Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[Zarathustra]

Agreed. However, look at it from the "facets of a gem" picture I used. Ne is one facet of intuition, Ni is the other. OK, I guess it's a coin. Anyway, I think some people can only see one side of the coin or the other, while others can see the whole coin, and can flip it around at will. I believe that I am in the latter category. This "sides of a coin" image is a better description of what I mean when I say "Ne and Ni are really just the same single entity, N." Another similar would be the observation that an electron and a positron are the same thing, except the positron is an electron going backwards in time. I'm not saying that the "definition of Ne" should be the same as the "definition of Ni", but rather that the definitions only reflect pieces of a greater truth w/r to N.

Very good way to put it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

There's always the question of whether Ni+Te is simply mascarading as Ti, and, to be honest, I'm not sure whether there exists a strong counter-argument to that hypothesis: all I know is that when I look at the cognitive processes test's descriptions, that it sounds like I use Ne and Ti to almost the same extent as Ni and Te, and that I think I might actually use Ti more than Te, which would seem odd, except for the fact that it fits perfectly into my own "pet theory" (that J/P balance causes increased utilization of one's shadow functions, and that at perfect J/P balance, the two different dominant functions [in the case of an INTx, Ni and Ti] would actually both be more highly represented in an individual's functional usage than the auxiliaries of both [Te and Ne], and that, if the same individual were to also have perfectly balanced I/E, then all four "attitudinal-functions" would actually find themselves equally represented in an individual's functional usage).

I am lately leaning toward the bolded as being true. I'm not really sure I use Ti at all (as I said somewhere recently). I think I can convince myself I really am using Te through Ni and it ends up looking like Ti.


What I think is REALLY revealing is that all of us seem to have our Pet Function Theories and we are all Ni dom.


As for J/P. I am very little J, as is the case with most INFJs. As Lauren Ashley has pointed out very astutely, we usually are 65%J or less. But I'm not sure I'd be Ni/Fi........I would have to ask others what they think. I do feel Fi, but I'm not sure it'd be dominant.

It's so funny, because my theory (in part) was that people who test close on F/T and N/S, could use both preferences in the same attitude (perhaps one more comfortable than the other) on various occasions that called for each particular one, and use it automatically. So, we're all just right in there together........

 

[Zarathustra]

It's so funny, because my theory (in part) was that people who test close on F/T and N/S, could use both preferences in the same attitude (perhaps one more comfortable than the other) on various occasions that called for each particular one, and use it automatically. So, we're all just right in there together........

Yeah, this is actually another part of my pet theory.

I consider it the last part, cuz I first started thinking about I/E balance, as that is the place of my greatest balance.

Then I started thinking about J/P balance.

N/S and T/F balance are really the last pieces of the puzzle for me.

:workout:

 

[Zarathustra]

The way I described it to some friends the other day:

Imagine you have two planks side by side (one labeled N and the other S, or one labeled T and the other F), and you put a weight at the end of each plank. You then roll a ball in a perfect vector right down the middle of the two planks:

- If the two weights are even, the ball will roll right down the middle (i.e., the individual will basically make the choice, 50/50, about which function he wants to use: N or S, T or F).

- If one weight is heavier than the other (which would usually be the case), the ball will roll to the side of the plank with the heavier weight at its end. The more imbalanced the two weights, the more immediately and quickly the ball will roll towards the plank with the heavier weight; the less imbalanced the two weights, the more the ball will linger and just slightly roll to the plank with the heavier weight.

Now, with this framework in mind, even if someone's weights are not perfectly balanced, an individual could still get the ball to roll onto the plank with the lighter weight, but they'd have to use effort to intentionally push the ball in that direction, to overcome the attracting/pulling force from the plank with the heavier weight.

This action, that of attempting to push the ball in its "unnatural direction", would be draining; and the more imbalanced the two weights, the more effort would be required, and thus the more draining it would be.

 

[professor goodstain]

we all use Si/Ni just about even. we all know what obviously puts one ahead of the other is preference. our preference of either Si/Ni is only a bit more than the other. that's what makes defining differences in them so difficult compared to Ti/Fi, Te/Fe and Se/Ne. i'm going to go ahead and say Si and Ni dominant users have the most overlap. perhaps the differences are in how they interpreted past sensing and intuiting experiences to store for reference. lets say one of each saw a coyote take a dump in a hayfield long ago. then they see it again now. Si dom thinks *hm, best place to get more cuttings being that rodents aren't so prevalent*. Ni dom thinks *hm, never saw that on bugs bunny hour*

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The way I described it to some friends the other day:

Imagine you have two planks side by side (one labeled N and the other S, or one labeled T and the other F), and you put a weight at the end of each plank. You then roll a ball in a perfect vector right down the middle of the two planks:

- If the two weights are even, the ball will roll right down the middle (i.e., the individual will basically make the choice, 50/50, about which function he wants to use: N or S, T or F).

- If one weight is heavier than the other (which would usually be the case), the ball will roll to the side of the plank with the heavier weight at its end. The more imbalanced the two weights, the more immediately and quickly the ball will roll towards the plank with the heavier weight; the less imbalanced the two weights, the more the ball will linger and just slightly roll to the plank with the heavier weight.

Now, with this framework in mind, even if someone's weights are not perfectly balanced, an individual could still get the ball to roll onto the plank with the lighter weight, but they'd have to use effort to intentionally push the ball in that direction, to overcome the attracting/pulling force from the plank with the heavier weight.

This action, that of attempting to push the ball in its "unnatural direction", would be draining; and the more imbalanced the two weights, the more effort would be required, and thus the more draining it would be.

Exactly the way I saw it. I was even going to where the % either/or depended on the divide. If someone tested 90% N, then they might just use Ne/Ni and not S at all. I got to thinking about this possibility from watching my children. My husband is strong S/T and I am strong N with mod F. Sometimes I think I see a mix of perceiving functions at play in my kids. Plus I understand we will all have preferences, but if we genetically inherit (and jung believed in genetic personality inheritance as well) both ways from our parents, mightn't we have some underlying ability to use both, more than someone who didn't?

Now, however, I'm not sure, because Uumlau got me to thinking about the tertiary being oriented opposite the dominant, based on some posts. Since that's been a recurrent theme lately around here, based on new research by MBTI folks, and since Jung thought that himself, it definitely gives me pause. If that is the case, it sort-of throws Theory #1 out of sorts a bit. Not saying parts of that can't be true, for sure, but not sure what to give more weight to in my own head.

Can I be using Te with Ni and it looks like Ti? I feel myself contemplating something externally, that's not difficult--like reading or taking in information from somewhere, of a factual nature. Then when I think on it, I think it gets difficult to crunch, and I sort-of get lazy because I feel inefficient at learning it, and maybe that's when Ni kicks in, and takes over, perceiving how the data I've just learned can fit with what I already believe and my worldview and yet still be accurate to the facts of what I just learned. It's like I'm not sure that I'm concerned with the exact "truth" of how something works, as much as I'm concerned with how it all fits into what I can create with it. which makes me think it's not really Ti at all; I'm simply taking a fact, and making it efficiently work into a neat spot that I am comfortable with, that jives with my Ni. If it doesn't, I leave it alone, and continue looking until I'm satisfied with the problem, until I give up, or until I forget about it. I also am a very slow learner accordingly. Sometimes it just takes a damn long time to understand something, and I'll give up if I don't intuit it's worth it to understand.

If I am using Ni/Te and not Ti though, it would/should be analogous to how an intj is. So, do you see any similarities with what I've said to be true for how you use Ni/Te?

Or is this just inferior (bad) Ti?

 

[Zarathustra]

If I am using Ni/Te and not Ti though, it would/should be analogous to how an intj is. So, do you see any similarities with what I've said to be true for how you use Ni/Te?

Or is this just inferior (bad) Ti?

To be honest, I think it sounds like tertiary Ti... (INFJ)

 

[Kalach]

Putting aside all actual definition of cognitive functions, of which there has been surprisingly little in this a thread o' comparison, there's a pragmatic reason for not aiming too hard at flipping, or claiming to flip, a single function's orientations. To have two orientations on one function is to disadvantage both. Literally, one would not utilise either orientation to its fullest extent, just by virtue of not putting in the time.

Introverted intuition, for example, at its rarest and brightest and most dizzying will make that one key conceptual connection that no one ever made before. And its just not going to do that if it hasn't been labouring long and hard to seek and see into the fundamental conceptual parts of what is. If it's farting around trying to blow off some Ne scattergun net into the world, then it isn't working away joining together bundles of intuitions into the kernel of a thing that is and always was there but hasn't ever been witnessed before.

That, and if you're sitting at home doing Ne with your eyes closed reflecting on a puzzle, you're doing Ni not Ne and are mislabelling the shit out of your cognitive processes, perhaps even enough to disadvantage them because you're not identifying, and thus refining, for yourself the efforts you CAN make.


Si, likewise. It does more than people have been saying it can do.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Putting aside all actual definition of cognitive functions, of which there has been surprisingly little in this a thread o' comparison, there's a pragmatic reason for not aiming too hard at flipping, or claiming to flip, a single function's orientations. To have two orientations on one function is to disadvantage both. Literally, one would not utilise either orientation to its fullest extent, just by virtue of not putting in the time.

Introverted intuition, for example, at its rarest and brightest and most dizzying will make that one key conceptual connection that no one ever made before. And its just not going to do that if it hasn't been labouring long and hard to seek and see into the fundamental conceptual parts of what is. If it's farting around trying to blow off some Ne scattergun net into the world, then it isn't working away joining together bundles of intuitions into the kernel of a thing that is and always was there but hasn't ever been witnessed before.

That, and if you're sitting at home doing Ne with your eyes closed reflecting on a puzzle, you're doing Ni not Ne and are mislabelling the shit out of your cognitive processes, perhaps even enough to disadvantage them because you're not identifying, and thus refining, for yourself the efforts you CAN make.


Si, likewise. It does more than people have been saying it can do.

I really understand this post of yours. Yay!!


That's like telling a Ti dom not to think, Kalach.

Or an Se dom to calm down.

Or an Ne dom to relax.

Or an Fi dom to chill out.


Point taken, but it's just what Ni does.

Agreed: Being too introverted with an introverted dominant function will be a time waster, and vice versa with an extraverted one. But capitalizing on one's strengths and using one's mind is a good thing.

I definitely know I'm not that good at using T, my N (and I'm still not gelled on my use of Ne yet, saving that for later ) is what crunches most everything I do and think, I'm coming to realize. F is my m.o. for sure. But until I know whether most of us use the tert in the same or opposite position of the dominant, it will drive me crazy and I don't feel like I (we) can delve much further into function theory. Because if we don't even fucking really know what function we are using, and using well and poorly, we can't then really understand how they work in us, because we are likely to mislabel them or think this function 'x' is being recalled here, when it's really function 'y.'

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

To be honest, I think it sounds like tertiary Ti... (INFJ)

Thanks for your feedback.

Okay, I woke up thinking about--guess what!--functions! I'm such a geek.

If I'm looking outward for data, which is easy, and it doesn't fit with my Ni, what do I do? I throw it out, or I leave it alone--I don't really care about it. I'm collecting external data, not internal data, although it appears internal because I use my internal intuition to see if it's valuable, and if it is, I judge it worthy. This is where it gets confusing, because it makes Ni sound like a judging function, which it isn't supposed to be. I use Ni to bounce of external facts, ideas, people's feelings and desires, etc., and if each one fits with my Ni, I keep em. Simple as that. It goes round and round. F and T fill me in, Ni ponders. If I need more info, T and F gather it. So, in the end, it's almost as if Ni acts as judger, inasmuch as it helps T and F know what's important. It's almost as if T and F are collecting the external data, and the Ni is judging it as worthy if it fits into Ni's big picture.

To reiterate: My intuition works as my judging function because it is the Mother function in me; the last stop. T and F are my perceivers.

Jung might have decided otherwise because he was dominant Ti. So, for him, his N and S WERE the perceivers, running through his Ti, which would judge that.

Do you see? This could mean that whether we perceive or judge with N/S and F/T just depends on our focus; which is our dominant function.

Furthermore, I've already figured out that I use S hardly at all. But I use T and F. Someone who is F or T dom will use both N and S well, but perhaps not the other F or T preference well.



For so long, i've grappled with the judging/perceiving lingo, feeling like my Ni is almost more my judger than T or F, not my perceiver.

Thoughts?


