Si Vs Ni: It Ain't Tradition

[the state i am in]

yeah, for instance, as a teacher, i struggle to come up with relevant examples on the spot for my students. all my meanings are marked to be slightly different than the general usages, because i have my own belief constructs that are creating strange and fluid concepts. and i have enormous difficulty at times starting from simplified contexts and concrete objects to begin building something from the ground up.

i think, when you combine those differences with Te, which trusts empirical data, facts, specific test results, well, it makes it more difficult even to bridge the gap because someone is consistently using different forms of information than your own relevant pieces of knowledge. and Te really really wants to regulate the argument and build the infrastructure for how the argument will unfold. i'm still trying to figure out how Te works for Ni types. i've noticed 5w6 types seem to be the most skeptical of all, and 1w9s are extremely pragmatic and want empirical verifiability and immediate application all the damn time.

 

[Owfin]

yeah, for instance, as a teacher, i struggle to come up with relevant examples on the spot for my students. all my meanings are marked to be slightly different than the general usages, because i have my own belief constructs that are creating strange and fluid concepts. and i have enormous difficulty at times starting from simplified contexts and concrete objects to begin building something from the ground up.

The problem with your way of solving it, is that Si doesn't really start from contexts at all. It starts with objects to build up contexts. The issue is that each individual Si user is going to make their own meanings from their internalized information, and so they would see your contexts you give them as spoon-feeding them, even if it was never meant to come across that way.

i think, when you combine those differences with Te, which trusts empirical data, facts, specific test results, well, it makes it more difficult even to bridge the gap because someone is consistently using different forms of information than your own relevant pieces of knowledge. and Te really really wants to regulate the argument and build the infrastructure for how the argument will unfold. i'm still trying to figure out how Te works for Ni types. i've noticed 5w6 types seem to be the most skeptical of all, and 1w9s are extremely pragmatic and want empirical verifiability and immediate application all the damn time.

And Te doesn't trust internal judgement as being an accurate way of determining truth. It would see the most reliable and true source of information as a completely external and objective entity, which it would call "reality".

 

[the state i am in]

hmm, is this attitude also related to e6 as well?

i'm trying to think through what you are saying, but i do admit that i am struggling to think outside my own assumptions. what would work for you? how would you prefer to learn in a classroom? do you agree that ultimately it is important to be able to critically relate contexts as well as objects in order to understand how complex problems fit together?

i think we agree regarding Te's tendencies. but i also think we are demonstrating that as far as knowing objectively what is "out there" in external reality, we are only guessing, as Te is a function designed to make predictions and refine itself as a prediction framework. how would you respond to this?

 

[Owfin]

hmm, is this attitude also related to e6 as well?

i'm trying to think through what you are saying, but i do admit that i am struggling to think outside my own assumptions. what would work for you? how would you prefer to learn in a classroom? do you agree that ultimately it is important to be able to critically relate contexts as well as objects in order to understand how complex problems fit together?

It really depends on the class it is for. Some styles really are much better suited for some classes than others. My favorite style that I have experienced is in a literature class, where we read part of a book every night, and our teacher would write a provocative discussion question on the board. After about 5-10 minutes of quiet brainstorming, we would have a discussion with no hand raising and little to no teacher input. On grammar days, our teacher dug really deep into the whys and would let us ask "unrelated" questions that fueled curiosty. Sometimes he would start the day on a tangent loosly related to the subject.

But if you teach, say, the hard sciences, that would not be a very good approach. I think that it is good to mix it up a bit. I generally prefer relating objects, but it can add a lot of interest to relate the fundamental structures of things to one another. I think that you should do explain mostly in the way you can best explain in, and most students will understand what you are doing. Trying to explain in a way that feels jarring will probably confuse people. I found that if I was a bit confused about how a teacher explained something, it was really helpful to visit them while they were on their break and ask them for help.

i think we agree regarding Te's tendencies. but i also think we are demonstrating that as far as knowing objectively what is "out there" in external reality, we are only guessing, as Te is a function designed to make predictions and refine itself as a prediction framework. how would you respond to this?

I see Te as a function designed to thwack an introverted percieving function with proof or disproof from something outside of the individual's own little world. It brings some reality into the equation and forces the individual to do something other than ferment in their own mind, completely disconnected from the world.

 

[Rail Tracer]

This is only an example that I came up with on the fly.

I think of Government as a system, and I think of Democracy/Socialism/Communism/Monarchy/etc as a model for a system of government. Within the Democratic System (the Democratic Model is also a system,) there are also smaller chains of Democratic Models (yes... the U.S. Democratic Model isn't the only form there is,) and ad infinitum. Then again, that's what I get when I think of a system and a model. A chain of lines all spawning from a dot, within that line, there are more dots. When we look at those individual dots, we see more lines.

If government is a system, then yes, the models (say Democracy as an example) should be changed to a new model, or at least fixed, if it isn't working for the system (government.) If the Democratic System is not working, then yes, the Democratic Model should be adjusted.

By what you are saying, a Si user would say:
No, the Democratic Model isn't the problem, the Democratic System is the problem.

By what you are saying for a Ni user, the Ni user would say:
No, the Democratic System is working, it is the Democratic Model that needs fixing.



But I think, here is the catch, it depends on whether the person sees an idea as a System or a Model at the given moment.

 

[Eric B]

I think it's a great observation.

Ni deals with subtraction from conceptual data according to an internalized ________*, and Si deals with subtraction from tangible data according to an internal ______*.

Though I could see where "models" can be ambiguous and cross over to other things, including products of iNtuition. For one, the reason why words were left out, is that "models" is what I would generally use there, for both S and N, and even T and F. It's actually most often used for Ti, in fact!
"Model" most often refers to any internal set of blueprints used to subtract what is irrelevant from data of all four functions.

Then, in the above post, it looks like "models" is being used as another term for concept, which is basically an N product. "Models" of political systems would be concepts, not any tangible or "concrete" element. (Hence, politics being another one of those "abstract" subjects, like religion, which typical SJ society conventions says should not be discussed in public).
And actually, when I think of "systems"; I tend to think of the actual outworking. The "system" is the actual tangible or "concrete" thing that is working, and the "model" is the conceptual or "abstract" idea of it.

What I think the term "model" used for Si was intended to convey was a practical application of the system, with "description" being the key word indicating "concrete language". So The actual running of the government, or making actual changes to the way it is run would be the actual S "model" that could be "described". But that could still be called a "system" too, as what is being described is also "a set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole".

 

[Zarathustra]

[MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION], I am bothered by your construction.

I have been thinking about it for a few weeks, and my original conviction about it has not changed.

Your construction seems to imply that ISTJs wish to force their model on reality, while INTJs wish to understand reality as it is.

I'm not saying that this is not the case, as, aside from the weak terminology of "model vs system", I think it's somewhat accurate.

My father is an ISTJ, so I have a lifetime of evidence about this, and your construction makes ISTJs that much more bothersome to me.

 

[Ginkgo]

I would think that both impose equal force on reality but develop their understanding of reality in different ways. The way they impose force is different as well as their motivations are different.

I would think that IXFJs are softer, exploring imagination and developing understanding. Yeah, sure, they're supposedly directive, which suggests a greater force of will. But... Hmmm...

*gets lost in thought and eats Chef Boyardee*

 

[Owfin]

[MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION], I am bothered by your construction... Your construction seems to imply that ISTJs wish to force their model on reality, while INTJs wish to understand reality as it is.

Really? I felt like I had put it the other way around. Also, I constantly change my theory a bit, so sometimes I can disagree with my own posts.

