# Ne/Si vs Se/Ni



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Howdy folks,

I've found myself quite confused regarding the distinction between Ne/Si and Se/Ni, particularly in people who use aux Se and tert Ni (or aux Ni and tert Se) and people who use aux Ne and tert Si (or aux Si and tert Ne). What are the technical differences between each of these four arrangements, and what are the differences in how each of the four act and process information? Are there any general characteristics of each that seem consistent? Common habits or thought processes? Similarities? Differences? Any general information or specific examples would be appreciated


----------



## TheDarknessInTheSnow (May 28, 2016)

Si-Ne is more past focused and envisions one road leading to many divergent roads. Ni-Se is more present focused and envisions many roads leading to one convergent road. Se is like "Oh that's a nice picture frame. But I'm ready, let's move onto the next thing and fast." while Si is like "Oh that picture frame makes me feel so soft inside, like that one time I went to France."


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

Hi, ISFP here.

One interesting thing I heard about ISxPs is how we're tempted to indulge in tertiary Ni but often can't stay focused long enough. There's a sort of 'conflict' between the desire to absorb raw sensory data and search for underlying meanings and significance, and the former usually wins out. We also tend to see Ni's meanings and interpretations as 'tainting' the sensory data. I relate to this a lot because I don't like assigning meaning to things unnecessarily. It's not that I'm incapable of seeing meanings and external possibilities, I'm just satisfied with the raw information and think it's beautiful/valuable in itself.


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Kito said:


> Hi, ISFP here.
> 
> One interesting thing I heard about ISxPs is how we're tempted to indulge in tertiary Ni but often can't stay focused long enough. There's a sort of 'conflict' between the desire to absorb raw sensory data and search for underlying meanings and significance, and the former usually wins out. We also tend to see Ni's meanings and interpretations as 'tainting' the sensory data. I relate to this a lot because I don't like assigning meaning to things unnecessarily. It's not that I'm incapable of seeing meanings and external possibilities, I'm just satisfied with the raw information and think it's beautiful/valuable in itself.


INTP here

Very interesting. For me it's almost the opposite-- I think of everything in terms of abstract and loosely (some would say arbitrarily) tied together concepts, and try to keep any concrete sensory data out of it. It's almost like my brain is constantly rattling off a stream of consciousness, and sensory data just gets all up in my brain's face and throws it off track. so if my brain's saying "yes this is that and that could also be this-- oh wait that doesn't work... right right this is that but that could be, hang on, look at this, isn't this FASCINATING ok ok let's think here... couldn't this be this other thing? a bit of a stretch but let's just turn it upside down--" and then the sensory data comes stomping in banging pots and pans like "NO! dude you can't just turn that upside down what are you thinking, you imbecile--" at which point my brain just says "shut up you're killing my idea here it's a good idea and I don't care what you're trying to tell me go away". 
(Of course there are some situations in which the sensory data actually sends the idea in a new and interesting direction, but for the most part it goes as i described.)

Considering we've discussed how Ne-Si and Se-Ni process information differently, I'd quite like to hear your take on the differences between how the two actually experience the physical world. 

For example, do you think Ne-Si would have a deeper connection to the beauty of nature because of Si's bond with the past and memory and its depth in contrast to Se's breadth? Or would Se-Ni have a deeper connection to nature due to Se's acute experience of the external world paired with Ni's ability to so effortlessly assign meaning and depth to observations? 

Or, for another example, how do you think Ne-Si and Se-Ni would differ in how users of each create art (and by art I mean anything from paintings to photographs to poems to sculptures to songs or anything in between)? How would motivations to create differ? Which would seem more inclined to which mediums? Where does the desire to create come from in Se-Ni vs Ne-Si? 

Any thoughts on those or any other situations/examples or just in general?


----------



## Baphomet (Apr 20, 2015)

Kito said:


> Hi, ISFP here.
> 
> One interesting thing I heard about ISxPs is how we're tempted to indulge in tertiary Ni but often can't stay focused long enough. There's a sort of 'conflict' between the desire to absorb raw sensory data and search for underlying meanings and significance, and the former usually wins out. We also tend to see Ni's meanings and interpretations as 'tainting' the sensory data. I relate to this a lot because I don't like assigning meaning to things unnecessarily. It's not that I'm incapable of seeing meanings and external possibilities, I'm just satisfied with the raw information and think it's beautiful/valuable in itself.


Where is the quote in your signature from?


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

TheDarknessInTheSnow said:


> Si-Ne is more past focused and envisions one road leading to many divergent roads. Ni-Se is more present focused and envisions many roads leading to one convergent road. Se is like "Oh that's a nice picture frame. But I'm ready, let's move onto the next thing and fast." while Si is like "Oh that picture frame makes me feel so soft inside, like that one time I went to France."


Yes, yes I like this a lot... it's like Se-Ni take a whole load of sensory data (clouds, mountain, sea, train tracks, waterfalls, sky, ooh, look! a plane!) and brings it together into one meaningful whole (perhaps this all is representative of the variability of human belief in the divine... must the notion of holiness be associated with purity, or can it also be perceived in solidity, or in vastness, progress, inevitability, or even merely in the inexplicable?); whereas Ne-Si observes one acute and specific item of sensory data (perhaps a distinct landscape, or the movement of a single ant across the ground) and takes it in a plethora of possible abstract directions (I wonder if that landscape looked the same in 1923... will it look the same in 2089? maybe there will be aliens invading the earth in 2089... would the aliens be humanoid, or would they have evolved entirely differently than us? Maybe the ant is actually a soldier on his way home from battle...how tall would that blade of grass have to be to look the same to us as it does to that ant? seventeen feet? I should google if there has ever been a person who is seventeen feet tall...)


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

[blank]


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

I've found that Ne-Si tends to focus on being very abstract and nostalgic or have very good memory capability.
I've found that Se-Ni tends to focus on being pragmatic and active.

As an INFP, I'm an Ne-Si user and I'm naturally more attracted to Ne-Si users than Se-Ni users.


----------



## Jane Lane (Sep 21, 2016)

I love this explanation! I do find myself a bit torn through. On one hand I tend to be random about connections. But I can't shake that I feel everything is connected.
I'm not sure if that indicates using one over the other?
It's probably Ne for but I can see the perspective as well.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

xntrc_ said:


> INTP here
> 
> Very interesting. For me it's almost the opposite-- I think of everything in terms of abstract and loosely (some would say arbitrarily) tied together concepts, and try to keep any concrete sensory data out of it. It's almost like my brain is constantly rattling off a stream of consciousness, and sensory data just gets all up in my brain's face and throws it off track. so if my brain's saying "yes this is that and that could also be this-- oh wait that doesn't work... right right this is that but that could be, hang on, look at this, isn't this FASCINATING ok ok let's think here... couldn't this be this other thing? a bit of a stretch but let's just turn it upside down--" and then the sensory data comes stomping in banging pots and pans like "NO! dude you can't just turn that upside down what are you thinking, you imbecile--" at which point my brain just says "shut up you're killing my idea here it's a good idea and I don't care what you're trying to tell me go away".
> (Of course there are some situations in which the sensory data actually sends the idea in a new and interesting direction, but for the most part it goes as i described.)
> ...


Hmm, I don't know. I can only speak from my own experience of having Se-Ni. I don't necessarily feel connected to nature, I just feel like I'm witnessing it (in all its glory, of course). Having Ni in the third position it's more subconscious for me, so I tend to be skeptical of its desire to penetrate something to find a singular meaning. I know that most people with tertiary or inferior Ni (so all SPs) are a little dismissive of people who desperately want to find meaning or significance in things. 

I guess Ne-Si users would be more likely to create art that's "open to interpretation" whereas Ni-Se would prefer to convey a singular message? I'm not sure. When I create art it's because I like playing with different physical elements to see what happens when I put them together.



Mantra said:


> Where is the quote in your signature from?


Something I found on tumblr lol. It resonated with me somehow.