Also, another note on the tert of an intj being Fe, not Fi. I really see this in my intj son. He is able to be very Fe, when he wants to be. He is more concerned with societal mores than his own internal mores. I've noticed you guys (intjs) are all very considerate and accepting of opinions I spew, and respond accordingly. I have not hardly ever experienced an INTJ that has been disrespectul. Why is that? It's because you use Fe, not Fi. Think about it.

 

[Kalach]

I definitely know I'm not that good at using T, my N (and I'm still not gelled on my use of Ne yet, saving that for later ) is what crunches most everything I do and think, I'm coming to realize. F is my m.o. for sure. But until I know whether most of us use the tert in the same or opposite position of the dominant, it will drive me crazy and I don't feel like I (we) can delve much further into function theory. Because if we don't even fucking really know what function we are using, and using well and poorly, we can't then really understand how they work in us, because we are likely to mislabel them or think this function 'x' is being recalled here, when it's really function 'y.'

You might like to consider the idea that dominant functions dominate. That those people who have one will recognisably organise their lives and expressions to make sure their dominant function has right of way. There is in the broader sweep of things no hope--it would seem--of generally and consistently engaging the lesser functions well without engaging the dominant function. One can live a life that contradicts one's function order and ultimately acquire quite a range of successful behaviours that privilege other parts of the self without one overall being noticeably crippled, and indeed if that is one's choice, then that is the way it must be, and... well, no, I don't think there actually is a suitable "but" to install at the end of this sentence--people go where they're going.

Hmmm... I wonder... if one has a determinate function order, a life organised to maximise the use of that order in that order will be less stressful and will include direct potential for specific growth. It could sound almost like a moral imperative. (And if we assume that types do NOT derive some of their "natural" leanings toward certain values from the drive to accomodate their function order, we're fooling ourselves.) But still... those people who for whatever reason wish to break the privilege of their order, and perhaps accomodate environmental demands--toughen up, be managerial, be softer, be more arty, says my mother, says my school, begs my family--...


... if function orders are real, that is. And if functions have a determinate character.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

You might like to consider the idea that dominant functions dominate. That those people who have one will recognisably organise their lives and expressions to make sure their dominant function has right of way. There is in the broader sweep of things no hope--it would seem--of generally and consistently engaging the lesser functions well without engaging the dominant function. One can live a life that contradicts one's function order and ultimately acquire quite a range of successful behaviours that privilege other parts of the self without one overall being noticeably crippled, and indeed if that is one's choice, then that is the way it must be, and... well, no, I don't think there actually is a suitable "but" to install at the end of this sentence--people go where they're going.

So, you're saying we can, and do, give in to our dominant, but if we don't we can be more well-rounded? I think that's obvious to all. It still doesn't mean that we can't understand how it all works.

Hmmm... I wonder... if one has a determinate function order, a life organised to maximise the use of that order in that order will be less stressful and will include direct potential for specific growth. It could sound almost like a moral imperative. (And if we assume that types do NOT derive some of their "natural" leanings toward certain values from the drive to accomodate their function order, we're fooling ourselves.) But still... those people who for whatever reason wish to break the privilege of their order, and perhaps accomodate environmental demands--toughen up, be managerial, be softer, be more arty, says my mother, says my school, begs my family--...

So, you're saying it's folly to think we don't use other than our preferred functions? I'd totally agree, but I still think it's important to understand how our preferred functions work, don't you? If not, you might not be a functionite. Of course, using all functions, and using them well, makes us more well-rounded and WISE.

I desire to understand, at a microscopic level, functions. I already know that I do this, and I desire to do this. It's what I'm interested in.....right now.

edit: to your edit: that's what i'm trying to determine.

 

[SillySapienne]

Am I the only one who finds it suspect that we use eight relatively arbitrary functions to ascribe ALL human behavior to?!?!



It's actually kinda funny.

I could sit here and explain myself in (at the top of my head) four legitimate ways. All of which stem from two categories, that of genetics and environmental factors.

