Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[Ginkgo]

I personally think INTJs are very willing to learn from the past, and consider how such thinking/innovation worked in its time and place.

This, I think, is where the definition for Si can become muddled.

Is it necessarily a reference to the past? A remembrance of past details, numbers, experiences?

Don't we all do this to some degree? Or is Si only Si when it is coupled with other functions, thus Fi doms will evoke "feelings from past encounters" or Ti doms will "dissect and analyze the past".

This makes me think that, because functions are only distinguishable when they go hand in hand, that the precise definitions for each are flawed.

It seems like Si is one of the more ambiguous functions...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I ran across this definition of Si and think it's worth quoting here:

To contemporary thinkers, sensation turned inward has to be observing the self, especially one's own body, as an object. Not so for Jung. This inturning is clearly not a personal, individual matter of observing one's own body or feelings, but rather turning one's attention to the personal experience of Being Itself. Jung wrote, "It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year- old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence...We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn." 4 "...[the Introverted Sensor] lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons."

--William R. Clough, M.A., D.Min, M.Div.

 

[Kalach]

So very cute, darling.

Notice how Step B:

[wise words]


Must begin with Step A:

[Fi made vague for everyone to enjoy]

No, it doesn't.

An introvert doesn't have to come to some conclusion that her weakness is dealing with the outside world and then resolve to deal with the outside world before actually dealing with the outside world and becoming more well-rounded as a result. They can skip all that. For example, one day a project falls in their lap that needs them to do way more than they usually do, but the basic parts of that project are sufficiently exciting that they just start doing it. When it's done, they are more accomplished and have an unusual bounty of experience and new knowledge, aka are more well-rounded.

People don't need to assume that their ability to control the outside world is limited, nor do they need to assume that true understanding lies in reflecting on their inner sense of self.

That, pardon my French, is the NFP version of NFJ hegemony. Properly played out it becomes Victor.

 

[Jaguar]

This, I think, is where the definition for Si can become muddled.
Is it necessarily a reference to the past? A remembrance of past details, numbers, experiences?
Don't we all do this to some degree?
It seems like Si is one of the more ambiguous functions...

Se= What is.
Si= What is, evoking what was.

Extraverted Sensing - Notices the rich detail in the whole forest - the trees, their color and texture, their sounds, their smells, the pattern of light and dark...

Introverted Sensing - Notes that this forest has always been here and recalls being in a forest from childhood, smelling that smell and the fun of playing hide and seek behind the trees...

 

[Ginkgo]

Se= What is.
Si= What is, evoking what was.

Alright, perhaps I am confusing information retention with long term recollection.

And Si doms are primarily oriented in perceiving data as are Ni doms, rather than judging and filtering like Ti/Fi doms?

Many of the INXJs I've spoken with seem to be acutely sensitive to their environment, perhaps because of their dominant perception and inferior Se in an atmosphere of desensitizing information.

Do ISXJs tend to be similar in that regard?

 

[Kalach]

No introverted function is merely a library. They are all projects of some kind. This is, I assume, most apparent with a Ji. Now, I'm going to go ahead and assert that the only significant difference between a Ji project and a Pi project is evaluation: Ji projects evaluate project content, Pi projects don't. So, what are the Pi projects? We all appear to know, or at least assert, that Ni creates conceptual schemas. And Si creates sensory schemas?

A genuine potato meringue pie is one that tastes of Farmer John's potatoes, serves seven, takes 48 hours on slow-slow heat to cook and is eaten only on Thursdays. And this is known to be the case because.... well, it can't be just because that's the only way the Si user has ever experienced a potato meringue pie. If the Si user experiences a potato meringue pie made with Farmer Bob's potatoes, we haven't yet said anything about Si that would rule that pie out of the "potato meringue pie" schema. After all, Si users are able to encounter new sensory experiences without every time vomiting. Or are they?

Fi is not just feeling. Ti is not just reasoning. Ni is not just abstraction. And Si is not just facts.



.... one hypothesizes.

 

[wildcat]

You know, I somewhat agree with this statement.

I think Si is kinda similar to Ni.

But the devil is in the details.

And in the details, there is also plenty of difference.

Ni does not oversight detais.
It sees them in the context.

 

[SillySapienne]

It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but...somewhat as a million-year- old consciousness might see them

Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence...We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn

Reading this makes me think of Lao Tzu, Darwin, Shakespeare, De Rerum Natura, it makes me think of and feel a whole lot of things, hahahaha, sentimental things, profound things, "peak moments"...



Where did you get that quote from, and does it have to do with enneagram 4s?

*scratches head*

 

[Kalach]

Assorted Jung, from his chapter on introverted sensing, the same place Aphrodite's quote originates:

As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas. [...]

Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. [...]

To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. [...]


Now, taking as read Jung's stuff about the introverted attitude being wrongly dismissed if spoken of as the merely subjective, the subjective being as real as the objective... it rather looks as if introverted sensing has the same pretension as introverted intuition to being the collective unconscious, the a priori. The description of what, ultimately, is. Not what was, or what used to be, but what eternally... is.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Reading this makes me think of Lao Tzu, Darwin, Shakespeare, De Rerum Natura, it makes me think of and feel a whole lot of things, hahahaha, sentimental things, profound things, "peak moments"...



Where did you get that quote from, and does it have to do with enneagram 4s?

*scratches head*

I know, if I were Si dom, I'd be spewing that around whenever anyone tried to make me sound less-than. Cool, huh? And I guess Darwin's work had a large influence on Jung.

 

[Zarathustra]

Ni does not oversight detais.
It sees them in the context.

Very much agreed.

Wildcat, I'm not familiar with you, but I've seen two INTJ-related posts from you this morning.

Are you an INTJ or an INTP?

I ask because usually you don't see INTPs holding positive opinions about INTJs (not sure how sarcastic your other post was, but the irony didn't seem altogether negative), and because usually INTPs seem to have a rather poor understanding of Ni.

As an INTP, do you feel you understand Ni via regular usage, do you feel you understand it through observing it in others and/or studying it, or, am I wrong altogether, and you don't really feel that you understand it all that well to begin with?

 

[Poki]

Se= What is.
Si= What is, evoking what was.

Extraverted Sensing - Notices the rich detail in the whole forest - the trees, their color and texture, their sounds, their smells, the pattern of light and dark...

And Se makes certain intuitive conclusions are drawn based on this general picture and based on what is in front of us. Its like basic facts or rules that are very high level that have to be present for this thing in front of us to be what it is.

 

[Jaguar]

And Se makes certain intuitive conclusions are drawn based on this general picture and based on what is in front of us. Its like basic facts or rules that are very high level that have to be present for this thing in front of us to be what it is.

I picture Se and Ni, together, on a seesaw.
When out of balance, what do you hear?

THUD.

 

[wildcat]

Very much agreed.

Wildcat, I'm not familiar with you, but I've seen two INTJ-related posts from you this morning.

Are you an INTJ or an INTP?

I ask because usually you don't see INTPs holding positive opinions about INTJs (not sure how sarcastic your other post was, but the irony didn't seem altogether negative), and because usually INTPs seem to have a rather poor understanding of Ni.

As an INTP, do you feel you understand Ni via regular usage, do you feel you understand it through observing it in others and/or studying it, or, am I wrong altogether, and you don't really feel that you understand it all that well to begin with?

I am INTP.
I took the cognitive processes' test. I had Ni as high as Ti and Ne, which was not surprising.
My other post was not sarcastic.
I feel I understand Ni through regular usage and in observing it in others.
You are not wrong.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Now, taking as read Jung's stuff about the introverted attitude being wrongly dismissed if spoken of as the merely subjective, the subjective being as real as the objective... it rather looks as if introverted sensing has the same pretension as introverted intuition to being the collective unconscious, the a priori. The description of what, ultimately, is. Not what was, or what used to be, but what eternally... is.

I like this a lot

 

[Zarathustra]

I am INTP.
I took the cognitive processes' test. I had Ni as high as Ti and Ne, which was not surprising.
My other post was not sarcastic.
I feel I understand Ni through regular usage and in observing it in others.
You are not wrong.

Very interesting.

I did the same thing, and I come out with very high Ti and Ne...

I'm actually in the process of writing a thread about it. I'll pm you...

 

[Poki]

I picture Se and Ni, together, on a seesaw.
When out of balance, what do you hear?

THUD.

Se pulls off the gloves and Ni throws on some armour and says hit me Definite THUD followed by screams from Se while Ni rolls on floor laughing.

 

[wildcat]

Very interesting.

I did the same thing, and I come out with very high Ti and Ne...

I'm actually in the process of writing a thread about it. I'll pm you...

I thought so, too.

What about your Fe and Si? According to the C.P. test.
Statistically, there should be an even out in the lay-out.

Individual tests may well go against the current.
It is only to be expected.

Statistics may mislead. It usually does.
There is nothing wrong in statistics per se.
Statistics is an adjuncture.
It is not a part of the dichotomy (= the process of the study).
Therefore it is relevant. And misused.


I wish you good luck. I look forward to see your thread.