Combinations of perceiving functions and their roles in reading and learning

Disclaimer: Contains unverified ideas and might contain errors. Do not take as facts.

The Sensing function manages raw data, while the iNtuitive function starts to evaluate, interprete and extrapolate.

The preferred data format for Si is text: all relevant data is packed into standardized variables (words) in a linear arrangement. It gives Ne a solid base to operate on.

The preferred data format for Se is experience, or at the very least pictures: all data can be seen in its entirety, parallel, unsorted and without preselection. That gives Ni a wealth of information among which it can freely spin connections and which it can sort according to its own internal system.

Now this might lead to the assumption that people who use Si/Ne might prefer books and Se/Ni-users might prefer movies, but it doesn't work as simple as that. Preferences are probably totally up to the individual person. The tendency I see in the few people around me of which I know the type even seems to suggest an opposite relation.

While reading a book, a Se/Ni-person uses first Se to read the data (that is in a less than ideal form for Se), and then Ni to connect the incomplete (pre-selected) data points to a world model that can be given back to Se. Both functions are automatically busy.
This is either seen as a fun and rewarding experience, or as work.

A Si/Ne-person, on the other hand, doesn't even need to use iNtuition to get the data into the right form: It's already perfect for Si to use. Reading could be seen as boring, because Ne has no job to do - or Ne could be used to think of possible future developments of the story which are then verified. My guess is Si/Ne-users might be more prone to trying to figure out detective stories faster than the characters, because that gives their Ne something to do.


I think the Si/Ne-combination is actually more efficient at learning from books/lectures or working with predefined concepts (as is required in most educational systems): Si can immediately integrate a text in its framework and make it available for Ne to work on.

Ni/Se in contrast has to "translate" the data first. The advantage of that procedure is that the "translation" process doubles as a check mechanism. When a Ni/Se-user translates faulty Si-data into his highly individual Ni-format, there is always a chance that he notices that the pieces don't fit together. A Si-user is in more danger of integrating the new facts unchecked into his worldview (unless they collide directly with facts that were known before).


I'd like to see additional viewpoints on this, so feel free to critique, agree, disagree or present countertheories.

Edit: Oh no, I actually meant to post that in the Cognitive Functions forum. Someone should probably move it *facepalm*

Wow, I had just written out some thoughts on just this subject, yet had nowhere to use them yet.

Tandems:
SeNi: emergent experience compared with stored inferences (familiar and universal patterns)
NeSi: emergent inferences compared with stored experience (facts)

(Previous terminology I had been using recently:
SeNi: emergent facts, stored patterns
NeSi: emergent patterns, stored facts)

In my experience, it seems the latter will be a bit slower to process things, since stored facts are what have to be referenced in order for things to line up. Stored patterns are much easier to fit data into, as you get the sudden "aha!". With facts, it either is, or it isn't, and we won't be settled until we find the match.

This comes to light, as over the past several years, I had really be racking my brain trying to learn everything about the functions and archetypes. Someone I had been dealing with, who was trying to make me ENFP by "proving" I was thus not good with Ti "skills", referenced an ISTP relative (who's apparently a good "Crafter", even winning an award for an invention) to prove Ti was "quick" at grasping underlying frameworks. But if you're talking about "grasping" then right there, you're dealing with gathering of the information, which is Perception (S/N).

In studying these theories, Ne is all over the place, especially with all the different interpretations, often overgeneralized or ambiguous terminology, (and even people distorting the theory in different ways) that has to be sifted through. So it takes time to sort and settle on the frameworks. Se would provide more sure data for Ti to work off of, though it will of course be normally geared more towards tangible data, and when inferences of the intangible are needed, Ni will also provide more sure data.

When you look at an object, it can only but infer many multiple meanings or possibilities, so things will be more open (P). When you operate off of one pre-inferred internal pattern, then things are more set (J).
When you look at an emerging tangible situation, it's more open as far as the practical possibilities. When you compare it to stored facts, it's more set.
However, facts are more inflexible than inferrences, so when stored, it makes for a tougher process of reaching a settlement.

Now, this is just a loosely gathered theory I was trying to learn (particularly the full eight archetypes of the functions concept). There was no single written source for it, so it was conveyed largely by individual online teaching in posts, sites, short articles, or in lectures that were periodic, far away and costly. A long, written exposition is what I tended to prefer.
So perhaps there is something to Ne/Si being "more efficient at learning from books/lectures or working with predefined concepts".

When a Ni/Se-user translates faulty Si-data into his highly individual Ni-format, there is always a chance that he notices that the pieces don't fit together. A Si-user is in more danger of integrating the new facts unchecked into his worldview (unless they collide directly with facts that were known before).

I've recenly been in a discussion with an Ni dominant who described the function as "looking for what's missing". So right there, the Si(Ne) user might have a harder time putting things together and even with something appearing to be assembled, still ending up with things not fitting quite right, where Ni would pick things up more.

eeep, ignore post.

Are you saying that Si/Ne would find reading less or more enjoyable than Se/Ni?
I know you said it was more engaging for the Se/Ni pair because they had to work.
I think though that the amount of enjoyment attained from reading is very dependent on the judging functions, wether one is a thinker or a feeler.

I think the amount of enjoyment depends mostly on the individual person, their interests and the material. The theory is that Si/Ne would enjoy it in a different way than Ni/Se:
Ni/Se-people might be content with just reading a book, concentrating on the line they're reading and picturing the scene - basically experiencing a story as if it wasn't just words on paper. They might think about alternate possibilities, possible implications or relations to reality afterwards, if they want to do that, but while reading, they'd prefer to just dive in and watch it all unfold.
Si/Ne-people might be bored with "just reading". They might prefer not to have to envision everything and rather take the facts in without further processing - and at the same time entertain their Ne by speculating about what might happen next, where the plot might go, what the author wanted to express, or any number of other things.
Of course, Si-doms might be happy about not having to use their intuition much at all...don't know about that.

For me, the (assumed) Si/Ne-way of reading seems less enjoyable, but I guess it's only natural that I am biased that way - if I'm even correct. Does it work for you?

Actually i had a talk with my mother about how we read books just a few day ago. I am an INFJ and she is a ISFJ. We discovered a big difference in the way we read books. The story although words on paper will be alive in my mind. As Metaplanar said "basically experiencing a story as if it wasn't just words on paper".

My mother told me she just reads the words and that how she goes through it.

i also do pretty much everything Metaplanar described for Ni/Se other then the thinking of the implications or relations to reality. His/her assumptions for Si doms was correct for my mother atleast.

Originally Posted by Metaplanar

I think the amount of enjoyment depends mostly on the individual person, their interests and the material. The theory is that Si/Ne would enjoy it in a different way than Ni/Se:
Ni/Se-people might be content with just reading a book, concentrating on the line they're reading and picturing the scene - basically experiencing a story as if it wasn't just words on paper. They might think about alternate possibilities, possible implications or relations to reality afterwards, if they want to do that, but while reading, they'd prefer to just dive in and watch it all unfold.
Si/Ne-people might be bored with "just reading". They might prefer not to have to envision everything and rather take the facts in without further processing - and at the same time entertain their Ne by speculating about what might happen next, where the plot might go, what the author wanted to express, or any number of other things.
Of course, Si-doms might be happy about not having to use their intuition much at all...don't know about that.

For me, the (assumed) Si/Ne-way of reading seems less enjoyable, but I guess it's only natural that I am biased that way - if I'm even correct. Does it work for you?

Yeah, that makes sense, thanks this is interesting. I do have the pictures in my head - most of the time I'm not even thinking about the words... didn't know you could read any other way :P

P.S. I'm reading Steppenwolf now (by Hermann Hesse). It's a really great book, I recommend.

Originally Posted by MrShatter

P.S. I'm reading Steppenwolf now (by Hermann Hesse). It's a really great book, I recommend.

That's funny. That's one of my mum's favourite books and she's an INFJ as well. I haven't read it yet myself.

I can but say that my brain races to see all possible - and PROBABLE - outcomes of a story, based on current moment in the story. I am almost NEVER surprised by any movie or book. You see the formula almost immediately... ("Aha.. it is a "twist" movie...")

Regarding other stuff I do not know. Nowadays I lean towards saying that Ni-doms (that I believe are Js..right?) simplify the world to function efficiently, whereas more Ne-savvy Ps see the whole more as is (wider funnel), but also get paralyzed by all possibilities to a certain degree.

This is just a heavy generalization (and my own theory), but I think it fits well into your description too...

The Si part.... well I do not know... It is my least used function if you look at MBTI.... Of course I compare to past experiences somewhat as well, but if it is as you say I do not know.

Originally Posted by Metaplanar

I think the amount of enjoyment depends mostly on the individual person, their interests and the material. The theory is that Si/Ne would enjoy it in a different way than Ni/Se:
Ni/Se-people might be content with just reading a book, concentrating on the line they're reading and picturing the scene - basically experiencing a story as if it wasn't just words on paper. They might think about alternate possibilities, possible implications or relations to reality afterwards, if they want to do that, but while reading, they'd prefer to just dive in and watch it all unfold.
Si/Ne-people might be bored with "just reading". They might prefer not to have to envision everything and rather take the facts in without further processing - and at the same time entertain their Ne by speculating about what might happen next, where the plot might go, what the author wanted to express, or any number of other things.
Of course, Si-doms might be happy about not having to use their intuition much at all...don't know about that.

For me, the (assumed) Si/Ne-way of reading seems less enjoyable, but I guess it's only natural that I am biased that way - if I'm even correct. Does it work for you?

Nope. It probably depends on which function is stronger of the two. A Sensor might be content to just read the book as is, but an Intuitive is going to be attempting to figure out the rest of the plotline. I can't say which kind of S/N this is, specifically, since I have really strong Ni as well as strong Ne and I'd get confused between the two. My Si serves almost exclusively to support Ti/Ne, so it would get mixed in with the other functions. And I can't say much for my Se. I walk into poles regularly. -_-