User Tag List

First 111920212223 Last

Results 201 to 210 of 258

  1. #201
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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).

  2. #202
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    (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")

  3. #203
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.

  4. #204
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lex Talionis View Post
    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...

  5. #205
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kalach View Post
    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?)

  6. #206
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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...

  7. #207
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Orobas View Post
    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.

  8. #208
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by teslashock View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by JocktheMotie View Post
    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...

  9. #209
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by cloud View Post
    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...

  10. #210
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jaguar View Post
    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).

Similar Threads

  1. Ni vs. Si comparative Ni TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 136
    Last Post: 04-07-2010, 10:36 AM
  2. Ni vs. Si comparative Si TEST
    By musttry in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 03-30-2010, 11:35 AM
  3. Ni vs Si, and more
    By Cimarron in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 10-19-2009, 11:58 AM
  4. Ni and Si Doms: What does the internal world look like?
    By BlueScreen in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 07-26-2009, 06:01 PM
  5. Ni and Si
    By run in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-05-2009, 11:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO