User Tag List

First 34567 Last

Results 41 to 50 of 74

  1. #41
    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
    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?
    "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

  2. #42
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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.
    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*

  3. #43
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    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

  4. #44
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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...

  5. #45
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    @Zarathustra 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...

    i do not claim to be an expert.

  6. #46
    Senior Member Owfin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    6w7 sp/sx
    Socionics
    N/A
    Posts
    261

    Default

    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.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

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

  7. #47
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.
    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

  8. #48
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    Huh? When did I say that the system isn't reality?
    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    I don't really understand how you can see the system itself as reality...
    Ummm...

    These two are not compatible...

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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...

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    Neither of us see reality itself.
    Feel free to feel that way about yourself.

    I, myself, am pretty good at seeing reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai View Post
    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.

  9. #49
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin View Post
    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.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

    A discussion is two people sharing their understanding, even when they disagree.

  10. #50
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    rofl, @animenagai, i was just teasing zara... he knows i have a fondness for Ni users

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

    i would be curious to hear from @Owfin 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 @Zarathustra would be happy to discuss some advantages of Ni over Si...

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