Ni vs. Si comparative Ni TEST

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

What? Can you not enter into a debate on functions? I would really like that. The ENTJ I know irl loves to talk incessantly about his ideas and beliefs, he and I can really feed off each other. I find it odd that you don't.......What do you get off being here?

 

[Jaguar]

What? Can you not enter into a debate on functions? I would really like that. The ENTJ I know irl loves to talk incessantly about his ideas and beliefs, he and I can really feed off each other. I find it odd that you don't.......What do you get off being here?

Jag, debate the obvious? Thanks, but no thanks.
Buy Gary Hartzler's book, or any good book, on functions and learn them.
From what I can see, you have problems with even the basics.

As far as your alleged ENTJ friend?
I assure you I don't have diarrhea of the mouth talking "incessantly" about my beliefs and ideas.
Sounds to me like superficial drivel.

I prefer to keep my cards close.

 

[simulatedworld]

Sim, this whole response is just so defensive. You make so many assumptions here about the op's intent (which may or may not be true), not to mention assumptions about the fallacy of the test. You just (seem to) jump way ahead without really thinking about if this test has any validity.

I think the OP's intent is apparent from the title: "Ni vs. Si comparative TEST" seems to clearly imply that responses to the picture are supposed to test Ni vs. Si use. How else might this be interpreted?

As for the fallacy of the test...if type is a question of preferences over many different situations, how can one response in one situation give enough of a sample size to have any meaning at all? Maybe if OP provided 100+ pictures with real data supporting how Ni vs. Si users will respond (which would be hard to obtain in the first place), it might mean something, but as it is it's just amusing at best and doesn't offer any real meaningful information about functional preferences.

Not to mention it's just disrespectful to me (and others) who might have come before you and stated that this was a pretty cool way to test cognitive functions. The best insight I've gotten into Si, for example, has been when I conducted a little visual test among the different perceivers in my family. I blogged a bit about it. I'll quote the pertinent part here:

Well, if you believe it's a cool way to test cognitive functions, but it's not actually effective as a cognitive functions test, I feel compelled to point that out.

My first post was actually not personally disrespectful to anyone: I simply stated that people with good Ni would be able to recognize the multitude of amorphous variables at work here and conclude pretty easily that the answer to this "test" doesn't mean much in terms of determining functional preferences.

I didn't get rude until you dismissed that comment, which was perfectly valid, as "just another cocky/inaccurate ENTP idea" or whatever. I had a good point, you blew me off without bothering to consider it, you got a rude response.

So, you see, your sarcastic response about Si was totally off the mark; no where near what I've observed, nor what other members of this board have described. I know you to be an open-minded person in other ways, but when it comes to something you think you know, you appear very close-minded. But that is part and parcel of being an extraverted perceiver, according to SolitaryWalker.

My response about Si was about what the expected test response would be, and the implication was that the expected test response would not line up often with real responses, hence my initial criticism of placing any stock in this as a "test."

Now, could it be interesting to note how self-described Ni-ers describe their responses as opposed to self-described Si-ers? Sure, but that's not a test, it's just gathering information for consideration. It doesn't become a useful test until you have solid information showing that it tests something at least somewhat reliably.

Furthermore, since a picture is worth a thousand words, asking a question about a picture is a very open-ended, and therefore potentially unbiased way, of finding out about a person's thought processes. That's why I've been thinking for quite a while that developing cognitive functions tests heavy on pictures, would be much more illuminating and accurate than tests that rely on verbage.

Sure, but that's not a test. That's gathering information regarding how people who describe themselves as xxxx type will respond to a picture. That's a far cry from testing Ni vs. Si use for several reasons, not the least of which being that it depends on the test-taker's ability to accurately assess his own Ni/Si preference in order to have any meaning at all.

And I never thought, and the OP never said, this was one-stop shopping for a cognitive test to determine Ni vs Si. I perceived it as a sampler, just to get a taste of some of the difference between the two. So, kudos to musttry for starting this thread! Obviously, more pictures and more analyses would lend more information for drawing conclusions about the functions as they relate to mbti type.

I read the thread and found some of the responses interesting. The problem is, a lot of people on the forum know so little about functions that they don't even know how to determine their Ni/Si preference accurately in the first place, so the way they respond to the picture doesn't really give us any meaningful information about how Ni vs. Si might interpret it.

It might be interesting in terms of, "Okay, it's nice to see how this individual person responded", but it's certainly not any sort of meaningful test of functional preference.

I'm glad that you're reading SW's book. From the few excerpts I've read it seems quite useful. If you want to draw more conclusions about functional preferences, you need a lot more information than immediate response to one image, though. The sample size is just too small and the number of variables too great to mean anything.

Jag, debate the obvious? Thanks, but no thanks.
Buy Gary Hartzler's book, or any good book, on functions and learn them.
From what I can see, you have problems with even the basics.

As far as your alleged ENTJ friend?
I assure you I don't have diarrhea of the mouth talking "incessantly" about my beliefs and ideas.
Sounds to me like superficial drivel.

I prefer to keep my cards close.

I'm afraid I actually have to agree with Jaguar on this point. You still seem confused on a number of basic functional principles. But reading more about it is exactly what you should be doing, so good job on that.

Jag, can you recommend any other good books on the topic of Jungian functions?

 

[VagrantFarce]

Jag, debate the obvious? Thanks, but no thanks.
Buy Gary Hartzler's book, or any good book, on functions and learn them.
From what I can see, you have problems with even the basics.

As far as your alleged ENTJ friend?
I assure you I don't have diarrhea of the mouth talking "incessantly" about my beliefs and ideas.
Sounds to me like superficial drivel.

I prefer to keep my cards close.

 

[simulatedworld]

IMO, no. I'm not really seeing any inherent "patterns" being established, I'm just seeing people projecting the cog functions we've already imposed prior to our "test."



It's also Ne, which springboards from one piece of an idea to the next:

Candle light -> candles -> sixteen candles -> youtube won't play it

It sort of just reinforces my point in this post, these threads are just self-justifying.

This! You're a Jen-ius, Jenny.

 

[Jaguar]

You need to lose some weight, chubster.

 

[yenom]

Everyone stop arguing. I thought about the poster the whole night without sleeping and I came to this conclusion.

Its actually a Communist Propaganda Poster denouncing bourgeois values.

The red color in the sale sign shows it all

 

[Jaguar]

Jag, can you recommend any other good books on the topic of Jungian functions?

Other than Hartzler's? Nope. I prefer to get info online from scads of sources.
Getting only one author's POV annoys me.
No offense, Sim, but that's why I made fun of you and Lenore. Limited input.
Or have you forgotten there's a rumor NTs don't believe in "experts."

 

[simulatedworld]

Other than Hartzler's? Nope. I prefer to get info online from scads of sources.
Getting only one author's POV annoys me.
No offense, Sim, but that's why I made fun of you and Lenore. Limited input.
Or have you forgotten there's a rumor NTs don't believe in "experts."

I've read the original Jung as well as a couple other MBTI-oriented books. Lenore isn't my only source and never has been...I didn't even read her book until January of this year.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Jag, debate the obvious? Thanks, but no thanks.
Buy Gary Hartzler's book, or any good book, on functions and learn them.
From what I can see, you have problems with even the basics.

As far as your alleged ENTJ friend?
I assure you I don't have diarrhea of the mouth talking "incessantly" about my beliefs and ideas.
Sounds to me like superficial drivel.

I prefer to keep my cards close.

Wow. So condescending. Amazing. Or not. I have a few functions books, not to mention online sources galore. They don't tell me much, honestly. (I've already said all that on here anyway). They're pretty limiting, including Jung himself, after a certain point.

I was just inviting you to debate or discuss. You don't have to be so huffy about it. I thought that's what a forum was for.........

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I think the OP's intent is apparent from the title: "Ni vs. Si comparative TEST" seems to clearly imply that responses to the picture are supposed to test Ni vs. Si use. How else might this be interpreted?

As for the fallacy of the test...if type is a question of preferences over many different situations, how can one response in one situation give enough of a sample size to have any meaning at all? Maybe if OP provided 100+ pictures with real data supporting how Ni vs. Si users will respond (which would be hard to obtain in the first place), it might mean something, but as it is it's just amusing at best and doesn't offer any real meaningful information about functional preferences.



Well, if you believe it's a cool way to test cognitive functions, but it's not actually effective as a cognitive functions test, I feel compelled to point that out.

My first post was actually not personally disrespectful to anyone: I simply stated that people with good Ni would be able to recognize the multitude of amorphous variables at work here and conclude pretty easily that the answer to this "test" doesn't mean much in terms of determining functional preferences.

I didn't get rude until you dismissed that comment, which was perfectly valid, as "just another cocky/inaccurate ENTP idea" or whatever. I had a good point, you blew me off without bothering to consider it, you got a rude response.




My response about Si was about what the expected test response would be, and the implication was that the expected test response would not line up often with real responses, hence my initial criticism of placing any stock in this as a "test."

Now, could it be interesting to note how self-described Ni-ers describe their responses as opposed to self-described Si-ers? Sure, but that's not a test, it's just gathering information for consideration. It doesn't become a useful test until you have solid information showing that it tests something at least somewhat reliably.




Sure, but that's not a test. That's gathering information regarding how people who describe themselves as xxxx type will respond to a picture. That's a far cry from testing Ni vs. Si use for several reasons, not the least of which being that it depends on the test-taker's ability to accurately assess his own Ni/Si preference in order to have any meaning at all.



