wrong) because that perspective seems to have always worked in the past, and so on.

Hmmm, see?

Similar in the first part. But very different in the second.

Hence, not the same.

This is really good, but like others in this thread, you seem to be implying that Ni is somehow inherently better than Si (more generative, more creative, etc.). Considering that Si continually gets a bad rap for being "boring, dull, and robotic" while Ni is viewed as this desirable, mystical function that could bring to light answers to the universe's greatest questions, I think a discussion on these two functions would be better if we could open our minds to the positive and negative characteristics of both. Otherwise I see this turning into yet another Si bash vs. Ni idolatry fest.

Rather than comparing Si to Ni through the positive skillsets that Ni definitively allows for (creatively organizing external information according to novel/unique internal constructs), it would be better to examine the two through some other lens, set apart by an equal distance from both Ni and Si, that way there's no comparative bias.

While Ni may be "more creative" than is Si (according to your Ni perspective on generative and creative, at least), Si is "more" of other positive skill sets than is Ni. Si rigidly molds external data according to a more organized, practical, and structured framework, while Ni loosely molds external data according to a more conditional, experimental, and flexible framework. Both have their merits, and both come in handy depending on the context.

Pardon me if this all seems nit-picky. I'm just not a fan of using positive Ni characteristics to desribe Si, as this description is set in terms that implicitly humbles Si to Ni.

Admittedly so...

I thought as much while creating the descriptions.

I have to say, though, that both descriptions are accurate.

I might be taking off from the vantage point of an Ni user, with the inherent bias that this would generally create, but Si is inherently less creative than Ni, and pointing out this fact is important.

As is pointing out how Si is more "practical" and less "in the clouds", but I'm not sure whether its "rigid molding" would be considered a *positive*. That's usually a knock on it: that it will apply a model ruthlessly, even when it shouldn't be. It can be a little too rigid, if you know what I'm sayin. Keep using the same worn out tool, when it should probably get a new one.

Regardless, I'm a week late in this response, but will continue to get through pages 5-17 (and write my responses ) over the next hour or two...

 

[Zarathustra]

Funny thing about SiTe doms-ISTJs.

They will sit in a meeting, suggest an ideal solution. Then we all agree on one specific realistic solution-a middle ground. Then we leave and reconvene a week later. They cant remember the real solution-only that what we are doing is not the ideal solution in their minds.

The ideal solution is typically based upon a historical solution that functioned or a taught ideal solution. They are also very "away from" focused-they remember pain points in the past and will plan around those points rather than plan forward anticipating new solutions. An SiFi memory set I presume.

Yeah, that sounds a lot like my Dad...

They're very rigid. Dislike the new. No need for invention or new discoveries. Everything that is needed can be found in the past.

Hence why I think it's so ridiculous to call Ni and Si the exact same, cuz that's like saying there's no difference between an INTJ and an ISTJ, and, trust me, there's a difference.

 

[Zarathustra]

The user brings in information, and then processes that according to some internalized framework. That's the greatest extent of their similarity.

Ni is more generative, more creative, is looking to build new frameworks, find new connections, push the boundaries, look at things from as many different perspectives as possible to find the one that will be most useful in a particular situation, and more.

Si is less generative, less creative, is looking to use an existing framework or frameworks, establish how old connections fit the current situation, keep the boundaries where they are, look at things from the same perspective (or set of perspectives -- I won't say Si users have only one perspective, cuz that would be wrong) because that perspective seems to have always worked in the past, and so on.

The bolded is where I think you're imposing the work of the judging function onto the the perceiving one, if only just a little. If I had to pick one word to describe the irrational functions, it would be that they identify. Ne identifies connections/similarities/relationships between objects. Ni identifies the multiple pathways, perspectives, connections within the form of data. Si identifies the consistencies or inconsistencies between established data vs. new data. Se identifies where the boobies are.

The irrational functions see, the judging ones assign importance based on what you are seeing. Anytime you find your N or S making decisions about the data they're presenting you, you're experiencing the work of the judging function.

I think the way Z worded it made it seem like there is an active decision-making proces occurring to evaluate/analyze, which would certainly be more in line with a judging function. However, (and he can correct me if I'm wrong), I think Z was trying to say that Si is the default/automatic placement of ones perceptions into an established, organized framework, while Ni is the default/automatic ongoing restructuring of the framework that molds ones perceptions.

Thus, there's no decisions going on once the data is perceived; that's just automatically how the data gets internalized. Both Pi functions suck in data and fit the data into some internal construct, without consciously weighing the value of different possible constructs according to some outside standards. It's all automatic.

