Ni v. Si - A Comparative Analysis

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

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*

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.

I'm just going to respond to all of you at once, since you are all basically saying the same thing. I'm not sure you are referring to me when you say "people" but it really doesn't matter.

I am totally with you SS, on the many different ways to explain why we are the way we are! I'm totally into evolutionary biology, psychology, life circumstance, etc., etc., etc. I see the ideas that Jung proposed intriguing and worth contemplating, simple as that. MBTI theory came from it, and I find the archetypes fascinating and helpful when it comes to interacting with others.

The personal reason I am obsessed with this, is because I am a purist, mentally and physically; I like to live and understand the essence of things. When I find some tendril of a thought that tickles something in me, I simply want to understand it from the inside out, to be an expert at it. To fully understand something to the depth that I desire, I have to break it down, then build it back up. What you are seeing, in my posts at least in this thread, is the deduction process with typology theory as Jung and others have proposed it. It's really no different than understanding any theory(ies) that you may be interested in.

What I find interesting is that you jump to the conclusion that I (or whoever you are referring to) think(s) in this way only; that I ascribe everything to type theory. This couldn't be further from the truth! If I don't focus in, I might either take something for granted, or miss something, which would be anathema to full insight and understanding. I personally (wouldn't dream of saying you are referring to me of course ) don't miss out on much in life. My day is filled with richness and simple living; ironically made more so by letting my mind and imagination run free with questioning insights of those who have come before me, and those who exist with me.

If you guys don't desire to do this, or if you find it annoying, that is very interesting. Do you usually get annoyed when someone delves into an issue deeply? Why do you find this sort of pure intellectual pursuit so offensive?

 

[cascadeco]

If you guys don't desire to do this, or if you find it annoying, that is very interesting. Do you usually get annoyed when someone delves into an issue deeply? Why do you find this sort of pure intellectual pursuit so offensive?

Actually I don't find it offensive, I was just stating my own views of it, as a counterpoint, as I related to what Silly Sapienne wrote - that's all.

I do understand the dissection element, and wanting to understand all of the cognitive functions and how they might tie together; assumed though that it would still be ok for those who don't entirely agree with the degree of what's being discussed to post/share thoughts. Not a big deal on my end.

Edit: Wasn't directed at you, it's just a general thing on this site - some people hold to function theory very loosely and don't pay it much attention, others are on the other end and try to tie functions to everything. It's two approaches that are pretty evident on this site - as a general thing. I can see why both are alluring.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

Actually I don't find it offensive, I was just stating my own views of it, as a counterpoint, as I related to what Silly Sapienne wrote - that's all.

I do understand the dissection element, and wanting to understand all of the cognitive functions and how they might tie together; assumed though that it would still be ok for those who don't entirely agree with the degree of what's being discussed to post/share thoughts. Not a big deal on my end.

Understood. But this thread is all about looking into the differences between Ni and Si. It's not about asking whether the functions represent every experience we have or will have in life. I would find it interesting, and more applicable, if you and others spoke more to the functions and how you experience them. But, I agree, it's really no big deal, and definitely not something everyone wants to delve into.

 

[Totenkindly]

What I find interesting is that you jump to the conclusion that I (or whoever you are referring to) think(s) in this way only; that I ascribe everything to type theory. This couldn't be further from the truth! If I don't focus in, I might either take something for granted, or miss something, which would be anathema to full insight and understanding. I personally (wouldn't dream of saying you are referring to me of course ) don't miss out on much in life. My day is filled with richness and simple living; ironically made more so by letting my mind and imagination run free with questioning insights of those who have come before me, and those who exist with me.

If you guys don't desire to do this, or if you find it annoying, that is very interesting. Do you usually get annoyed when someone delves into an issue deeply? Why do you find this sort of pure intellectual pursuit so offensive?

That is an interesting approach.

Usually if a number of people get a wrong idea about me (or I think they're having an idea about me even if they're not specifically directing something at me), I ask myself, "Hmmm, why are they thinking that? What are you doing, Jen, that might be projecting the attitude that multiple people are perceiving?"

I have to monitor myself first, check myself. I usually do not assume that someone else is just "annoyed" with me as an issue of their own or that they find offense in my (IMO) pure motivations, there could easily be a communication issue or maybe even a misperception on my part (if not theirs as well).

I need to try to see myself through their eyes, in good faith, and see if there's a reason they're perceiving me as they do, as part of working through the issues and then bridging the apparent communication gap.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

That is an interesting approach.

Usually if a number of people get a wrong idea about me (or I think they're having an idea about me even if they're not specifically directing something at me), I ask myself, "Hmmm, why are they thinking that? What are you doing, Jen, that might be projecting the attitude that multiple people are perceiving?"

I have to monitor myself first, check myself. I usually do not assume that someone else is just "annoyed" with me as an issue of their own or that they find offense in my (IMO) pure motivations, there could easily be a communication issue or maybe even a misperception on my part (if not theirs as well).

I need to try to see myself through their eyes, in good faith, and see if there's a reason they're perceiving me as they do, as part of working through the issues and then bridging the apparent communication gap.

I can only be myself. If someone is annoyed, you know that is their own issue, not mine. Something I am doing indeed might be triggering them, but it is up to them to take responsibility for it. You cannot out therapize me, Jennifer.

Look, I know what you are saying. I hear you loud and clear. Just as I heard sim loud and clear, and jag loud and clear. I am used to standing alone. You must understand being misunderstood and unliked is a daily experience, nearly, for me. I am weird and I own that. If I am going to worry about offending others or others' perceptions of me with my convoluted insights and ramblings (unless I have been rude or inappropriate) I will not ever partake in life, nor think the way I think.

 

[SillySapienne]

Gah-humbug, I'm at work, and thus am typing this on my crapberry.

A.) Let it be known that I was not thinking about you, aphrodite.

B.) Let it also be known that I came to the conclusion that some people just like or prefer to use functional analysis as a means of labelling human behavior, and that's cool.

If there is anything I absolutely love to do with my free time is to wax philosophize, reflect, analyze and understand human beings and human nature.

There are two individuals that immediately come to mind that I get into indepth conversations with regarding life and human beings, one being an intp and the other being an istp. Neither of these individuals give much credence to typology/mbti yet the conversations we have procure so much insight devoid of typological "constraints"

I guess I'm just a humanist.

And I find any doctrine/theory used to employ or direct thoughts/ideas to be restricting.

I'm big into integrating interdisciplinary thoughts/theories/ideas into my world view.

I guess my frustration comes from observing what I view to be highly intelligent folks using and believing in typology to a dogmatic/religious extent. But, then again, that's their prerogative.

What's really silly is that it all comes down to the fact that I don't fully agree with the 8 labels.

But I have come across some awesome definitions/explanations/theories regarding these arbitrary labels.

When I get some time alone, I'll expound on what I think regarding N-ness, irrespective of whether it is introverted or extroverted.

And what you (pl.) call Si.

Which is really storing experiences via your memory and using that to understand and or predict current or future similar experiences.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm big into integrating interdisciplinary thoughts/theories/ideas into my world view.

Smart girl.

 

[SillySapienne]

kk, quick quick.

Regarding typology and functions.

When I was a child I thought I was psychic.

When I was a bit older and found out about this thing called intuition, I immediately became obsessed, that was exactly what I used/did/had, I would frequently intuit information.

Also, I've been extremely empathetic my whole life, and upon learning that word, empathy, I discovered that I was and had always been empathetic.

So, during my teens and early adulthood, I would label myself as an Empath and an Intuitive, all pre-MBTI.

I gotta go, but I hope my above statements illustrate my point, hahahaha, if I even have one.

Lastly, how much of what we are discussing has to do with pattern recognition, memory, recall, imagination, empathy, deductive and inductive reasoning, mental processing, ToM, etc. ?

I guess what irks me the most about typology is that it classifies people as being intuitives where I would not.

Gah, wish I could explain more, but I gots to work. :zzz:

 

[Ginkgo]

Random thought:

Since all archetypes with Ni in their 4 primary functions also have Se in their 4 primary functions, could we speculate that Ni synthesized immediate sensory details through Se to subconsciously project a future trend or outcome?

Meanwhile, all archetypes with Si in their first 4 primary functions also have Ne in their first primary functions. So Ne projects a slew of potential trends or outcomes from a singular sensory detail through Si?