I read the thread and found some of the responses interesting. The problem is, a lot of people on the forum know so little about functions that they don't even know how to determine their Ni/Si preference accurately in the first place, so the way they respond to the picture doesn't really give us any meaningful information about how Ni vs. Si might interpret it.

It might be interesting in terms of, "Okay, it's nice to see how this individual person responded", but it's certainly not any sort of meaningful test of functional preference.

I'm glad that you're reading SW's book. From the few excerpts I've read it seems quite useful. If you want to draw more conclusions about functional preferences, you need a lot more information than immediate response to one image, though. The sample size is just too small and the number of variables too great to mean anything.




I'm afraid I actually have to agree with Jaguar on this point. You still seem confused on a number of basic functional principles. But reading more about it is exactly what you should be doing, so good job on that.

Jag, can you recommend any other good books on the topic of Jungian functions?

I am seriously done trying with you. You don't debate or discuss, you lecture. So funny to me as you don't seem to know as much as you think you do. Am I the only one who can see this? None of us really knows wtf we're talking about because cognitive functions are pure speculation anyway! Why not speculate open-mindedly? Why do you feel the need to put down my thoughtful remarks? I think I made some pretty good insights. Better than I've seen most others do, yourself included. At least I'm trying. I really don't get y'all at all.

 

[Jaguar]

I've read the original Jung as well as a couple other MBTI-oriented books. Lenore isn't my only source and never has been...I didn't even read her book until January of this year.

Jung's original descriptions are not exactly bewitching.
They're so over-the-top, it actually mimics satire.
Surely you read his take on Ne? Lol.
He basically calls the person a flake, who can't be relied upon for anything because they change their mind the next day.
(Furthermore, he mentioned that he thought Nes were mostly female.)
Again, he is but a single person with a single POV from a very different era.
The seeds for his psychological types are not exactly healthy individuals.

 

[6.4]

I saw a big FOR SALE sign and got annoyed because it blocked my view of what was behind it, then thought it looked photoshopped on... that's all I saw or thought.

 

[Lux]

For the sake of the experiment, Ni users post all your IMMEDIATE reactions to the following picture.

For Sale: Forced "happiness." Buy into it now, while supplies last.

 

[Jaguar]

For Sale: Forced "happiness." Buy into it now, while supplies last.

Free the slaves!

 

[uumlau]

.

she is specifically speaking to objects appealing to her senses which have been stored in her memory. A light bulb shaped like a flame, she sees as a candle light. This reminds her of candles. Candles reminds her of a movie (which is a sensory experience and one of immediate concern because she wants to watch it now, in this moment). There is nothing abstract about this account. One object has inspired all this subjective perception based on sensory input.

The real problem here is that your daughter didn't "use" Ni, or Si, or Ne or Se or Te or Fi or Fe or Ti. She answered a question.

The real difference between S and N is a matter of degree. I think of it as "How much do you live inside your head?" The different e/i flavors of N and S give different characteristic levels. Se is the most "present" in the real world, dealing with what's right there, right now. Si is still very present in the real world, but it is inward and subjective. It's all of the Se details, but stored as memories. Ne is starting to get into space-cadet land: random thoughts and speculations, on the fly, connections between ideas ... but it still has some presence in the real world because those ideas are projected outward - the Ne is more "obviously" a space cadet than Ni, for example. Ni, however, is in real space-cadet land, almost completely divested of reality and completely subjective, yet remarkably powerful and accurate when well-trained (with the discipline of Te or Fe).

The random-seeming thoughts your daughter had could well be associated with Ne. You are correct, however, that they weren't as diverse as the usual displays of Ne that one might encounter. I believe most people's memories work by random association, and that those with really good memories have trained those associative skills (e.g., via mnemonics).

The main Si aspect I see in your daughter's answer is that she is reminded of specific things. Candles, a movie, a limitation of that movie on youtube. These are randomly associated items, in a way, but they're all solid things you can point to. Compare to SillySapienne's video in another thread, where she talks about "Hello Kitty knick knack <suddenly singsong> paddywhack, give a dog a bone." The associations are all over the place with full blast Ne. Your daughter's memory associations are tame in comparison, and I'd not rule out Si as being a factor.

In classical MBTI, Si and Ne go together, so it's entirely possible that what your daughter is showing is typical Si, with Ne expressing the random walk nature of any human's memories.

 

[simulatedworld]

I am seriously done trying with you. You don't debate or discuss, you lecture. So funny to me as you don't seem to know as much as you think you do. Am I the only one who can see this? None of us really knows wtf we're talking about because cognitive functions are pure speculation anyway! Why not speculate open-mindedly? Why do you feel the need to put down my thoughtful remarks? I think I made some pretty good insights. Better than I've seen most others do, yourself included. At least I'm trying. I really don't get y'all at all.

Why do you feel the need to not respond to a single idea when I give you long posts full of directly applicable responses to your points?

