Ni vs Si

[Riva]

For the best of my understanding Ni 'needs' its Se.

Se observes, notices and makes sense of the environment pragmatically.

Ni unconsciously picks these Se observations and makes decisions based on Te or Fe.

If Se is weak the Ni user (esp Njs and SPs) are doomed somewhat because the 'observations' will be made on its introverted judging function (fi or ti); but since those two functions aren't perceiving functions the Ni user uses their Ni to 'incorrectly' establish his/her Ji as observations (Note that Ji aren't perceiving functions; therefore leading the Ni user to a loop).

I think.

 

[Riva]

And to the best off my undrstanding Si is:

As opposed to Se which observes its environment as it is (Se is known to be the most realistic (is it or is it accurate?) Perceiving function) Si observes and 'establishes' things. And when decisions are to be made they use Si as a recollection of established thought patterns to help them with it.

I think.

 

[Nicodemus]

If Se is weak [...]

What does that mean? Poor eyesight?

 

[Riva]

What does that mean? Poor eyesight?

Eyes aren't the only sensory input .

^ that's actually a legitimate answer.

Anyway to elaborate on what i 'think' people could be blind to what they see.

 

[Infinite Bubble]

Sorry [MENTION=21639]SilentMusings[/MENTION], you aren't going to get much of an answer. It's all conjecture. The theory is too hopelessly ambiguous.

 

[Cygnus]

Ni can read a book and imply hundreds of past events. It can also predict the future.

Si can look at a rock or a lead beer mug from the 1700s and tell what happened to it in its lifetime. It can also read the organs of sacrificed animals for messages from the gods.

 

[infinite]

It is impossible for me to explain how I think. I wish I could but it's very difficult. It's sort of a thing that just happens. I hate saying "things just come to me" because that's not true, I do put thought into things, but there are (for me anyway) lots of gaps between how I connect things. I sometimes tell my friends that I think "from A, to B, to fish, to Q"

Hmmm ok. That's your Ne PoLR? eheheh

(just referring to your signature.. finding it funny in this context)

I was hoping this thread might help people who were having typing issues.

Yes, and confusing theories with each other is certainly not going to help with sorting out typing issues.

There's also what [MENTION=10757]Nicodemus[/MENTION] later said in this thread about casting shadows. Heh

The only thing borrowed from Socionics is the dynamic concept, which is primarily only used for the word itself, and is even present in the JCF system excepting the specific name. Everything in my post here is JCF.

I saw mention of "comfort" as well... but yeah sure I can see there's a lot of MBTI stuff in there too

 

[á´…eparted]

Hmmm ok. That's your Ne PoLR? eheheh

(just referring to your signature.. finding it funny in this context)

I suppose. I "used to" be able to describe how I think, but in hindsight it wasn't really all that accurate. I just wanted to give an answer that could give people somewhat of an idea of how I think, but it just became posturing and making myself look interesting. It wasn't really accurate or reflective of what the process is. As I said, it's intuitive and very much a black box. Things go in, and *poof* things come out. At least in a general sense. If there are specefic cases I can outline it a little more solidly.

 

[infinite]

I suppose. I "used to" be able to describe how I think, but in hindsight it wasn't really all that accurate. I just wanted to give an answer that could give people somewhat of an idea of how I think, but it just became posturing and making myself look interesting. It wasn't really accurate or reflective of what the process is. As I said, it's intuitive and very much a black box. Things go in, and *poof* things come out. At least in a general sense. If there are specefic cases I can outline it a little more solidly.

Gotcha

 

[Kullervo]

I suppose. I "used to" be able to describe how I think, but in hindsight it wasn't really all that accurate. I just wanted to give an answer that could give people somewhat of an idea of how I think, but it just became posturing and making myself look interesting. It wasn't really accurate or reflective of what the process is. As I said, it's intuitive and very much a black box. Things go in, and *poof* things come out. At least in a general sense. If there are specefic cases I can outline it a little more solidly.

At least you can to some extent. I tend to only be able to give very vague, general descriptions of myself to other people, which frustrates me a lot. The best way to learn about me is indirectly by observing my behaviour, especially in an everyday sense.

