Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[simulatedworld]

Ok, first of all, it makes no sense to say that two things are exactly the same and then say how they're different. It's a very sloppy use of language. If they're different at all, then they're not exactly the same.

Sim, I can't believe you gave a +1 to that kind of tripe, for the reasons I just stated above. (-1)

Ok, my mistake--"exactly the same" is not an effective wording here because there are differences.

However, Si and Ni are the same in terms of the type of cognitive task they perform, which I think is what OMT was alluding to.

I think many people (especially INJs) underestimate the similarity between Ni and Si, because I think Si in general is very poorly understood and given a lot of inaccurate descriptions by people who think SJs are all just mindless rule/tradition zombies. (This manifests itself on the forum in terms of ISJs mistyping themselves as INJs being the most common self-typing mistake.)

VagrantFarce already explained this better than I can, so I'll reference his post here:

OK, so I'm pretty sure both Si and Ni are about anticipating things before they happen, whereas Ne and Se are about reacting to things while they happen. So both Si and Ni draw on the past, and both Si and Ni predict the future - but they don't share the same focus.

This is a good way of putting it. They both deal with interpreting personalized meaning of signs and symbols of all sorts. The criteria used to interpret them is focused differently, but they're performing the same kind of task.

Also I agree that some of the definitions given here (namely by INTJs) are blurring the line between Ni and Te when they talk about "choosing the most effective way of getting things done", etc. Ni is a perceiving function so it's not making any kind of judgment about anything except the way meaning is interpreted. Ni might see a lot of different ways to look at a problem, but it can't pick the most effective/applicable one without help from Je.

 

[Uytuun]

They both gather external perceptions and internally organize these perceptions relative to the self, thereby making them personally meaningful (or personally lack meaning).

What is this talk about external perceptions? And internal organisation relative to the self?

Methinks you are projecting, P!

Also, someone mentioned the use of an internal standard, what would that one be?

Si is an introverted perceiving function like Ni (so its functional status might be the same), but IME what Si users see (and how etc.) when they look inside is vastly different from what Ni users see. I suppose they might both see pathways, but how many and where (what does the "inside" look like) and how and to what end and how they are conceptualised and if they can or can't go underground and if they are even there at all and how they are created, what context they live (yes I said live) in, if they can be meta-ed...all very different. These things influence your mentality and the way in which you live significantly IME.

I think it's difficult to look at the functions in isolation.

And I think in a way both Si and Ni consider themselves universal and eternal rather than referring to the past, although one can see how they are made up of it (each again in its very own way and with its own approach and unique "introverted perception pool" as a result - concrete vs. conceptual/abstract).

it would be better to examine the two through some other lens, set apart by an equal distance from both Ni and Si, that way there's no comparative bias.

You want to demystify Ni...talk about ambition. Practice the humility you preach, pokémon.

 

[Jaguar]

I think Si in general is very poorly understood and given a lot of inaccurate descriptions by people who think SJs are all just mindless rule/tradition zombies.

Those mindless SJ millionaires are a giant pain in the ass.
I think it's much better to deliver pizza and smoke crack.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Those mindless SJ millionaires are a giant pain in the ass.
I think it's much better to deliver pizza and smoke crack.

Then do it, if you aren't already.

 

[Kalach]

I find ISTJs hypnotic. I recently encountered two ISTJs, both professionally type tested and satisfied with their profiles. They were like me, but... competent.

I think that to say Si is about facts and details is to substantially underestimate it as a cognitive resource, indeed as a cognitive project. For example, Si cannot be "a oneness with ageless customs" if it is just a bunch of memories. But since it's an introverted perceiving function, there'll be not just perceptions, but perceptions of perceptions. Which is a bit weird and really hard to understand unless perhaps we recall that Si users will reflect on memories and on current comparisons, and that that reflection is itself perception (given that Si includes, as it is supposed to, accurate recall of detail.)

 

[simulatedworld]

I think that to say Si is about facts and details is to substantially underestimate it as a cognitive resource, indeed as a cognitive project. For example, Si cannot be "a oneness with ageless customs" if it is just a bunch of memories. But since it's an introverted perceiving function, there'll be not just perceptions, but perceptions of perceptions. Which is a bit weird and really hard to understand unless perhaps we recall that Si users will reflect on memories and on current comparisons, and that that reflection is itself perception (given that Si includes, as it is supposed to, accurate recall of detail.)

this

 

[IZthe411]

I think that to say Si is about facts and details is to substantially underestimate it as a cognitive resource, indeed as a cognitive project. For example, Si cannot be "a oneness with ageless customs" if it is just a bunch of memories. But since it's an introverted perceiving function, there'll be not just perceptions, but perceptions of perceptions. Which is a bit weird and really hard to understand unless perhaps we recall that Si users will reflect on memories and on current comparisons, and that that reflection is itself perception (given that Si includes, as it is supposed to, accurate recall of detail.)