To me it seems that Ni and Si are two sides of the same coin. That is, Ni synthesizes a novel future projection, while Si retains a nostalgic past experience.

 

[Kalach]

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'm saying it's called the dominant because in Jung's mind it wore a leather mask. And there's no other reason to call it dominant. I mean, like, it's a coincidence that people with introverted dominant functions are introverts. And extroverts--it's just one of those freak accidents that they have extroverted dominant functions too. And people with dominant judging functions, it's just happenstance that they judge first and perceive second. And so on.

No one becomes well-rounded by contradicting their function order. They become stressed, anxious, and dissatisfied with the overall direction of their lives. But none of that precludes them from functioning well enough, even successfully enough to be proud of themselves.

But likewise, no one becomes especially well-rounded by sticking religiously to their function order. The sheer range and depth of stupid, megalomaniac shit people say that to them sounds normal because they're protecting their dominant interests.... look over the last two or so pages in this thread and you will see excellent examples.

No, people become well-rounded by catering consciously enough to their dominant function followed by their auxiliary function that they begin to see where the limits of those functions lie. They first begin knowing about what information they need and what judgments they make, so they can start actively choosing to find enough of that kind of information and actively choosing to attend to the quality of their decisions. And as they get good at this process, they'll come to know more about where their decisions don't apply and what other kinds of information exist out there in the world. And they'll start looking around for the things they've been uninterested in thus far. Accessing and coordinating this kind of process remains the intended purpose of MBTI testing.




So-o-o-o... anyway... what is it that Si doms really do behind closed doors? And the Si auxes, how about them? Those two groups together, they're like, what, a minority population at best, yeah? What's up with that?

 

[Jaguar]

I'm saying it's called the dominant because in Jung's mind it wore a leather mask.

 

[Kalach]

I'm saying it's called the dominant because in Jung's mind it wore a leather mask. And there's no other reason to call it dominant. I mean, like, it's a coincidence that people with introverted dominant functions are introverts. And extroverts--it's just one of those freak accidents that they have extroverted dominant functions too. And people with dominant judging functions, it's just happenstance that they judge first and perceive second. And so on.

No one becomes well-rounded by contradicting their function order. They become stressed, anxious, and dissatisfied with the overall direction of their lives. But none of that precludes them from functioning well enough, even successfully enough to be proud of themselves.

But likewise, no one becomes especially well-rounded by sticking religiously to their function order. The sheer range and depth of stupid, megalomaniac shit people say that to them sounds normal because they're protecting their dominant interests.... look over the last two or so pages in this thread and you will see excellent examples.

No, people become well-rounded by catering consciously enough to their dominant function followed by their auxiliary function that they begin to see where the limits of those functions lie. They first begin knowing about what information they need and what judgments they make, so they can start actively choosing to find enough of that kind of information and actively choosing to attend to the quality of their decisions. And as they get good at this process, they'll come to know more about where their decisions don't apply and what other kinds of information exist out there in the world. And they'll start looking around for the things they've been uninterested in thus far. Accessing and coordinating this kind of process remains the intended purpose of MBTI testing.

And by the way, none of this is objectively true. Or if it is, we can't be sure of it. It's all just the spelling out of a model. And just like every other mutant in this thread emphasizing the needs and values of their dominant functions, I am too. A model, a concept, a framework of thoughts about what things really exist... and I'll assert it's all true and worth developing because I think it's worth developing and am beginning to see how it can all be true. It's a schema, a fundamental chunk of the real world... made up while sightseeing what is and was and could be in introverted intuition.

It exists without proof, you say? Of course it does.

 

[SillySapienne]

People become well rounded by...

Understanding themselves through self-awareness, meaning they see and accept all the things that they do/believe/value and why.

And, through this self-analysis, inevitably one will realize their imperfections, some of which they'll deem as acceptable, and others which they'll deem as unacceptable and, if motivated enough, will attempt to change/alter.

To be objectively self-aware (read as: to be honest with yourself) and cognizant and accountable of what we do and don't do, and why, and to have the courage to admit to one's self one's flaws, and the desire to become a better, a fuller and happier, more content self will yeild, inevitably, a balanced person.

