# Common traits shared by Si and Ni-dom?



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Any?

Second question, are there any of those that you can use to identify an Si/Ni dom?


----------



## Sapphire Sage (Jun 11, 2015)

I think the easiest way to tell would be, Si doesn't mind repetition and respects tradition. 
Ni hates repetition and will only conform to tradition if it makes sense.
(in general, not always the case)


----------



## Copper North (Mar 18, 2015)

Sapphire Sage said:


> I think the easiest way to tell would be, Si doesn't mind repetition and respects tradition.
> Ni hates repetition and will only conform to tradition if it makes sense.
> (in general, not always the case)


Very, very true in a lot of instances.

From my own view, I am comfortable with a routine, but I'll draw something unique out of every day (especially at work) to keep from getting bored and restless with any part of it that seems redundant.

I have tremendous respect for those who came years before me, and, as an example, if I were to move into my great-uncle's home after he died, I'd likely leave most of his things where he always had them for a full year, rather than sweep in and renovate everything in sight during the first week. 

My Si scored 12 and my Ni scored 8, so I'm either a botched medical experiment, or a textbook peculiarity (for an INFJ). :laughing:


----------



## Chris Merola (Jul 11, 2014)

I think some similarities between Si and Ni doms would be -

Both are characteristically stubborn/arrogant about their way of thinking being correct, though this may not be readily apparent

Both find it difficult to express their conclusions and perspectives; easily misunderstood

Both take subjective meaning from objective reality; Si doms take the meaning from objects, Ni doms take the meaning from universal archetypal patterns and experiences.

Both will find themselves much more satisfied if they use their auxiliary function to aid their somewhat incomprehensible Pi dominant functions. (Although any well adjusted type should use their auxiliary function well, it is imperative for Ni and Si doms)


----------



## fuliajulia (Jun 29, 2013)

Also, both Ni/Si types place value on seemingly random things. Like having weird obsessions, e.g. I know an ISTJ obsessed with fixing old film cameras, or an INFJ who spends worrying amounts of time studying memes (admittedly I have stuff like these too, hope it's just a weird Pi thing).


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Just to be captain obvious, both have introversion and perception in common


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Ksara said:


> Just to be captain obvious, both have introversion and perception in common


This.

Being introverted means you "see" the archetypes, and being perception means it's not a choice, it just happens.

To put it in the first-person, I experience it as "not being in control", it comes across as "this is just how things are" and I'm only aware of it, and choices are implied by what's there, not something where I spend a lot of time contemplating what I think/feel about the data in some kind of attempt at being "right" or "rational" in my interpretation.

I used to have a boss who was an ISTJ and from our conversations and interactions, I got the impression that he processes information much in the same way - being "led" by his perception, not really the master of his own environment, but always living in a reactionary way, adapting to it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> This.
> 
> Being introverted means you "see" the archetypes, and being perception means it's not a choice, it just happens.
> 
> ...


Where does volition fit into this?

An emotion is also something that just happens. Or a thought that pops into your head.


----------



## Delicious Speculation (May 17, 2015)

INTJs and ISTJs in particular are often perfectionists to a fault (*ahem* ISTJ mother...). Believe it or not, Si-doms and Ni-doms both get into routines, too. We both (all four?) can come off as very guarded. But we're also more laid back in a lot of ways than Te-doms. Or other types as well, actually. Example: ISTJ mother is high-strung and perfectionistic compared to my ENTP dad, but she's also better at pacing herself and taking time to relax so that she doesn't burn out.

I can see a lot of similarities that are hard to explain, and I think many of them are probably specific to me and my mom. Just like I can tell you all kinds of similarities and differences between Ni-dom me and my Ne-dom father.


----------



## surgery (Apr 16, 2010)

Here's what Lenore Thomson writes about it:



surgery said:


> *Introverted J Types
> *
> *Like Extraverted Judgers, Introverted J types feel most comfortable when they can establish predictable reference points in the external world.* Their inner world, however, is characterized by Introverted Perception (Introverted Sensation or Introverted Intuition), which determines their primary motives” (67).
> 
> ...


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

Sapphire Sage said:


> I think the easiest way to tell would be, Si doesn't mind repetition and respects tradition.
> Ni hates repetition and will only conform to tradition if it makes sense.
> (in general, not always the case)


No.



Copper North said:


> Very, very true in a lot of instances.
> 
> From my own view, I am comfortable with a routine, but I'll draw something unique out of every day (especially at work) to keep from getting bored and restless with any part of it that seems redundant.
> 
> ...


You're probably an ISFJ.



Chris Merola said:


> I think some similarities between Si and Ni doms would be -
> 
> Both are characteristically stubborn/arrogant about their way of thinking being correct, though this may not be readily apparent
> 
> ...


Most of this is blah. Behavioral cues that can really apply to any type. The last statement is basically like saying water is wet.



CleverCait said:


> INTJs and ISTJs in particular are often perfectionists to a fault (*ahem* ISTJ mother...). Believe it or not, Si-doms and Ni-doms both get into routines, too. We both (all four?) can come off as very guarded. But we're also more laid back in a lot of ways than Te-doms. Or other types as well, actually. Example: ISTJ mother is high-strung and perfectionistic compared to my ENTP dad, but she's also better at pacing herself and taking time to relax so that she doesn't burn out.
> 
> I can see a lot of similarities that are hard to explain, and I think many of them are probably specific to me and my mom. Just like I can tell you all kinds of similarities and differences between Ni-dom me and my Ne-dom father.


????

This isn't saying anything. Ya'll.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> This.
> 
> Being introverted means you "see" the archetypes, and being perception means it's not a choice, it just happens.
> 
> ...


Can you give an example?

Also, what would this be? Let's say I think Hitler is evil, and whenever I see someone that looks like Hitler then I think he's probably a bad guy, too. Would this be Ni? Si? Or something else?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

uncertain said:


> Can you give an example?
> 
> Also, what would this be? Let's say I think Hitler is evil, and whenever I see someone that looks like Hitler then I think he's probably a bad guy, too. Would this be Ni? Si? Or something else?


Fi or Ti. Because it's a subjective moral framework you've created and then you're just re-applying it to future instances of the same thing.

If it were Ni or Si, no judgment would be involved. It's more like having a personal aesthetic, a physical sense of beauty - not logical correctness, or moral justice.

For example, Si walks into a room. Certain aspects of it are "pleasant", others are not. This is something he is aware of, through his sense organs, as certain aspects either attract or repulse him whether he wants them to or not. But there is no morality to it. It is not a matter of "the things that repulse me are bad" - that is, he wouldn't try to make a rational argument for the things he dislikes as being immoral or something like that. It's nothing personal, he just _doesn't like those features of the room_, and depending on how assertive he is, he'll make that fact known. Si-Te would probably be more vocal about it than Si-Fe, for instance, because Si-Fe wants to maintain good spirits, and Si-Te just wants things to run smoothly.

With Ni, I'm the same thing as Si, but with _time_ rather than the immediate environment. It's not just that I get hunches - it's that my hunches carry a sense of foreboding, or they carry a sense of relief about the impending future. I want my hunches to relieve me, not upset me. There's _nothing personal_ about my preference for a certain outcome versus another. It's purely an _aesthetic sense_ of processes happening in time, and I apply my Te in that way - impersonally. I just want to be efficient at avoiding an outcome, or, encouraging it to occur, depending on how my Ni-aesthetic interprets it.

@_PaladinX_, I hope this clears up my earlier post as well.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> Fi or Ti. Because it's a subjective moral framework you've created and then you're just re-applying it to future instances of the same thing.
> 
> If it were Ni or Si, no judgment would be involved. It's more like having a personal aesthetic, a physical sense of beauty - not logical correctness, or moral justice.
> 
> For example, Si walks into a room. Certain aspects of it are "pleasant", others are not. This is something he is aware of, through his sense organs, as certain aspects either attract or repulse him whether he wants them to or not. But there is no morality to it. It is not a matter of "the things that repulse me are bad" - that is, he wouldn't try to make a rational argument for the things he dislikes as being immoral or something like that. It's nothing personal, he just _doesn't like those features of the room_, and depending on how assertive he is, he'll make that fact known. Si-Te would probably be more vocal about it than Si-Fe, for instance, because Si-Fe wants to maintain good spirits, and Si-Te just wants things to run smoothly.


I DON'T UNDERSTAND why it would not be personal when you say that certain aspects of the room are pleasant and others are not and when you say you just don't like those features of the room. To me that's subjective thus personal, a personal preference. So if you decide that the room is ugly, would that be anything Fi? Anything that doesn't involve any morality is not Fi?



> There's _nothing personal_ about my preference for a certain outcome versus another. It's purely an _aesthetic sense_ of processes happening in time, and I apply my Te in that way - impersonally. I just want to be efficient at avoiding an outcome, or, encouraging it to occur, depending on how my Ni-aesthetic interprets it.


Same with this. How can you say that's nothing personal when it's your preference. Your aesthetic sense is still personal because everyone has different taste and preference for what looks nice to him/her.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

uncertain said:


> I DON'T UNDERSTAND why it would not be personal when you say that certain aspects of the room are pleasant and others are not and when you say you just don't like those features of the room. To me that's subjective thus personal, a personal preference. So if you decide that the room is ugly, would that be anything Fi? Anything that doesn't involve any morality is not Fi?
> 
> Same with this. How can you say that's nothing personal when it's your preference. Your aesthetic sense is still personal because everyone has different taste and preference for what looks nice to him/her.


You're looking at this situation from the outside in. The Pi perspective, is what I have been describing. I specifically stated "from the first-person". A Pi-type doesn't process information the way you do, hence the difference between being a Pi versus Ji type. Again, you want to put a label on the experience - that's Ji. The Pi type doesn't put a label on things, the things just _are_ that way to them. They are barely conscious of the fact that they get to make that choice, but you are vastly aware of that choice, it dominates your consciousness and DEMANDS you take it into consideration, because you're Ji.

Do you see what I mean? It is not a matter of your opinion being false. What you say right now - that he is passing judgment, that he is deciding it, that he is still involved and responsible for his opinion - all of that could be true, or it might be false, but either way, _he doesn't process it like that_, which is the difference between you and him. That is the difference between Ji and Pi. Even if you are right, _it never enters into his mind that what he perceives could involve him in any way._

Here is a quote directly from Carl Jung, on Introverted Intuition:



> Consequently, in the above-mentioned example, the introverted intuitive, when affected by the giddiness, would not imagine that the perceived image might also in some way refer to himself. Naturally, to one who is rationally orientated, such a thing seems almost unthinkable, but it is none the less a fact, and I have often experienced it in my dealings with this type.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

It's a lot to take in but I find Jung's description of the Introverted Irrational types fascinating:



> The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves—because they very largely lack judgment—they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression.
> 
> 
> From an extraverted and rationalistic standpoint, such types are indeed the most fruitless of men. But, viewed from a higher standpoint, such men are living evidence of the fact that this rich and varied world with its overflowing and intoxicating life is not purely external, but also exists within. These types are admittedly one sided demonstrations of Nature, but they are an educational experience for the man who refuses to be blinded by the intellectual mode of the day. In their own way, men with such an attitude are educators and promoters of culture. Their life teaches more than their words. From their lives, and not the least from what is just their greatest fault, viz. their incommunicability, we may understand one of the greatest errors of our civilization, that is, the superstitious belief in statement and presentation, the immoderate overprizing of instruction by means of word and method. A child certainly allows himself to be impressed by the grand talk of its parents. But is it really imagined that the child is thereby educated? Actually it is the parents' lives that educate the child—what they add thereto by word and gesture at best serves only to confuse him. The same holds good for the teacher. But we have such a belief in method that, if only the method be good, the practice of it seems to hallow the teacher. An inferior man is never. a good teacher. But he can conceal his injurious inferiority, which secretly poisons the pupil, behind an excellent method or, an equally brilliant intellectual capacity. Naturally the pupil of riper years desires nothing better than the knowledge of useful methods, because he is already defeated by the general attitude, which believes in the victorious method. He has already learnt that the emptiest head, correctly echoing a method, is the best pupil. His whole environment not only urges but exemplifies the doctrine that all success and happiness are external, and that only the right method is needed to attain the haven of one's desires. Or is the life of his religious instructor likely to demonstrate that happiness which radiates from the treasure of the inner vision? The irrational introverted types are certainly no instructors of a more complete humanity. They lack reason and the ethics of reason, but their lives teach the other possibility, in which our civilization is so deplorably wanting.


Being inaccessible to extraverted judgment is an interesting notion because it conflicts with what we think about type structure.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Being inaccessible to extraverted judgment is an interesting notion because it conflicts with what we think about type structure.


Perhaps to people with extraverted judgment. I see what you're saying, but I think it's a matter of accepting that certain experiences, which we call "irrational", such as perception, go "beyond" reason, in that, they appear to be true, without justification. Rational types struggle with this, especially those favoring Ji, I've found. Because to the rational type, you cannot have "truth" without reason. Truth implies logic, and logic implies truth. Rationalism.

For irrational types, Pi types especially, truth is something transcendent, which does not imply or require reasons. Truth is _being_, for if a thing is perceived, then it is true in some way - in it's "beingness". And the modality of a thing's being _is_ it's truth, even if it does not make sense to us and cannot be comprehended. Nevertheless, here it is and we have got to deal with it. I believe that is why Jung states that the Ne/Se type is probably the most empirical of all the types, for instance. He is saying that they perceive _only what is there_, and no "idea" is attached to that information until another functions gets involved. That's how it is with Pi, only, as Jung explains, the Pi-type does not realize that what he "sees" is himself - his own subjectivity.

That brings me to another point I wanted to make earlier about Pi and Ji. For me, as a Pi-type, it wasn't until I aged and got older and became more self-aware that I realized my "Ni-aesthetic" as I like to put it, involved a kind of prejudice - like what @_uncertain_ is pointing out. Uncertain is correct, as I see it - yes, Pi _does_ necessarily imply subjective judgment. And I think that is what Jung is talking about when he discusses "entering the moral sphere" in his description of the Ni-type. When he talks about how it takes some differentiation of judgment to go beyond the mere act of perception to ask "what does this signify in terms of a duty for me?"

