Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[nightning]

Just want to point out this out again.

Notice who says Ni and Si are generally similar => mostly Ne dominant (ENTP, ENFP, INTP)
Notice who say Ni are more dissimilar to Si => Ni dominant (INTJ, INFJ, ISTP)

The pattern says a lot to me...
It suggests that unless you're an active user of a introverted perceiving function, you cannot truly know how it works. And even if your dominant function is Pi, you are inherently weakest with the opposing Pi.

For example, I'm an off the chart Ni dom, I KNOW I rarely think about events of the past, or be able to recall sequential details of any sort. Because of this lack, how can I accurately compare the Ni experience with an Si one? Even if I ask an ISXJ for their thought process, I'm filtering what they said through the mere act of listening.

So really we can only go by the definition or description provided by Jung as what Ni and Si are. Both are internally reflective, information gathering processes but that's all the similarities they share.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

The missing fundament is some description of what these functions do while introverted. Mere hoarding of perception doesn't cut it. There is some further, ongoing processing--internal and technically removed from the immediate world.

Si, for example, creates ideal images. Multiple physical details, accurately recalled, are combined to produce a Platonic object, an ideal physical form that does not necessarily correspond to any one real object. Naturally there are individual variations, what with different users having had different immediate sensory experiences, but for any one user this created ideal *is* the object.

And we do rightly say "object" for the content of Si and Ni because, at least for Js, the organisational logic imposed on perception comes from an e function--and e functions objectify.

This, for example, presumably means that Si users can, technically, do more with their perception than merely categorise the explicitly physical world. Inside their sense experiences there will be analogues of abstractions--numbers, for presumed example, created from long sense experiences of the printed pages of Math texts, teachers' blackboard chalkings, the users own pencilings... and though they may manipulate these things as physical objects, still they reference abstractions.


...he says, hypothesizing.

Yes, so much of this stuff is so hazy. It's as if the cog functions aren't enough in some way; that what we know is just a period in a giant tome of literature; we do not understand the full functions' capability, nor have we identified all of the functions, I'd wager.

My Si dom daughter can be mightily intuitive in an Ni way. Where does that come from? She's young, too young to have developed another perceiving function so quickly. Was she born with decent Ni (as I suspect) or does Si have something to do with it? Or is it something else entirely that looks like Ni?

If an Si dom is simply reading or listening to music, what is Si doing? Is it churning every word through archives for similar sensory similarity or disimilarity? How much does the brain take in via Si? Does how well our functions work, what gives us our intelligence? Do those that have brains that can exploit their functions to their fullest ability, appear smarter than those who can't?

=nightning;1098218]Just want to point out this out again.

Notice who says Ni and Si are generally similar => mostly Ne dominant (ENTP, ENFP, INTP)
Notice who say Ni are more dissimilar to Si => Ni dominant (INTJ, INFJ, ISTP)

Good point. I've sensed this but hadn't brought it to light. I think it's funny when an Ne dom/aux argues with me over what Ni is like.

The pattern says a lot to me...
It suggests that unless you're an active user of a introverted perceiving function, you cannot truly know how it works. And even if your dominant function is Pi, you are inherently weakest with the opposing Pi.

For example, I'm an off the chart Ni dom, I KNOW I rarely think about events of the past, or be able to recall sequential details of any sort. Because of this lack, how can I accurately compare the Ni experience with an Si one? Even if I ask an ISXJ for their thought process, I'm filtering what they said through the mere act of listening.

So really we can only go by the definition or description provided by Jung as what Ni and Si are. Both are internally reflective, information gathering processes but that's all the similarities they share.

the bolded: which might be what causes miscommunications and conflicts. But I think if we take verbatim what they say, we can get as close as possible.

 

[Lex Talionis]

Just want to point out this out again.

Notice who says Ni and Si are generally similar => mostly Ne dominant (ENTP, ENFP, INTP)
Notice who say Ni are more dissimilar to Si => Ni dominant (INTJ, INFJ, ISTP)

The pattern says a lot to me...
It suggests that unless you're an active user of a introverted perceiving function, you cannot truly know how it works. And even if your dominant function is Pi, you are inherently weakest with the opposing Pi.

For example, I'm an off the chart Ni dom, I KNOW I rarely think about events of the past, or be able to recall sequential details of any sort. Because of this lack, how can I accurately compare the Ni experience with an Si one? Even if I ask an ISXJ for their thought process, I'm filtering what they said through the mere act of listening.

So really we can only go by the definition or description provided by Jung as what Ni and Si are. Both are internally reflective, information gathering processes but that's all the similarities they share.

Well, I rarely agree with an F when it comes to logical arguments, but your post is notably astute.

 

[nightning]

the bolded: which might be what causes miscommunications and conflicts. But I think if we take verbatim what they say, we can get as close as possible.

Is that ever possible? My mind can't help but make connections. I was reading some of the stuff people posted about the For sale image. I'm reading what they say, but how does that tell me how they perceive things? Or rather how does Si perceive things? What part of what they mentioned is due to Si, what part is due to the rest of who they are or even their current state of mind?

I can't know directly, I can only speculate... speculations are based in patterns... Ni patterns. And I'm applying filters again.

Really the only way to "know" is if we have a person that is pure Si. But that's not possible in real life. If we have to counterbalance all other possible influences to their responses... then I fear we'll need 10X the number of people to participant and we'll need to show them more images to ensure it's not the image that's invoking a particular response as oppose to Si or Ni. (e.g. how many people are saying this is the failed american dream because of the housing bubble. Would people have mentioned the same things if they were tested say 5 years ago? I suspect not.)

As to your daughter. That's interesting how she seems to show both. Maybe she does have both? Or one is really a different function... or maybe cognitive functions don't exist after all. Ultimately, I don't think we can ever know. There's no way we can determine if the patterns we see are real or whether we see patterns because we want to see them. Like of like those optical illusions... human minds seem to be super pattern recognition machine. To the point of seeing patterns when none actually exists.

It really feels to me that we're stuck with the cognitive functions as they were defined by Jung. Unless we come up with a whole and seemingly more encompassing system. But that takes a ton of research, experimentation etc to do and frankly, who's going to care enough to do it?

I apologize for my cynicism.

 

[Kalach]

And you call yourselves Js.

C'mon, people--rush to judgment! Other people's functions are your playthings.

 

[Kalach]

So anyway, comparing Si and Ni... what does intuition do when introverted?

Well, I guess the stuff of intuition is abstractions. Intuition liberates concepts. It frees them from their instantiated location, which is to say the concept "X" of some real world "object" X no longer needs X present for "X" to be understood as real. Indeed, the real world object X no longer defines the concept "X". Intuition when introverted will draw on a range of similar concepts to produce an ideal concept, the ideal "X", and this will be understood as prior to and essentially defining of the real world X. And since all of this happens in the conceptual world, the meaning of the organisational concept "similar" can be changed, perhaps at will, but more likely according to some preferred (but perhaps dynamically developing) conceptualising framework (that may or may not persist).

But perhaps more importantly, some concepts "X" will come into being without there ever having been a witnessed X. The concept will have arrived in consciousness as a created thing, a product of some composing process probably not too dissimilar to that process that makes ideal "X"s from real Xs, but in this case the composing parts will have been drawn from far and wide, probably indeed drawn from the concepts of things ordinarily considered dissimilar.

 

[uumlau]

Yes, so much of this stuff is so hazy. It's as if the cog functions aren't enough in some way; that what we know is just a period in a giant tome of literature; we do not understand the full functions' capability, nor have we identified all of the functions, I'd wager.

My Si dom daughter can be mightily intuitive in an Ni way. Where does that come from? She's young, too young to have developed another perceiving function so quickly. Was she born with decent Ni (as I suspect) or does Si have something to do with it? Or is it something else entirely that looks like Ni?