So in that case, both Ni and Si are still seeing/identifying; Si sees/idenfitifies where new perceived data fits in with previously stored data. Ni sees/identifies the different angles by which external information can be interpreted.

Z explained this in a way that made it seem like he was personifying Ni/Si, giving them a mind so to speak, making his assertions appear like there's an active decision-making process complimenting them, but again, I don't know if that's how he meant it.

This makes sense. Thanks.

Tesla is right on.

I was sorta giving Ni and Si a consciousness, or a will of their own.

In reality, it's all automatic...

EDIT: although, looking back on and reading this a fourth or fifth time, Jock, you might be right: in certain ways I might be talking about Ni working in conjunction with a judging function (Te or Fi for an INTJ; Fe or Ti for an INFJ). Regardless, in that interaction (which for me, is most often between Ni and Te), Ni is still doing a great amount of work, albeit at the behest of the judging function.

I think reality lies somewhere between what Tesla said and what you said...

 

[Zarathustra]

And I really fail to see the difference between Ni and Ne. It seems like they are both sides of the same coin.

Well, yeah, they are two different sides of the same coin.

What you seem to be having difficulty understanding is the difference between the two sides of that coin...

 

[Zarathustra]

So is my Dad, Z.

He and I have great respect for each other since my strength is his weakness, and his strength is my weakness.
We work very well as a team when dealing with business matters.
That's not to say Si and Ni can't clash. Lol. We can, and do.

Yeah, I've always thought my Dad and I would make good business partners.

I'd come up with the innovative ideas, and he'd make sure all the details get taken care of, and help see it through to fruition.

The problem I could foresee is that he'd never believe in the innovative ideas, since, well, that's just not his thing (Si).

And what he'd probably want to do is stick along the beaten path, which I, inevitably, would find extremely boring (Ni).

 

[uumlau]

Yeah, that sounds a lot like my Dad...

They're very rigid. Dislike the new. No need for invention or new discoveries. Everything that is needed can be found in the past.

Hence why I think it's so ridiculous to call Ni and Si the exact same, cuz that's like saying there's no difference between an INTJ and an ISTJ, and, trust me, there's a difference.

This seems to be going back to ISTJ stereotypes. Yeah, they exist for a reason, but it feels like we're defining Si as "being like Ni, except Si is more limited, in that it is rigid, bound in the past.

There has to be a lot more to it than that. Is the rigidity the side effect of something else? Is that something else a strength that Ni lacks?

 

[Zarathustra]

if you describe Ni and Si in such a way, that Ni is clearly superior, and if your description is inspired by something you have observed in real people, then you are most likely being distracted by stages of development. its generally true for N and S: for example, often they say that S types can't be abstract. but abstraction is a feature of a stage of development. if S types can't abstract by definition, it would imply that N types are really evolved S types, meaning that S and N are not typological dichotomies at all. this could be possible, but i don't think its the case in this universe.

(by definition a type is a "horizontal" form, development is pictured "vertical", a type can maybe transform (rope -> butterfly) but it can't change (butterfly->grasshopper).)

Hmmm, not sure exactly where this post came from, but...

To be honest (and I've shared this sentiment with other users before): I do actually think N is higher order of thinking than S.

I think N sprang up evolutionarily after S, and that, if you were to look at most other animals, almost none of them would ever be using N, while all of them would certainly be using S.

 

[Zarathustra]

This seems to be going back to ISTJ stereotypes. Yeah, they exist for a reason, but it feels like we're defining Si as "being like Ni, except Si is more limited, in that it is rigid, bound in the past.

There has to be a lot more to it than that. Is the rigidity the side effect of something else? Is that something else a strength that Ni lacks?

Yup to the first (or the cause of).

Sorta to the second (I, personally, think Ni can come up with all kinds of practical solutions, but can also have the tendency to get lost up in the clouds -- the strength of a user's Te function certainly aids in bringing Ni's loftier side back down to reality).

Admittedly so...

I thought as much while creating the descriptions.

I have to say, though, that both descriptions are accurate.

I might be taking off from the vantage point of an Ni user, with the inherent bias that this would generally create, but Si is inherently less creative than Ni, and pointing out this fact is important.

As is pointing out how Si is more "practical" and less "in the clouds", but I'm not sure whether its "rigid molding" would be considered a *positive*. That's usually a knock on it: that it will apply a model ruthlessly, even when it shouldn't be. It can be a little too rigid, if you know what I'm sayin. Keep using the same worn out tool, when it should probably get a new one.

I mean, don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say Ni is all the good stuff and Si is all the bad stuff.

