# Ni/Si - Subjective Perception



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

I find the word "aesthetic" appropriately summarizes the _essence_ of "subjective" perception. I've been studying and reading about Si a lot lately, and the one theme about Si that I find constantly recurring is this sort of "what is physically appealing to me" kind of question. So if we can just accept that as being an "okay" definition of Si (I realize some people will take issue with this because that definition is not as nuanced as they would prefer) and move forward from that anchor, you'll begin to see the thread of logic to my epiphany.

The way I experience Ni is very much as a kind of aesthetic sense, almost exactly like Si's aesthetic about the body. But my aesthetic is about time. Do you see where I am going with this? Perhaps it just clicked in your head as well right now. If Si is essentially about what a person finds pleasant and enjoyable via their sensation, then Ni is essentially about what a person finds pleasant and enjoyable via their intuition.

This means I'm always daydreaming about a perfect world. But whereas a Si type might frame perfection through sensation, I frame it through intuition. What that difference amounts to in reality is that the Si type understands perfection as physical beauty and physical pleasure, but a Ni type understands perfection instead as a kind of _temporal symmetry_, like events happening _effortlessly_, time just "flows", you feel me? It's a kind of relaxing, tranquil frame of mind, very much the same frame of mind that a Si type understands most of all and strives always to maintain.

So, my "intuitive aesthetic" is whatever that "flow" is for me. It's going to depend on whatever future scenario I desire. Whenever I see a sequence of events leading to the gratification of my desire that is already in motion and requires little or no intervention on my behalf, then I feel immensely satisfied and I am at peace. Because there's a tranquility in _knowing you've won before you even begin the game._ Just as, for a Si type, there is a satisfaction derived from walking into someone's home, or some environment, and immediately noticing that the person has very similar tastes, and so everything is already pleasant and inviting to the senses. It's a nice rewarding experience and very enjoyable when it occurs, because it means you don't have to make exceptions, or put any effort into making adjustments to satisfy your subjective preferences.

In fact, I would go so far as to say that this concept of "aesthetic" really applies to Ti and Fi as well, but that's beyond the scope of this thread. Nevertheless, I'll just throw it out there because perhaps it's obvious to you as well now, and I don't even need to explain it. You can see what I mean now and make that connection yourself.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Made a video about Ni and the connection to time some time ago (it's pretty exhaustive of how I see Ni in totality though):






For people who are lazy, the tl;dr is that Ni hones itself on the possibility the unconscious part of our psyche subjectively prefers and finds the most likely. Not based on rationality i.e. what is the most logical, but simply because this is the pattern that we see that just makes the most sense to us and is, in relation to inferior Se, the most desirable. Ni will then from there, go on and seek to shape the world in accordance to this future vision or path that it sees. Not just sees, but then also seeks. Hence how Michael Pierce and some other descriptors of INTJs in particular out there, describe the INTJ as a visionary. You see a future vision in your mind's eye, the future among many versions and possibilities that the one you find to be the most ideal or preferable, and you want to make it reality. 

Si does the same thing but the body, which is why Si is so focused on health among other things.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

We should do an interview sometime man. Specifically, we might want to go over being ILI as well as a type 9 enneagram, and how that puts a slant on it. I'd love to explain my thoughts on that subject.

And that was a great video btw. I think you really nailed it. You went over pretty much everything I could think of.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Abraxas said:


> We should do an interview sometime man. Specifically, we might want to go over being ILI as well as a type 9 enneagram, and how that puts a slant on it. I'd love to explain my thoughts on that subject.
> 
> And that was a great video btw. I think you really nailed it. You went over pretty much everything I could think of.


Sure. You know where to find me.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

To me, this video is the absolute perfect example of the archetype of subjective perception in practice. The man speaking is Alan Moore, the writer who came up with Watchmen.

Everything he is saying is so profoundly true and powerful that I have to pause the video sometimes just to calm down, even despite having watched it many times already. Every time I watch it, it just stirs me up all over again.






The first half is just incredible and he talks about language and art, and in the second half (around 8 minutes in) it starts getting really psychological, and he starts talking about the same concepts that Jung discusses when he brings up the collective unconscious, or Joseph Campbell when he talks about the monomyth cycle.

_*"Now this is the single most important thing that we can ever attain: the knowledge of our own Self. And yet there are a frightening amount of people who seem to have the urge not just to ignore the Self, but actually seem to have the urge to obliterate themselves. This is horrific. But you can almost understand the desire to simply wipe out that awareness, because it's too much of a responsibility to actually possess such a thing as a soul, such a precious thing. What if you break it, what if you lose it? Mightn't it be best to just anesthetize it, to deaden it, to destroy it, to not have to live with the pain of struggling toward it and trying to keep it pure."*_


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Abraxas a lot of what he says is very reminiscent of what Marilyn Manson has said on the subject of entertainment:



> The whole concept of Celebritarianism would be, ironically, a satire of today's civilization that focuses on celebrities; the more cameras looking at you, the more power you have in your hands. It would be about dying when everyone's watching; doing anything for fame. It's also about worshiping death in the media. The world knew about Harris and Klebold, the Columbine killers, half an hour after the tragedy. It's about how we give Lee Harvey Oswald and Mark David Chapman the status of celebrity by showing their masterpiece to the world. Celebritarian Corporation is about giving people what they feel guilty for wanting. It acknowledges our society's worst problem, guilt. This theme is also reminiscent of the very name "Marilyn Manson", which is intended to mock America's obsession with death. There are also strong hints of derivation from Romanticism, which Manson himself has referenced numerous times when discussing the Corporation and the then-upcoming album.
> 
> More about the meaning of the Celebritarian Corporation can be read in the interview Dramatic New Scenes for Celebritarian Needs.
> Also, note a key phrase that appears on a shirt: "WE DON'T BELIEVE IN CREDIBILITY, BECAUSE WE ARE INCREDIBLE", a term that was later used in We're from America.


Celebritarian Corporation - The Marilyn Manson Wiki

Of course he's a Jungian Ni dom.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

@Entropic

Also, I forgot he wrote V For Vendetta. Which I find kind of ironic, seeing as you just recently posted a short clip from the movie adaptation of it, showing all the dominos falling, as a perfect example of Ni.


----------



## Zamyatin (Jun 10, 2014)

Abraxas said:


> The way I experience Ni is very much as a kind of aesthetic sense, almost exactly like Si's aesthetic about the body. But my aesthetic is about time. Do you see where I am going with this? Perhaps it just clicked in your head as well right now. If Si is essentially about what a person finds pleasant and enjoyable via their sensation, then Ni is essentially about what a person finds pleasant and enjoyable via their intuition.


Bingo. The metaphor I find to be most accurate is to picture myself hovering high above a rushing river, which proceeds directly in front of me and continues in a straight line forwards as far as the eye can see. Within this river there are currents and eddies and whirlpools and rocks, each of them influencing the river within a certain context, but none of them stopping the river's overall flow forwards. Looking at the river I see beauty and progress and inevitability, a certainty that the river is flowing in that direction. That knowledge of the progression of events, the ability to conceptualize the way the future will develop with reasonable certainty, has an almost spiritual aesthetic quality, as if I am looking at a perfectly sublime painting.

People can see me as obstinate and self-assured in my conception of the future, calling me a crank or crazy or apathetic, but that is because they stand nearer to the river and their vision of the future is more obscured by the objects within the river. They might be near a large boulder in the river which creates a strong rightwards current, and say "see? the river is about to bend towards the right". Or they might be near a whirlpool, and they say "look, the river will no longer move forwards, it all disappears into this whirlpool now". I try to tell them that they're only seeing a small part of the picture, but they don't believe me. Some of them even become worried about this and feel they must fill in the whirlpool or remove the boulder so the river will continue moving forwards, which is absurd, as water erodes boulders and whirlpools only last a while, and the river will continue forwards even if those obstacles remain. Yet they will attack that boulder or whirlpool nonetheless, sincerely believing that the flow of the river depends on their actions and that it's their job to protect the river from itself.

When people tell me these short-sighted fears, it's almost as if they are violating an aesthetic sense of belonging. When they tell me the river is about to bend one way or another, I look at the bigger picture and say "no, that doesn't match the way things are developing", much in the same way someone might say "no, those shoes do not match those pants". But unless they have my vantage point, they will never believe me, and when the future becomes the present and my vision turns out to be more right than wrong, they act shocked as if I were some sort of psychic. Then they will ignore me again, lol.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

double post


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Abraxas actually the proper term is coincidental, not ironic lol. _Ironically _though, the movie didn't do much for me. 

@Zamyatin did you read the article where ILIs see time as a constant movement but LIIs as something that can be manipulated eg sped up and down? 

What you describes reminds me of Si types also. Hence they prefer the safe and known. It's like that old story about what road to travel down, except Si prefers the simple road because it's safe because they know others that went down there and came out unscathed. It's like they can only see a meter ahead and because there's a boulder blocking the path they rather wait until someone removes it rather than daring to go off road because it's looking dark and murky. Infuriating. Rather just wait and see than bothering to get what you want.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Celebritarian Corporation - The Marilyn Manson Wiki
> 
> Of course he's a Jungian Ni dom.


