This is my first post here, but I'm very familiar with the content.
I made an account to air some consistency issues I have with the theory, mostly about the depictions of the various functions.
I'm starting with Si and Ni, since these tend to have the worst descriptions, and their problems are sort of related.
Most Ni descriptions are heavily glamorized and extremely vague, centering around having profound realizations and meaningful thoughts. These descriptions rarely highlight any personality traits other than simply being intelligent and insightful.
An interesting litmus test for a definition of Ni is whether it can be meaningfully applied to a low-IQ Ni user. If not, the definition is outlining "Smart and Special: The Function", rather than a more informative outline of personality.
In contrast, Si descriptions tend to be extremely negative, detailing dull and rigid traits very few would identify with. [inb4: "No, Si types are such complete sticks up the ass that they would actually like being called that and identify with it."] Typical attributions to Si include excessive dependence on familiarity and mindless continuation of past habits.
Oddly enough, low-quality descriptions of both types sound more like judging functions than perceiving ones. By the usual descriptions, Si types seem to be gauging value or correctness based on a personal set of standards, and Ni types ponder upon, refine and improve their ideas. Often Ni has little to distinguish it from Ti or Fi, which should be a major red flag. I suspect the association of Si and Ni with XXXJ types has distorted their likenesses somewhat.
To sift out some better descriptions, then, we must keep three things in mind:
1. Si/Ni are perceiving functions. They should not primarily be making judgement calls (vaguely Je) or doing heavy processing of known information (vaguely Ji). Being Pi functions, they should have some purpose relating to actual perception, but colored by a subjective factor not present in Se/Ne.
2. Ni should have specific, identifiable characteristics other than being smart and special. Seriously.
3. Si should have traits that a decent portion of actual people might identify with. (I believe there was an "Si users describe Si" thread here a bit ago, and it was quite informative in this regard.)
The most interesting Ni description I have encountered has been Lenore Thompson's.
From this description, Ni is more perception-oriented, clearly different from the introverted judgement functions. It details more of an attitude towards things than a particular mental ability. The trade-off between Ni and Se also seems much more clear and necessary this way.
As for Si, the problem may simply be a severe underestimation of its adaptability. If Si is the function of experience and habit, I would expect a healthy Si-dom to readily learn from experiences and efficiently adopt common-sense habits when needed. (I certainly know more people like that in real life than I do of the usual SJ stereotypes). This emphasis is more perception-like as well, instead of comparing and evaluating based on the past, it's about internalizing experiences with an eye towards their effect on your own state and behavior. I like the consistency of this version, because it's clearly sensing-like (instinctive?) and clearly introverted. It's also a way of thinking that I can actually imagine a significant portion of people identifying with.
I made an account to air some consistency issues I have with the theory, mostly about the depictions of the various functions.
I'm starting with Si and Ni, since these tend to have the worst descriptions, and their problems are sort of related.
Most Ni descriptions are heavily glamorized and extremely vague, centering around having profound realizations and meaningful thoughts. These descriptions rarely highlight any personality traits other than simply being intelligent and insightful.
An interesting litmus test for a definition of Ni is whether it can be meaningfully applied to a low-IQ Ni user. If not, the definition is outlining "Smart and Special: The Function", rather than a more informative outline of personality.
In contrast, Si descriptions tend to be extremely negative, detailing dull and rigid traits very few would identify with. [inb4: "No, Si types are such complete sticks up the ass that they would actually like being called that and identify with it."] Typical attributions to Si include excessive dependence on familiarity and mindless continuation of past habits.
Oddly enough, low-quality descriptions of both types sound more like judging functions than perceiving ones. By the usual descriptions, Si types seem to be gauging value or correctness based on a personal set of standards, and Ni types ponder upon, refine and improve their ideas. Often Ni has little to distinguish it from Ti or Fi, which should be a major red flag. I suspect the association of Si and Ni with XXXJ types has distorted their likenesses somewhat.
To sift out some better descriptions, then, we must keep three things in mind:
1. Si/Ni are perceiving functions. They should not primarily be making judgement calls (vaguely Je) or doing heavy processing of known information (vaguely Ji). Being Pi functions, they should have some purpose relating to actual perception, but colored by a subjective factor not present in Se/Ne.
2. Ni should have specific, identifiable characteristics other than being smart and special. Seriously.
3. Si should have traits that a decent portion of actual people might identify with. (I believe there was an "Si users describe Si" thread here a bit ago, and it was quite informative in this regard.)
The most interesting Ni description I have encountered has been Lenore Thompson's.
Introverted Intuition (Ni) focuses on what is inexpressible–the incommensurable and chaotic things that exist outside of any conceptual framework. For example, what do you hear in the theme-and-variations movement of Beethoven’s String Quartet Op. 131? There is a meaning there, but you can’t put it into words. Any attempt to put it into words will result in only a tawdry parody of the reality. Better to remain silent. As an epistemological perspective, Ni leads you to view all signs as meaningless or even deceptive, not necessarily connected to what they’re supposed to represent. The true reality is something that exists beyond all signs and appearances, and can only be apprehended by a kind of direct intuition. To learn truth, one must learn to see through appearances–to make contact with a reality that cannot be seen or said. As an ethical perspective, Ni leads you to hold yourself apart from and unaffected by the meanings that others attach to words and events–to keep your own vision pure and pursue your own path regardless of evidence, reasons, or the opinions of others.
From this description, Ni is more perception-oriented, clearly different from the introverted judgement functions. It details more of an attitude towards things than a particular mental ability. The trade-off between Ni and Se also seems much more clear and necessary this way.
As for Si, the problem may simply be a severe underestimation of its adaptability. If Si is the function of experience and habit, I would expect a healthy Si-dom to readily learn from experiences and efficiently adopt common-sense habits when needed. (I certainly know more people like that in real life than I do of the usual SJ stereotypes). This emphasis is more perception-like as well, instead of comparing and evaluating based on the past, it's about internalizing experiences with an eye towards their effect on your own state and behavior. I like the consistency of this version, because it's clearly sensing-like (instinctive?) and clearly introverted. It's also a way of thinking that I can actually imagine a significant portion of people identifying with.
Last edited: