• 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.

Si Vs Ni: It Ain't Tradition

PeaceBaby

reborn
Joined
Jan 7, 2009
Messages
5,950
MBTI Type
N/A
Enneagram
N/A
But the fact is, they're not; they're merely representations.

Which is why we think Si is simple-minded.

And why you try to force your model on reality.

You all cling to your model like a child to its mother's teat.

But reality is reality, and models are merely attempts to understand it.

So what makes you think you see reality more clearly? Do you think you do? And why?
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
It's only natural for the Ni user to have so much faith in the system, it fits with their universal type of thinking. To them, I guess one counterexample/flaw shouldn't be enough to change something so much bigger.

:wtf: are you even talking about?

The system is reality!

You're trying to say that reality is flawed -- according to what?!!?

Your own internal model?!!

That's not how it works, yo!

Your internal model does not get to tell reality that reality is not reality.

/ really starting to hate Si-users

*PeaceBaby, still haven't read your whole post yet; sorry, will try to asap*
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
:wtf: are you even talking about?

The system is reality!

You're trying to say that reality is flawed -- according to what?!!?

Your own internal model?!!

That's not how it works, yo!

Your internal model does not get to tell reality that reality is not reality.

/ really starting to hate Si-users

*PeaceBaby, still haven't read your whole post yet; sorry, will try to asap*

Huh? When did I say that the system isn't reality? I think that your own arguments with previous posters has confused you.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Huh? When did I say that the system isn't reality? I think that your own arguments with previous posters has confused you.

It would seem to be implied by what you said in what I originally quoted:

It's only natural for the Ni user to have so much faith in the system, it fits with their universal type of thinking. To them, I guess one counterexample/flaw shouldn't be enough to change something so much bigger.

How can you even talk about a counterexample to or flaw in reality?

That is what I am confused by...
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
[MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] :rofl1: a Ni user trying to insist he sees reality. there's a joke. ;)

the way i understand it... Si/Ne sees points and space as reality... Ni/Se sees directions and time as reality...

i don't really understand the model/system division... besides in how Ni will look at an operating system and look "in between" the points, at the processes, while i think Si tends more to look at the components... like if you were looking a broken machine, Ni would look for where in the process the error is occurring, while Si would look at the parts and see what part is having the problem... they're really both doing the same thing, but they're using different strategies...

i do see what Owfin is saying in terms of Ni "throwing out" systems... Ni seems to revolutionize models... to retroactively interpret them, as it were... like to have a major paradigm shift even while the reality remains the same... while i think Si users are more likely to disconnect and reassemble points even while the points remain constant... which perhaps feels like a huge shift to Ni...

:shrug: i do not claim to be an expert.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Yeah, I recently I've been scrapping this whole system model thing. It seems like only a weird detail. Not even part of a puzzle. More like the painting on a puzzle piece.
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
It would seem to be implied by what you said in what I originally quoted:



How can you even talk about a counterexample to or flaw in reality?

That is what I am confused by...

Yeah you're gonna have to backtrack a lil bit here. I'm with skylights, you seem to think that you see reality whereas we don't. WTF? Neither of us see reality itself. Si users use models and small details as the basis of bigger theories, and unlike the Ni user we put a heavier focus on this base, that has already been covered. The difference between Ni and Si users (apparently) is that the Ni user wants to stick with that bigger theory or system when counterexamples arise. I don't really understand how you can see the system itself as reality, when this is just your internal conception of the external world. I would say the same about models. Both are just attempts of explaining the world.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
Huh? When did I say that the system isn't reality?

I don't really understand how you can see the system itself as reality...

Ummm...

These two are not compatible...

I'm with skylights, you seem to think that you see reality whereas we don't.

I never said this was the case.

I simply said that Owfin's construction said as much.

Ironically, I was looking at the construction (model?) as separate from reality.

You, reading me, thought I was talking about reality itself.

Interesting...

Neither of us see reality itself.

Feel free to feel that way about yourself.

I, myself, am pretty good at seeing reality.

The difference between Ni and Si users (apparently) is that the Ni user wants to stick with that bigger theory or system when counterexamples arise.

I just don't see how this has anything to do with the construction that Owfin has put forth.

I've seen you make this claim twice now, but I never saw it in the original construction.

I don't really understand how you can see the system itself as reality, when this is just your internal conception of the external world. I would say the same about models. Both are just attempts of explaining the world.

What the fuck is the difference between a system and a model, then?