Marilyn Manson as Ni base?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> Marilyn Manson as Ni base?


Yes?


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> Yes?


His theatrical and dramatic character is hard to place as anything but ENFj in Socionics. Perhaps you could make an argument for IEI, but he appears too involved in his expression to be qualified as a detached Ni base.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> His theatrical and dramatic character is hard to place as anything but ENFj in Socionics. Perhaps you could make an argument for IEI, but he appears too involved in his expression to be qualified as a detached Ni base.


His theatrics is better explained by the enneagram, plus, it's incredibly disingenuous to analyze a person based on a very small portion of who they are and is a part of their _artistic performance_, which may not necessarily be very reflective of who they are as a person. If one actually analyzes and look at how he thinks, it's anything but Ni base. EIE is just no. He's clearly not an extrovert in any sense of the word. Socially, he's a big recluse as well. I'd posit him as an ILI-Ni over IEI as well, due to the presence of Fi in his overall reasoning process but his preference to still despite that, prefer a more detached and logical point of view of things not too dissimilar to Alan Moore in the above.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> His theatrics is better explained by the enneagram, plus, it's incredibly disingenuous to analyze a person based on a very small portion of who they are and is a part of their _artistic performance_, which may not necessarily be very reflective of who they are as a person. If one actually analyzes and look at how he thinks, it's anything but Ni base. EIE is just no. He's clearly not an extrovert in any sense of the word. Socially, he's a big recluse as well. I'd posit him as an ILI-Ni over IEI as well, due to the presence of Fi in his overall reasoning process but his preference to still despite that, prefer a more detached and logical point of view of things not too dissimilar to Alan Moore in the above.


It is not a small part of who he is, his image to the public eye is carefully and resourcefully crafted to present a very specific character. This would be the weak point of an ILI since their point of least resistance is Fe. How to come across, how to engage others and how to create this elaborate of an appearance to ones own self-expression is comparable with Lady GaGa in the extremity and length in which they will pursue this expression. A lot of EIEs chose a more modest appearance for sure, but if so it is just not in their interest to take it to such great lengths, even if they are perfectly able to do so.

This does by no means that his internal landscape is flat, rather the opposite, it is an expression of something inside of him. EIEs also use "Ni introspection". Only analyzing his way of thinking can be misleading, because it is not only the internal landscape that defines a person, and less so when it comes to socionics. Fe is operating outside of the internal world, and not recognizing his flamboyance and his disposition to create an appearance for effect and impact, along with his lyrics which are carefully crafted to accompany it is to look past is strong Fe.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> It is not a small part of who he is, his image to the public eye is carefully and resourcefully crafted to present a very specific character.


Because type 4? He's a core image type. Of course he cares about his image. It doesn't mean that his image is all that he is. That's extremely reductionist. Furthermore, having an image is not equivalent to Fe either. 



> This would be the weak point of an ILI since their point of least resistance is Fe.


So weak Fe types cannot be image types? Ok. Nice logic. How about you analyze his cognitive preferences based on model A rather than how he appears as? Analyze his thinking patterns rather than his behavior? 



> How to come across, how to engage others and how to create this elaborate of an appearance to ones own self-expression is comparable with Lady GaGa in the extremity and length in which they will pursue this expression.


I've never seen anyone suggest Fe for Lady Gaga either. Flamboyant image isn't the same as Fe or Fi. They are information processes. You would have to prove how his psyche is oriented towards Fe as an information process, not based on his style, but based on his thinking and interaction with other people and how that if anything, would be reflected in his style. 



> A lot of EIEs chose a more modest appearance for sure, but if so it is just not in their interest to take it to such great lengths, even if they are perfectly able to do so.


A lot of non-Fe base types may be flamboyant for their own reasons which just proves it has nothing to do with Fe. I have a strong sense of dress code. You agree with me that I'm Fe PoLR. How do you rationalize that? I was pseudo emo/goth though emo didn't exist as a style, when I was a teenager. I certainly didn't do it for Fe reasons. 



> This does by no means that his internal landscape is flat, rather the opposite, it is an expression of something inside of him. EIEs also use "Ni introspection".


I'm not talking about "introspection". There's a big difference in being innately attuned to the dynamic flow of subjective perception and to not be. EIEs lead with Fe first, so Fe is going to be what is motivate their perception above all else, just like IxIs lead with Ni so they will be Ni above all else. This will become very apparent when listening to how they talk and conceptualize reality. If you actually bothered to do that, you'd realize how he's extremely Ni. 



> Only analyzing his way of thinking can be misleading, because it is not only the internal landscape that defines a person, and less so when it comes to socionics. Fe is operating outside of the internal world, and not recognizing his flamboyance and his disposition to create an appearance for effect and impact, along with his lyrics which are carefully crafted to accompany it is to look past is strong Fe.


Have you even read his lyrics? You should look at how he writes them. Nothing like Matt Bellamy from Muse, I can assure you that, who is Fe. Or say, Die Antwoord. Because he writes from the perspective of Fi, not Fe. Socionics is about information processing. You get hung up on external and observable behavior instead of seeing the underlying processes in people, what motivates them. You attribute something which is intrinsically not related to Fe to be about Fe. 

By your own logic, no one who is into extreme subculture such as black metal, goth, industrial etc. cannot be anything but an Fe type which is extremely flawed and fallacious. Of course they can. People will be drawn to these things for their own reasons. It's simply not type-related.


----------



## Inguz (Mar 10, 2012)

Entropic said:


> A lot of non-Fe base types may be flamboyant for their own reasons which just proves it has nothing to do with Fe. I have a strong sense of dress code. You agree with me that I'm Fe PoLR. How do you rationalize that? I was pseudo emo/goth though emo didn't exist as a style, when I was a teenager. I certainly didn't do it for Fe reasons.


I have no clue what your "dress code" would imply.



Entropic said:


> I'm not talking about "introspection". There's a big difference in being innately attuned to the dynamic flow of subjective perception and to not be. EIEs lead with Fe first, so Fe is going to be what is motivate their perception above all else, just like IxIs lead with Ni so they will be Ni above all else. This will become very apparent when listening to how they talk and conceptualize reality. If you actually bothered to do that, you'd realize how he's extremely Ni.


I'm not arguing against him being Ni ego, I am agreeing with it. I disagree with what appears to be your implication of what it is that you are writing, that EIE somehow wouldn't be "attuned to the dynamic flow of subjective perception". 



Entropic said:


> Have you even read his lyrics? You should look at how he writes them. Nothing like Matt Bellamy from Muse, I can assure you that, who is Fe. Or say, Die Antwoord. Because he writes from the perspective of Fi, not Fe. Socionics is about information processing. You get hung up on external and observable behavior instead of seeing the underlying processes in people, what motivates them. You attribute something which is intrinsically not related to Fe to be about Fe.


You haven't explained why "he writes from the perspective of Fi". As far as I see it, for example in Fight Song he is trying to get people emotionally involved in seeing how much damage and death religion can cause (as he appears to see it). Seems consistent with EIE to me, considering that it is pushing for a large-scale social cause.



Entropic said:


> By your own logic, no one who is into extreme subculture such as black metal, goth, industrial etc. cannot be anything but an Fe type which is extremely flawed and fallacious. Of course they can. People will be drawn to these things for their own reasons. It's simply not type-related.


That's a straw man. Being part of a subculture is not the same as self-expression.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Inguz said:


> I have no clue what your "dress code" would imply.


Except I never said anything about what the dress code itself meant - I was referring to the fact that people can have dress codes for their own reasons which is unrelated to Fe. Similarly, what about all the Fe types without a strong dress code? Are they _not_ Fe because they lack that flamboyance? You yourself admitted that this isn't a property of Fe and that Fe types don't have to have strong dress codes or be flamboyantly dressed so therefore the conclusion would be that Fe isn't the same as being a strong dress code, though for an Fe type, dress code could be a part of the way they choose to express their Fe. 



> I'm not arguing against him being Ni ego, I am agreeing with it. I disagree with what appears to be your implication of what it is that you are writing, that EIE somehow wouldn't be "attuned to the dynamic flow of subjective perception".


What? You were arguing for EIE, lol, not Ni base. And I never wrote that they aren't, though. I simply wrote that there is a difference to be innately innately attuned in the same way an Ni base type is, because of differences of leading in perception. You can even chalk it up to 4D vs 3D Ni if you want. It's about primary ego preference. 



> You haven't explained why "he writes from the perspective of Fi". As far as I see it, for example in Fight Song he is trying to get people emotionally involved in seeing how much damage and death religion can cause (as he appears to see it). Seems consistent with EIE to me, considering that it is pushing for a large-scale social cause.


You project your own Fe logic onto his music, imo. You should go look at the beta quadra thread. There's a recent poster there that showcases EIE expressiveness perfectly:



> ENFj's- I always recognize them. Within a few hours, if not right off the bat.
> Because they feel like, pieces of my soul.
> Pieces of my past,
> previous stages of my growth.
> ...


