# Thread: Si and Ni - how to tell the difference?

1. Originally Posted by Copyleft
The logic of MBTI is based around the idea that introverted types utilize their secondary extroverted function to interact with the external world, and therefore tire out easier when engaged with it (which differentiates them from the extroverts). Since the extroverted function is used for interacting, the introverted types appear to the world/interact with the world through their primary extroverted function (Te for INTJs). Thus, introverted J types have rational functions as their secondary functions rather than their primary, and appear as rational despite an irrational (more comfortable) primary function.

It actually makes quite a bit of sense, imo.
It only holds water if you ignore other possible explanations. That solution is convoluted and actually an illogical conclusion. You have to start with the conclusion itself and retroactively explain why it's arranged that way, which you could do with any system at all. The conclusion didn't come about via analysis and logic. It's forced.

Socionics function assignment is more logical (Though still flawed imo). Intuition and sensing are perceiving functions, so Ps are intuition or sensing dominant. Furthermore, no one with a head on their shoulders will tell you that any function is fully directed inward or outward, so an "Ni" dominant under Socionics still uses Ne.

2. Originally Posted by Uberfuhrer
Talking about temperament, maybe you should curb yours.

3. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
It only holds water if you ignore other possible explanations. That solution is convoluted and actually an illogical conclusion. You have to start with the conclusion itself and retroactively explain why it's arranged that way, which you could do with any system at all. The conclusion didn't come about via analysis and logic. It's forced.

Socionics function assignment is more logical (Though still flawed imo). Intuition and sensing are perceiving functions, so Ps are intuition or sensing dominant. Furthermore, no one with a head on their shoulders will tell you that any function is fully directed inward or outward, so an "Ni" dominant under Socionics still uses Ne.
So your saying that a dominant Ni person uses Ni to interact with the external world, or that they use Ne? I'm wondering why no function is fully directed inward or outward, but a dominant "Ni" person uses Ne, rather than Ni. Or are you saying that someone who is primary Ni easily accesses Ne?

4. Originally Posted by Copyleft
So your saying that a dominant Ni person uses Ni to interact with the external world, or that they use Ne? I'm wondering why no function is fully directed inward or outward, but a dominant "Ni" person uses Ne, rather than Ni. Or are you saying that someone who is primary Ni easily accesses Ne?
I don't personally think the separation of e and i is worthwhile in the context of 16-type systems like MBTI and Socionics. (That's why I made an alternate function system.) I'm not alone if you look at type descriptions, even function-use descriptions of a particular type. The definitions are muddled in practice so that some Ne is included in the description of Ni use, and vice versa. Someone included a good example of that recently, somewhere on the forum.

Most important to all this is that I don't think Jung's descriptions are well-suited to the personality type systems we use, and they should have been modified, but never were. I did that myself, by throwing out e/i for functions and simplifying the definitions so everything fits together without complications.

5. Originally Posted by Jack Flak
I don't personally think the separation of e and i is worthwhile in the context of 16-type systems like MBTI and Socionics. (That's why I made an alternate function system.) I'm not alone if you look at type descriptions, even function-use descriptions of a particular type. The definitions are muddled in practice so that some Ne is included in the description of Ni use, and vice versa. Someone included a good example of that recently, somewhere on the forum.

Most important to all this is that I don't think Jung's descriptions are well-suited to the personality type systems we use, and they should have been modified, but never were. I did that myself, by throwing out e/i for functions and simplifying the definitions so everything fits together without complications.
Then for you, there is no functional backing to the types? There would be no difference, functionally, between a socionics INTP and ENTP.

6. Originally Posted by Copyleft
Then for you, there is no functional backing to the types? There would be no difference, functionally, between a socionics INTP and ENTP.
That's correct, and I don't see why it's a problem. It solves problems.

Take your example, ENTP & INTP. I see no theoretical reason to assume, nor have I observed in individuals, a defined preference for Ne in ENTPs, and Ni in INTPs. General introversion and extroversion alone can fully account for the personality difference.

7. Introverted Sensing:

6. Sensation

Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception. What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more or less influential co-operation of the subjective factor. The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters [p. 499] the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation, although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulant. Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus. Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness -- it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas. The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for whom the [p. 500] subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.

In case you failed to notice, that doesn't describe the ISxJ.

8. How many ISJs do you know very, very well?

9. Originally Posted by Haphazard
How many ISJs do you know very, very well?
I know my ISTJ mom and ISFJ aunt pretty well, had an ISTJ "friend" growing up, and an ISTJ roommate for a year.

10. All I can see is your insistence that IJ types work on a closed circuit. Nothing more.

#### 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