 

[infinite]

At least you can to some extent. I tend to only be able to give very vague, general descriptions of myself to other people, which frustrates me a lot. The best way to learn about me is indirectly by observing my behaviour, especially in an everyday sense.

Oh. Do you never try to observe your mind by introspection?

 

[Kullervo]

Oh. Do you never try to observe your mind by introspection?

I spend a lot of time quietly thinking, so yes, I am often disconnected from what's going on around me, and can drift off into my own elaborate inner world far too easily.

But I tend not to think about myself, or my own issues, that often, I tend to more naturally think about impersonal things, unless prompted by someone else.

 

[infinite]

I spend a lot of time quietly thinking, so yes, I am often disconnected from what's going on around me, and can drift off into my own elaborate inner world far too easily.

But I tend not to think about myself, or my own issues, that often, I tend to more naturally think about impersonal things, unless prompted by someone else.

I didn't mean "yourself" or "issues", I meant your mind in a cognitive sense. Observing it and its workings as any other object's.

 

[Avocado]

Ni is not as sentimental as Si.

 

[Kullervo]

I didn't mean "yourself" or "issues", I meant your mind in a cognitive sense. Observing it and its workings as any other object's.

No, not really.

 

[infinite]

No, not really.

That's interesting, I thought Ni-doms would be doing that? But then, it may not be type related.

 

[Cimarron]

Si user reacts to subjective aspects of the sensations experienced, in other words what the sensation evokes in him. While Si is not some storehouse of sensations or facts, Si user usually has a good storehouse of information/facts/sensation because when using Si, he relates to this storehouse when abstracting sensations to subjective images.
They also use extraverted intuition in combination of this subjective sensations and focuses on possibilities in the external world more than the concrete sensations.

This is a pretty good description of how I relate to Si.

Thinking about external vs. internal functions, I start with Se, which seems the most "obvious," and relate Si, Ne, and Ni to that concept. First, these are all perception functions and not judging functions, so these functions don't directly motivate action, they just create the person's understanding of the world. F and T will act on that information.

Se is an external sensing function--"external" because the sensation is obvious/visible/understandable/evident to anyone, not just the person experiencing it. Contrast this with Si, which must be internal--taking information about the physical/tangible world in an "internal" manner, one that is not obvious/visible/understandable/evident to everyone, but only to the person experiencing it. What does that look like when it happens? Well, what is a "personal interpretation" of a physical/tangible event or thing? It is something like the impression of how that thing "feels." In some ways, of course, the impression is not like the actual thing, because it is your perception of the thing.

If you've never encountered Thing X before, Si does not really know what to do with it. It is stumped unless it can compare to a somewhat similar thing. This is why SJs are described as being "uneasy with change." However, if you have encountered Thing X before, Si compares it to the "mental template" of it in your head. The "mental template" obviously comes from previous experiences, because you can't build one based on concrete experiences that haven't happened to you yet, so necessarily, the new situation is compared to "past data." Extrapolating from that comes all the SJ typical qualities of being comfortable with tradition, having a good memory, living in the past, etc. In my opinion, that's certainly a natural path to flow from the nature of Si to those qualities, but not the only path, and not for the reason most people think.

Hope that made some sense...

 

[Werebudgie]

This is a pretty good description of how I relate to Si.

Thinking about external vs. internal functions, I start with Se, which seems the most "obvious," and relate Si, Ne, and Ni to that concept. First, these are all perception functions and not judging functions, so these functions don't directly motivate action, they just create the person's understanding of the world. F and T will act on that information.

Se is an external sensing function--"external" because the sensation is obvious/visible/understandable/evident to anyone, not just the person experiencing it. Contrast this with Si, which must be internal--taking information about the physical/tangible world in an "internal" manner, one that is not obvious/visible/understandable/evident to everyone, but only to the person experiencing it. What does that look like when it happens? Well, what is a "personal interpretation" of a physical/tangible event or thing? It is something like the impression of how that thing "feels." In some ways, of course, the impression is not like the actual thing, because it is your perception of the thing.