Period.

 

[Kalach]

People become well rounded by...

Understanding themselves through self-awareness, meaning they see and accept all the things that they do/believe/value and why.

And, through this self-analysis, inevitably one will realize their imperfections, some of which they'll deem as acceptable, and others which they'll deem as unacceptable and, if motivated enough, will attempt to change/alter.

To be objectively self-aware (read as: to be honest with yourself) and cognizant and accountable of what we do and don't do, and why, and to have the courage to admit to one's self one's flaws, and the desire to become a better, a fuller and happier, more content self will yeild, inevitably, a balanced person.

Period.

You are presumably not seriously suggesting this for introverts, right? Introverts become well-rounded by engaging more substantially with the external world. And you're presumably not seriously suggesting it for extroverts with dominant judging functions, right? They become well-rounded by agreeing to loosen their personal hold on the external world and come to appreciate wider possibilities. And how about extroverts who don't ordinarily focus on value judgments but on truth judgments? How does self-focused analysis teach them anything but how to undermine their superior focus?

For Jung's sake, ENFP, is everyone truly supposed to second guess themselves according to inner feeling? To reject the 16 types of typology because it places people into constraining boxes and yet then go on to place them all into your box because it's the one you know to be best for "people"...

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

si...is...

So-o-o-o... anyway... what is it that Si doms really do behind closed doors? And the Si auxes, how about them? Those two groups together, they're like, what, a minority population at best, yeah? What's up with that?

Thanks for your explanations.

Si don't give a shit about this stuff, is where they are.

I'll assert this again, because it's where I'm leaning now. S and N in the dom position, are judging functions. Our dom function judges. It has to, because that is what lies at the heart of how we process information; how we decide what is worthy of our consideration.

Si's use their senses to experience real world T and F experiences. They decide if what they're seeing and hearing and feeling and tasting and smelling is worthy of internalizing permanently. If it is, they remember that object and its characteristics, how it made them feel, and any other pertinent data. Because objects rarely change, and people rarely change, Si becomes a huge data base or library of How Things Are. That is why this stuff means little to them, because this stuff is largely an intuitive's playground.......And they might indeed have intuitive moments, but they are fleeting and momentary, for the most part; contributing to the tapestry of experiences and living, but not often called upon for insight or understanding.

It's really not hard if you simplify it, and consider Si dom as a judging function.

Considering ESxJs, and Si as an aux function, let's look at an ESFJ as an example,

Fe/Si/N


We would see Si more as a perceiver, like we typically think about it. These types would use Fe as their Mother function to judge all final data as worthy or not worthy, and use Si to perceive data from the world, along with N, to help them understand how people and groups work best. They would be dogmatic in their dealing with people because Si and Ni (my other hypothesis is that the tert is naturally aligned opposite the dominant, but if this is too much of a stretch for you, just think in terms of N) are stubborn once they think they have figured something out (Ni), or seen an object behave repetitively in a certain way (Si). Their Si, and their N, are slaves to their master Fe, so oftentimes they think they know what is best for others because, well, they might give more thought to me and what I need or my family needs more than I do at times, given the nature of them plying dominant Fe with all that S and N!! This is why Keirsey labels them the guardians, etc., because they truly seem to hold what's best for others as tantamount, with that dom Fe, followed by two strong perceivers, Si and N(i).

 

[Kalach]

^ Well, that's fairly bizarre. But I do recognise how odd it is to consider oneself a dominant perceiver. If other IJs are similar to me then the auxiliary function plays such a large role in one's thinking that one more naturally identifies oneself as a judger. And usually most spectacularly so when in the presence of other people. But, in truth, perceiving is where it's at. It's what we do. ISJs too.

So I figure, if they're sitting around perceiving stuff, mulling stuff over, they must be up to something worthwhile too.

 

[AphroditeGoneAwry]

^ Well, that's fairly bizarre. But I do recognise how odd it is to consider oneself a dominant perceiver. If other IJs are similar to me then the auxiliary function plays such a large role in one's thinking that one more naturally identifies oneself as a judger. And usually most spectacularly so when in the presence of other people. But, in truth, perceiving is where it's at. It's what we do. ISJs too.