I feel like it is impossible for me to be able to be aware that I am perceiving something without it being colored by my own perception. As a person with your own perspective, perceiving reality purely as it is would be impossible. Even the act of thinking about something means that you are thinking about what you comprehend it as.

 

[animenagai]

This is intriguing. Do you think this idea stretches out all the way to our tertiary and last functions? In other words, I'm Si last, do you think I have more faith in models over systems? This gets a bit tricky imo, I've never bought into the standard view of functions. My Ni is stronger than my Si.

edit: After thinking about it, I think I would change the system, not the model. Hmm interesting, the traditional functional order at least has functional uses.

 

[Owfin]

This is intriguing. Do you think this idea stretches out all the way to our tertiary and last functions? In other words, I'm Si last, do you think I have more faith in models over systems? This gets a bit tricky imo, I've never bought into the standard view of functions. My Ni is stronger than my Si.

I would have to gather more information about Se types to form a complete theory about Pe, so that's up in the air. But I will say that Ne-Si and Si-Ne would use the same framework, but focus their attention on different sides.

 

[animenagai]

I would have to gather more information about Se types to form a complete theory about Pe, so that's up in the air. But I will say that Ne-Si and Si-Ne would use the same framework, but focus their attention on different sides.

Yeah I'm inclined to agree.

It's only natural for the Ni user to have so much faith in the system, it fits with their universal type of thinking. To them, I guess one counterexample/flaw shouldn't be enough to change something so much bigger.

An ISTJ with some serious conceptual muscle, girl you're so sexy right now!

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

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.

So, what you are saying here is that an Ni user sees a truth of some sort, and then must go about proving that theory, compiling evidence, as it were, to prove the truth. Whereas an Si user is more likely to believe a piece of evidence and build on it, adding other pieces of evidence to it, to find the consequent truth. Is that kind of close?

For me, the words 'system' and 'model' don't really symbolize this idea. I consider a model to simply be a symbolic representation of a system--the same thing, on an equal plane, just explained with words versus a picture.

I think of Ni in your example as seeing first, then finding how the pieces fit together; versus studying the pieces and configuring them properly. Si cannot make leaps like Ni can perhaps. It must filter sensory knowledge that have already been laid down, then through some contextual comparison process, configure alternate synapses that build up an Si truth as it goes (adding to Si's database). Whereas Ni's abstract ephemeral nature allows for more play in synaptic connections, enabling it to tap into some metaphysical (sorry ) reality and see wisps of truth, even before that truth can be proven. I believe these are both forms of deductive reasoning, just moving conversely.


Super cool thread.

 

[Zarathustra]

Owfin, I am bothered by your construction.

I have been thinking about it for a few weeks, and my original conviction about it has not changed.

Your construction seems to imply that ISTJs wish to force their model on reality, while INTJs wish to understand reality as it is.

Really? I felt like I had put it the other way around.

I don't understand how you could possibly square that with the below:

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.

How does "the system" not equate to reality, and the model not equate to an attempt to describe reality?

I really can't see how you could possibly take what I originally said and say that you actually meant the exact opposite...

I feel like it is impossible for me to be able to be aware that I am perceiving something without it being colored by my own perception. As a person with your own perspective, perceiving reality purely as it is would be impossible. Even the act of thinking about something means that you are thinking about what you comprehend it as.

Yeah, I used to be captivated by that thought.

Then I got over it.

 

[Owfin]

How does "the system" not equate to reality, and the model not equate to an attempt to describe reality?

I really can't see how you could possibly take what I originally said and say that you actually meant the exact opposite...

Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality. The real world doesn't come packaged up so neatly. We come up with these ways to organize what we see into something coherent...

 

[Zarathustra]

Good point... now that I think about it, it's really neither that's reality.

If "the system" is not reality, then what is it?

If it is just a representation of the system, then how is it any different than a "model"?

Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not [they want to make reality fit the model as is]).

 

[Owfin]

Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not [they want to make reality fit the model as is]).

Si thinks that models are reality.