If an Si dom is simply reading or listening to music, what is Si doing? Is it churning every word through archives for similar sensory similarity or disimilarity? How much does the brain take in via Si? Does how well our functions work, what gives us our intelligence? Do those that have brains that can exploit their functions to their fullest ability, appear smarter than those who can't?

I think age and experience has a lot to do with it. I don't think that anyone who isn't an adult can truly be tested. There aren't enough points of reference to know what one prefers. Even as an adult, the test results often significantly differ from one's own understanding of oneself, often to the point that it takes a while to discover one's "real type". I tested as ISTJ, pretty much for all tests except one: it was a friend that told me, "No, you're INTJ," over and over again. (The friend is a psychologist who has a full grasp of MBTI, so she could read me and categorize me pretty easily.)

After doing some research, and eventually taking that one test that said INTJ, I saw where the flaw lied in the testing: as an INTJ, I like my theories to work in the real world; that if a theory doesn't work, it's just so much hogwash. So the questions were asking whether I "prefer hard cold facts, or abstract theory." As an INTJ, I have abstract theories out the wazoo, but not enough hard cold facts to nail them down, so I would reply that I prefer hard cold facts and be classified an ISTJ.

My friend could tell that I'm INTJ, because, as she put it, "you live in your head." It took me a while to understand what that meant, but now I know: my intuition has developed this parallel world around me, in which I "understand how everything works". That parallel world (worlds, plural, really), overlays the real world, to the degree that I miss details in the real world. I can be "detail-oriented" sometimes, because what I do notice are details that imply my intuition is wrong, which are details that most people would never notice because they don't look for them. Anyway, to the perceptive observer, I'm slightly spaced out, even when I'm directly engaged and interacting with someone: I'm paying attention both to the person and to the "stuff in my head."

One is not going to get that level of self-understanding from a child, and even a teenager or young adult will have difficulty understanding the subtle distinction between N and S.

Even here on the forum, with plenty of people who understand MBTI and N and S, we're arguing about what Ni and Si "really are."

(And then there's my own pet theory that there really is no "Ni" or "Si", but just N and S, which act one way when used with extroverted judging and another way when used with introverted judging. One either has a highly-developed inner mental world, or lives more fully in the real world.)

Good point. I've sensed this but hadn't brought it to light. I think it's funny when an Ne dom/aux argues with me over what Ni is like.

I find this amusing, too. I prefer to listen and understand and learn what other types are "like," both from observing and getting direct questions. Even when the types are similar to mine, it's good to get a feel for where the similarities lie. And while I'll often develop my own opinion of what another's type "really is," I will still sit back and observe and test the hypothesis without mentioning it, unless the individual specifically requests typology feedback for themselves.

 

[teslashock]

my intuition has developed this parallel world around me, in which I "understand how everything works". That parallel world (worlds, plural, really), overlays the real world, to the degree that I miss details in the real world. I can be "detail-oriented" sometimes, because what I do notice are details that imply my intuition is wrong, which are details that most people would never notice because they don't look for them. Anyway, to the perceptive observer, I'm slightly spaced out, even when I'm directly engaged and interacting with someone: I'm paying attention both to the person and to the "stuff in my head."

I really like this description of how Ns relate to the real world via alternate parallel worlds. Nice. And the bolded seems to describe well how Se feeds into Ni.

How do Ss fit into this "parallel world" model? They live primarily in the "real world" and thus are capable of catching more real-world details? Is there anything else that can be said about them in terms of this model?

(And then there's my own pet theory that there really is no "Ni" or "Si", but just N and S, which act one way when used with extroverted judging and another way when used with introverted judging. One either has a highly-developed inner mental world, or lives more fully in the real world.)

Isn't this the same as Pe/Pi? Ne/Se is the term we use to denote the N/S function when it's complemented by an introverted judging function, while Ni/Si is the term we use to denote the N/S function when it's complemented by an extroverted judging function. Is there something that separates your pet theory from these labels?

 

[uumlau]

I really like this description of how Ns relate to the real world via alternate parallel worlds. Nice. And the bolded seems to describe well how Se feeds into Ni.

