User Tag List

First 23456 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 74

  1. #31
    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 animenagai View Post
    This is intriguing. Do you think this idea stretches out all the way to our tertiary and last functions? In other words, I'm Si last, do you think I have more faith in models over systems? This gets a bit tricky imo, I've never bought into the standard view of functions. My Ni is stronger than my Si.
    I would have to gather more information about Se types to form a complete theory about Pe, so that's up in the air. But I will say that Ne-Si and Si-Ne would use the same framework, but focus their attention on different sides.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

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

  2. #32
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    I would have to gather more information about Se types to form a complete theory about Pe, so that's up in the air. But I will say that Ne-Si and Si-Ne would use the same framework, but focus their attention on different sides.
    Yeah I'm inclined to agree.

    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.

    An ISTJ with some serious conceptual muscle, girl you're so sexy right now!
    Chimera of Filth

    A gruesome beast with dripping flesh
    Clings to me as a sick fixture
    My throbbing heart it gnawed apart
    It stalks and hunts me through mirrors

  3. #33
    failure to thrive AphroditeGoneAwry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    MBTI
    INfj
    Enneagram
    451 sx/so
    Socionics
    ENFj Ni
    Posts
    5,651

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    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.

    So, what you are saying here is that an Ni user sees a truth of some sort, and then must go about proving that theory, compiling evidence, as it were, to prove the truth. Whereas an Si user is more likely to believe a piece of evidence and build on it, adding other pieces of evidence to it, to find the consequent truth. Is that kind of close?

    For me, the words 'system' and 'model' don't really symbolize this idea. I consider a model to simply be a symbolic representation of a system--the same thing, on an equal plane, just explained with words versus a picture.

    I think of Ni in your example as seeing first, then finding how the pieces fit together; versus studying the pieces and configuring them properly. Si cannot make leaps like Ni can perhaps. It must filter sensory knowledge that have already been laid down, then through some contextual comparison process, configure alternate synapses that build up an Si truth as it goes (adding to Si's database). Whereas Ni's abstract ephemeral nature allows for more play in synaptic connections, enabling it to tap into some metaphysical (sorry ) reality and see wisps of truth, even before that truth can be proven. I believe these are both forms of deductive reasoning, just moving conversely.


    Super cool thread.
    Ni/Ti/Fe/Si
    4w5 5w4 1w9
    ~Torah observant, Christ inspired~
    Life Path 11

    The more one loves God, the more it is that having nothing in the world means everything, and the less one loves God, the more it is that having everything in the world means nothing.

    Do not resist an evil person, but to him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer also the other. ~Matthew 5:39

    songofmary.wordpress.com


  4. #34
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Owfin, I am bothered by your construction.

    I have been thinking about it for a few weeks, and my original conviction about it has not changed.

    Your construction seems to imply that ISTJs wish to force their model on reality, while INTJs wish to understand reality as it is.
    Really? I felt like I had put it the other way around.
    I don't understand how you could possibly square that with the below:

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    From disscussions with Ni dominants on other forums, I have found out the difference between Si and Ni. It ain't tradition, or memories, or imagination. No, none of that. It is models vs systems.

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    First, some definitions:

    System: A set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole

    Model: A description of a system using mathematical concepts and language (obviously, not using mathematics here, but you get the idea)

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Now, the difference is that Ni has faith in systems, while Si has faith in models. Say a judging function points out that Ni is wrong:

    Ni: "Ok, I'll change the models to better fit the system." (trust that the system is accurate)

    But if a judging function points out Si is wrong:

    "Ok, I'll change the system to better fit the models." (trust that the models are accurate)

    ----------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because Ni puts so much faith in systems, if a system is proven wrong in even one aspect, the whole thing, says Ni, should be thrown out. Because Si puts so much faith in models, if a model is proven wrong in even one aspect, the whole thing, says Si, should be thrown out. It is like a broken foundation.

    To Ni, Si's approach might seem stubborn and unyielding-why not get better models? To Si, Ni's approach seems almost like moving the goalposts.
    How does "the system" not equate to reality, and the model not equate to an attempt to describe reality?

    I really can't see how you could possibly take what I originally said and say that you actually meant the exact opposite...



    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    I feel like it is impossible for me to be able to be aware that I am perceiving something without it being colored by my own perception. As a person with your own perspective, perceiving reality purely as it is would be impossible. Even the act of thinking about something means that you are thinking about what you comprehend it as.
    Yeah, I used to be captivated by that thought.