I asked, from the get-go, whether system = reality.

It has not been denied, and in fact has been corroborated.

This poor distinction between "system" and "model", other than the possibility that it means that system means reality and model means representation, is a large part of the reason why I thought this whole construction was stupid in the first place.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Yeah, I recently I've been scrapping this whole system model thing. It seems like only a weird detail. Not even part of a puzzle. More like the painting on a puzzle piece.

The system/model thing isn't so bad. It just needs refinement. Si has a model, whether Ti (logical) or Fi (impressionistic). Orobas calls it an "inner landscape".

Ni doesn't really have a landscape. Instead, it has this abstract map (Ni) that tells you where you are in the world (Se, Te, Fe).

That abstract map is fairly constant, but it can seem to radically change. Think of it like a huge gemstone. Ni can only tell others about one facet at a time. Each facet is superficially very different from the others, but they're all part of the same whole. When Ni seems to radically change one's mind, it isn't so revolutionary as it appears: the gemstone is rotated a few degrees, and the light reflects off the facets in a superficially different way. The changing the angle of refraction alone can change the light from blue to yellow, and so on. But the light itself stays the same, the gemstone stays the same. They just look different to everyone else.

Moreover, you're definitely correct that Si is not "tradition". It inclines toward tradition, but really it just has a very concrete model of the world. The world changes, and the model gets updated, more or less, but mostly it stays the same. Ni is just as static. That gemstone doesn't change. It stays the same.

Another analogy might be the law of gravity (for Ni). It's just F = -G*M_1*M_2/R^2. (Forget Einstein for a moment; contrary to popular opinion gravity still works mostly like Newton said, and Einstein's refinements are only important for the edge case like black holes, neutron stars, and massless particles like light.) That simple 1/R^2 law describes every bit of orbital mechanics you might ever observe (again, barring the extreme cases). But for every case except 2 bodies, the equations cannot be solved: they can be analyzed, or even have perturbation theory applied, but there is no exact analytical equation that describes how 3 or more bodies interact w/r to gravity. Instead we have to use numerical analysis (i.e., integrate the differential equations with a computer) to solve for any particular case. This is just like Ni. The inner rules stay the same, but the application of those rules can appear chaotic and inconsistent. For the 3-body problem, one trajectory can result in a fairly stable system of nearly circular orbits, while another slightly different trajectory results in all sorts of wild behavior, perhaps even flinging one of the 3 bodies off into infinity.

When Si sees this kind of result from Ni types, it looks like the "rules" have been changed. In Ni/Se terms, no rules have changed, but the specific circumstances (Se, Te, Fe) have changed, and the Ni-functional view predicts an entirely different result. Ni can seem stubborn to Si, because Si tries to change Ni's mind in terms of specific situations and data, without addressing the underlying functionality (the law of gravity). It seems stubborn because Si isn't talking about what Ni is thinking about. This also happens for other introverted functions, where the underlying terms in which one thinks are not (cannot) be directly expressed to others.

On the Si side, it isn't as if Si is somehow ignorant of science, ignorant of math or functionality. Rather, Si is focusing on concretely experienced data. Si retains that data very well. That Si data is its own map, and it can act like a "function", implying all sorts of things. But that Si-data is not easily communicated: one the one hand, there is too much data, and communicating it sounds like anecdotal evidence, and on the other, that underlying information is often obvious to others who use Si, so there is no need to communicate it. Ne (and Fe or Te) plays a role by drawing inferences from the data, finding patterns that are only obvious when one has a lot of sources of data.

The key is that Ni and Si "store" things differently. Ni remembers the functional interpretation. The verb. The adverb. (This is what you describe as a system. It's a system of behaviors, but not of objects, per se. The objects are interchangeable.) Si remembers the objects, where they were, when they were there. The noun. The adjective. It's a model, but it's a model that is kind of "static" for lack of a better word. The model doesn't handle the "time parameter" very well: time is a discrete series of events to Si, but a constantly flowing dynamic to Ni. Likewise, the Ni model doesn't handle objects and positions very well. It records interactions, and how they occur, but doesn't focus on what interacted.