How do Ss fit into this "parallel world" model? They live primarily in the "real world" and thus are capable of catching more real-world details? Is there anything else that can be said about them in terms of this model?

I'm not an S, but from my observations, they're more "interested" in the real world. N's are "more interested" in the parallel world. Over in the video thread, you can compare Whatever's vid to mine. She's almost always engaging the camera, while I'm very often looking away as I gather my thoughts, before I engage the camera and deliver them with focus.

Her take is that she looks at people when she talks to determine their reactions, whether they're bored, etc. In my case, when I talk, I'm taking something from within me and delivering it outward, and I'm more concerned that I'm being correct, than with whether the other person gives a damn about what I'm saying.

Isn't this the same as Pe/Pi? Ne/Se is the term we use to denote the N/S function when it's complemented by an introverted judging function, while Ni/Si is the term we use to denote the N/S function when it's complemented by an extroverted judging function. Is there something that separates your pet theory from these labels?

The main difference is in how one uses one's "other" judging function. E.g., does an ENFP use Ne with Te? Does an INTJ use Ni with Fi? And how does that look?

Personally, I believe that I use Ni with Te, and that I use Ne with both Ti and Fi. This makes me believe that it is the "same N", but that the judging functions direct how things are perceived by their e/i attitude.

Other evidence is that for "compatible types", one switches the E/I, T/F, and J/P, but not the N/S. Thus INTJs and ENFPs find each other fascinating, but are not so attracted by ESFPs or ISTJs, respectively. In theory, ESFP should be a better match for INTJ, since they share all functions, not just two. It matters much more that one shares Te/Fi or Fe/Ti, and not at all that one shares Ne/Si or Ni/Se.

Happy Puppy and I have discussed and disagree on this. She's sure she uses Ne with Te and that she doesn't understand Ni at all. I'm sure that I use Ne with Fi and Ni with Te, that I understand both Ni and Ne and that both are "just N". It would be interesting to see these differing perceptions (pun intended) resolve, if at all.

 

[BlueGray]

I wonder if the Ne/Si and Se/Ni combinations have some importance to this discussion as well.
When I use Si it's often applied to information received originally through Ne. This will alter how Si is working. I am very detail oriented when dealing with past events but those "details" will be very specific connections/thoughts/impressions rather than what most would consider details of the event. So while I can very easily see how Si was working others won't see it very clearly. I think this problem could exist for both Si and Ni to some extent.

 

[teslashock]

The main difference is in how one uses one's "other" judging function. E.g., does an ENFP use Ne with Te? Does an INTJ use Ni with Fi? And how does that look?

So it seems to me like you're more interested in how the functions interact with each other to result in functional categories that are separate and distinct from the original broader function terms. You seem to think that Ne and Ni alone are no different but rather are just made different by their complementary judging functions, right?

I believe socionics is more geared at examining functional interplay and gives more definitive merit to how the functions interact when making its categories, but that's just what I've heard through the grapevine. I don't really know much about socionics (it seems rather messy and convoluted to me), truth be told, but you might find that it's worth looking into.

Personally, I believe that I use Ni with Te, and that I use Ne with both Ti and Fi. This makes me believe that it is the "same N", but that the judging functions direct how things are perceived by their e/i attitude.

I think I'm understanding you, but correct me if I'm wrong. The premise behind your pet theory is that there are no discernible differences between Ne/Ni and Se/Si, but rather, the differences we see in cognition among SJ/SP and NJ/NP types come from the judging functions that affect the perceiving function in question. You believe this because 1) you think you personally use both N functions, and 2) the characteristics of the ENxP/INxJ dynamic point to shared cognitive values. According to your pet theory, 1 and 2 imply that Ne = Ni (and your theory says the same about Se = Si).

