# Ni vs Si



## KingAndrew (May 8, 2015)

The two functions I have the hardest time figuring out. Maybe someone here can define them and give examples of how they're used.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

After watching Michael Pierce's videos multiple times, I'll try to sum it up. Please excuse me if it's not completely right.

*Se/Ni*
Se takes in the world as-is. For instance, if it sees a red balloon, it thinks "That's a red balloon", and nothing else. Ni then starts connecting what has been seen to what the person knows. So it might say "That reminds me of a movie that used a red balloon, wouldn't it be cool if I made a movie in which everything is grey except for this one balloon?"

*Ne/Si*
Ne takes in the world through patterns and associations. It thinks "The balloon is red like the eyes of my pet rabbit", and sees these things simultaneously with the object it is looking at. Si then views the attributes of objects as a matter of interpretation. It might think "That is a fine shade of red".


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

I don't have it down perfectly but let me give it a shot.

I personally prefer to think of them as 'mythologies'. They are personalized, highly subjective views of reality, maps on which the user treads. But Si is physical and Ni is abstract. Both seek a sort of perfection, but of a different nature. 

For instance, _Remembrance of Things Past_ is probably the ultimate Si book. In the very first section, we see the narrator walking down two paths, "Swann's Way" and "The Guermantes Way", so named because individuals named Swann and Guermantes lived along those paths. Then we see two separate volumes: "Swann's Way" and "Guermantes Way" which deal respectively with the affairs of Swann, and of the Guermantes. But you can see that the narrator has forged his own mythology, and it is set in the shape of his hometown. Does that make sense? Honestly, if you want a good idea of Si, read Remembrance of Things Past. You see involuntary memory: tasting a madeleine dipped in tea, which brings back distinct memories of a time in his life, and an idealization of the physical which is difficult to describe; I'll give you a couple quotes:


> The name of Parma, one of the towns that I most longed to visit, after reading the Chartreuse, seeming to me compact and glossy, violet-tinted, soft, if anyone were to speak of such or such a house in Parma, in which I should be lodged, he would give me the pleasure of thinking that I was to inhabit a dwelling that was compact and glossy, violet-tinted, soft, and that bore no relation to the houses in any other town in Italy, since I could imagine it only by the aid of that heavy syllable of the name of Parma, in which no breath of air stirred, and of all that I had made it assume of Stendhalian sweetness and the reflected hue of violets. And when I thought of Florence, it was of a town miraculously embalmed, and flower-like, since it was called the City of the Lilies, and its Cathedral, Our Lady of the Flower. As for Balbec, it was one of those names in which, as on an old piece of Norman pottery that still keeps the colour of the earth from which it was fashioned, one sees depicted still the representation of some long-abolished custom, of some feudal right, of the former condition of some place, of an obsolete way of pronouncing the language, which had shaped and wedded its incongruous syllables and which I never doubted that I should find spoken there at once, even by the inn-keeper who would pour me out coffee and milk on my arrival, taking me down to watch the turbulent sea, unchained, before the church; to whom I lent the aspect, disputatious, solemn and mediaeval, of some character in one of the old romances...And yet nothing could have differed more utterly, either, from the real Balbec than that other Balbec of which I had often dreamed, on stormy days, when the wind was so strong that Françoise, as she took me to the Champs-Elysées, would warn me not to walk too near the side of the street, or I might have my head knocked off by a falling slate, and would recount to me, with many lamentations, the terrible disasters and shipwrecks that were reported in the newspaper.





> The places that we have known belong now only to the little world of space on which we map them for our own convenience. None of them was ever more than a thin slice, held between the contiguous impressions that composed our life at that time; remembrance of a particular form is but regret for a particular moment; and houses, roads, avenues are as fugitive, alas, as the years.


Practically, for me, Si means that I like routine (until my Ne gets bored), I like things which speak to an eternal, unchanging world, I have my own ideas of how things are, and I care for things to have an intrinsic meaning to them, which nevertheless I have imposed on it.

Ni is...different. I don't have it, so I can't talk about it well...maybe @alittlebear can help?) I know it sort-of...does the opposite, in the same way. Instead of attaching meaning to objects, it extracts meaning, and reduces them to symbols. It also have a personalized map of the world, but it's quite different from Si's map. Practically, Ni-users are able to look far ahead into the future, they are the true 'big-picture thinkers' (vs. Si which focuses on details and prefers a more static approach to time) Dostoevsky by most accounts is a Ni-dom, as is, I believe, Joyce.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Ninjaws said:


> So it might say "*That reminds me of a movie that used a red balloon,* wouldn't it be cool if I made a movie in which everything is grey except for this one balloon?"


Wouldn't the bolded be Si?


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

uncertain said:


> Wouldn't the bolded be Si?


I thought so as well, but Michael Pierce used that example to explain Ni. It could be that he is wrong, though.


----------



## TheEpicPolymath (Dec 5, 2014)

According to Agatha Christie, Ni = Si


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

We already have tons of threads on this.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Here is a quick comparison of Ni and Si made by Jung.




> Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective images of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the collective unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
> 
> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of particular innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the image which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the peculiar character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every detail, without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner image that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the vision, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background processes of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious images attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the images appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person.


----------



## Stavrogin (May 20, 2014)

Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.

Si uses the past to analyze the present.

Another way you could think of it is with their pairings.

Se sees the present as malleable and open but each choice leads to a definite, concrete, and singular outcome via Ni.

Ne sees concrete, real, and absolute potential scenarios and outcomes. For them the future is open and malleable but the present is fixed via Si.