Every time we get deep into a discussion you finish with "oh well....[nonsensical excuse for not responding to anything you've said]."

Good one. I guess this has to do with what you said about exiting debates when you can't keep up with Ti-ers.

What "thoughtful remarks" are you referring to here? The parts where you missed the problems with using the picture as a test and then refused to listen to repeated explanations of why? And then decided you're too thoughtful and creative to be subject to basic logical fallacies? Several people have pointed out your errors in reasoning and your answer is invariably, "No waaay duuuude, I'm just being really insightful and open-minded!"

Which I guess is part and parcel for types with a low thinking function.

The real problem here is that your daughter didn't "use" Ni, or Si, or Ne or Se or Te or Fi or Fe or Ti. She answered a question.

This. You're still hung up on the basic concept of what a function actually is. Note the way he put "use" in quotes. Functions aren't really "used"; they're just cognitive patterns that lead you to conceptualize the world and your relationship to it in certain ways.

Functions aren't actions; they're attitudes that motivate ways of conceptualizing things, frames of reference for orientation. "I remembered something" doesn't equate with "I used Si." Si is an attitude that prompts us to relate new information to specific information that we've already absorbed from previous experience. The act of remembering something is not "using Si" because Si is not a transitive verb. There's no single action that can be consistently pinpointed as "using Si", only beliefs/attitudes/values motivated by Si.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Why do you feel the need to not respond to a single idea when I give you long posts full of directly applicable responses to your points?

Because after I skim it, I see that you and I are not even on the same page enough to discuss something, and I know from experience it will be futile to try.

Every time we get deep into a discussion you finish with "oh well....[nonsensical excuse for not responding to anything you've said]."

Good one. I guess this has to do with what you said about exiting debates when you can't keep up with Ti-ers.

Pretty good guess. I was figuring it might take you about 2 posts to throw that back in my face. Was it only one? Nice. Newsflash: Ti is my tert function, most of the time, on here. It is your aux function.

If you want to debate with me, you must understand a couple of things about me. One, I do not like to be condescended to because I do not desire to waste my time trying to be convinced of something, especially when that something is in direct conflict with the direction I'm leaning. And, Two, I do not find value in an extemely arguementative approach, which many of you NTPs seem to favor. I don't find it useful; this negative "you're wrong, I'm right" (so try to prove me wrong) thing. I forget that is your m.o. until I get into a discussion like this (and want to immediately extricate myself).

What "thoughtful remarks" are you referring to here? The parts where you missed the problems with using the picture as a test and then refused to listen to repeated explanations of why? And then decided you're too thoughtful and creative to be subject to basic logical fallacies? Several people have pointed out your errors in reasoning and your answer is invariably, "No waaay duuuude, I'm just being really insightful and open-minded!"

I hear that you, and others, think the picture test is inherently full of problems. Got it. I pretty much disagree but let that go a while ago, I think. When I get a new idea, I don't jump from A to Z so quickly. That's just not how I think. I explore A a long time, then move on to B, etc. Along the way I identify problems and try to find solutions. If something just doesn't jive, I just finally give up. (kind of like our discussions) I'm still at A on the picture test idea.

Which I guess is part and parcel for types with a low thinking function.

:rolli: Okay. Yet I think I get credit for trying to use my functions, as inferior as they seem to you, to the best of my abilities. Can you say the same?

This. You're still hung up on the basic concept of what a function actually is. Note the way he put "use" in quotes. Functions aren't really "used"; they're just cognitive patterns that lead you to conceptualize the world and your relationship to it in certain ways.

Preachy. I feel like you are lecturing me here. I have said this many times on Type C: I use words loosely when I'm trying to convey a thought, or follow a concept through. I'm more committed to the idea, than the exact definition (which is a Ti characteristic). I respect that is hard for Ti-ers, who need to attach a universal, and specific meaning to a word. Using functions or having cognitive patterns is splitting hairs, imo. Big deal. It's all so vague anyway. I KNOW what they are and how they are used, basically. Why do you always feel the need to repeat that to me? It's as if you have deemed that I don't know as much as you, or that I am in the dark. I do not need you, nor anyone else, to tell me I don't understand functions or to give me advice. This just comes off as priggish condescension! Furthermore, I don't understand this mentality at all. I don't think in that vane about you at all, or others; I'm simply expending MY energy trying to delve and understand. Is this some sort of idiosyncrasy of yours? Why?

Functions aren't actions; they're attitudes that motivate ways of conceptualizing things, frames of reference for orientation. "I remembered something" doesn't equate with "I used Si." Si is an attitude that prompts us to relate new information to specific information that we've already absorbed from previous experience. The act of remembering something is not "using Si" because Si is not a transitive verb. There's no single action that can be consistently pinpointed as "using Si", only beliefs/attitudes/values motivated by Si.