The TL;DR version: Both Ni and Si use models: Ni is a functional model, Si is an object model.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
rofl, [MENTION=4894]animenagai[/MENTION], i was just teasing zara... he knows i have a fondness for Ni users :laugh:

i think every type of Perceiving has its own special variety of delusion :D

i would be curious to hear from [MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION] what he sees as some advantages of Si over N. i think one would be detail attunement to the present and the ability to "lock in" those details to the matrix of reality, being able to draw upon them again. a more conscious form of internalization.

i would guess [MENTION=8413]Zarathustra[/MENTION] would be happy to discuss some advantages of Ni over Si...
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
The TL;DR version: Both Ni and Si use models: Ni is a functional model, Si is an object model.

Yes, this.

I just thought this "system" vs "model" terminology was problematic.

Well, that, and a few other concerns I already mentioned.

I suppose I'll have to read the long version to see whether you addressed those...
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
Oh OK, I thought the system and the model were both internal conceptions of reality with the system being a bigger entity than the model.

On what Owlfin said:

Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality.

Basically, I see nothing that says that system = reality. It seems like our previous debate just boiled down to using different terms. I still don't see owlfin corroborating your conception of a system anywhere. If system = reality, then why would owlfin talk about changing the system vs changing the model? If system = reality, then if your system clashed with your models, of course you would change the model. In short, I see how we're talking passed each other, but I still don't understand why you would choose to read 'system' in such a way.

edit: uumlau's conception is closer to what I had in mind, if it helps.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
My main problem with it from the get-go is that the word system denotes reality, while model denotes representation.

As for his/her corroborating my interpretation:

Owfin said:
Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality.

Apparently, at one point, he/she did think one was reality.

As for your corroboration:

animenagai said:
When did I say that the system isn't reality?

:thelook:
 

animenagai

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2008
Messages
1,569
MBTI Type
NeFi
Enneagram
4w3
My main problem with it from the get-go is that the word system denotes reality, while model denotes representation.

As for his/her corroborating my interpretation:

Apparently, at one point, he/she did think one was reality.

As for your corroboration:



:thelook:


I didn't think you meant 'reality' in such a literal sense at that point. I thought you just meant that both systems and models are internal explanations and are hence (at least) equally close to reality.

On owlfin, that doesn't mean that she originally thought system = reality, she could've believed that models = reality, the quote doesn't really make it clear. Bah whatever, we're on the same page now. Fuck semantics and he-said-she-said.
 

Zarathustra

Let Go Of Your Team
Joined
Oct 31, 2009
Messages
8,110
i would guess Zarathustra would be happy to discuss some advantages of Ni over Si...

I'm happy to aim for both sides...

I come here for truth, not just to cheer on my "team".

I believe I've said these elsewhere, but my lifelong best friend, my dad and my sister are all ISTJs, so I'm pretty familiar with the differences.

Si is more stable, consistent, and steady. Its users often have an amazing recollection of detail (stuff I will often experience, but totally [or largely] forget). Its users prefer tried-and-true methods that in many instances will work very effectively. Its drawbacks are that in situations that require novelty, it will still try to use the same tried-and-true methods, and will resist veering from them, even if the tried-and-true methods are no longer working and no longer make sense -- this is why I say it can be somewhat simple-minded. It can also be incredibly close-minded, in thinking that its way is the only way, but so can Ni (although, I do think Ni is more open in this regard than Si).

Ni, on the other hand, is more flexible, novel, and ambitious. Its users often have an amazing ability to synthesize multiple seemingly contradictory perspectives into one more cogent, unified whole. Its users prefer new methods that are often untried and novel, but which they perceive to be necessary to improve upon on the current state of affairs. Its drawbacks are that, for many situations, the tried-and-true method will work just fine, but they might be blind or resistant to these methods -- in this sense, it can be somewhat absent-minded. It can also be incredibly close-minded, in thinking that its way is the only way, but so can Si (Si resists change, Ni demands change).
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
When Si sees this kind of result from Ni types, it looks like the "rules" have been changed. In Ni/Se terms, no rules have changed, but the specific circumstances (Se, Te, Fe) have changed, and the Ni-functional view predicts an entirely different result. Ni can seem stubborn to Si, because Si tries to change Ni's mind in terms of specific situations and data, without addressing the underlying functionality (the law of gravity). It seems stubborn because Si isn't talking about what Ni is thinking about. This also happens for other introverted functions, where the underlying terms in which one thinks are not (cannot) be directly expressed to others.

Si can get frustrated because Si's arguments are irrelevant from Ni's point of view. Si also gets frustrated at Ni's treating of the future as something that can be observed like it already exists.