If you've never encountered Thing X before, Si does not really know what to do with it. It is stumped unless it can compare to a somewhat similar thing. This is why SJs are described as being "uneasy with change." However, if you have encountered Thing X before, Si compares it to the "mental template" of it in your head. The "mental template" obviously comes from previous experiences, because you can't build one based on concrete experiences that haven't happened to you yet, so necessarily, the new situation is compared to "past data." Extrapolating from that comes all the SJ typical qualities of being comfortable with tradition, having a good memory, living in the past, etc. In my opinion, that's certainly a natural path to flow from the nature of Si to those qualities, but not the only path, and not for the reason most people think.

Hope that made some sense...

This makes a lot of sense to me given what I've seen of Si-tert in an INFP, and also as a way to think about Si versus Ni.

I also like your description of introverted perception as something that is "not obvious/visible/understandable/evident to everyone, but only to the person experiencing it." That fits Ni too, for me at least (Ni-dom).

I have a question for you, if I may ask. I have this thing that happens for me every so often that I find fascinating and frustrating, and I've vaguely wondered if it could somehow be Si (which is not even in my top 4 functions and is apparently my very last unconscious process, if the 8 function model is accurate for me).

So what happens is this: I'll get a very brief vivid memory-flash of a very specific physical place I've been in sometime in the past, complete with a vague memory-sense of some aspect of how it felt ("felt" viscerally, not emotionally) to me to be there. It's very often a flash of a physical place that my conscious mind doesn't even remember being in - until the flash. I always get the feeling that my mind is trying to communicate some information to me about the present situation by giving me this flash - but for me it's like it's in some sort of code that I can't decipher. I've wished I could break this code to understand, because the information is probably pretty useful. But it's inaccessible to me.

I think about how Ni works for me and how easy it is for me to flow with the underlying meaning of the Ni images, metaphors etc etc information I get. And it seems to me that the flashes described above trigger the part of me that knows that information can be communicated in pre-concious symbols. But these "past physical place" flashes are in a language I just don't understand, and not once have I ever figured out WTF one of these things actually means (while in contrast I always sense and then know what the Ni stuff means, and even when I don't know consciously, I have the feel of working in/with a language I instinctively understand)

So I wonder: does what I describe of the place-memory-flash thing sound to you like it could be a very weak/unconscious form of Si? I know it's weird to ask this of a Si-dom (because it's so weak for me but is your dom function), but I am curious to know what you think. (also: I'm pretty sure my dad was an ISTJ, but we never got the chance to talk about any of this before he died. I wish we had).

 

[Cimarron]

So what happens is this: I'll get a very brief vivid memory-flash of a very specific physical place I've been in sometime in the past, complete with a vague memory-sense of some aspect of how it felt ("felt" viscerally, not emotionally) to me to be there. It's very often a flash of a physical place that my conscious mind doesn't even remember being in - until the flash.

Sounds kind of like Si at work, yes. I usually have a constant subconscious background going on of places or things and how they're "supposed to look/feel" in my head, not usually flashes. I don't usually think about it, though, because it's not something that requires effort or lends well to explanation.

I always get the feeling that my mind is trying to communicate some information to me about the present situation by giving me this flash - but for me it's like it's in some sort of code that I can't decipher. I've wished I could break this code to understand, because the information is probably pretty useful. But it's inaccessible to me.

But this part, not really. This latter part sounds more like your N at work.

It's also funny that I experience Ni in a similar way as you here, where it occurs as a flash about...once per year. Rare enough and striking enough that I remember it well, though, because it's noteworthy that it even happened, and usually changes the way I see other things as well, so its effects are memorable, too. I don't feel I can describe Ni as well as Si, it's a little hard to grasp as a function.

 

[INTP]

So I wonder: does what I describe of the place-memory-flash thing sound to you like it could be a very weak/unconscious form of Si? I know it's weird to ask this of a Si-dom (because it's so weak for me but is your dom function), but I am curious to know what you think. (also: I'm pretty sure my dad was an ISTJ, but we never got the chance to talk about any of this before he died. I wish we had).

Doesent sound like Si. Intuition is perception via/of the unconscious and this type of perception you describe is clearly an perception of the unconscious, not an subjective(via abstraction process) reaction to sense perception(which is what Si is).

Also if sensing is extraverted(your 4th function), then it cant also be introverted. INFJ has intuition as Pi, not sensing.