[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Si vs Ni

[cogdecree]

I was actually doing some searching on here about this topic, and I was surprised by the lack of intelligent answers on the discussion, ranging from quoting socionics, basic cardboard s/n divide descriptions, to overlapping of other functions. So I want to give the subject life again, and see what comes up.

Some things for responders to note before answering, I've read countless descriptions so unless you believe the description is phenomenal and unavoidable, best to add something a little more critical to the subject.

Anyways, here is a brief on how I define the operations of Si and Ni

Si- In a seemly chaotic stream of information (theories, emotions, senses, boundaries), Si works to develop patterns and connections through hindsight. This basis then serves as a sifter from which to isolate and examine new information.

(Studying up on Ni has been a humorous journey as the definition seems to have been whored out more so than other functions, I also see people blend Ni with Ne)

Ni- If you actually look and it, it’s described more as an ability more so than a function (magical insight), but the best way to operationalize it would be a desire to discover the underlying principles behind a particular situation (inward/understanding vs connections between trends/concepts (Ne)), and with conceptual understanding one can construct and apply long range plans and visions.

I find this subject interesting because I have always scored high on both Si and Ni, and after quite a bit of reading, I actually don't see how a Ni user can operate without a strong Si function without a threat of Ni becoming irrelevant or why a Si user wouldn't use Ni (as one of the top four functions), simply due to the fact it would take less mental work to use the Si base to work Ni versus branching out into a new function which would take more work. In short I don’t see why the theories have them shadow each other.

Interesting enough, my investigation on the topic has brought me to several other theorists who have pondering the issue and have created different function orders. Lenore Thomson’s version caught my eye at any rate, still need to do more research on her theories though, the left/right brain dynamics she presents are very interesting to me especially after my last few years working on brain mapping.

Anyways, what are your thoughts? Have I presented any errors? What is your take on Si and Ni?

 

[Offog]

Si does not give a shit about patterns and connections. Si is a bunch of macros. If you want to go out and eat, Si will tell you of a restaurant where you ate in the past or, failing that, one you saw or were told of in the past. Si does not speculate. Si has no opinion on where there might be a restaurant. Some other function will have to provide that.

 

[freeeekyyy]

I was actually doing some searching on here about this topic, and I was surprised by the lack of intelligent answers on the discussion, ranging from quoting socionics, basic cardboard s/n divide descriptions, to overlapping of other functions. So I want to give the subject life again, and see what comes up.

Some things for responders to note before answering, I've read countless descriptions so unless you believe the description is phenomenal and unavoidable, best to add something a little more critical to the subject.

Anyways, here is a brief on how I define the operations of Si and Ni

Si- In a seemly chaotic stream of information (theories, emotions, senses, boundaries), Si works to develop patterns and connections through hindsight. This basis then serves as a sifter from which to isolate and examine new information.

(Studying up on Ni has been a humorous journey as the definition seems to have been whored out more so than other functions, I also see people blend Ni with Ne)

Ni- If you actually look and it, it’s described more as an ability more so than a function (magical insight), but the best way to operationalize it would be a desire to discover the underlying principles behind a particular situation (inward/understanding vs connections between trends/concepts (Ne)), and with conceptual understanding one can construct and apply long range plans and visions.

I find this subject interesting because I have always scored high on both Si and Ni, and after quite a bit of reading, I actually don't see how a Ni user can operate without a strong Si function without a threat of Ni becoming irrelevant or why a Si user wouldn't use Ni (as one of the top four functions), simply due to the fact it would take less mental work to use the Si base to work Ni versus branching out into a new function which would take more work. In short I don’t see why the theories have them shadow each other.

Interesting enough, my investigation on the topic has brought me to several other theorists who have pondering the issue and have created different function orders. Lenore Thomson’s version caught my eye at any rate, still need to do more research on her theories though, the left/right brain dynamics she presents are very interesting to me especially after my last few years working on brain mapping.

Anyways, what are your thoughts? Have I presented any errors? What is your take on Si and Ni?

