• 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

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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:

It's an interesting theory. I wonder if it's true. It seems right.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
It's an interesting theory. I wonder if it's true. It seems right.

I know that my description of how Si works is right, because I know how I think. What I was feeling more ambiguous about was Ni, because the Ni method is alien to me.
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
huh, thank you for this- I don't know if I'm buying it right away, but would like to see you stick around and clarify (for our lovely group) some more on Si :)
 

highlander

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 23, 2009
Messages
26,562
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
6w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I know that my description of how Si works is right, because I know how I think. What I was feeling more ambiguous about was Ni, because the Ni method is alien to me.

If I understand what you mean by models, I tend to think of them as an oversimplification. They aren't bad though. They are a representation and useful in communicating things. It's a good way of making a repeatable approach that provides consistent results too. They should be tweaked for every situation though. So yeah - moving goal posts.
 

Lightyear

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
899
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?
 

King sns

New member
Joined
Nov 4, 2008
Messages
6,714
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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)
 

Lightyear

New member
Joined
Jul 3, 2008
Messages
899
To Si, Ni's approach seems almost like moving the goalposts.

I relate to the moving the goalposts bit. I don't think my example really fits with your theory of models and systems but one area where I recognise my Ni and that I am always moving the goalposts is when I emotionally evaluate a situation. I am naturally an optimist and when something happens to me that could be considered negative (for example I lose my job) than I will turn the situation around in my head so much until I find something positive about it (of course without completely deluding myself; so I might tell myself that it was time for a change anyway, losing the job is actually a blessing in disguise etc.) That's definitely moving the goalposts, looking at the situation from a different perspective and spinning the story until I can see something positive in it. I am not sure how an Si user would react, if that kind of attitude would drive him crazy.
 

CuriousFeeling

From the Undertow
Joined
Dec 18, 2009
Messages
2,937
MBTI Type
INfJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
I am an Ni-dom, and I am a systems thinker. So this concept of systems vs. models (Ni/Si) seems quite valid. I'll often come up with a model that will best represent the system that is being illustrated, but if the model is inconsistent with how the system operates, then I will refine the model, make modifications to it.

Best example I can give is in experimentation. I make a prediction of how the results will turn out. If the results are inconsistent with the hypothesis I had just made, then I will come up with an explanation of how the hypothesis didn't work out, and what other variables came into play in the experiment that altered expected results.
 
S

Sniffles

Guest
I can relate to the characterization of systems; which to me would be like that of ideas or philosophies while models would be more about how such would operate in a concrete context.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
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.
 

INTP

Active member
Joined
Jul 31, 2009
Messages
7,803
MBTI Type
intp
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx
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 :D.
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
 

EJCC

The Devil of TypoC
Joined
Aug 29, 2008
Messages
19,129
MBTI Type
ESTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
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. :doh:)

I dunno :shrug: My metaphor for Si as a filing cabinet has always worked for me. But I've never understood Ni all that well.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.:shrug:
 

the state i am in

Active member
Joined
Feb 12, 2009
Messages
2,475
MBTI Type
infj
Enneagram
5w4
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
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.
 

Owfin

New member
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
261
MBTI Type
ISTJ
Enneagram
6w7
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
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.
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
this is a great thread [MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION]! I am highly intrigued...
 
A

Anew Leaf

Guest
this is a great thread [MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION]! I am highly intrigued...
 
Top