Judging functions enable actions. Whatever. Another example of nitpicking my words. I think that I did a pretty good job of explaining Si and Ni. At least as good or better than you. I haven't seen any real substantive debate about why my definitions are not valid. I feel like I tried to describe Si similarly as you did above, and did not imply there was a "single action" pinpointed as using Si, solely. I'm just attempting to scratch the surface with these function definitions because I honestly have not seen it done adequately, although I know others have tried. Even Jung is too vague for my tastes. I never wanted nor intended for my examples to be taken for anything but a simple illustration for function comparison purposes.

I think the OP's intent is apparent from the title: "Ni vs. Si comparative TEST" seems to clearly imply that responses to the picture are supposed to test Ni vs. Si use. How else might this be interpreted?

Nitpicking a word again. Test, exploration, function picture orgy; pick one.

As for the fallacy of the test...if type is a question of preferences over many different situations, how can one response in one situation give enough of a sample size to have any meaning at all? Maybe if OP provided 100+ pictures with real data supporting how Ni vs. Si users will respond (which would be hard to obtain in the first place), it might mean something, but as it is it's just amusing at best and doesn't offer any real meaningful information about functional preferences.

Do you read my posts? There is a type of study called a qualitative study. All a qualitative study does is look for qualities that exist in a certain behavior or way of being. It's descriptive and information gathering; ultimately trying to identify the existence of patterns from which more conclusive quantitative studies can be levered.

Theoretically, if people were sure of their MBTI type, and they looked at certain pictures and most of the Ni users described certain things in the pictures, and Si users described certain things in the pictures, there might become clear some certain pattern, not unlike that which must have appeared to Jung in his dealings with patients. I see no reason why it wouldn't give insight into a person's thought processes to do that. More so than taking a written test, which is more prone to bias.

Perhaps the most traditional division in the way qualitative and quantitative research have been used in the social sciences is for qualitative methods to be used for exploratory (i.e., hypothesis-generating) purposes or explaining puzzling quantitative results, while quantitative methods are used to test hypotheses. This is because establishing content validity - do measures measure what a researcher thinks they measure? - is seen as one of the strengths of qualitative research. While quantitative methods are seen as providing more representative, reliable and precise measures through focused hypotheses, measurement tools and applied mathematics. By contrast, qualitative data is usually difficult to graph or display in mathematical terms.

Well, if you believe it's a cool way to test cognitive functions, but it's not actually effective as a cognitive functions test, I feel compelled to point that out.

Obviously. I'm still on A.

My first post was actually not personally disrespectful to anyone: I simply stated that people with good Ni would be able to recognize the multitude of amorphous variables at work here and conclude pretty easily that the answer to this "test" doesn't mean much in terms of determining functional preferences.

Considering I had made several posts favoring the op, and that I am a dom Ni user, it can be logistically construed that you were putting me down.

I didn't get rude until you dismissed that comment, which was perfectly valid, as "just another cocky/inaccurate ENTP idea" or whatever. I had a good point, you blew me off without bothering to consider it, you got a rude response.

You were rude first.

My response about Si was about what the expected test response would be, and the implication was that the expected test response would not line up often with real responses, hence my initial criticism of placing any stock in this as a "test."

Your sarcastic comment about what a typical Si user would say was off the mark and this is not even worth commenting on further.

Now, could it be interesting to note how self-described Ni-ers describe their responses as opposed to self-described Si-ers? Sure, but that's not a test, it's just gathering information for consideration. It doesn't become a useful test until you have solid information showing that it tests something at least somewhat reliably.

Exactly what I was getting at in my post responding to Jennifer earlier, regarding qualitative versus quantitative studies. yada, yada, yada I already said it all before. someone didn't read the thread, perhaps?

Sure, but that's not a test. That's gathering information regarding how people who describe themselves as xxxx type will respond to a picture. That's a far cry from testing Ni vs. Si use for several reasons, not the least of which being that it depends on the test-taker's ability to accurately assess his own Ni/Si preference in order to have any meaning at all.

This is off topic slightly, but I don't see that how they describe themselves is of any importance, once MBTI type has been established. In fact, it would prevent bias if they didn't understand functions when responding, right? it would be up to the 'testers' to accumulate and interpret the data or answers.

I read the thread and found some of the responses interesting. The problem is, a lot of people on the forum know so little about functions that they don't even know how to determine their Ni/Si preference accurately in the first place, so the way they respond to the picture doesn't really give us any meaningful information about how Ni vs. Si might interpret it.

I'm not sure why you think that's important. That doesn't make any sense to me. They don't need to know anything about their functions nor type to respond to an open-ended question of what they see in a picture. Unless you are talking of self-testing or something. I'm speaking to administering tests and interpreting responses by a select few testers, or whomever is qualified.