I'm not sure if one is really better than the other... but Si doesn't seem to hinge so much on a variable future. The problem with Ni's abstract map is that it might not be perfect. It's predicting a map based on evidence that isn't actually there yet.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Its drawbacks are that, for many situations, the tried-and-true method will work just fine, but they might be blind or resistant to these methods -- in this sense, it can be somewhat absent-minded. It can also be incredibly close-minded, in thinking that its way is the only way, but so can Si (Si resists change, Ni demands change).

The real drawback for Ni is that the "tried-and-true" methods not only work just fine, they're already optimized by processes that Ni easily ignores because they don't fit in the current vision.

Personally, I trust "tried-and-true" over "novelty" for any sort of concrete plans. I just happen to "store" the "tried-and-true" in functional terms, and I regard "tried-and-true" as a kind of "functionality": that I don't have to re-invent the wheel in order to accomplish my goal.

In software development, Design Patterns are the "Si model". There is a set of patterns that have been codified into the field in such a way that everything gets coded with one or another of these patterns. Initially, I didn't like the patterns, because they didn't seem functional, they didn't really address any problems I needed to solve. Eventually, I realized that the patterns let me translate my intuition-logic into conventional speech, so I could just say "Facade" or "Dependency Injection", and instantly everyone else would know what I meant. So I don't use them to design, I use them to translate/communicate.

Interestingly, in terms of usefulness, I find "antipatterns" to be far more useful. While a design pattern can indicate how best to build an application, it is often overkill: most applications don't need terribly sophisticated design, and even when they do, the point is to use simple designs that modularize, not to practice all the patterns in the GoF textbook. An antipattern, however, is extremely functional for me, because it identifies an approach that looks productive, but explains why it is NOT productive. So when you're tempted to take a particular shortcut, an antipattern explains the pitfalls of the shortcut. Sometimes, the pitfalls are OK, and the shortcut is merited; but most of the time, the shortcut is not merely a bad idea, but an extremely bad idea, if there is an antipattern that describes it.
 

skylights

i love
Joined
Jul 6, 2010
Messages
7,756
MBTI Type
INFP
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
so/sx
I'm happy to aim for both sides...

I come here for truth, not just to cheer on my "team".

I believe I've said these elsewhere, but my lifelong best friend, my dad and my sister are all ISTJs, so I'm pretty familiar with the differences.

Si is more stable, consistent, and steady. Its users often have an amazing recollection of detail (stuff I will often experience, but totally [or largely] forget). Its users prefer tried-and-true methods that in many instances will work very effectively. Its drawbacks are that in situations that require novelty, it will still try to use the same tried-and-true methods, and will resist veering from them, even if the tried-and-true methods are no longer working and no longer make sense -- this is why I say it can be somewhat simple-minded. It can also be incredibly close-minded, in thinking that its way is the only way, but so can Ni (although, I do think Ni is more open in this regard than Si).

but i think it's also important to note that with good Je balance, a Si user can be swift to discard the pieces of the methods that are not achieving their goals. i was stunned when ESFJ boy suddenly decided to switch cafes that he goes to. he had been going to one steadily for a long time and had good friends there, and all of a sudden one day he discovered that he could get a better drink at a different place for less money, and he switched, and now goes to the other one steadily. mindblowing to me - wasn't the point of the place the "home" of it? but no, the point was the coffee.

:laugh:

it bothered my Si!

i imagine this holds true for Ni and Je as well.

Ni, on the other hand, is more flexible, novel, and ambitious. Its users often have an amazing ability to synthesize multiple seemingly contradictory perspectives into one more cogent, unified whole. Its users prefer new methods that are often untried and novel, but which they perceive to be necessary to improve upon on the current state of affairs. Its drawbacks are that, for many situations, the tried-and-true method will work just fine, but they might be blind or resistant to these methods -- in this sense, it can be somewhat absent-minded. It can also be incredibly close-minded, in thinking that its way is the only way, but so can Si (Si resists change, Ni demands change).

i have also found, via my inexplicable tendency to collect ExFJs, that Ni users are much more likely to use you as a pawn in their plans without revealing to you what those plans are. now, with ENFJs, i feel like this fits into the typical NFJ "i am doing this for your own good" pattern, which honestly usually pisses me off. but even with NTJs... i feel like there is some sort of disregard for the effects of Ni's future plans on others. especially because Ni is, like you said, demanding this change, and effecting it, whereas Si's future plans are more like "this is what is going to happen because this is how the chess pieces are set". it's more of a passive thing, so it doesn't seem like there needs to be a regard for how it will affect others. because it's not actively changing things. even though i suppose from another point of view, not doing anything to change the future is as much of a decision as choosing to change the future.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Si can get frustrated because Si's arguments are irrelevant from Ni's point of view. Si also gets frustrated at Ni's treating of the future as something that can be observed like it already exists.