According to this categorization, that would mean that Pi paired with x judging function would cause the same cognitive values and attitudes that Pe paired with x judging function does (ie, PeTi = PiTi because Pi = Pe), right? If that's the case, then I'm going to have to disagree with your pet theory for now, lest you provide further support to back up your claim (though the part about implying that the examination of Ne, Se, Si, and Ni necessitates a complementary judging function for thorough understanding is interesting, and I'm inclined to agree). But in regards to Ni = Ne and Si = Se, I don't think that's the case (but I'm open to new ideas ).

INJs and ENPs have completely different cognitive attitudes, even when they share judging functions, so this implies that there's something else going on that distinguishes these two types cognitively. The only reasons this could be the case, categorically speaking, would be function order and different perceiving functions (Ne vs Ni and/or Se vs. Si) that the two types possess.

Since your theory completely undermines the Pe/Pi dichotomies, this would mean that your theory has to support that the difference between INJs and their ENP complements is due solely to a discrepancy in Je/Ji order. How can your theory use this discrepancy, without also incorporating opposing N functions, to justify the cognitive differences between INJs and ENPs?

Personally, I believe that I use Ni with Te, and that I use Ne with both Ti and Fi. This makes me believe that it is the "same N", but that the judging functions direct how things are perceived by their e/i attitude.

There are a lot of people on this forum, myself included, that do not believe Ne/Ni can be healthily juxtaposed, as the two are definitively in opposition with each other. Why exactly do you think you "use" both?

Other evidence is that for "compatible types", one switches the E/I, T/F, and J/P, but not the N/S. Thus INTJs and ENFPs find each other fascinating, but are not so attracted by ESFPs or ISTJs, respectively. In theory, ESFP should be a better match for INTJ, since they share all functions, not just two. It matters much more that one shares Te/Fi or Fe/Ti, and not at all that one shares Ne/Si or Ni/Se.

I agree with you that sharing judging functions is more important for compatibility purposes than is sharing perceiving functions. I get along with TPs and FJs better than TJs and FPs for exactly this reason.

However, I wouldn't go so far as to use this dynamic as "evidence" for your theory. It simply means that the judging functions may be more important than the perceiving functions in predicting the potential for effective communication and mutual compatibility.

ENFPs and INTJs may be fascinated by each other, but that doesn't have to be because they possess the same functions in a different order. We can justify this dynamic by saying that the ENFP's Ne instills a wanderlust for novel concepts and ideas and is thus intrigued by the new perspectives that Ni has to offer while the INTJ's Ni allows for constant shifts in perspective and thus is fueled by the creative connections that Ne offers. This Ne/Ni fascination, complemented by shared judging functions that allow for mutual understanding of each others' moral values, results in a fruitful relationship.

We can justify this dynamic by the function categories already in place, so this relationship is not necessarily evidence for there being no discernible difference between Ne and Ni. So, again, why do you view this as evidence in support of your pet theory (rather than as evidence in support of Ne/Ni being different)?

 

[teslashock]

Just want to point out this out again.

Notice who says Ni and Si are generally similar => mostly Ne dominant (ENTP, ENFP, INTP)
Notice who say Ni are more dissimilar to Si => Ni dominant (INTJ, INFJ, ISTP)

The pattern says a lot to me...
It suggests that unless you're an active user of a introverted perceiving function, you cannot truly know how it works. And even if your dominant function is Pi, you are inherently weakest with the opposing Pi.

The fact that Ne doms recognize and find noteworthy the connections between Si and Ni while Ni doms don't does not necessarily point to the fact that Ne doms don't truly understand Ni.

Ne is a function that allows us to discover patterns and make conceptual connections, so it's no wonder that Ne can see notable similarities/connections between these two functions.

Sure, Ne doms do not understand Ni the way that Ni doms do, as Ne doms don't experience Ni. But that doesn't mean that they can't analyze the intricacies of the definitions of Ni and Si to find how the two are definitively connected. That's what Ne does, by default. It allows us to create and/or see patterns, and these patterns may not be always be so obvious and/or substantial to the non-Ne-ers.

Both are internally reflective, information gathering processes but that's all the similarities they share.