Blood Mountains | proteesiukkonen: Come closer, stay away

(that's my own blog because I have no shame)


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

Going to take a stab at it because I'm bored, and spend too much time on all this, and was led to thinking about relationship between memory and the perceiving functions from another thread and @*myjazz*. So here's tentative sketch. Much of this is following or modifying Michael Pierce's interpretation.


I. The important distinctions are the following.

1. _Subject-Object
_
Metaphysical distinction with various meanings, but in the most common and relevant sense, it's the distinction between the conscious "I" that thinks and observes, the ego, and everything else - the things the subject thinks about and observes. Nonphysical entities (e.g. ideas) are also objects, since they are not us, the "I."

2. _Introversion-Extroversion
_
Orientation primarily around the subjective, what is of the subject, what "I" need, think, feel, sense, intuit, etc.; or the objective, what is of the object, what is out there, what others/everyone thinks, feels, etc. (So subjective and objective here are not quite the same thing we usually mean, in which the subjective is fleeting, biased, emotional, etc. and the objective is true, unbiased, etc. That common sense of it is more epistemological whereas Pierce's is metaphysical and cognitive.) Subjective experience is of the impressions things leave on you, their relationship to you, rather than the things themselves. So this is roughly the distinction between our relationship to impressions or objects.

3. _Sensation-Intuition
_
Sensation is the observation of things themselves. Pierce takes it to be broader than physical sensation and I think that's a good clarification. Sensations can include anything that hits the subject directly from the object - the tactile experience of tree bark, the emotional and aesthetic experience of a cute kitten that makes you cry (just this feeling of the cuteness and happiness), etc.

Intuition is making unconscious associations between things, which produces "connections and possibilities." 

For example, seeing a knife in a Southwestern-style restaurant in the U.S., then thinking about how it would look to an archaeologist looking through the ruins of the place, what kind of judgments they'd make about... Realizing there would invariably be a gap between any interpretation and the way you actually use the knife and experience the restaurant... realizing the gap would be constrained by how much other knowledge they'd have to this culture... are they an alien on the Earth after we've perished, or humans in the future? If they're humans, how did this become ruins? In what situations would human archaeologists be going through the ruins of Earth? Maybe at some point we have humans settled on a distant planet, and there's a mass extinction event on Earth, and the other planet is only able to send people here after decades or centuries later... that would be an interesting story premise... 

You can see from this more clearly how intuition differs: sensation takes up the object; intuition relates objects. The associative, flowing stream of thoughts above are connections one makes unconsciously, they kind of "pop up." I noticed the way I thought about and used the knife (Si), then began teasing out connections between things I've thought about possibilities coming out of them - connections between the knife, the restaurant, the variety of eating practices, etc.; the limits of archaeological interpretation; possible mass extinction and earth visitation scenarios, etc. (Ne).

This points to an important principle, which is that sensation and intuition work together. No sensations can be understood without associations between them to make sense of them, and there's nothing to make sense of without sensations. Roughly analogous to the dialectic of theory and observation in science. No theorizing or understanding without observations, and no way to make good observations without theoretical assumptions and conclusions to establish what to observe. Or as Kant said, "concepts without percepts are empty, percepts without concepts are blind."


II. Now we stir the pot of distinctions and add some tangents.

1. _Si: observing the subjective impressions of sensations of the object
_
Si users better remember their impressions of sensations, their relation to the sensations. That information guides their behavior and judgments. Hence the caution in assuring things line up with their expectations, so the sensations they receive are the ones they want. This is the truth behind the misleading labeling of Si as "memory." It is just the kind of memories Si prioritizes that may lend to caution, traditionalism, etc., not memory itself. Si is not fixated around the past per se. Rather, impressions from past experience inform them about the present and future. That doesn't necessarily mean that they are slaves to their impressions. And their impressions may very well lend the individual to be radical in certain areas. (I don't think I'm putting this one well enough, but it's a start.)

2._ Se: observing the objects
_
Se users better remember the objects themselves. Michael Pierce described this well through the Sherlock Holmes comparison. Well developed Se is partly how Holmes is able to remember so many things so precisely - he remembers _things_, objects primarily. Se users are adept at remembering and relaying things vividly because they prioritize objects themselves, not how they relate to them (Si), and not the associations between them (Ne).