As I got older I began to go beyond the mere act of this process: 1) perceive an outcome before it occurs 2) adjust course to suit. I incorporated a third step: 3) recognize what my aesthetic is telling me about justice.

That's my Fi coming into play. Now, suddenly, it's not simply "I don't like thing" - it becomes, "I don't like it, _and that *means* it is evil *to me*_." Suddenly, it becomes personal, and a subjective value is discovered. Suddenly I realize, "something within me reacts to what I am seeing, negatively or positively, and that part of me is my moral compass. The two are connected." And suddenly, what I perceive, becomes _important_ and _demands_ my activity. Now, it is both aesthetic _and_ conscience at work.

In younger INTJs for instance, and in ENTJs as well, you get this impression that they are really very effective and efficient at "getting things done" - but then, as soon as you probe their _morality_ it is always infantile and primitive. The INTJ can say "I saw what was going to happen and adjusted course to avoid it", and when you ask him why he did it, he finds the question quite absurd and doesn't understand it. If you continue to press him, he might think you are some kind of idiot for "not getting it" and tire of you quickly. The ENTJ will do this as well, only twice as fast, because his feelings are inferior. He can't be bothered to question them at all. To him "what I ought to do" is the writing on the wall, and there's no self-awareness in it whatsoever. To him, victory determines who was right and who was wrong, and that's the end of it.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> Perhaps to people with extraverted judgment. I see what you're saying, but I think it's a matter of accepting that certain experiences, which we call "irrational", such as perception, go "beyond" reason, in that, they appear to be true, without justification. Rational types struggle with this, especially those favoring Ji, I've found. Because to the rational type, you cannot have "truth" without reason. Truth implies logic, and logic implies truth. Rationalism.
> 
> For irrational types, Pi types especially, truth is something transcendent, which does not imply or require reasons. Truth is _being_, for if a thing is perceived, then it is true in some way - in it's "beingness". And the modality of a thing's being _is_ it's truth, even if it does not make sense to us and cannot be comprehended. Nevertheless, here it is and we have got to deal with it. I believe that is why Jung states that the Ne/Se type is probably the most empirical of all the types, for instance. He is saying that they perceive _only what is there_, and no "idea" is attached to that information until another functions gets involved. That's how it is with Pi, only, as Jung explains, the Pi-type does not realize that what he "sees" is himself - his own subjectivity.


Where is the line between perception and passive apperception in regards to "truth?"



> That brings me to another point I wanted to make earlier about Pi and Ji. For me, as a Pi-type, it wasn't until I aged and got older and became more self-aware that I realized my "Ni-aesthetic" as I like to put it, involved a kind of prejudice - like what @_uncertain_ is pointing out. Uncertain is correct, as I see it - yes, Pi _does_ necessarily imply subjective judgment. And I think that is what Jung is talking about when he discusses "entering the moral sphere" in his description of the Ni-type. When he talks about how it takes some differentiation of judgment to go beyond the mere act of perception to ask "what does this signify in terms of a duty for me?"
> 
> As I got older I began to go beyond the mere act of this process: 1) perceive an outcome before it occurs 2) adjust course to suit. I incorporated a third step: 3) recognize what my aesthetic is telling me about justice.
> 
> ...


Why is this necessarily a Ni thing?


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> Where is the line between perception and passive apperception in regards to "truth?"


What do you mean?




PaladinX said:


> Why is this necessarily a Ni thing?


I don't understand the question. Why is what a Ni thing?


----------



## Sapphire Sage (Jun 11, 2015)

I found this on INFJ Blog by Megan:

_For example — an ISFJ and an INFJ work together in a coffee shop. The ISFJ is taught the best way to make a specific drink, and so will make that drink that exact same way every single time. The INFJ, however, will instead remember the general idea of how the drink was made, but won’t be as concerned about measuring out the amount of this or that, and will likely even experiment with the ingredients occasionally. The exception would be if the INFJ felt a lot of pressure to make the drink exactly right, in which case they would focus even more so on doing things as they should be done, which would cause a high level of stress. ISFJs, like other Guardian types, tend to be more task and detail-oriented, whereas INFJs, like other Idealist types, tend to be more idea and big picture-focused._

From my experience between me and my ISFJ friend, I have noticed that I get bored easily with doing the same thing over and over again. I'm always looking for new information to stimulate my mind. She has built her life around what she already knows and is very cautious about accepting new information. She does not get bored with repetition and is very detail-oriented. Facts come before the overall picture and not the other way round.


----------