So often the Ni user seeks to manipulate the present so as to go down the best path.

While the Si user looks at all the options so they can pick the best present situation to be in.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Stavrogin said:


> Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.
> 
> Si uses the past to analyze the present.
> 
> ...


Hey this is interesting 
I've never looked at it that way


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

I will try to simplify Ni vs Si but you may be surprised and not agree.


RunForCover07 said:


> Here is a quick comparison of Ni and Si made by Jung.
> "Intuition, in the introverted attitude, is directed upon the inner object, a term we might justly apply to the elements of the unconscious. For the relation of inner objects to consciousness is entirely analogous to that of outer objects, although theirs is a psychological and not a physical reality. Inner objects appear to the intuitive perception as subjective *images* of things, which, though not met with in external experience, really determine the contents of the unconscious, i.e. the *collective* unconscious, in the last resort. Naturally, in their per se character, these contents are, not accessible to experience, a quality which they have in common with the outer object. For just as outer objects correspond only relatively with our perceptions of them, so the phenomenal forms of the inner object are also relative; products of their (to us) inaccessible essence and of the peculiar nature of the intuitive function. Like sensation, intuition also has its subjective factor, which is suppressed to the farthest limit in the extraverted intuition, but which becomes the decisive factor in the intuition of the introvert. Although this intuition may receive its impetus from outer objects, it is never arrested by the external possibilities, but stays with that factor which the outer object releases within.
> 
> Whereas introverted sensation is mainly confined to the perception of *particular* innervation phenomena by way of the unconscious, and does not go beyond them, intuition represses this side of the subjective factor and perceives the *image* which has really occasioned the innervation. Supposing, for instance, a man is overtaken by a psychogenic attack of giddiness. Sensation is arrested by the *peculiar *character of this innervationdisturbance, perceiving all its qualities, its intensity, its transient course, the nature of its origin and disappearance [p. 506] in their every *detail,* without raising the smallest inquiry concerning the nature of the thing which produced the disturbance, or advancing anything as to its content. Intuition, on the other hand, receives from the sensation only the impetus to immediate activity; it peers behind the scenes, quickly perceiving the inner *image *that gave rise to the specific phenomenon, i.e. the attack of vertigo, in the present case. It sees the image of a tottering man pierced through the heart by an arrow. This image fascinates the intuitive activity; it is arrested by it, and seeks to explore every detail of it. It holds fast to the * vision*, observing with the liveliest interest how the picture changes, unfolds further, and finally fades. In this way introverted intuition perceives all the background *processes* of consciousness with almost the same distinctness as extraverted sensation senses outer objects. For intuition, therefore, the unconscious *images *attain to the dignity of things or objects. But, because intuition excludes the co-operation of sensation, it obtains either no knowledge at all or at the best a very inadequate awareness of the innervation-disturbances or of the physical effects produced by the unconscious images. Accordingly, the *images *appear as though detached from the subject, as though existing in themselves without relation to the person."


*Si is about particulars and is local in space and time; Ni is about a whole picture and is global relative to Si.* They oppose each other only because Si tries to focus while Ni tries to capture. Both are alike in that they are perceptions and are immediate. They have nothing to do with past or future.

For example, my Ni says to me I am right about this in the sense of having captured distinguishing concepts. I pass no judgment on any approval of this usage. It may or may not meet with approval. If I wish to promote approval, that is a desire or feeling, Fi or Fe. Feeling and thought is where the future is associated with intuition as feeling or thought pushes a choice.

My Si says to me I have mentioned Ni and Si above neglecting Ne and Se comments. Those are particular Si memories. Although memories are about the past (in this case a few seconds ago), I experience them in the present. That is Si.

I have an intuition that Si and Ni could be scaled. That is, Si and Ni are extremes and reality is somewhere in between, so why can't one perceive something in between the local and the global? (Perhaps these are experienced in difference parts of the brain and can be observed objectively.) I don't have an Si example. Perhaps the reader has one. If neither you nor I can find a clear example of Ni/Si merged, my thinking says my intuition is wrong and Si and Ni are truly polarized.

Now what about what Jung said? I don't see him as clearly defining intuition, but I have *bold*ed his words where I thought he was distinguishing particulars from globals:

sensationarticular, peculiar, detail
intuition: images, collective, vision, processes


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

Joy In The Dance said:


> I don't have it down perfectly but let me give it a shot.
> 
> I personally prefer to think of them as 'mythologies'. They are personalized, highly subjective views of reality, maps on which the user treads. But Si is physical and Ni is abstract. Both seek a sort of perfection, but of a different nature.
> 
> ...


This is interesting and may explain why I couldn't continue with Proust after twenty pages, but am completely absorbed by Dostoevsky and Joyce. They are INFJs, I believe. I'd add Hermann Hesse and Thomas Mann, as well. Their characters are more representations of different perspectives, which are used to communicate the writers' own abstract ideas. With INFPs, like Proust possibly, their characters seem to have more of a "fullness" to them, as if the writer has thought of an entire history for their characters. I could see John Steinbeck here too, but it's been a while since I've read his works.

Most simply, I see Si as seeking to preserve or maintain things as they are, while Ni seeks to point the way forward. When Ni is coupled with Fe, it envisions a more perfect, ethical society, and thus is very critical of the present moral character of social institutions or their larger social group (family, nation, etc). Dostoevsky's and Joyce's works both were concerned with the state of their home nation (Dostoevsky: Russia and Joyce: Ireland) and believed they had a better way of seeing things. I'd add Gandhi, Dante, and Thomas More (who wrote Utopia) to this, too.