1.) I am the way I am and I do the things I do because of the world I was raised in. (environmental)

2.) I am the way I am and I do the things I do because of who I've always been, and what I've always thought, and how I've always felt, and how I've always responded to my circumstance. (genetic)

3.) I do the things I do, and I engage in the thought/feeling patterns I do because of past trauma. (psychological/environmental/genetic)

4.) I do the things I do, and am attracted to the guys I am because I am 27 year old, relatively attractive, fertile heterosexual female human being. (Evolutionary/biological/genetic/psychological)

5.) Whenever I watch someone get beat up, I cringe, and feel/imagine as though it's happening to me. (empathy/mirror neurons)

Honestly, the list can go on and on, and I can also explain a lot of things about myself due to the fact that I am an ENFP with Ne Fi Te Si, but that is like a quaternary-level explanation, and I can respect that, to a degree.

But it just frightens me, the willingness of all these highly intelligent members to put all human behaviors and tendencies into these boxes, to an extreme.

Granted, I do not know that much at all about functional analysis, my hunger for human understanding of self, and others has stemmed from my reading and studying psychology, biology, literature, hell, from just plain observing and taking in human life, and all that it creates and destroys in its wake.

It just freaks me out, and annoys me a little when people try to stuff things in boxes, that's all I guess.

Though, I've just realized, many of you aren't really stuffing, you're rather taking human behaviors, noticing them, observing them, analyzing them, defining them, and then labelling them.

So I guess this is your labelling system, fair enough.

*gets off soap box*

Label on.

 

[cascadeco]

Am I the only one who finds it suspect that we use eight relatively arbitrary functions to ascribe ALL human behavior to?!?!

)

Nah, I'm actually with ya. When I first joined this forum I was much more into trying to make sense of all of it, and come up with a definitive way all of it works for *everyone*, no exceptions, but gave up on that and now could care less. Personally I think micro-analyzing every single behavior/thought in either yourself or another, and ascribing a specific function or set of functions to it, can become counterproductive and then it can become quite easy to throw the functions that are 'supposed' to be applicable when in fact that simply might not be the case and the entire theory is being used in ways it shouldn't be used. You end up viewing the entire complexity of human psychology through a very narrow lens of 8 functions.

*off soapbox*

 

[SillySapienne]

You end up viewing the entire complexity of human psychology through a very narrow lens of 8 functions.

Thank you.

I feel frustrated by this fact, like some of these people are missing out on sooooooo much, and by sooooooo much I mean the bigger picture which includes all of the smaller pictures and all of the micro and macro-dynamics therein, because they are too busy trying to fit whatever they are seeing into eight neat and tidy functional boxes, because they are too steadfast into making this a perfect system even when inherent flaws to said system are staring them smackdab in the face.

There exists infinite complexity to life and to human beings, and many of these complexities are intricate or nuanced, or both, or neither.

Regardless, yes, I do identify myself as an ENFP, but I also identify myself as so much more!!!

My being an ENFP is just one aspect to the collective whole that is myself, that is my identity.

When I wake up in the morning, and go outside, and greet a beautiful day, while noticing spring is finally here, and so many flowers are suddenly in bloom, I don't think, damn, it feels good to be an ENFP, or hmmm, the reason why I am appreciating this moment is because of my Fi.

 

[Billy]

I can see why some may consider them similar, but they really aren't, apart from their initial intake of information and data.

Read this and compare:

Introverted Sensing
Introverted iNtuiting

Many of the different functions can be compared in the manner in which you do, such as Fi and Ti, yet I wouldn't consider them similar at all.

Meh I would say that Si is a lawnmower cutting in a straight line, whereas Ni is 10 lawnmowers cutting in circles. Both have strengths and weaknesses.

One gets the job done efficiently, the other might cut the grass a little closer but take much longer and take some really odd directions.

 

[sculpting]

When I wake up in the morning, and go outside, and greet a beautiful day, while noticing spring is finally here, and so many flowers are suddenly in bloom, I don't think, damn, it feels good to be an ENFP, or hmmm, the reason why I am appreciating this moment is because of my Fi.

As part of my "grow your own Fi at home project" I have been trying very hard not to think in functions. Even before functions I could always watch and understand/predict people very well. The functions made it a mathematical symphony to layer on top of the MBTI knowledge set I already had. The patterns are incredibly simple once you get the hang of it.

But people became just a puzzle to solve, not beautiful individuals to cherish.

I have been trying to "feel" people instead of "think" them recently and what I have found-There is a depth missing if you you only think in functions-you are right-there isnt quite enough information for some reason....maybe later I'll catch up on my "thinking" but for now I am content to "feel" folks for awhile-that feeling-of either Fi or Fe variety-is a thing of beauty.