It might be interesting in terms of, "Okay, it's nice to see how this individual person responded", but it's certainly not any sort of meaningful test of functional preference.

Might not be, but it might be. It's always good to gather information. Jung did all he did by observing and talking to his patients. Briggs noticed her son-in-law was different than the rest of the family and went on to develop her typology theory. That's how we initially learn about things. Ancient astronomers learned a lot about our Earth and sun and moon just by watching the stars every night.

I'm glad that you're reading SW's book. From the few excerpts I've read it seems quite useful. If you want to draw more conclusions about functional preferences, you need a lot more information than immediate response to one image, though. The sample size is just too small and the number of variables too great to mean anything.

*sigh* i'm just speechless here.

I'm afraid I actually have to agree with Jaguar on this point. You still seem confused on a number of basic functional principles. But reading more about it is exactly what you should be doing, so good job on that.

Maybe if I keep studying, I can be as smart as you and jag.




Gawd. Look at how long this mother is. ridiculous. ^this is srsly how you get off, isn't it?^ I don't know who's more pathetic. You for wanting this. Or me for delivering it.

The real problem here is that your daughter didn't "use" Ni, or Si, or Ne or Se or Te or Fi or Fe or Ti. She answered a question.

The real difference between S and N is a matter of degree. I think of it as "How much do you live inside your head?" The different e/i flavors of N and S give different characteristic levels. Se is the most "present" in the real world, dealing with what's right there, right now. Si is still very present in the real world, but it is inward and subjective. It's all of the Se details, but stored as memories. Ne is starting to get into space-cadet land: random thoughts and speculations, on the fly, connections between ideas ... but it still has some presence in the real world because those ideas are projected outward - the Ne is more "obviously" a space cadet than Ni, for example. Ni, however, is in real space-cadet land, almost completely divested of reality and completely subjective, yet remarkably powerful and accurate when well-trained (with the discipline of Te or Fe).

The random-seeming thoughts your daughter had could well be associated with Ne. You are correct, however, that they weren't as diverse as the usual displays of Ne that one might encounter. I believe most people's memories work by random association, and that those with really good memories have trained those associative skills (e.g., via mnemonics).

The main Si aspect I see in your daughter's answer is that she is reminded of specific things. Candles, a movie, a limitation of that movie on youtube. These are randomly associated items, in a way, but they're all solid things you can point to. Compare to SillySapienne's video in another thread, where she talks about "Hello Kitty knick knack <suddenly singsong> paddywhack, give a dog a bone." The associations are all over the place with full blast Ne. Your daughter's memory associations are tame in comparison, and I'd not rule out Si as being a factor.

In classical MBTI, Si and Ne go together, so it's entirely possible that what your daughter is showing is typical Si, with Ne expressing the random walk nature of any human's memories.

So, you're basically confirming what I have said, about Si, and Ne as well, in your Te way.

Thank you.

To address the mnemonic part, at least as it relates to cognitive functions, I'll quote wikipedia:

The major assumption in antiquity was that there are two sorts of memory: the "natural" memory and the "artificial" memory. The former is inborn, and is the one that everyone uses every day. The artificial memory is one that is trained through learning and practicing a variety of mnemonic techniques. The latter can be used to perform feats of memory that are quite extraordinary, impossible to carry out using the natural memory alone.

So, the "natural" memory would be more what our preferred cognitive functions would yield, and the "artificial" memory, our learned techniques.

 

[nightning]

Stream of thought:
I saw the thumbnail, the red for sale stood out for me. I clicked on it to enlarge image before looking at the details

While the image's loading I read the caption "House_For_Sale.jpg". Then I thought, why does this take so long to load?

Once it finished loading, I see the big red for sale sign again, then I more or less scanned the picture. I noticed how everything else but the sign's blurry. A family of 3 looking at the house. Then I glanced at the house, it's yellow with pots... it has a homey feel. Then I was distracted by that stupid red sign again.

Red and white is hard to ignore... the way post forms that bracketing rectangle doesn't help either.

Then I looked back at the picture, noticed the stripes on the lady's skirt... (brief 1 sec thought about how V-patterns can makes you look less fat, thought about my mother)... then I noticed her shirt seems to have diagonal stripes too. (V shaped is 2 set of diagonals)... then I looked closer and realized those aren't stripes, just the fabric has wrinkles.

Is this enough? I'm bored already...

Glanced at the picture some more. Noticed there's a filter effect on the picture. It's like a minor vignette... this image is photoshop-ed.

 

[simulatedworld]

If you want to debate with me, you must understand a couple of things about me. One, I do not like to be condescended to because I do not desire to waste my time trying to be convinced of something, especially when that something is in direct conflict with the direction I'm leaning. And, Two, I do not find value in an extemely arguementative approach, which many of you NTPs seem to favor. I don't find it useful; this negative "you're wrong, I'm right" (so try to prove me wrong) thing. I forget that is your m.o. until I get into a discussion like this (and want to immediately extricate myself).