    Then I got over it.

  5. #35
    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 Zarathustra View Post
    How does "the system" not equate to reality, and the model not equate to an attempt to describe reality?

    I really can't see how you could possibly take what I originally said and say that you actually meant the exact opposite...

    Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality. The real world doesn't come packaged up so neatly. We come up with these ways to organize what we see into something coherent...
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

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

  6. #36
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality.
    If "the system" is not reality, then what is it?

    If it is just a representation of the system, then how is it any different than a "model"?

    Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not [they want to make reality fit the model as is]).

  7. #37
    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 Zarathustra View Post
    Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not [they want to make reality fit the model as is]).
    Si thinks that models are reality.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

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

  8. #38
    reborn PeaceBaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    937 so/sx
    Posts
    6,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not (they want to make reality fit the model as is).
    The semantics of system vs model is messing me up a bit here.

    But:

    As an Si tert married to an Si aux, the bolded doesn't gel.

    Si (to me) is like a complex filing structure of facts and information. Once Si has accrued enough data to be confident in a system (and the more I know the better system I can make) any new pieces of information will be sorted as to whether they fit or don't fit. If enough pieces don't fit, it seems to me Si can more readily (albeit slowly or grudgingly at times) release the old system and take in the new information to create a new and improved system. One needs to be aware that the grumpiness isn't about trying to make reality fit a model; it's about realizing you have to modify the system you already built to match what's observably real as a model and that's kind of annoying? The model IS reality, not an hypothesized or idealized or imagined reality, and not the Ni kind of model which has wiggly parameters. An Si model must conform to observable reality?

    An example came to mind ... my ENTJ sis-in-law is in the middle of a separation from her dirt-bag cheating soon to be ex-husband. Without going into a long story, she was concerned he had bugged her home phone in order to know what she was talking about with her lawyer (model: he has the phone bugged.) If this model were TRUE (Si says, assuming this is a true model of what's going on) you would need to modify your system to 1.) see if this model is true by using tools to ensure you're not being spied on 2.) change your habits to ensure your privacy is not being compromised and 3.) takes steps to ensure any future ideas to SPY cannot be readily implemented. BUT - sis-in-law keeps using the same system! She hasn't even changed her old passwords on her voice mail or computer, didn't research how to make sure she doesn't have cameras or listening devices in her home etc etc. It's not that she's a stupid or lazy person. She just did a mental shift (model change) to say, "He's probably not smart enough to do that anyway" WHICH I would agree is 90% probable, but I mean, if you think it's possible, and you're going to repeatedly worry about it when you are talking on the phone, why wouldn't you be sure and do the due diligence required?

    Si says ... if that model is true, there's a whole bunch of things I can do to prove or disprove it. I think young Si too readily trusts the other models that people have made and doesn't challenge them as much as they deserve to be challenged. (or maybe that's my tert Si lol)

    Here's another crazy example ... all my life I was told, "cotton panties are best because they breathe". Every pair of panties you buy is cotton or has a cotton gusset. A few weeks ago I read a story that says that 100% real silk panties are best for a ladies nether-regions. WHAT? That demolished this model I had accepted in my head for such a long time, almost unquestioningly I realized! Those kind of paradigm-shifts are annoying, especially when the initial statements are declared as TRUTH when in reality they are only truth believed to be true at this moment in time. I think Ni "gets" that better than Si does. Naturally, I went to research it myself at that point. Turns out this silk is a specially-treated silk and heaven knows where you can buy these special panties. (lol will send link if anyone's interested, they are supposed to significantly reduce yeast infections).

    Anyways, sorry for the tangents or if that doesn't mesh somehow ... @Owfin, I think it's excellent you're here discussing all this!
    "Remember always that you not only have the right to be an individual, you have an obligation to be one."
    Eleanor Roosevelt


    "When people see some things as beautiful,
    other things become ugly.
    When people see some things as good,
    other things become bad."
    Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

  9. #39
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    Si thinks that models are reality.
    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.

  10. #40
    Senior Member sculpting's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,226

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    Yeah I'm inclined to agree.

    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.

    An ISTJ with some serious conceptual muscle, girl you're so sexy right now!
    haha, I totally agree-for some reason, the SiTe in the abstract is kinda...well, I dunno, but I like it!

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