1. ## Si Vs Ni: It Ain't Tradition

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.

2. Originally Posted by Owfin
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.

3. Originally Posted by highlander
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.

4. 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

5. Originally Posted by Owfin
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.

6. 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?

7. Originally Posted by Lightyear
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)

8. Originally Posted by Owfin
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.

9. 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.

10. 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.

#### 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