You think "Just another cocky, inaccurate ENTP statement" is less condescending than "Maybe people with good Ni will recognize that this test is meaningless"? Really?

I hear that you, and others, think the picture test is inherently full of problems. Got it. I pretty much disagree but let that go a while ago, I think. When I get a new idea, I don't jump from A to Z so quickly. That's just not how I think. I explore A a long time, then move on to B, etc. Along the way I identify problems and try to find solutions. If something just doesn't jive, I just finally give up. (kind of like our discussions) I'm still at A on the picture test idea.

Okay, but instead of explaining the basis for your disagreement you just changed the subject repeatedly. I'd be glad to hear the basis for it if you want to explain.

:rolli: Okay. Yet I think I get credit for trying to use my functions, as inferior as they seem to you, to the best of my abilities. Can you say the same?

Actually most people try to point out my Fe use when they want to insult me or make me uncomfortable. I get stuck in Ne+Fe loops sometimes. As for Si, not so much, but it does the whole "I'm afraid everything will always be stuck the way it is now" thing sometimes.

Preachy. I feel like you are lecturing me here. I have said this many times on Type C: I use words loosely when I'm trying to convey a thought, or follow a concept through. I'm more committed to the idea, than the exact definition (which is a Ti characteristic). I respect that is hard for Ti-ers, who need to attach a universal, and specific meaning to a word. Using functions or having cognitive patterns is splitting hairs, imo. Big deal. It's all so vague anyway. I KNOW what they are and how they are used, basically. Why do you always feel the need to repeat that to me? It's as if you have deemed that I don't know as much as you, or that I am in the dark. I do not need you, nor anyone else, to tell me I don't understand functions or to give me advice. This just comes off as priggish condescension! Furthermore, I don't understand this mentality at all. I don't think in that vane about you at all, or others; I'm simply expending MY energy trying to delve and understand. Is this some sort of idiosyncrasy of yours? Why?

You think I'm nitpicking a trivial distinction just to be pedantic. I'm not. You just vastly underestimate the importance of this distinction. Why do you think numerous people (not just Ti-ers) are telling you that?

It's not just Ti users that are correcting your terminology. You may find the distinction insignificant, but imho, that's because you don't yet understand what a big difference there is between your "I use Ne to see patterns and then Fe to be nice to people" model and the model of functions as attitudinal orientations. This leads you to constant mistakes in assessments of functional "use" because you think every time someone performs x action, he must be "using" y function, which is a HUGE difference from what function theory actually says.

Judging functions enable actions. Whatever. Another example of nitpicking my words. I think that I did a pretty good job of explaining Si and Ni. At least as good or better than you. I haven't seen any real substantive debate about why my definitions are not valid. I feel like I tried to describe Si similarly as you did above, and did not imply there was a "single action" pinpointed as using Si, solely. I'm just attempting to scratch the surface with these function definitions because I honestly have not seen it done adequately, although I know others have tried. Even Jung is too vague for my tastes. I never wanted nor intended for my examples to be taken for anything but a simple illustration for function comparison purposes.

A lot of distinctions come off as "nitpicking" when you simply don't understand the subject in question in enough depth to recognize their true significance.

You don't believe the functions have been adequately described because you don't fully understand the already existing interpretations. I'm not saying you're clueless or stupid or anything like that; you just have more to learn. (We all do and always will.) I don't mean that in a condescending way; there's just no way to say it that you won't interpret as condescending.

Nitpicking a word again. Test, exploration, function picture orgy; pick one.

Refer to above about important distinctions appearing as trivial nitpicking when you don't understand the significance of the distinctions.

Do you read my posts? There is a type of study called a qualitative study. All a qualitative study does is look for qualities that exist in a certain behavior or way of being. It's descriptive and information gathering; ultimately trying to identify the existence of patterns from which more conclusive quantitative studies can be levered.

That's cool. Perhaps if the thread had been titled "Qualitative Study of Self-Described Ni Users Vs. Self-Described Si Users and Their Immediate Reactions to One Picture", rather than "Ni vs. Si Test", that would have been more clear.

This is not a nitpicking or trivial distinction.

Theoretically, if people were sure of their MBTI type, and they looked at certain pictures and most of the Ni users described certain things in the pictures, and Si users described certain things in the pictures, there might become clear some certain pattern, not unlike that which must have appeared to Jung in his dealings with patients. I see no reason why it wouldn't give insight into a person's thought processes to do that. More so than taking a written test, which is more prone to bias.

Sure, that would be fine. Unfortunately, this forum is populated largely by people who don't know anything about their type other than what some internet quiz told them.

Obviously. I'm still on A.

Believe it or not, I'm actually trying to help you move past A. I think you're a smart woman and you do bring interesting perspectives to things sometimes. You just won't budge because you think I'm making trivial distinctions just to be pedantic, when in reality the distinctions I'm drawing are far more important than you give them credit for.

Considering I had made several posts favoring the op, and that I am a dom Ni user, it can be logistically construed that you were putting me down.

Actually that had nothing to do with you personally at all. I mentioned people with Ni only because the thread title claimed to be testing for Ni, not because I wanted to target you or anyone else specifically.

There were many other Ni dominant posters in the thread. What made you think I was targeting you personally? I believe my original post could really only be construed as criticism of the OP, not you or anyone else in thread.

You were rude first.

Maybe this is due to crappy Fe, but I don't understand this. It would seem to me that my first comment, directed at nothing but criticism of the testable validity, is not nearly as personally offensive or grossly generalized as your initial response:

Just another cocky (and inaccurate) entp remark. :yawn:

Your comment not only questions my personal competency, it also implies that incompetence is a frequently occurring quality in ENTPs.

My initial assertion that "good Ni would show you the test is meaningless" hardly seems rude by comparison.

Your sarcastic comment about what a typical Si user would say was off the mark and this is not even worth commenting on further.

I didn't comment on what a typical Si user would say--I commented on what the test expected a typical Si user to say, as a means of implying that the test was poorly designed.

Seriously, you got the exact opposite meaning than I intended out of those comments about the Si-er--I was mocking the test's design and expectations, not claiming that every Si-er would respond that way.

Besides, do you really think most people really posted the very first things they thought of? Maybe some people wanted to offer unique, interesting interpretations that hadn't yet been posted?

The thread turned more into, "Who can come up with the most interesting interpretations of this photo?" than "What was the very first thing that occurred to you about it"? This is another flaw in the testing process.

Exactly what I was getting at in my post responding to Jennifer earlier, regarding qualitative versus quantitative studies. yada, yada, yada I already said it all before. someone didn't read the thread, perhaps?

Honestly no, I didn't read that particular post. I rarely read entire threads before responding--blame it on being a dumb extrovert.

In any event, though, a test is by definition a quantitative study. Qualitative studies simply gather amorphous information that can't be assigned objective value or measured...and therefore can't be tested.

This is off topic slightly, but I don't see that how they describe themselves is of any importance, once MBTI type has been established. In fact, it would prevent bias if they didn't understand functions when responding, right? it would be up to the 'testers' to accumulate and interpret the data or answers.

How do we establish MBTI type? Do you know how many people test the wrong type on MBTI because:

A) Some questions are biased toward "N" types,
B) The test itself oversimplifies a lot of more nuanced functional ideas, and
C) The test depends on self-report. Many people answer how they'd like to be, or how they believe they are but are not really. This is very, very common.

I'm not sure why you think that's important. That doesn't make any sense to me. They don't need to know anything about their functions nor type to respond to an open-ended question of what they see in a picture. Unless you are talking of self-testing or something. I'm speaking to administering tests and interpreting responses by a select few testers, or whomever is qualified.

Well, I guess you will get some unquantifiable information about some particular individuals of uncertain psychological type. That's more information than you had before, I guess--problem is, unless we are very certain that respondents are typed correctly, it just doesn't really tell us anything about Ni vs. Si.

The only data we'd get would be: "This guy interpreted it this way", "This one interpreted it that way", etc. We'd have a very hard time correlating it reliably to true psychological type.

Might not be, but it might be. It's always good to gather information. Jung did all he did by observing and talking to his patients. Briggs noticed her son-in-law was different than the rest of the family and went on to develop her typology theory. That's how we initially learn about things. Ancient astronomers learned a lot about our Earth and sun and moon just by watching the stars every night.

Look, I'm really only taking issue with the fact that it was presented as some sort of test of something. Random information gathering is fine by me; it'd just be a big mistake to consider this one picture any sort of test of any type correlations.

*sigh* i'm just speechless here.

You know what I was saying about thinking someone is nitpicking because you don't understand the true significance of the distinction he's making?

That totally happened to me when I was corresponding with SolitaryWalker.

Maybe if I keep studying, I can be as smart as you and jag.

Oh, I think you're plenty smart now. I don't think either of us thinks you're stupid. I think we both just suspect that you have some reading to do on this particular topic.

'Course, Jaguar suspects the same of me, so, maybe I should order a new book while I'm at it.

Gawd. Look at how long this mother is. ridiculous. ^this is srsly how you get off, isn't it?^ I don't know who's more pathetic. You for wanting this. Or me for delivering it.

Oh come on. Look, I get that it's awfully hard to differentiate between when I'm just trolling people and when I really value their conversation--I really do.

But seriously, in your case, I think if you refined your understanding of a few ideas you could come up with a lot of really outstanding content.

I dunno if I have the credibility at this point to convince you that I don't think you're stupid, but I don't.