Fe assigns emotions to the environment. Trying to encourage people to fight isn't the same as Fe, since that could equally be self-motivated e.g. Rage Against the Machine writing about fighting against oppression:

RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE LYRICS - Know Your Enemy

The difference here is that even though he writes about "we", it's not assigning emotions to the environment, to external objects. Instead "we" becomes representative of the self and how the self feels about something. By the same token, that EIE post I just copied in the above must be Fi because it's writing about the self. This is how so many ExE 4s mistype as Fi bases because they mistake their self-absorption for 4ness. 

One could equally argue that writing about fighting is an Se thing, not an Fe thing. 

So take Fight Song then, since you used it as an example:

Nothing suffocates you more than
The passing of everyday human events
Isolation is the oxygen mask you make
Your children breathe in to survive

But I'm not a slave to a god
That doesn't exist
But I'm not a slave to a world
That doesn't give a shit

Even though he's writing about "you" in the first paragraph, he's writing about inner feelings. How you or I feel. He's not assigning feelings to objects in the environment and recognizing emotional atmospheres and the like. You feel like suffocating. An Fe type would assign the feeling of suffocation to an external object that makes us feel suffocated and would equalize the emotion found in the object with the self. Therein lies the difference. 

It becomes more obvious in the chorus. It's very self-contained, the feeling. Becomes more obvious when listening to the song and how his feeling states are very much implied and how he's being angry at the world. Fe types make their feeling states explicit. For Fi types, feeling states are more implicit. 

Just take Uprising by Muse. Similar message, very different writing style and how emotions are expressed:

http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/m/muse/uprising.html

Paranoia is in bloom The PR, 
Transmissions will resume *They'll try to 
Push drugs that keep us all dumbed down* And hope, 
That we will never see the truth around
Another promise, another scene, another, 
Packaged lie *to keep us trapped in greed, *
*And all the green belts wrapped around our minds *and endless
Red tape to keep the truth confined

[Chorus]
They will not force us
They will stop degrading us 
They will not control us
We will be victorious

Bolded parts are the more explicit Fe statements. It's about how the world makes us think or feel and taking on the feelings of the environment. Especially the last portion is a very good example of that, "to keep us trapped in greed." 

Manson isn't nearly as big on the subject of greed, but he writes a lot about how celebrity status degrades people:

The drugs they say *make us feel so hollow *
We love in vain narcissistic and so shallow 
The cops and queers to swim you have to swallow 
*Hate today, no love for tomorrow *

Again, focus on an inner feeling state, you and I feel hollow inside. We don't take on the feeling of hollowness from another object in the environment. Hollowness as a feeling is intrinsic, an inner emotional reaction to us as an individual, that we have. It's unrelated to the feelings of the environment.



> That's a straw man. Being part of a subculture is not the same as self-expression.


Not a strawman. The correct fallacy would be hyperbole, though this is the logical conclusion of your argument. You argue for that his style is what makes him Fe because it is trying to affect the atmosphere, which then would suggest that any person who is having a flamboyant image would be Fe, too, because you are equalizing the two to be synonymous with each other. You agree that they are not, so therefor your entire argument is a moot point.


----------



## -Alexandra- (Feb 24, 2014)

> Fe assigns emotions to the environment. Trying to encourage people to fight isn't the same as Fe, since that could equally be self-motivated e.g. Rage Against the Machine writing about fighting against oppression:
> 
> RAGE AGAINST THE MACHINE LYRICS - Know Your Enemy
> 
> ...



It's ridiculous to make conclusions about artist's type based only on several lines from his song.
That's just the way artist wanted to convey something with words. And it's his choice which words to use.

It also looks like you're typing sentences, not people behind them.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

-Alexandra- said:


> It's ridiculous to make conclusions about artist's type based only on several lines from his song.
> That's just the way artist wanted to convey something with words. And it's his choice which words to use.
> 
> It also looks like you're typing sentences, not people behind them.


Not at all ridiculous, because I'm using them as examples and I use these artists because I am very sure of their type. Not because of a few lyrical lines, but because the tendency in how they phrase themselves makes it very clear what kind of cognition they prefer. Our cognition is reflected in our modes of expression including the art that we produce, exactly because they are their own words. 

If you actually bothered to study the differences, you'd realize that Fe and Fi express themselves very differently and this is because of how they orient themselves differently to the feeling world.

Chill the fuck out. You're reacting without even knowing what you are reacting to. Be more mindful and considerate instead of butting randomly into an argument you don't know anything about and is none of your concern.


----------