 

[cascadeco]

When I wake up in the morning, and go outside, and greet a beautiful day, while noticing spring is finally here, and so many flowers are suddenly in bloom, I don't think, damn, it feels good to be an ENFP, or hmmm, the reason why I am appreciating this moment is because of my Fi.

Well, there's that.

And this is a good example, because I relate 100% to it and I don't share any of your cognitive functions. So I'd either have to use my different functions to explain the same thing or I in fact utilize all. Or it really doesn't matter whatsoever and we shouldn't be using functions - at all - to describe many aspects of who we are. The functions themselves when kept in the background - as cognitive processes/thinking/perceiving modes - are fairly straightforward - it's when you start trying to attribute them to every aspect of existence that it becomes utterly silly imo.

 

[SillySapienne]

You can both feel and think about people simultaneously!!!

That's what I've been doing my whole life, in fact, that's what I love to do!

When I am not directly feeling something inside myself, and or regarding someone or something else, I am thinking about stuff, life, my life, and people, people, people!

Why they do the things they do, why I do the things I do.

And, when I feel, it is not as though my brain temporarily shuts down, c'mon now!!!

To be flooded with emotions, I admit/concede, yes, one does get temporarily cognitively impaired, but with just enough emotional stimulus, i.e. feeling, one's thoughts are triggered and depending on how stimulating the information/circumstance one's confronted with is, one's thoughts and feelings can engage in a beautiful exploratory and enlightening dance where one discovers new things, at a deeper more rich level of understanding.

Some of you might want to label that Ne+Fi, well go ahead if that sates your urge to keep your lovely system intact, and perfect, but i just call that *human nature*.

 

[uumlau]

Thank you.

I feel frustrated by this fact, like some of these people are missing out on sooooooo much, and by sooooooo much I mean the bigger picture which includes all of the smaller pictures and all of the micro and macro-dynamics therein, because they are too busy trying to fit whatever they are seeing into eight neat and tidy functional boxes, because they are too steadfast into making this a perfect system even when inherent flaws to said system are staring them smackdab in the face.

There exists infinite complexity to life and to human beings, and many of these complexities are intricate or nuanced, or both, or neither.

Regardless, yes, I do identify myself as an ENFP, but I also identify myself as so much more!!!

My being an ENFP is just one aspect to the collective whole that is myself, that is my identity.

When I wake up in the morning, and go outside, and greet a beautiful day, while noticing spring is finally here, and so many flowers are suddenly in bloom, I don't think, damn, it feels good to be an ENFP, or hmmm, the reason why I am appreciating this moment is because of my Fi.

As part of my "grow your own Fi at home project" I have been trying very hard not to think in functions. Even before functions I could always watch and understand/predict people very well. The functions made it a mathematical symphony to layer on top of the MBTI knowledge set I already had. The patterns are incredibly simple once you get the hang of it.

But people became just a puzzle to solve, not beautiful individuals to cherish.

I have been trying to "feel" people instead of "think" them recently and what I have found-There is a depth missing if you you only think in functions-you are right-there isnt quite enough information for some reason....maybe later I'll catch up on my "thinking" but for now I am content to "feel" folks for awhile-that feeling-of either Fi or Fe variety-is a thing of beauty.

Upon coming to a river, a man might need to build a raft to cross it. All sorts of effort might go into building the raft.

Having crossed the river, it is ridiculous to think that the man should continue to carry the raft with him. The raft has served its purpose. it is also ridiculous to say that the man should never have built the raft: he needed to cross the river. (Yeah yeah, he could swim ... gimme a break, here, OK? Let us presume piranhas or some such. *sigh*)

MBTI is the raft. It helps you get from point A to point B. How could I investigate Fi without knowing what it is, that it is even there, or how it relates to anything else?

Having arrived at Fi, I need to explore it for myself. I shouldn't carry around the raft of technical definitions, anymore.

When I want to go investigate other places along the river, I'll go get my MBTI raft and navigate to Ne or Ti or maybe even Se, and see what I find there.

Or I might want to lend the raft to a friend, to help others cross the river.

But the raft is just the means, not the end.