• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

Lex Talionis

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
382
MBTI Type
INTJ
Si remembers sensory experiences and draws conclusions.
Ni takes information abstractly (not via the senses) and draws conclusions.

Ni is about synthesizing information and creating a vision of the future.
Si is about synthesizing information and creating a vision of the past, a frame of reference for the future. Both impel one to realize goals and keep you focused.

Si is comparative, as is Ni, but Ni does it on an abstract level whereas Si does it on a concrete level.

Ni takes in information and melds it into a shape as does Si. Why do you think SJs are often conservative?

Si bases itself on the past and facts. If it's worked and is empirically based, then it's good enough to keep for the future.

Ni bases itself on symbolic concepts since it gathers it's information abstractly and thus is focused on the facts' patterns rather than the actual facts. So it theorizes of what might be the best approach in the future based on such perceived patterns.

No, the way the information is ordered and applied, and which information is selected, is vastly different.
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
That's like stating that lawnmowers and airplanes are the same because they both use fuel and have engines.

Well, I didn't say they were the same. I said they were similar. Similar != the same. Similar means they share certain qualities but also possess their own unique qualities that make them distinguishable from one another.

As onemoretime stated, Ni and Si are the same process, just with different "standards" (thereby making them similar [read: not the same]). If you know anything about functions, you certainly can't deny that.

And I actually like your lawnmower/airplane analogy. Since both use fuel and have engines but remain different, we can look at the airplane to learn something about the lawnmower, and we can look at the lawnmower to learn something about the airplane. Maybe, if we can escape the realms of our own limited perspective, we can even compare lawnmowers and airplanes to synthesize a new idea or add to our existing notions regarding lawnmowers and airplanes. That doesn't sound like a nice idea to you?
 

Lex Talionis

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
382
MBTI Type
INTJ
Well, I didn't say they were the same. I said they were similar. Similar != the same. Similar means they share certain qualities but also possess their own unique qualities that make them distinguishable from one another.

As onemoretime stated, Ni and Si are the same process, just with different "standards" (thereby making them similar [read: not the same]). If you know anything about functions, you certainly can't deny that.

And I actually like your lawnmower/airplane analogy. Since both use fuel and have engines but remain different, we can look at the airplane to learn something about the lawnmower, and we can look at the lawnmower to learn something about the airplane. Maybe, if we can escape the realms of our own limited perspective, we can even compare lawnmowers and airplanes to synthesize a new idea or add to our existing notions regarding lawnmowers and airplanes. That doesn't sound like a nice idea to you?

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.
 

yenom

Alexander the Terrible
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,755
To say Ni is the source of intelligence is wrong.
Ni is just a word for imagination. even people with low intelligence can have imagination.

If this thread is about debating what the definition of intelligence is, then this is another subject matter.

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

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
It doesn't matter if it's condescending. I assure you that I don't care enough about your personal opinion to be affected.

You can rest assured that I feel the same about you. In fact, that you think my consideration was directed at you does more to illustrate my point than anything I could have said.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Well, I didn't say they were the same. I said they were similar. Similar != the same. Similar means they share certain qualities but also possess their own unique qualities that make them distinguishable from one another.

As onemoretime stated, Ni and Si are the same process, just with different "standards" (thereby making them similar [read: not the same]). If you know anything about functions, you certainly can't deny that.

And I actually like your lawnmower/airplane analogy. Since both use fuel and have engines but remain different, we can look at the airplane to learn something about the lawnmower, and we can look at the lawnmower to learn something about the airplane. Maybe, if we can escape the realms of our own limited perspective, we can even compare lawnmowers and airplanes to synthesize a new idea or add to our existing notions regarding lawnmowers and airplanes. That doesn't sound like a nice idea to you?

I am still trying to figure out why a lawnmower is compared to a plane. Would this be a John deere compared to a rusty old crop duster?

Ni vs Si would be like a 2.2L turbo pumping out 900HP vs a 454 pumping out 900 HP. Or a diesel pumping out 900 HP if you want to get a little more extreme in differences.

Lets combine them, maybe add dual turbo, split it between a 4 and V8 and end up with a V6 that pushes 1800HP :drool:
 

teslashock

Geolectric
Joined
Oct 27, 2009
Messages
1,690
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
7w6
I am still trying to figure out why a lawnmower is compared to a plane. Would this be a John deere compared to a rusty old crop duster?

Ni vs Si would be like a 2.2L turbo pumping out 900HP vs a 454 pumping out 900 HP. Or a diesel pumping out 900 HP if you want to get a little more extreme in differences.

Lets combine them, maybe add dual turbo, split it between a 4 and V8 and end up with a V6 that pushes 1800HP :drool:

Hah, well I was just extending LT's analogy.

And that's car-talk you're speaking. I only do English. Sawy. :huh:

But if you're implying that we could combine Ni and Si to make an uber introverted perception beast, then I'm all for it. ;)
 

yenom

Alexander the Terrible
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
1,755
No one can truly understand Ni unless you are INFJ or INTJ, or you have an INJ brain.
So all our guesses and deductions seem pointless........

