User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 74

  1. #11
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lightyear View Post
    To the OP: Sounds right to me but can you come up with a real-life example of your theory? What would a model or a system look like in the real world and how would an Ni/Si user approach it/solve the problem?
    Say, take something like evolution.

    A Ni user would accept the process of evolving as true. Then they would come up with something like mutations in the genes to explain how differences come about in organisms. If their idea of mutation did not line up with the observed process of evolution (like they predicted X% mutation rate but the evidence shows otherwise), they would change it to fit how evolution works. Their concept of a mutation is now changed.

    A Si user would accept mutations of genes as true. From their observation of mutations in the genes, they would come up with some theory of what affect they might have. If their theory was pointed out to be untrue (like they predicted that this would result in random harmful adaptions staying), they would modify their theory of evolution to be consistent with the fact that harmful adaptions do not stay. Their concept of evolution is now changed.

    If I had actually chosen an example where the opposing evidence was the same, you would have seen that they ultimately get the same result [of their theory being correct].

    Sorry if this wasn't really the best example, but I don't know any confirmed dominant Ni types in real life.

  2. #12

    Default

    I'm a Ti dom. The notion that comes to mind from your distinction is:
    Engineering-Si-change system to meet the model vs.
    Science-Ni-change model to match the system

    Would that be a fair characterization?

    Edit:I just read your last post. It seems I was off the mark.

    Accept the past. Live for the present. Look forward to the future.
    Robot Fusion
    "As our island of knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance." John Wheeler
    "[A] scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy." Richard Feynman
    "[P]etabytes of [] data is not the same thing as understanding emergent mechanisms and structures." Jim Crutchfield

  3. #13
    Senior Member INTP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    MBTI
    intp
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx
    Posts
    7,823

    Default

    I would say that Ni sees an abstract image compiled by other functions using intuition, no clear line between causality of things inside the image or their connections are needed in order to see the image. But, the parts of which the image consists from is thought trough mostly, for example with Te, the Te judgments has been done to these single parts of the image, same with the perceived facts with Se(but these might be quite unconscious on Ni doms), but Fi is the driving force(with INTJ obviously) on judging whether the image is worthy of doing more contemplating on.
    BUT even tho this abstract image can be seen without consciously perceiving the connections, the hunch that there is something here is perceived. And when/if the connections inside the image is perceived consciously, the whole thing just suddenly crystalizes in their mind and they figure out how the whole universum works or something like that, or think they figured it out at least .
    And before this image has been consciously perceived as a whole, it cant be really explained to self and others.
    This is where you can really spot an kiddy INTJ, they just follow the hunches and creating imaginery worlds they live in. And to consciously perceive the image, instead of just following hunches and thinking they are the reality, other 3 functions need to be developed.

    Cba to write the same for Si now
    "Where wisdom reigns, there is no conflict between thinking and feeling."
    — C.G. Jung

    Read

  4. #14
    this is my winter song EJCC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    173 so/sx
    Posts
    18,448

    Default

    I agree with the OP, from my experience as an Si aux with lots of Ni dom/aux friends. I used to think of it as being a difference between using a set of facts to form a theory (Si), or supporting an initial theory with facts found later (Ni), but the systems and models thing seems to work better. It explains why INFJs strike me as very closed-minded sometimes. I've seen Ni doms outright reject facts because they don't suit their worldview, whereas Si and Ne types seem to find it easier to make slight alterations in their worldview to allow for new facts. (Especially types with both Si and Ti -- because Fi leads to a whole other level of inflexible worldviews. )

    I dunno My metaphor for Si as a filing cabinet has always worked for me. But I've never understood Ni all that well.
    ~ g e t f e s t i v e ! ~


    EJCC: "The Big Questions in my life right now: 1) What am I willing to live with? 2) What do I have to live with? 3) What can I change for the better?"
    Coriolis: "Is that the ESTJ Serenity Prayer?"



    ESTJ - LSE - ESTj (mbti/socionics)
    1w2/7w6/3w4 so/sx (enneagram)
    want to ask me something? go for it!

  5. #15
    Blah Orangey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Socionics
    SLE
    Posts
    6,364

    Default

    I kind of like this.
    Artes, Scientia, Veritasiness

  6. #16
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shortnsweet View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Lightyear View Post
    To the OP: Sounds right to me but can you come up with a real-life example of your theory? What would a model or a system look like in the real world and how would an Ni/Si user approach it/solve the problem?
    Yeah! What she said!

    (Now we wonder why all the SJ's run away from us- they come in and we all surround them like hungry vultures)
    It does scare us, but not for the reason you think it would. It scares us because we aren't very good at coming up with models to fit the systems, and you pressure us to.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

    • MBTI? ISTJ
    • Enneagram? 6 with a strong 7 wing
    • Brony? Yes
    • Stereotypes?