Perhaps it takes an Ne dom to see value in this similarity and understand why it's not completely trivial.

 

[Zarathustra]

Tesla,

I just want you to know that anything negative I've ever had to or will have to say about ENTPs officially does not apply to you.

There is some *brilliant* analysis in those last two posts, and you actually did a very job in describing one of my (very few) bones of contention with the way uumlau looks at/talks about the above topics.

I'm at work and too busy to post a full reply right now, but hopefully I can get in a post or ten tonight.

Best,
Z

 

[teslashock]

Wow, can it really be that an NTJ actually sees merit in an NTP?!

Pardon me for a second while I go shit my pants.

blush

 

[Jaguar]

Not this one.

 

[teslashock]

Not this one.

It's probably really hard for the people on this forum to recall your distaste for NTPs, so thanks for the reminder.

Feel free to mop up my shit now.

 

[Jaguar]

Feel free to mop up my shit now.

You already ate it.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

So anyway, comparing Si and Ni... what does intuition do when introverted?

Well, I guess the stuff of intuition is abstractions. Intuition liberates concepts. It frees them from their instantiated location, which is to say the concept "X" of some real world "object" X no longer needs X present for "X" to be understood as real. Indeed, the real world object X no longer defines the concept "X".

This is exactly what Jung says about Ne.

Intuition when introverted will draw on a range of similar concepts to produce an ideal concept, the ideal "X", and this will be understood as prior to and essentially defining of the real world X. And since all of this happens in the conceptual world, the meaning of the organisational concept "similar" can be changed, perhaps at will, but more likely according to some preferred (but perhaps dynamically developing) conceptualising framework (that may or may not persist).

I don't see the original concepts of being necessarily similar at all; mightn't they be a hodge podge of phenomena. Yet Ni will search until it finds whatever truth it needs, which is colored by whichever judging function is being used.

But perhaps more importantly, some concepts "X" will come into being without there ever having been a witnessed X. The concept will have arrived in consciousness as a created thing, a product of some composing process probably not too dissimilar to that process that makes ideal "X"s from real Xs, but in this case the composing parts will have been drawn from far and wide, probably indeed drawn from the concepts of things ordinarily considered dissimilar.

Well, this is Ni. As SolitaryWalker says (i'm so tired of saying that--i should get something for that ) all Ni needs is a quiet place to reflect.

Basically, they all need objects except Ni, according to my understanding.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Even here on the forum, with plenty of people who understand MBTI and N and S, we're arguing about what Ni and Si "really are."

Well, it doesn't matter what she thinks she is. She's only 14, and couldn't care less! I am the analyzer here; the diagnoser of functions.

(And then there's my own pet theory that there really is no "Ni" or "Si", but just N and S, which act one way when used with extroverted judging and another way when used with introverted judging. One either has a highly-developed inner mental world, or lives more fully in the real world.)

I haven't made it to tesla's responses yet, so bear with me if I have missed something, please.

So, if someone uses N with Fe, you think that N will have more Ni flavor (introverted flavor) than Ne, and when used with Fi, more extraverted to balance it out or something? Same with S?

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Other evidence is that for "compatible types", one switches the E/I, T/F, and J/P, but not the N/S. Thus INTJs and ENFPs find each other fascinating, but are not so attracted by ESFPs or ISTJs, respectively. In theory, ESFP should be a better match for INTJ, since they share all functions, not just two. It matters much more that one shares Te/Fi or Fe/Ti, and not at all that one shares Ne/Si or Ni/Se.

I'm confused, but curious here, could you elaborate?

Happy Puppy and I have discussed and disagree on this. She's sure she uses Ne with Te and that she doesn't understand Ni at all. I'm sure that I use Ne with Fi and Ni with Te, that I understand both Ni and Ne and that both are "just N". It would be interesting to see these differing perceptions (pun intended) resolve, if at all.

Yet, if you really thought about it, would you not be able to tell which attitude of N you were using? I mean, when I use Ni, I'm pretty much zoned out. Ne, working it. So, I am reticent to lump them together.