I've read a lot of definitions of perceptions of my perceptions and this is one of the better ones.

I'm at a loss for words to describe how either Si or Ni work. Since it's an internal, perceptive function, until now I've never really thought about it.

I like these types of comparative discussions.

 

[Jaguar]

Then do it, if you aren't already.

No, thanks.

 

[onemoretime]

I've read a lot of definitions of perceptions of my perceptions and this is one of the better ones.

I'm at a loss for words to describe how either Si or Ni work. Since it's an internal, perceptive function, until now I've never really thought about it.

I like these types of comparative discussions.

Introverted perception, as I understand it, is nothing more than "imagination" or "insight". Si is more object-oriented, while Ni is more subject-oriented.

Hard Si - what I remember others saying must always be right, and what I imagine must be fantasy.

Hard Ni - what I imagine must always be right, and what I remember others saying must be incorrect.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle, like it is for almost all things.

 

[IZthe411]

Introverted perception, as I understand it, is nothing more than "imagination" or "insight". Si is more object-oriented, while Ni is more subject-oriented.

Hard Si - what I remember others saying must always be right, and what I imagine must be fantasy.

Hard Ni - what I imagine must always be right, and what I remember others saying must be incorrect.

The truth, of course, is somewhere in the middle, like it is for almost all things.

That's interesting. Why would you look at it as an subject/object split?

 

[onemoretime]

That's interesting. Why would you look at it as an subject/object split?

The decision is whether the appropriate perspective for judgment comes from one's subjective beliefs, or from previously-understood objective information.

I characterize it as a "decision" because I don't see this as an inborn trait. I think that the distinction between dependence on others as a frame for judgment, opposed to dependence on oneself, initially comes through early childhood development and is later tempered through life experience.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

hi, Sy! I really liked your post, and some others, while reading this thread. I see you are an istj now. How come?

Si remembers sensory experiences and draws conclusions.
Ni takes information abstractly (not via the senses) and draws conclusions.

We all have memory. I think that just needs to be said.

Si doms seem to tie their memory to objects, and since people are objects to them, they have good memory of things they've witnessed people doing. Their perceiving function will have to run through F or T though, and both will flavor their memory storage and judging accordingly. SolitaryWalker talks all about this is in the type profiles in his book.

Ni doms seem to tie their memory to abstract ideas. My memory sucks when it comes to objective data, but I can recall entire feelings or concepts surrounding an event from the past, including how people reacted emotionally (Fe), and draw on that in the present for the present, or for the future.

Ni is about synthesizing information and creating a vision of the future.
Si is about synthesizing information and creating a vision of the past, a frame of reference for the future. Both impel one to realize goals and keep you focused.

Si is comparative, as is Ni, but Ni does it on an abstract level whereas Si does it on a concrete level.

Synthesizing means:

In general, the noun synthesis (from the ancient Greek σύνθεσις, σύν "with" and θέσις "placing") refers to the combining of two or more entities to form something new.

Ni gathers abstract concepts (think imagination on crack) and combines them with stored memories from experiences or truths already gleaned, to form new hypotheses. Since new ideas are, well, new, and not tested, it lends a forward-leaning focus to Ni; hence the 'future' orientatation we all hear so much about in Ni-dom archetypes.

Si gathers concrete images and subjectifies them either through T or F, committing them to memory. Since objects do not change over time like abstract concepts, an Si dom's memory will appear more rigid or rooted in tradition than Ni; it would take a change in the physical universe to change Si's experiences. If the Si dom was an F judger, then perhaps they would appear more flexible than an Si dom who uses T, because facts will not change so much as people will. In this consideration, I don't see Si as synthesizing much; once it's perceptions are cemented in experience, little sythesis would need to occur, because things will basically remain status quo, at least for an STJ. And I'd guess that could happen as early as middle-childhood, because by then, the STJ would have had enough validation in his/her judgment function over time and repetition, that by adulthood, they could be fairly mentally steadfast individuals, if living in a healthy environment, etc.

Ni takes in information and melds it into a shape as does Si. Why do you think SJs are often conservative?

Si bases itself on the past and facts. If it's worked and is empirically based, then it's good enough to keep for the future.

Yes, because facts don't change much (STJ). People change more (SFJ), but even people exhibit the same patterns over time, hence the fields of psychology and pyschotherpay and psychiatry.

Ni bases itself on symbolic concepts since it gathers it's information abstractly and thus is focused on the facts' patterns rather than the actual facts. So it theorizes of what might be the best approach in the future based on such perceived patterns.

So, I think Ni and Si are similar in some regards and vastly different in others. Personally, I feel like Ni is much closer to Ne than Si, because to change attitudes is much easier than to change preferences. But I am very N. Some people who have perceiving and judging divides that are close, might very likely be more comfortable with going between preferences, not attitudes, like Ni and Si, in a InTJ who tests 55/45 N/S. They would likely do better with Si than Ne, but that's just my own hypothesis of course.