  7. #17
    Senior Member the state i am in's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    infj
    Enneagram
    5w4 sx/sp
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    we operate somewhat independently of perceived facts as culturally internalized schemes of perception.

    i think your focus on description is the crux. how do we map our tangible experience onto accepted descriptions vs how do we rely on patterns to construct reinterpretations of the way we map meanings.

    i think you're looking at properties/attributes vs patterns/contexts or, more simply, objects vs relations. as a result, we identify the central parts of *what is* in different ways. we look at interrelating contexts and use those contexts to start a process of mapping key structural features onto each other and creating spaces in between the KNOWN. at times the resulting predictions can clash with what is expected by others, and what happens at this point depends on the situation.

    we also often do use our own form of beliefs, which are not provable (knowledge never is), as scaffolding devices in order to work outside the confines of cultural operating systems and the tyranny of the presumably known. instead, we are consistently working in hypothetical spaces to refine our own prediction systems and try to reconceptualize and repair areas in which we (culturally) have mapped meanings in ways that are wildly distorted and need updating in order to become useful and less pathological.

    so while Si vs Ni isn't distinguished by tradition itself, Si leads to more culturally conservative ways of being (conserving the cultural assumptions inherent in crucial periods of development) because Si is less critical of the ways in which we contextualize and map meanings through language and cultural symbology. as a result, Si is much more intelligible, but Ni is better at disambiguating and responding and rebuilding frameworks in novel situations and unknowable circumstances.

    with that said, sometimes the frameworks made by Ni are worse than previous frameworks. such is a fact of life and the ongoing ecology of change.
    Likes Noon liked this post

  8. #18
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by the state i am in View Post
    we operate somewhat independently of perceived facts as culturally internalized schemes of perception.

    i think your focus on description is the crux. how do we map our tangible experience onto accepted descriptions vs how do we rely on patterns to construct reinterpretations of the way we map meanings.

    i think you're looking at properties/attributes vs patterns/contexts or, more simply, objects vs relations. as a result, we identify the central parts of *what is* in different ways. we look at interrelating contexts and use those contexts to start a process of mapping key structural features onto each other and creating spaces in between the KNOWN. at times the resulting predictions can clash with what is expected by others, and what happens at this point depends on the situation.

    we also often do use our own form of beliefs, which are not provable (knowledge never is), as scaffolding devices in order to work outside the confines of cultural operating systems and the tyranny of the presumably known. instead, we are consistently working in hypothetical spaces to refine our own prediction systems and try to reconceptualize and repair areas in which we (culturally) have mapped meanings in ways that are wildly distorted and need updating in order to become useful and less pathological.

    so while Si vs Ni isn't distinguished by tradition itself, Si leads to more culturally conservative ways of being (conserving the cultural assumptions inherent in crucial periods of development) because Si is less critical of the ways in which we contextualize and map meanings through language and cultural symbology. as a result, Si is much more intelligible, but Ni is better at disambiguating and responding and rebuilding frameworks in novel situations and unknowable circumstances.

    with that said, sometimes the frameworks made by Ni are worse than previous frameworks. such is a fact of life and the ongoing ecology of change.
    A very interesting and enlightening description of Ni. Thank you!

    I would describe my opinion of the Ni relations as skeptical. Si does not utilize patterns and context the way Ni does. When SJs try to understand Ni, they try to see the way Ni relations work by assuming they work the same way Si relations do. The mapping that Ni does would not be accurate under Si methods, so they look like fortune-telling.

    Meanwhile, when NJs try to understand Si relations (which are built on attributes and properties), they assume they work the same way Ni relations do. Under Ni methods, Si is narrow, unoriginal, and does not look deeply into things.

    It is like they are looking in two pools of water that are hidden from view of each other. Si is looking into one of the pools, and sees Ni is not there examining. Ni is looking into a different pool, and sees Si is not there examining. They both conclude that the other is not examining a pool at all.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

    • MBTI? ISTJ
    • Enneagram? 6 with a strong 7 wing
    • Brony? Yes
    • Stereotypes?

  9. #19
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    this is a great thread @Owfin! I am highly intrigued...

  10. #20
    Anew Leaf
    Guest

    Default

    this is a great thread @Owfin! I am highly intrigued...

Similar Threads

  1. [JCF] Si vs Ni
    By cogdecree in forum The SJ Guardhouse (ESFJ, ISFJ, ESTJ, ISTJ)
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 11-20-2010, 06:42 AM
  2. Quick thought about Ne/Si vs Ni/Se
    By sciski in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-12-2010, 01:02 PM
  3. 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
  4. Explanation for SJs dislike of change [Si vs Ne/Ni/Se]
    By Snow Turtle in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 09-23-2008, 06:37 AM
  5. Si vs Ni
    By labyrinthine in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 43
    Last Post: 11-14-2007, 10:19 PM

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