User Tag List

First 45678 Last

Results 51 to 60 of 74

  1. #51
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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...

  2. #52
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    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.
    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. #53
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by Owfin
    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:

    Quote Originally Posted by animenagai
    When did I say that the system isn't reality?

  4. #54
    Senior Member animenagai's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    NeFi
    Enneagram
    4w3
    Posts
    1,573

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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:




    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.
    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

  5. #55
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    6w5 sx/so
    Posts
    8,161

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by skylights View Post
    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).
    Likes Noon liked this post

  6. #56
    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 uumlau View Post
    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.
    I don't see any invisible treasure chests.

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

  7. #57
    Happy Dancer uumlau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    953 sp/so
    Posts
    5,708

    Default

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

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

  8. #58
    i love skylights's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    6w7 so/sx
    Socionics
    EII Ne
    Posts
    7,835

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zarathustra View Post
    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.



    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.

  9. #59
    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
    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.
    An argument is two people sharing their ignorance.

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

  10. #60
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    10,501

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uumlau View Post
    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.
    Im out, its been fun

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