 

[PeaceBaby]

Which brings me back to my original point: your construction seemed to imply that Si users want to force their model on reality, while Ni users want to understand reality as it is (as, per your construction, if their understanding does not seem to fit with reality, they are willing to throw it away/make the necessary modifications to it, while the Si users are not (they want to make reality fit the model as is).

The semantics of system vs model is messing me up a bit here.

But:

As an Si tert married to an Si aux, the bolded doesn't gel.

Si (to me) is like a complex filing structure of facts and information. Once Si has accrued enough data to be confident in a system (and the more I know the better system I can make) any new pieces of information will be sorted as to whether they fit or don't fit. If enough pieces don't fit, it seems to me Si can more readily (albeit slowly or grudgingly at times) release the old system and take in the new information to create a new and improved system. One needs to be aware that the grumpiness isn't about trying to make reality fit a model; it's about realizing you have to modify the system you already built to match what's observably real as a model and that's kind of annoying? The model IS reality, not an hypothesized or idealized or imagined reality, and not the Ni kind of model which has wiggly parameters. An Si model must conform to observable reality?

An example came to mind ... my ENTJ sis-in-law is in the middle of a separation from her dirt-bag cheating soon to be ex-husband. Without going into a long story, she was concerned he had bugged her home phone in order to know what she was talking about with her lawyer (model: he has the phone bugged.) If this model were TRUE (Si says, assuming this is a true model of what's going on) you would need to modify your system to 1.) see if this model is true by using tools to ensure you're not being spied on 2.) change your habits to ensure your privacy is not being compromised and 3.) takes steps to ensure any future ideas to SPY cannot be readily implemented. BUT - sis-in-law keeps using the same system! She hasn't even changed her old passwords on her voice mail or computer, didn't research how to make sure she doesn't have cameras or listening devices in her home etc etc. It's not that she's a stupid or lazy person. She just did a mental shift (model change) to say, "He's probably not smart enough to do that anyway" WHICH I would agree is 90% probable, but I mean, if you think it's possible, and you're going to repeatedly worry about it when you are talking on the phone, why wouldn't you be sure and do the due diligence required?

Si says ... if that model is true, there's a whole bunch of things I can do to prove or disprove it. I think young Si too readily trusts the other models that people have made and doesn't challenge them as much as they deserve to be challenged. (or maybe that's my tert Si lol)

Here's another crazy example ... all my life I was told, "cotton panties are best because they breathe". Every pair of panties you buy is cotton or has a cotton gusset. A few weeks ago I read a story that says that 100% real silk panties are best for a ladies nether-regions. WHAT? That demolished this model I had accepted in my head for such a long time, almost unquestioningly I realized! Those kind of paradigm-shifts are annoying, especially when the initial statements are declared as TRUTH when in reality they are only truth believed to be true at this moment in time. I think Ni "gets" that better than Si does. Naturally, I went to research it myself at that point. Turns out this silk is a specially-treated silk and heaven knows where you can buy these special panties. (lol will send link if anyone's interested, they are supposed to significantly reduce yeast infections).

Anyways, sorry for the tangents or if that doesn't mesh somehow ... [MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION], I think it's excellent you're here discussing all this!

 

[Zarathustra]

Si thinks that models are reality.

But the fact is, they're not; they're merely representations.

Which is why we think Si is simple-minded.

And why you try to force your model on reality.

You all cling to your model like a child to its mother's teat.

But reality is reality, and models are merely attempts to understand it.

 

[sculpting]

Yeah I'm inclined to agree.

It's only natural for the Ni user to have so much faith in the system, it fits with their universal type of thinking. To them, I guess one counterexample/flaw shouldn't be enough to change something so much bigger.

An ISTJ with some serious conceptual muscle, girl you're so sexy right now!

haha, I totally agree-for some reason, the SiTe in the abstract is kinda...well, I dunno, but I like it!