----------



## mistakenforstranger (Nov 11, 2012)

This website is a great resource:

Can you compare and contrast Ni and Si? I think I... - Funky MBTI in Fiction

http://funkymbtifiction.tumblr.com/post/98928415520/what-factors-discern-between-ne-si-vs-si-ne-how


----------



## VideoGameMaster (Jan 17, 2015)

From the official MBTI site:

Introverted sensing compares present facts and experiences to past experience, trusts the past, and stores sensory data for future use.

Introverted intuition looks at consistency of ideas and thoughts with an internal framework and trusts flashes from the unconscious, which may be hard for others to understand.

Jung defined it much differently, however:

Introverted sensation is the process of viewing reality through a subjective filter. Jung called the result of this a "psychic mirror-world."

Introverted intuition is the process of reaching new possibilities directly from the subjective, internal realm. As a result, the visions that it creates tend to be confusing and unrealistic.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

mistakenforstranger said:


> This website is a great resource:
> 
> Can you compare and contrast Ni and Si? I think I... - Funky MBTI in Fiction
> 
> What factors discern between Ne-Si vs. Si-Ne? How... - Funky MBTI in Fiction


I wouldn't use that tumblr blog for anything meaningful in that regard tbh. That link is really bad for example.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

VideoGameMaster said:


> From the official MBTI site:
> 
> Introverted sensing compares present facts and experiences to past experience, trusts the past, and stores sensory data for future use.
> 
> ...


If I told you a circus was a place where you could have loads of fun, take a date on Saturday night or children could see exotic animals and clowns perform, would you agree? Contrast this with a dictionary definition:

"*Full Definition of CIRCUS*
1
_a_ *:* a large arena enclosed by tiers of seats on three or all four sides and used especially for sports or spectacles (as athletic contests, exhibitions of horsemanship, or in ancient times chariot racing) 
_b_ *:* a public spectacle 

2
_a_ *:* an arena often covered by a tent and used for variety shows usually including feats of physical skill, wild animal acts, and performances by clowns 
_b_ *:* a circus performance 
_c_ *:* the physical plant, livestock, and personnel of such a circus 
_d_ *:* something suggestive of a circus (as in frenzied activity, sensationalism, theatricality, or razzle-dazzle) <a media _circus_>"
Circus | Definition of circus by Merriam-Webster

Which look at circus tells you what a circus* is *and which tells you *possibilities *which may or may not be? 

When contrasting Si and Ni, there is a difference between being interesting/ suggestive / creative/ associative versus technical/ formal/ accurate/ minimalist #11.


----------



## Persephone Soul (Mar 27, 2015)

Joy In The Dance said:


> I don't have it down perfectly but let me give it a shot.
> 
> I personally prefer to think of them as 'mythologies'. They are personalized, highly subjective views of reality, maps on which the user treads. But Si is physical and Ni is abstract. Both seek a sort of perfection, but of a different nature.
> 
> ...


This was a VERY good and resourceful post JITD. Why on earth do you question yourself? Lol. I think you know you, and you definitely know the theory enough to be able to come to a concrete decision on your type. Go with your gut, because I think you've got it.


----------



## Persephone Soul (Mar 27, 2015)

Stavrogin said:


> Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.
> 
> Si uses the past to analyze the present.
> 
> ...


This is probably my favorite explanation of the 2. Excellent.


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Dancing Willow said:


> This was a VERY good and resourceful post JITD. Why on earth do you question yourself? Lol. I think you know you, and you definitely know the theory enough to be able to come to a concrete decision on your type. Go with your gut, because I think you've got it.


Thank you)
I...yeah. Maybe. Do you think ESFJ then?
on the other thread we were talking how I might be a Fi user, the arguments were pretty convincing


----------



## Persephone Soul (Mar 27, 2015)

Joy In The Dance said:


> Thank you)
> I...yeah. Maybe. Do you think ESFJ then?
> on the other thread we were talking how I might be a Fi user, the arguments were pretty convincing


Honestly, I truly feel deep down in MY bones, that YOU know deep own in YOUR bones what your type is. 

The perceiving axes I could see either way. 
(You know how I feel on Fi for you  ... but how do YOU feel about it?  )


----------



## Dangerose (Sep 30, 2014)

Dancing Willow said:


> Honestly, I truly feel deep down in MY bones, that YOU know deep own in YOUR bones what your type is.
> 
> The perceiving axes I could see either way.
> (You know how I feel on Fi for you  ... but how do YOU feel about it?  )












(here, I don't want to derail the thread, but basically I'm sure of no functions atm)


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Entropic said:


> I wouldn't use that tumblr blog for anything meaningful in that regard tbh. That link is really bad for example.


What sources would you recommend? Perhaps you have a list of valuable ones?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

@*Dancing Willow*.


Stavrogin said:


> Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.
> 
> Si uses the past to analyze the present.
> 
> ...


I wonder how you react to this? (I'm an INTP and am trying out for devil's advocate.

Jane burns herself on a hot stove. She experiences this as Si(?). She vows in the *future* never to go near that stove.

Jack burns stumbles in a dark alley bruising his knee. In a rage he curses the alleyway for having having brought him bad luck and having it "in for him" all along in the *past*. He experiences this as Ni(?).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Mantas said:


> What sources would you recommend? Perhaps you have a list of valuable ones?


I would rather recommend reading the source literature like Jung.


----------



## Stavrogin (May 20, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> @*Dancing Willow*.I wonder how you react to this? (I'm an INTP and am trying out for devil's advocate.
> 
> Jane burns herself on a hot stove. She experiences this as Si(?). She vows in the *future* never to go near that stove.
> 
> Jack burns stumbles in a dark alley bruising his knee. In a rage he curses the alleyway for having having brought him bad luck and having it "in for him" all along in the *past*. He experiences this as Ni(?).


That's a fair description. Though reality would be more like. 
"God damn it fucking [insert tripping device], I just want to get home." And move on from the frustration of the event specifically fairly quickly, though my mood in general wouldn't be as great. 

Actually I'm curious was how well Si Ne users relate to my description. Being an Se Ni user the only thing I have to go on is some highly theoretical description and that you guys are essentially the "inverse" of me perceiving-wise.
So... what do you think?


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Stavrogin said:


> That's a fair description. Though reality would be more like.
> "God damn it fucking [insert tripping device], I just want to get home." And move on from the frustration of the event specifically fairly quickly, though my mood in general wouldn't be as great.
> 
> Actually I'm curious was how well Si Ne users relate to my description. Being an Se Ni user the only thing I have to go on is some highly theoretical description and that you guys are essentially the "inverse" of me perceiving-wise.
> So... what do you think?


I now have a better clue as to what is going on. This business depends on the observer, lol. You are INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. I think you may be after a more typical best-fit situation. That's different from me. I am a Ne Si user, being INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe which has two in common with you. Here is your description:

* *






Stavrogin said:


> Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.
> 
> Si uses the past to analyze the present.
> 
> ...





If I experienced those two situations (stove, alley), that would be Si for me. I'd probably take note of how it happened (past) and think of what to avoid in the future. Or maybe I'd just move on and ignore the whole thing. No Ne or Fe unless someone else was present. Then I'd feel embarrassed (Fe) in front of them. 

So in my case I'd agree my Si uses the past. My Ne? Usually my Ne sees complex possibilities and lots of them. They do service the future as to possibilities which in my case is thinking. I wouldn't call my Ne concrete. Not from my POV. It's patterns and abstractions, all tentative. 

One thing I find interesting is our different approach. If you are looking for typical, practical, best-fit things, I am looking for more for general truths which work in EVERY case. That is different.


----------



## Stavrogin (May 20, 2014)

BigApplePi said:


> I now have a better clue as to what is going on. This business depends on the observer, lol. You are INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. I think you may be after a more typical best-fit situation. That's different from me. I am a Ne Si user, being INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe which has two in common with you. Here is your description:
> 
> * *
> 
> ...


That's fair. I'll admit the xNFJs and xSTPs all have have tendency to find a generic "one answer fits all" mentality when trying to problem solve due to Ni and Ti.

Yeah that is one thing, the next evening I'd still take that same alley assuming that whatever obstacle was there would be accounted for in my step, or gone completely. 

Perhaps concrete was the wrong word. Ne sees all options as viable, so all of your "visions" are a realistic possibility to some extent.
True or no?

Converse Ni users see only one or two realistic outcomes and everything else is thrown out the window simply because it's not probabilisticly viable.

Also any other Si Ne users feel free to pitch in, I'm very curious to see what you guys think of my idea.


----------



## Cesspool (Aug 8, 2014)

I think a great way to understand these things is to look at the manifestations of the functions from the people who use them. Let's look at pictures, each representing one of the 4 perceiving functions.

For Si, we look at one of the most beautiful and famous paintings in the world - The Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh









This is one of the best examples of Si in painting I can think of (all of Van Goghs works are). Van Gogh was most interested in painting his _internal impressions_ of objects - this is clear Si. He is not concerned with perfect accuracy (se) or of new possibility (Ne). His art is a reflection of his own storage of internal sensations. He captures the _sensual_ essence of objects and events and reflects them on the page. Note the rivers of light blue in the sky (clouds) and the spots of yellow around the moon (light reflection). He experiences life as a vast and thick mesh of senses, objects, and colors, and his art reflects it. 

Let's contrast this Si with an Ni painting - Number 11 by Jackson Pollock. ( can't find a small enough image of this painting so just look it up).

Pollock is utterly unconcerned with objects, they are meaningless to him. This is why I think his art is very good for describing Ni. It's not about the object at all. Pollock was so against objects that he would just name his paintings their number, and would walk on his paintings, put cigarettes out on them, etc. They're unruly, abstract, lacking no center of focus, and just simple "exist" - they just float out from his mind. This doesn't mean they are random! Pollock was VERY meticulous in his paintings, making sure that every line and drip was correct and met his vision. It's just that his vision had no OBJECTIVE- it was completely SUBJECTIVE (Subjective: Ni - Si - Ne - Se :Objective).

Let's contrast Pollock's Ni with Ne. Salvador Dali's surrealistic paintings are a perfect example of Ne.









Like Van Gogh, Dali is on the Si-Ne axis. Like Gogh, Dali is concerned with his internal impressions of OBJECTS, but where Van Gogh wanted to capture the _sensual essence_ of the objects, Dali wanted to capture the _New possibilities and states_ that the objects could inhabit. You always know exactly what you're looking at with his paintings, the objects are clear, yet they make no sense! A ship's sail made of butterflies? A phone with legs and a giant blue eye for a head shooting a laser beam? All his paintings are clearly objective, yet they come from his internal sensations (si) and filtered through his extroverted intuition before they are painted. This makes them zany and dreamy like Pollock but still objective and sensual like Gogh.

Let's now contrast the final function, Se. We will use the photo-realistic paintings of Richard Estes.









Estes' photo-realistic style is the epitome of extroverted sensing. To an extroverted-senser, the object is the object, and your opinions or interpretations or impressions are NOT what the object is. To a painter like Estes, if the painting is not an exact representation of what is seen, how can you say you are capturing the true essence of the image? All you are doing is expressing what YOU think/feel the object is, not what the object ACTUALLY is. This is Se in a nutshell - a photo-realistic recording of every object in the world with pin-point, computer like accuracy. It doesn't care for intuitions or impressions as those are utterly human and can not be trusted as a source for understanding the object, which exists separate and independent from human beings and their impressions of it. Only the object itself or a perfect imitation of the object can be said to be trustworthy and 'correct' for lack of a better term.

So there we go, the 4 perceiving functions in a nutshell. Hope I helped, if you have any questions ask etc. whatever.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

Cesspool said:


> I think a great way to understand these things is to look at the manifestations of the functions from the people who use them. Let's look at pictures, each representing one of the 4 perceiving functions.
> 
> For Si, we look at one of the most beautiful and famous paintings in the world - The Starry Night by Vincent Van Gogh
> 
> ...


I love your post. I do infrequently go to the Museum of Modern Art in NYC and have often wondered what I'm looking at. I'm a person who, like Descartes, has wiped his slate clean but having done that has no idea what to put on the slate. The paintings you present modestly ring a bell for me but the way I see things leaves me wondering what I am. I am going to learn something new from your post @*Cesspool.*

I went to look up the Jackson Pollack Number 11. 
* *




pollock number 11



In a flash this is what went into my head looking from a distance, not up close: The "poles" are trees. I get the image of a forest in fall (those are fall colors), of trees in the midst of fire, falling, their branches gone by virtue of fire. But I don't mean the poles are trees literally. They just suggest that bringing that out in my mind.

The painting is listed as "abstract expressionism." That sounds like Ni as you say. I didn't mean to make it sound like Si. It's just that not being an Ni user, I see Si and ask, "what did he have in mind?" My intuition is about the external = Ne. 

That's only 1 of 4 paintings.
______________________________

Starry Night. Here my reaction was different. Not understanding Van Gogh, I ask the same Q: "What did he have in mind?" I look for Ne and find nothing. Then you tell me this is Si! This is perfect. Now I see what I've always missed. 

Later: I have to add something awful. I may have to revisit this, but my experience is different. Instead of finding the painting "beautiful", I find it almost obvious. This may be because of my particular nature. I have an inner disrespect for Si. If this painting were to appeal to my Ne, I would attach myself to it, but so far no. Give me a chance to look again another day because I must be saying something offensive. (That's my Fe speaking.)

______________________________

Richard Estes. Photo realism does seem like Se to me. One is forced onto the external world merging with it. Can't avoid it. I'm fond of phot realism possibly because I don't have Se.
______________________________

Salvador Dali. I see how you are presenting this as Ne. Since I'm an Ne user I have to think about this. I see Se, not Si. Can we say the Si belongs to Dali while the viewer sees Se? Comment: When you say the objects make no sense, they make no sense to you. I live making sense of such things. I look at Dali and experience, "This is what Dali is. He is inviting me into his private world. I am going there no matter what others say. I am going there and it will be as much fun as a fun house at an amusement park."

Later: Even though you call this, "Ne", I see myself as experiencing Dali's Ni. It's his intuition and he keeps it to himself. To me this presents a new (I haven't heard of it) concept: My inner world is external to you; my outer world is internal to you; your inner world in external to me; your outer world in internal to me.
______________________________

Wonderful art lesson Cesspool.


----------



## Apple Pine (Nov 27, 2014)

Didn't quote, as it's old post. Just a note. That's just a memory, really.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

I think the problem that people have with functions, is that they think about it deeply but not clearly. Either is dealt with by a focus of a perception. Which means they both focus on a picture or events, or people or relationships or themselves in a view which is 'best described' by the dimension (S/N) and introversion/extroversion component of the function. Usually we need to sit down with a person to really 'hear' what they have to say, and that's when we realize that their best described in one way, rather than another way. 

Si is a concrete function, which is based on perceptions or a _focus _on details, factual historical datum, and various other concrete experiences, however, as it is introverted, its focus is on these 'umbrella' things so far, as it can be described within the person's own subjective terms (qualifiers un-shared by others, significant to oneself, etc). This is at the core of the perception. Then we have the residual symptoms of what this core perception, tends to give off, which is a high attention to detail, an indulgence in past experiences, a great perception of what 'duty' means in a situation, the ability to naturally follow rules and regulations or make rules and regulations easily and also a knack for detail (usually requires frequent memory access). Like all residual symptoms, they can be there or not there, but the core characteristic that promotes their existence, is still the underlying cause of them. (i.e. an Si user with a memory impairment, may not have a knack for detail, but could show similar cognitive features in other ways)

Ni is the more 'abstract' function, which based its perceptions off symbols, patterns or abstractions and various other abstract understandings/notions of experiences. Likewise, as it is also introverted, the focus is also on these umbrella things, so far as the person can describe them within their own subjective terms. (again, "internally energized", qualifiers unshared by others, usually understood solely by oneself, significant to oneself, etc). This is at the core, and the residual symptoms may be observing and refining their own systems of thought, craving "truth and depth" through a variety of ways like storytelling, withdrawn contemplation and meditation on a topic of interest.


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I will try to simplify Ni vs Si but you may be surprised and not agree.
> 
> *Si is about particulars and is local in space and time; Ni is about a whole picture and is global relative to Si.* They oppose each other only because Si tries to focus while Ni tries to capture. Both are alike in that they are perceptions and are immediate. They have nothing to do with past or future.
> 
> ...


I can reduce the theory in a similiar way. I agree with you.

As a result of these core characteristics, we have many residual traits, and the profile of the Si user and the Ni user would have been generated. For example, Si is to do with 'peculiars' as you said, and that's why we have this profile which deals with 'a knack of memory and personal experiences' because those things are peculiar to perceptions, at least moreso than the things described in the Ni profiles. Although, these things described in the profiles are residual symptoms, while what you are describing are the core characteristics of Ni and Si. Very well explained. 



Stavrogin said:


> Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.
> 
> Si uses the past to analyze the present.


Likewise, we also have people saying 'Ni users talk about the future or are future focused, compared to Si users'. Which I have to say is also a _*residual*_ symptom of the core cognitive patterns of the Ni user. Similar to the Si user. I don't always agree that Si is purely defined by a focus on future events, as this feature could change from one Ni user to another. It is therefore, not a core characteristic but more a residual trait of the underlying distinction.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

AverOblivious said:


> I can reduce the theory in a similiar way. I agree with you.
> 
> As a result of these core characteristics, we have many residual traits, and the profile of the Si user and the Ni user would have been generated. For example, Si is to do with 'peculiars' as you said, and that's why we have this profile which deals with 'a knack of memory and personal experiences' because those things are peculiar to perceptions, at least moreso than the things described in the Ni profiles. Although, these things described in the profiles are residual symptoms, while what you are describing are the core characteristics of Ni and Si. Very well explained.


While I appreciate the agreement, I need to be convinced: see below.








Originally Posted by *Stavrogin*  
Ni uses the past to anticipate the future.

Si uses the past to analyze the present.




> Likewise, we also have people saying 'Ni users talk about the future or are future focused, compared to Si users'. Which I have to say is also a _*residual*_ symptom of the core cognitive patterns of the Ni user. Similar to the Si user. I don't always agree that Si is purely defined by a focus on future events, as this feature could change from one Ni user to another. It is therefore, not a core characteristic but more a residual trait of the underlying distinction.


I've seen a number of times where people say that Ni does well by the future. Why would this be? Is it always the case? After all one can find cases where the other three functions (S, F, T) have future functionality. Why would N be so good with it and what part of N would do that? How would that be described?


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I've seen a number of times where people say that Ni does well by the future. Why would this be? Is it always the case? After all one can find cases where the other three functions (S, F, T) have future functionality. Why would N be so good with it and what part of N would do that? How would that be described?


I've seen it as well. Are they Ni users by any chance?. I found a lot of Ni users who state this as something that they have understood about themselves. I've heard some say that they can sense into the future, almost in a psychic manner but not in the conventional sense of a psychic. I think this is what they are getting at, the 'future-focused' orientation to the world. 

I am still looking into what part of Ni is responsible for it. To determine cause and effect for everything would be difficult. Though, I can still stand by my original understanding that the core characteristics of Ni could make way for the possibility of having this 'residual symptom' like I said before. It's actually a direct contrast from Se actually, Se has a symptom of immediacy and the present moment (as opposed to the future), which is residual to its core. I think it would be about focus, not about functionality. A focus would demand that the environment, would be attended in a certain way, while leaving out other perceptions of that environment. As Ni has a focus distinct from other functions, it is not defined by, but may eventually lead to behaviours, thoughts, etc which are more concerned with future events, relationships, possibilities, etc than those of the present circumstances. It is not core to the Ni though, for the same reasons you stated, all functions have the capability of focusing on future events, in some way, somehow. however, there could still be a pattern or an inclination of Ni there.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

So far I have a few rambling thoughts on this. Let's see if I can pull together anything.


AverOblivious said:


> I've seen it as well. Are they Ni users by any chance?. I found a lot of Ni users who state this as something that they have understood about themselves. I've heard some say that they can sense into the future, almost in a psychic manner but not in the conventional sense of a psychic. I think this is what they are getting at, the 'future-focused' orientation to the world.


Yes. The examples I think of are primary Ni users, as with INFJs and INTJs. Might as well start with the primaries as clues might stand out. If you are ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si, we could use that as well.





> I am still looking into what part of Ni is responsible for it. To determine cause and effect for everything would be difficult. Though, I can still stand by my original understanding that the core characteristics of Ni could make way for the possibility of having this 'residual symptom' like I said before. It's actually a direct contrast from Se actually, Se has a symptom of immediacy and the present moment (as opposed to the future), which is residual to its core. I think it would be about focus, not about functionality. A focus would demand that the environment, would be attended in a certain way, while leaving out other perceptions of that environment. As Ni has a focus distinct from other functions, it is not defined by, but may eventually lead to behaviours, thoughts, etc which are more concerned with future events, relationships, possibilities, etc than those of the present circumstances. It is not core to the Ni though, for the same reasons you stated, all functions have the capability of focusing on future events, in some way, somehow. however, there could still be a pattern or an inclination of Ni there.


 I've mentioned earlier in this thread N primary is coupled with F or T auxiliary. F and T are judgmental functions meaning they are intended to perform an action. Actions carry into the future. Ni, by definition must pull together a broad background of sources. (For that matter, so must Ne.) Patterns are more complex to produce than simple stimuli. I would think they take more unconscious energy than Si which reacts and is passive to stimuli. Now think of a hammer. If you have a hammer, it will be used on nails. Why? Simply because it is there and should the need occur, other things won't be used. It's like, "If you've got it, you will flaunt it." 

Ni is available to external F and T and is noticeable. Contrast this with Ne. If Ne is used, it will be couple with Fi or Ti. Those are internal and won't be noticed. Let me try to apply this to myself, INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. My Ne is supposed to support my Ti. My Ne provides input not only as food for thought, but for aesthetic satisfaction (that is, Si for harmonious error free logic) as well as Fe (a good theory as a service to others). Both of those (Si and Fe) are future oriented yet no one sees that as Si is for me and Fe is far into the future. Contrast this with an INFJ who pushes their feelings or an INTJ who pushes their thoughts right up in front of your face.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

What do you guys think about this?



Jung on Introverted Sensation said:


> Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. *Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence.* Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. *The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.*


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> What do you guys think about this?


Carl, do you have a Facebook page?


> Originally Posted by *Jung on Introverted Sensation*
> Introverted sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, of the primordial images which, in their totality, constitute a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror with the peculiar faculty of reflecting the existing contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but, as it were, sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year-old consciousness might see them. *Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence.*
> 
> Naturally this is only a figure of speech, but one that I needed in order to illustrate in some way the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. We could say that introverted sensation transmits an image which does not so much reproduce the object as spread over it the patina of age-old subjective experience and the shimmer of events still unborn. *The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future,*


Nice rendering of Si. The outside world goes inside us. It appears, makes a statement and then leaves.*





while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.

Click to expand...

*Nice also. Se is sharper, more momentary. 

Carl. Have you ever considered writing poetry and dropping psychology?


----------



## xraydav (Jan 3, 2013)

BigApplePi said:


> I've mentioned earlier in this thread N primary is coupled with F or T auxiliary. F and T are judgmental functions meaning they are intended to perform an action. Actions carry into the future. Ni, by definition must pull together a broad background of sources. (For that matter, so must Ne.) Patterns are more complex to produce than simple stimuli. I would think they take more unconscious energy than Si which reacts and is passive to stimuli. Now think of a hammer. If you have a hammer, it will be used on nails. Why? Simply because it is there and should the need occur, other things won't be used. It's like, "If you've got it, you will flaunt it."
> 
> Ni is available to external F and T and is noticeable. Contrast this with Ne. If Ne is used, it will be couple with Fi or Ti. Those are internal and won't be noticed. Let me try to apply this to myself, INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. My Ne is supposed to support my Ti. My Ne provides input not only as food for thought, but for aesthetic satisfaction (that is, Si for harmonious error free logic) as well as Fe (a good theory as a service to others). Both of those (Si and Fe) are future oriented yet no one sees that as Si is for me and Fe is far into the future. Contrast this with an INFJ who pushes their feelings or an INTJ who pushes their thoughts right up in front of your face.


I hear what you are saying, but the thing is, can a function exist in isolation to begin with? For example, we say 'Si is about this and.. this..' however, like you said, even Fe can be future oriented, in its ability to focus on 'service to others', 'group values' etc. Considering this Fe function in an ENFJ, would be backed up by Ni, which is an abstract function and we are now questioning whether it has a future-focus. The question would now be, if Fe is a future-focused function as well, would that mean the ENFJ focuses on the future due to the presence of Fe or due to the presence of Ni? Again, functions don't exist in isolation, so can we really say with absolute certainty, in one circumstance, that one function possesses a future-focus rather than another? Isn't it more certain that the focus of either function or all functions are time-independent? 
In this case, looking to the source literature.



PaladinX said:


> The bare sense impression develops in depth, reaching into the past and future, while extraverted sensation seizes on the momentary existence of things open to the light of day.


To me, he says here that the function develops an impression which reaches into both 'past and future', and cannot have one dominant focus either on future or past circumstances, but is equally likely to comment on anything in regard to time. 



> Such a consciousness would see the becoming and passing away of things simultaneously with their momentary existence in the present, and not only that, it would also see what was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence


 @BigApplePi However, considering the above, he does say that the consciousness of Si (which is bigger than the "impression" which is time independent), develops in response to the 'momentary existence' of a stimulus or experience or other related 'thing'. The consciousness of Si develops as dependent on the 'passing away' of an experience and is therefore, dependent on time, but the impression (which I assume is a smaller aspect of the consciousness) is not as dependent on time and can have effects on either future, present or past. 
From this, I can see how the overall 'general' psyche would allow a 'time' component to come into play with Si, allowing for residual characteristics regarding time or a 'past focus' to be present, but the impression of Si, which is more specific and distinctive, would be time-independent.


----------



## VideoGameMaster (Jan 17, 2015)

BigApplePi said:


> If I told you a circus was a place where you could have loads of fun, take a date on Saturday night or children could see exotic animals and clowns perform, would you agree? Contrast this with a dictionary definition:
> 
> "*Full Definition of CIRCUS*
> 1
> ...


I'm sorry, but I don't follow.


----------



## BigApplePi (Dec 1, 2011)

*Cognitive Function Future Theory*

I've finally come up with a future theory. It's starting to look good as an explanation. Before I did I wrote the below over the space of many hours. I recommend skipping it as so much rumination. I just thought I'd leave it in to show my thought processes (Ti) and how it can pass through a lot of sloppy thinking before coming up with a good theory. I propose this as a promising theory but it will be only as good as practice finds it by checking it out. Skip down to "*Future Theory*" at the end.



AverOblivious said:


> I hear what you are saying, but the thing is, can a function exist in isolation to begin with? For example, we say 'Si is about this and.. this..' however, like you said, even Fe can be future oriented, in its ability to focus on 'service to others', 'group values' etc. Considering this Fe function in an ENFJ, would be backed up by Ni, which is an abstract function and we are now questioning whether it has a future-focus. The question would now be, if Fe is a future-focused function as well, would that mean the ENFJ focuses on the future due to the presence of Fe or due to the presence of Ni? Again, functions don't exist in isolation, so can we really say with absolute certainty, in one circumstance, that one function possesses a future-focus rather than another? Isn't it more certain that the focus of either function or all functions are time-independent?
> In this case, looking to the source literature.





> @_BigApplePi_ However, considering the above, he does say that the consciousness of Si (which is bigger than the "impression" which is time independent), develops in response to the 'momentary existence' of a stimulus or experience or other related 'thing'. The consciousness of Si develops as dependent on the 'passing away' of an experience and is therefore, dependent on time, but the impression (which I assume is a smaller aspect of the consciousness) is not as dependent on time and can have effects on either future, present or past.
> From this, I can see how the overall 'general' psyche would allow a 'time' component to come into play with Si, allowing for residual characteristics regarding time or a 'past focus' to be present, but the impression of Si, which is more specific and distinctive, would be time-independent.


Can a function exist in isolation? I don't think so. As an introspective human I don't know what I'm experiencing. I have to stop and take notes and compare what I'm doing with each function. I suppose if this were to be done scientifically, I'd have to take examples of myself with introspection and more of you with observations. We'd have to run brain scans on each situation and take notes on which brain sections and how long they are being used for each cognitive function. 

Since this is not practical right now, suppose I introspect? As a supposed INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe, what am I doing right now? Thinking? I could claim to be thinking. As I observe myself from the outside, it looks like I'm doing Ne because each step of this process is not confirmed. If I stop to ask myself, I'm getting memories and sensations. That's Si. I'm also keying this in and doing that not for me but in a form so you the reader can read it. That's Fe.

Now have I rationalized this interpretation? That is, did I erroneously start with INTP and deliberately look for functions where other functions could be operating? To check this out, I'll try for the missing functions: Te Ni Se Fi. Well Fi. I do feel internally a little worried I am wrong. That worry is Fi. I have some ideas I have something to say that is not so great. That's Ni intuition. I'm not looking at outer sensations unless I really stop, so no Se. Te? I'd have to go back and read what you said for your logic. That Te, but I'm so occupied with this I've momentarily forgotten with this self-absorption. So no Te.
_____________

Here's another way of putting the theory. Ni intuition never occurs alone. What is happening is we are describing internal intuition as part of human cognitive functioning. It's like describing breakfast as the first meal of the day. We know what breakfast is but breakfast has no meaning in isolation without a human ready to eat it. Now back to the question of, is Ni future oriented? The answer is no the perception is not future oriented, but when used with powerful feelings, if the feelings are future oriented and when coupled with such a powerful tool as intuition, the future orientation comes out if that is what the feeler is motivated to do.
-----------------------------------


*Cognitive Function Future Theory.

*Cognitive functions don't operate alone. They may peak in our consciousness, but they are surrounded by other functions. The judgment functions, both F and T that are future oriented though in different ways. T functions seek order. Order means predictability. F functions seek action. Action because action fulfills value. Perception functions are observations only and are present oriented. They exist for short bursts of time but other than that they have no future characteristics. The perception functions, S and N observe in different ways. S observes as a local experience; N observes as a global experience.

How do these functions work together? F provides the motive or force. T provides the method. S and N are the data input or tools. Without F, there is no action. Without T there is chaos. Without S and N there is no content.

Different personalities provide different emphases or priorities to cognitive functions. We are all specialists providing and supporting each other's values. By having different emphases we back up the social fabric.

Examples in metaphor. A spray gun. F is the motive for spraying. T is the mechanism that gets it to work. N is the fine spray that covers broadly. S is the sharp shooter of focus.

War. F is the motive to suppress the other side as obstacle. T is the rationale that preserving or creating a way of life can be carried out. S is tactics. N is strategy.

Let's see how this theory works in practice.

*@AverOblivious *asks, "Considering this Fe function in an ENFJ, would be backed up by Ni, which is an abstract function and we are now questioning whether it has a future-focus. The question would now be, if Fe is a future-focused function as well, would that mean the ENFJ focuses on the future due to the presence of Fe or due to the presence of Ni?"

ENFJ = Fe Ni Se Ti. Fe is up front with future focus. Fe wants to do something. Ni is the tool and a terrific one. That is why the ENFJ is so effective. The Ni is just a tool. It does nothing by itself.

INFJ = Ni Fe Ti Se. Here the Ni is foremost, but hidden. We see only the Fe. That pressures us because it is external. We have to guess at what the Ni is. Fe because it is secondary doesn't have as much force.

ESFJ = Fe Si Ne Ti. Like the ENFJ, Fe is up front with future focus. Fe also wants to do something. Si is the tool but is much more specialized. The intuitive vision is there but not as broad.

ENTP = Ne Ti Fe Si. Here the external world is presented upfront with a broad statement concerning order. The making sense of it is the driver but we do not see the internal motive.

INTP = Ti Ne Si Fe. Here the drive is to make sense of the world, but we don't see it. What we see are the tools to get there.

This requires more work as there are 11 more personalities to go ... and are the first 5 on target or not?


----------