I think it's worth noting that STJs that I know, seem to have little patience with dreaming; they are more perfunctory. Because what is there to dream about? The universe is constant, mathematical laws are unchanging, and things are the way they are. If facts change, then great, things might be able to change up a bit, but otherwise, it's just about capitalizing on what you already know to be true.

Ni is always seeking out new truths and new discoveries; dreaming. How able you are to do this depends on whether you are T or F; hindered by factual proof, or not.

VagrantFarce says:

OK, so I'm pretty sure both Si and Ni are about anticipating things before they happen, whereas Ne and Se are about reacting to things while they happen. So both Si and Ni draw on the past, and both Si and Ni predict the future - but they don't share the same focus.

I don't feel like I anticipate though. The thrust of my Ni is to SEE. See the truth, see a better way, see the motivation. That is why I will exit a debate if my Ti is not able to keep up with a Ti dom/aux, and it is not allowing my Ti to keep up. Because I cannot allow my vision to be occluded in any way, shape, or form. It's like having someone put a hand up to my eyes when i am trying to see something in the distance. It's extremely annoying. haha. Ni is not necessarily about anticipate. Anticipation implies a bit of doing something. And my Ni is not doing anything but trying to SEE.

I'd say Si's thrust is to recall. Recall experiences so that they can judge whether or not this is indeed a rare piece of new data that needs to be added to the databank, or if it has, as is usual, already been defined.

 

[VagrantFarce]

Anticipation implies a bit of doing something.

I always thought the opposite - it's a way for people to "brace for impact", in a way. "I'm not going to enter into this process, because I already know what I need to know." It's a way for people to perceive without actually taking anything in; "you can't make me look", that one stubborn rock in the river , etc.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

I always thought the opposite - it's a way for people to "brace for impact", in a way. "I'm not going to enter into this process, because I already know what I need to know." It's a way for people to perceive without actually taking anything in; "you can't make me look", that one stubborn rock in the river , etc.

I wouldn't use it as an adjective personally, to describe Ni. But you can.

 

[Kalach]

Y'all are missing something fundamental. If Si is but a collection of data available for recall and Ni is but an accounting of the abstract connections available in the data, then both functions are really nothing other than packrat versions of Se and Ne saddled with a slow and sickly connection to immediate reality. And this is not true.

You're also kinda screwed up on the definition of objective and subjective with respect to functions.

 

[onemoretime]

Y'all are missing something fundamental. If Si is but a collection of data available for recall and Ni is but an accounting of the abstract connections available in the data, then both functions are really nothing other than packrat versions of Se and Ne saddled with a slow and sickly connection to immediate reality. And this is not true.

More like, the introverted perceiving function is the brain's mechanism for sorting through stored sensory data, while the extraverted perceiving function is the brain's mechanism for sorting through real-time data.

It's not that special. Everyone has both.

And I don't care about the formal definition of functions. I care about how it seems the brain works.

 

[Kalach]

Psyke!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Y'all are missing something fundamental. If Si is but a collection of data available for recall and Ni is but an accounting of the abstract connections available in the data, then both functions are really nothing other than packrat versions of Se and Ne saddled with a slow and sickly connection to immediate reality. And this is not true.

You're also kinda screwed up on the definition of objective and subjective with respect to functions.

I don't recall ever limiting my description of Si and Ni/ I was simply trying to give a gist of their overall nature inasmuch as I understand it. You inferred 'is but an' yourself. After reading your convoluted definitions of functions on here for more than one year, and trying to make sense of them, your criticism of my interpretation of functions means very little to me. But if you'd like to respectfully dialogue with me about them, I'd welcome that. I'm done with condescending put downs about my viewpoints in that regard.

 

[durentu]

you know that Jung wrote what these functions mean in detail in his paper "psychological types" ? might want to save yourself the trouble and check his work.

 

[Kalach]

The missing fundament is some description of what these functions do while introverted. Mere hoarding of perception doesn't cut it. There is some further, ongoing processing--internal and technically removed from the immediate world.

Si, for example, creates ideal images. Multiple physical details, accurately recalled, are combined to produce a Platonic object, an ideal physical form that does not necessarily correspond to any one real object. Naturally there are individual variations, what with different users having had different immediate sensory experiences, but for any one user this created ideal *is* the object.

And we do rightly say "object" for the content of Si and Ni because, at least for Js, the organisational logic imposed on perception comes from an e function--and e functions objectify.

This, for example, presumably means that Si users can, technically, do more with their perception than merely categorise the explicitly physical world. Inside their sense experiences there will be analogues of abstractions--numbers, for presumed example, created from long sense experiences of the printed pages of Math texts, teachers' blackboard chalkings, the users own pencilings... and though they may manipulate these things as physical objects, still they reference abstractions.


...he says, hypothesizing.