One can argue Ni seems like Si and another can argue Ni is a unique snowflake all on its own.

But I guess there is a way for us non-Ni users to understand it, that is, to actually know and have a strong relationship with a INJ user in real life, or have an INJ brother or sister.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
I believe it's useful to note the similarities between Ni and Si, but that beyond that functional similarity, they are extremely different in application.

Ni seems more apt to process data faster, but it's lossy. Kind of like an MP3 (Ni) file vs a WAV (Si) file. The WAV carries every last bit of info about the sound that was recorded, but it's 10x as big as the equivalent MP3. The MP3 will be slightly off, and if your hearing is really good, you can hear a high-end "chirping" that tells you it's MP3 and the frequencies have been cut. But the MP3 conveys 95-99% as much information as the WAV, and is 10x "faster."

That said, it matters what kind of application to which you wish to apply it. Wherever pattern-matching (Ni) is advantageous, it will be faster, but there are many cases where simply remembering details is more immediately advantageous. For most abstract reasoning tasks, Ni will have the advantage, while for many practical applications where specifics matter more than generalities, Si will be more appropriate.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
Lets say we pull in 50 pieces of detail an ISTJ tries to link those to something else with similiar detail, lets say 40 of the 50 things. Ni though deals with patterns and tries to link things together like that. The difference is that all the detail is not a single pattern, and the single pattern lacks all the detail.

Take a chart and randomly place dots. Si is the dots while Ne is shallow connections between them, Ni is the line that best fits with Se like a blurred vision that allows dark points and light points which allow you to draw the line that fits the best.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
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.)
 

BlueGray

New member
Joined
Oct 7, 2009
Messages
474
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5
Kalach's description seems to fit. Personally I don't get very attached to frameworks or terms and just use whatever is available. While much cant be done without any I don't get much from constantly trying to create new ones.

Ne feeding on Si: Si notices the small peculiarities, that one thing different that Ne then explores.
Si is what lets me take a single sentence and reconstruct all the ideas I had that branched off of it.

I think for me Si is somewhat of a focal point directing where Ne and Ti should place effort. It can focus on some aspect of myself or of an argument or of anything. It detects where differences between things lie or where commonality exists.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Incidentally, with that description of Si...

I think Si is more than collation. I suspect (without knowing) that Si is something of a generative endeavour, for it is about identifying differences and similarities. Lots of them. There will be a whole user-generated scheme detailing higher and lower level differences and similarities, extending out to include even arcane, but observably real, connections. It will be a considerable, realistically organised, and--most importantly--dynamically accessible database.

One assumes so, anyway.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
Incidentally, with that description of Si...

I think Si is more than collation. I suspect (without knowing) that Si is something of a generative endeavour, for it is about identifying differences and similarities. Lots of them. There will be a whole user-generated scheme detailing higher and lower level differences and similarities, extending out to include even arcane, but observably real, connections. It will be a considerable, realistically organised, and--most importantly--dynamically accessible database.

One assumes so, anyway.

Ni and Si are exactly the same. It's just the basis for determining the important information that is different.
 

Lex Talionis

New member
Joined
Sep 21, 2009
Messages
382
MBTI Type
INTJ
Ni and Si are exactly the same. It's just the basis for determining the important information that is different.

If you're going to assert that they're the same in terms of function, you should make it a point to clarify. From your description, it seemed as if you wanted to state that what they do is the same; it isn't.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
I believe it's useful to note the similarities between Ni and Si, but that beyond that functional similarity, they are extremely different in application.

Ni seems more apt to process data faster, but it's lossy. Kind of like an MP3 (Ni) file vs a WAV (Si) file. The WAV carries every last bit of info about the sound that was recorded, but it's 10x as big as the equivalent MP3. The MP3 will be slightly off, and if your hearing is really good, you can hear a high-end "chirping" that tells you it's MP3 and the frequencies have been cut. But the MP3 conveys 95-99% as much information as the WAV, and is 10x "faster."

That said, it matters what kind of application to which you wish to apply it. Wherever pattern-matching (Ni) is advantageous, it will be faster, but there are many cases where simply remembering details is more immediately advantageous. For most abstract reasoning tasks, Ni will have the advantage, while for many practical applications where specifics matter more than generalities, Si will be more appropriate.

What is that I hear?

Oh, it's the voice of reason and intelligence.

Thank you uumlau for once again bringing some needed depth and value to a conversation.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
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 thought it was a reasonably good description.

Better than most everything else in this conversation.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Ni and Si are exactly the same. It's just the basis for determining the important information that is different.

+1

Same goes for Ti/Fi, Te/Fe and Se/Ne.

If you're going to assert that they're the same in terms of function, you should make it a point to clarify. From your description, it seemed as if you wanted to state that what they do is the same; it isn't.

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.
 
Top