So I figure, if they're sitting around perceiving stuff, mulling stuff over, they must be up to something worthwhile too.

Yeah, so I think our dominant function is our judging function, regardless of whether it's rational (T or F) or irrational (N or S). I think Jung didn't see this because he himself was Ti dom, and just thought that his Ti was a judgment function because he could feel it making the decisions, and since N and S to him felt like perceivers (and were), he labeled the functions that way, which, I believe has led to much confusion, esp regarding Ni/Si, because Ne and Se are so much more fluid, and there is something to be said for Pe types being more relaxed and "nonjudgmental." But, no matter what word you use, all the archetypes must judge what information is important and what to do with information, and that task falls to their dominant function, in my opinion.

As far as Myer's Briggs and their J/P dichotomy? Well, they based it on Jung's already defined judgment and perceiving functions, just applying the twist of how J/P types 'seem' to the world. Well, I might 'seem' to be an F judger because that is my extroverted function, and the way I appear in the world, but it's just an illusion, really it is my intuition that is making the call.

 

[SillySapienne]

You are presumably not seriously suggesting this for introverts, right? Introverts become well-rounded by engaging more substantially with the external world. And you're presumably not seriously suggesting it for extroverts with dominant judging functions, right? They become well-rounded by agreeing to loosen their personal hold on the external world and come to appreciate wider possibilities. And how about extroverts who don't ordinarily focus on value judgments but on truth judgments? How does self-focused analysis teach them anything but how to undermine their superior focus?

I have yet to have my coffee this morning, but are you fucking serious, man?!!?

I'm suggesting it for ALL human beings, granted, many human beings lack the ability, know-how, or capacity to self-reflect, so I guess these guys, which are admittedly a whole lot of the population, are exempt from what I suggested. But, anybody who has the capacity to be SELF-AWARE, will have the capacity to KNOW what it is about themselves they'd like to change, and if they're healthy and willing enough, they will effect change in order to become more complete, and content selves.

One caveat, though.

It does seem that one has to have a certain level of "mental/emotional health" in order to become more mentally/emotionally healthy, so it is kinda like a Catch 22.

 

[SillySapienne]

For Jung's sake, ENFP, is everyone truly supposed to second guess themselves according to inner feeling? To reject the 16 types of typology because it places people into constraining boxes and yet then go on to place them all into your box because it's the one you know to be best for "people"...

So very cute, darling.

Notice how Step B:

Introverts become well-rounded by engaging more substantially with the external world

And you're presumably not seriously suggesting it for extroverts with dominant judging functions, right?

They become well-rounded by agreeing to loosen their personal hold on the external world and come to appreciate wider possibilities.

Must begin with Step A:

Understanding themselves through self-awareness, meaning they see and accept all the things that they do/believe/value and why.

And, through this self-analysis, inevitably one will realize their imperfections, some of which they'll deem as acceptable, and others which they'll deem as unacceptable and, if motivated enough, will attempt to change/alter.

To be objectively self-aware (read as: to be honest with yourself) and cognizant and accountable of what we do and don't do, and why, and to have the courage to admit to one's self one's flaws, and the desire to become a better, a fuller and happier, more content self will yeild, inevitably, a balanced person.

 

[SillySapienne]

And how about extroverts who don't ordinarily focus on value judgments but on truth judgments? How does self-focused analysis teach them anything but how to undermine their superior focus?

You need to expound upon this, because I find it difficult to differentiate the two, i.e. although I have many values, perhaps one of my highest held values is that of valuing the truth.

All good wo/men, in my books, value the truth, so in the case, value judgments and truth judgments are virtually the same, and far from being mutually exclusive.

"How does self-focused analysis teach them anything but how to undermine their superior focus?

Notice how I say "self-awareness" and how you translate that to/as "self-focused analysis" which, technically it is, but which also leads me to believe that self-awareness does not come *naturally* for you, because, lemme guess, usually, your "focus" of analysis lies elsewhere.

amiright?

I think I'm right.

But, I made a mistake, too, I just realized, by assuming a more balanced individual to be necessarily a more happy individual.

If someone is far from being a "balanced" individual, but is perfectly and *honestly* content with their existence, I don't see why they'd need to change.