Venom
Babylon Candle
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
- Messages
- 2,126
- MBTI Type
- INTJ
- Enneagram
- 1w9
- Instinctual Variant
- sp/sx
The following is an almost symmetrical schematic that I hope clearly explains both verbally and non-verbally that I feel Si and Ni are more related than Ne and Ni. This may sound like blashphemy to those who feel "only N's ever understand me!" However, after reading through functions and trying to realize what the essential elements of difference were:
its data, and how that data is twisted (or not twisted). In this sense, Si and Ni seem to be more of the same genus than Se and Si do. The difference within regards how that data is twisted (or not twisted). Read on for a sort of schematic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pi<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Si <----Pi----> Ni
--------------->
trade off concrete, chronological ordering only for less chronological "forward guessing"/liquid application of data.
<-------------
trade off forward application for more concrete and chronological cataloging
Ni is more dynamic and is almost like "more free flowing/ambitious" Si (ambitious =! the success sense)
Si is more static and is almost like "down to earth/conservative" Ni (conservative =! the political sense)
Both are based on "what you know" (you're the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pe<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Se <----Pe---> Ne
--------------------->
trade off concrete vision for pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits"
<-------------------
trade off pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits" for more concrete vision of the world
Ne is more dynamic and is almost like "unrestrained" Se
Se is more static and is more like "restrained" Ne
Both are based on "what you see" (the environment is the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Questions, comments or critiques???
its data, and how that data is twisted (or not twisted). In this sense, Si and Ni seem to be more of the same genus than Se and Si do. The difference within regards how that data is twisted (or not twisted). Read on for a sort of schematic:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pi<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Si <----Pi----> Ni
--------------->
trade off concrete, chronological ordering only for less chronological "forward guessing"/liquid application of data.
<-------------
trade off forward application for more concrete and chronological cataloging
Ni is more dynamic and is almost like "more free flowing/ambitious" Si (ambitious =! the success sense)
Si is more static and is almost like "down to earth/conservative" Ni (conservative =! the political sense)
Both are based on "what you know" (you're the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Pe<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Se <----Pe---> Ne
--------------------->
trade off concrete vision for pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits"
<-------------------
trade off pattern extrapolation within recognizable "limits" for more concrete vision of the world
Ne is more dynamic and is almost like "unrestrained" Se
Se is more static and is more like "restrained" Ne
Both are based on "what you see" (the environment is the focus point) (this point i admittedly got from another member)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Questions, comments or critiques???