But I am also all for calling a spade a spade. And Si is very rigid. However, with that rigidity, comes a certain no-nonsense "practicality".

 

[simulatedworld]

^ Are we sure it's Si that causes the rigidity? Might it be the accompanying Te/Fe?

 

[Zarathustra]

^ Are we sure it's Si that causes the rigidity? Might it be the accompanying Te/Fe?

Good point.

But it is still Si.

It's just in Te, Fe, Ti, or Fi's service...

 

[Zarathustra]

^ Are we sure it's Si that causes the rigidity? Might it be the accompanying Te/Fe?

Good point.

But it is still Si.

It's just in Te, Fe, Ti, or Fi's service...

And, more to that point, rigidity certainly seems to be what Si is good at: finding specific distinctions, errors, problems, incongruencies, etc. between some object(s) of perception and its own internalized framework(s).

That sounds kind of rigid to me...

Take Ni, on the other hand, which tries to find/make connections among objects of perception in order to change or add to its internalized framework(s).

One (Si) compares the objects of perception to its internalized frameworks, seemingly with no intention of changing its internalized frameworks, but, rather, with the intention of seeing how the objects compare to its existent internalized frameworks, while the other (Ni) tries to constantly change, add to, or reshape its internalized frameworks by perceiving new connections amongst the objects of perception.

One (Si) is inherently rigid; the other (Ni) is inherently flexible.

And that's probably the biggest difference between ISTJs and INTJs...

(Along with the flipped sides of the coins: that ISTJs are more "practical" [i.e., stick to their framework], while INTJs are more up in the clouds [i.e., constantly reshaping, changing, and/or adding to their frameworks])

 

[Zarathustra]

It's why ISTJs would make a better everyday, run-of-the-mill accountant, while an INTJ would be better at expanding the rules of accounting to new and novel circumstances (like off-balance sheet derivatives, etc.).

Or why, if an INTJ general and an ISTJ general could meet over and over again on the same battlefield with the exact same armies, why the INTJ general would probably beat the ISTJ general a higher percentage of the time the more times they were to fight...

 

[SillySapienne]

It's why ISTJs would make a better everyday, run-of-the-mill accountant, while an INTJ would be better at expanding the rules of accounting to new and novel circumstances (like off-balance sheet derivatives, etc.).

Or why, if an INTJ general and an ISTJ general could meet over and over again on the same battlefield with the exact same armies, why the INTJ general would probably kick the ISTJ general's ass a higher percentage of the time the more times they were to fight...

So INTJs are similar to ISTJs, but are more, hmm, what's the word I'm looking for... superior?

 

[Zarathustra]

I confess I haven't read a single word of this thread, but that won't stop me from throwing in my 2 cents:

OK, so I'm pretty sure both Si and Ni are about anticipating things before they happen, whereas Ne and Se are about reacting to things while they happen. So both Si and Ni draw on the past, and both Si and Ni predict the future - but they don't share the same focus.

• Introverted Sensation is about physical anticipation - you can "feel" the physical outcome of something before actually experiencing it, because you're drawing from and reliving a rich database of past sensations. You feel sick when looking at a piece of food because the food looks or smells like a bad experience you've had in the past. You haven't actually tasted the food, and other people might think that there's nothing wrong with the food, but you're still convinced that it will be bad for you.
  
  
• Introverted Intuition is about contextual anticipation - you can detach yourself from the meaning of things and think in terms of symbols or archetypes being applied to different contexts. By doing this, you just "know" the outcome of something, because you've subconsciously picked up on patterns and symbols that point to it as an inevitability. You have yet to experience this, because it hasn't happened yet - but still you know, with almost absolute certainty, that it will.

This is probably only a small part of the difference between the two, and I still can't wrap my head around Ni enough to give a genuine description of how its experienced, but it just happened to be something I was thinking about today and I felt like sharing.

Not a big fan of this description...

Doesn't really get to the core of the issue at all, in my opinion.

 

[Poki]

Yeah, that sounds a lot like my Dad...

They're very rigid. Dislike the new. No need for invention or new discoveries. Everything that is needed can be found in the past.

Hence why I think it's so ridiculous to call Ni and Si the exact same, cuz that's like saying there's no difference between an INTJ and an ISTJ, and, trust me, there's a difference.

INTJ can be just as stubborn in this regard as ISTJ. Its gotta a different ring to it though. Its like how INTP can get stuck on Si detail while ISTP are coined as more functional. Ni doesnt get hung up on new discoveries...since Ni has been coined "workable" Ni would get stuck on what doesnt work or didnt work or something along those lines.