Ni and Si are very similar. From my understanding, they both give you a framework from which you base your judgments. I think the main difference is where Si leads one to seek knowledge, Ni leads one to seek understanding. People who score high on one tend to score high on the other because they are so similar. I'm not sure that many people are actually skilled with both, or use both very often. It's just that where Si might say "a proper table has four legs" Ni might say "what if it had three legs?" and then initiate Te to determine the feasibility of removing a leg. Si is simpler, I think. However, Si users have greater use of Ne, which is much better at coming up with external possibilities than Se. I like to think of it like this. Se/Ni leads one to take information in, then process and store. Ne/Si leads one to process information, take it in, then store it.

 

[tkae.]

Ni and Si are very similar. From my understanding, they both give you a framework from which you base your judgments. I think the main difference is where Si leads one to seek knowledge, Ni leads one to seek understanding. People who score high on one tend to score high on the other because they are so similar. I'm not sure that many people are actually skilled with both, or use both very often. It's just that where Si might say "a proper table has four legs" Ni might say "what if it had three legs?" and then initiate Te to determine the feasibility of removing a leg. Si is simpler, I think. However, Si users have greater use of Ne, which is much better at coming up with external possibilities than Se. I like to think of it like this. Se/Ni leads one to take information in, then process and store. Ne/Si leads one to process information, take it in, then store it.

Maybe on paper, but that's not how it actually manifests itself in my daily life.

Si is responsible for my habit-driven nature. When I sit at tables in the student center, I sit at the same two tables, until something changes where they aren't possible or preferred. Then, once a new table is found, I'll sit at the new table even if the old tables are available again.

Or I'll walk a certain way to places. If a certain way becomes less and less preferred, I'll keep using it until I stumble across a new way to get to a certain place that works better, and then that's the one way I'll use to get to that place. Si is what keeps my Fi from making me erratic. It's not so much a perception-based function in its role as it is a habit-forming one, where I'll lean towards habitually-proven (or, as SJs tend to put it, "traditionally"-proven) choices over other choices that I'm unfamiliar with.

The extent to which it's habitual over recurring is probably my Fi being dominant.

But yeah, Si isn't at all a factor in my perception or decision-making.

I'm painfully powerful in my Ne, and it's by far my dominant perceiving function. I hardly have any S at all, which is why I'm pretty famous with people I interact with for lacking common sense and being "spacey". I think of it as a gift, though. I don't want S. Yeah, it means that I have to accept my shortcomings (such as not driving, because I tend to space out too much and have desire to follow traffic laws, or how I don't personal finances to manage, such as bank accounts and the like, my only "finances" being a small horde of maybe $20 I keep handy for buying food and drinks at school), but it also means that I'm killer when it comes to language and theoretical concepts.

So...

To each his own. But I think that the way ISTJs just Ne/Si and the way INFPs, myself as the example, use Ne/Si shows that there's much more involved in the way the functions interact, or, rather, how the person uses them.

 

[Thalassa]

Si does not give a shit about patterns and connections. Si is a bunch of macros. If you want to go out and eat, Si will tell you of a restaurant where you ate in the past or, failing that, one you saw or were told of in the past. Si does not speculate. Si has no opinion on where there might be a restaurant. Some other function will have to provide that.

Hmm I'm not so sure of that. Si is damn good at making "domino connections"...that is, connections which march in a nice straight line. "This person is probably doing this because they remind me of this other person I know..."

Read Agatha Christie mysteries. Study Poirot and Miss Marple. Christie herself was probably an extremely intelligent ISFJ and Poirot and Marple were ISTJ and ISFJ, respectively, as far as I can tell.

 

[cogdecree]

Thanks for all the responses so far,

1) Si does have a pattern/connection aspect to it, hindsight and standards are based off of turning these aspects into systematic frameworks develop through memory (frequency/significance)

2) I agree that they are similar, but this then makes me wonder why the mind doesn’t find this efficient to use both functions. Your last piece on se/ni and si/ne were interesting, if you ever get back to this, if you could expand or provide some material on the topic that would be lovely.

3) I also believe the dynamics of the functions fluctuate as well, as to how (individual or type), I’ve yet to find anything that even remotely covers this topic.