I'm not sure if one is really better than the other... but Si doesn't seem to hinge so much on a variable future. The problem with Ni's abstract map is that it might not be perfect. It's predicting a map based on evidence that isn't actually there yet.

There is a tendency for each to distrust the other's mode of thinking. Neither is better than the other, but each is better in certain circumstances. Sometimes the Ni functional approach quickly arrives at the most optimal solution. Sometimes the Si approach recalls an optimal solution that Ni would never come up with, because the Si solution is based on a huge amount of experience.

Also, while Ni's abstract map might not be perfect, I've noted that Si's extreme detail-oriented approach can deliberately misremember details. I've seen Si types insist that X never happened, because it could never have happened in their thinking, because it didn't fit in their Si map.

What is useful to note isn't what their good at, or what they're bad at. What is useful is understanding how each can fail. In general, experience trumps both. The more experienced Si will usually know better than Ni, and vice versa. They just store things differently. Given equal experience, however, Si tends to fail when the underlying functionality is more important than the objective detail. Ni tends to fail when the objective detail is more important than the underlying functionality.
 

Poki

New member
Joined
Dec 4, 2008
Messages
10,436
MBTI Type
STP
Instinctual Variant
sx/so
The real drawback for Ni is that the "tried-and-true" methods not only work just fine, they're already optimized by processes that Ni easily ignores because they don't fit in the current vision.

Personally, I trust "tried-and-true" over "novelty" for any sort of concrete plans. I just happen to "store" the "tried-and-true" in functional terms, and I regard "tried-and-true" as a kind of "functionality": that I don't have to re-invent the wheel in order to accomplish my goal.

In software development, Design Patterns are the "Si model". There is a set of patterns that have been codified into the field in such a way that everything gets coded with one or another of these patterns. Initially, I didn't like the patterns, because they didn't seem functional, they didn't really address any problems I needed to solve. Eventually, I realized that the patterns let me translate my intuition-logic into conventional speech, so I could just say "Facade" or "Dependency Injection", and instantly everyone else would know what I meant. So I don't use them to design, I use them to translate/communicate.

Interestingly, in terms of usefulness, I find "antipatterns" to be far more useful. While a design pattern can indicate how best to build an application, it is often overkill: most applications don't need terribly sophisticated design, and even when they do, the point is to use simple designs that modularize, not to practice all the patterns in the GoF textbook. An antipattern, however, is extremely functional for me, because it identifies an approach that looks productive, but explains why it is NOT productive. So when you're tempted to take a particular shortcut, an antipattern explains the pitfalls of the shortcut. Sometimes, the pitfalls are OK, and the shortcut is merited; but most of the time, the shortcut is not merely a bad idea, but an extremely bad idea, if there is an antipattern that describes it.

Lol...yes...design patterns are a combination of Ne and Si. I see NTPs much more in tune with design patterns where as Si uses them as a tried and true methodology. From talking with an ENTP coworker i have realized and been able to better communicae my ideas by using patterns as examples. I dont think in design patterns at all. I dont really define patterns, its not that i dont use them, its that they come natural to me as i progress in programming. Most are over used and half the people know the patterns, but not the reasons. I used threading in an EJB once and the EJB ended up causing issues. While people jumped on me about using threading,I looked into the reasons why u arent and my original code overcame all those reasons. Even had ENTP look into it since everyone blamed it on that. It was one of those Nprove my point things". I simply forgot to catch an exception and handle it. The consesus from theory was that i dont know what i am doing n regard to threading and i created a bottle neck and threading needed to be removed. Either way though there would have been threading issues as weblogic threads would have responded the same way. Found the problem, modified code to catch error and problem fixed in 15 minutes while everyone was still harping about threading. Thats where Si is nice...because tradition says I know what i am talking about and am really good at understanding this kind of stuff. It was nothing more then a data issue where we got back data we werent expecting. The code i wrote speed wise could handle an entire days worth of data in 20 minutes. No one had a clue what they were talking about, but apparently loved to put there 2 cents in as if they knew.

I dont abide by rules...i figure out why the rule is in place and work around it. U can call it loop holes, but i have morals and values to determine what loops wholes i use.
 
Top