I notice this in my brother a lot, who's probably an ESFP. A big part of his humor is joking about or imitating little behavioral patterns or quirks people have, like the way my sister used to complain, or my mom's laugh. He acts them out so well. Always surprises me how perceptive he is of those things. I certainly don't notice them as much nor as vividly as he does, and neither does anyone else in my immediate family (all Si or low Se).

I notice something similar in an INTJ I know online. Extremely perceptive of little patterns in behavior or appearance, in a much more generalized way than my ESFP brother, if that makes sense. He just notices very specific patterned behaviors and pokes at them - that's that, just what the person does. The INTJ notices them too but also generalizes them. Taking up some particular action or habit or way of presenting yourself and describing it as something a particular kind of person does. Like, "people who do x are not the kind of person you want to be around," and x will be some little behavioral or fashion quirk that I would never take notice of, like what your car says about you, or people who wear cargo pants having Ti, or girls having their hair in a bun at certain heights (the higher they are on their heads, the meaner the girls are), etc. Sometimes serious, sometimes jokes, (sometimes both) but the process is the same.

I suspect this is the strong Ni with Se: the sensations/objects are connected subjectively and unconsciously. Subjective because the patterns are explicitly particular to her own experiences; she doesn't claim to be objective about them, but she will hold to them. And unconscious because she forms them unthinkingly. They aren't conscious conclusions from reasoning, just felt beliefs that came out of intuition's connecting certain observations and accumulating them. 

(The difference between our dominant Ni and Ti is often very clear because of this. I expect objectivity, rigorous and impersonal reasoning, etc. She just wants to follow her hunches and Ni generalizations because they work for her (they really do); she isn't used to analyzing or comparing everything in detail and being as strict as I am about dismissing bias. My habit of pressing people to be explicit and rigorous with their thinking often falls flat with her. This is partly why xNTJs are more pragmatic than logical or objective, which better describes xNTPs. The judgment of Ni's material comes more so through how well the beliefs work (Te), not as much through prolonged analysis to see how well they stand on their own (Ti).)

3. _Ni: observing the subjective associations between the impressions of sensations of the objects
_
Ni users better remember the impressions of the connections and possibilities the subject makes unconsciously. Much of the above unintentionally explained this.

This commonly seen as "visionary" and focused on the future. Unconscious, subjective connections are not clear to others. And because they are not clear, and often consist of possibilities, their explanation and actualization is yet to come: they are not-yet, or may-be. This might seem to be the same as having a focus on the future, but I think it's misleading to think of this temporally, as past-future. Ni is not about what will or might be in a temporal sense, e.g. what the world may be like in 10 years; but about what could possibly be the case, awaiting testing.

A good example would be the process of predicting certain animals or features of animals in the fossil record that would support some hypothesis about the evolution of some species. (I can't remember what the term for predicting things about the past is called. Common to the historical sciences though. May be a term from Stephan Jay Gould? If anyone knows it, do tell.) One may have an insight from Ni that leads to a hypothesis about some skeletal feature that paleontologists may find in some strata if the theory it comes is true (at least partially). This is not about the future, but about the actualization of a possibility. Possible-actual might be a better distinction for understanding intuition than past-future.

4. _Ne: observing the subjective associations between objects
_
Ne users better remember the unconsciously made connections and possibilities themselves. The archaeological example above illustrates this, I think. I had those thoughts around 12 hours ago but the trails of thought and things I learned and thoughts about along them are still very clear to me. This may speak more fully to Ne-Si. The way the sensations of those ideas struck me, led to me prioritizing them because they were very interesting and attractive (Si), and also fit with other things I know and think about (Ne), spurring further associations. Or something like that.


III. Idk though

*shrugs*


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

I will read this in a little while when i have time to soak it all in properly.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

@Afterburner

Since the idea is based on S and N concept there leaves a big gap and overlay from T and F. 
For instance it seems to be some Fi ( or subjective feeling tone) with what your INTJ friend detects in behavioral pattern's.

Which seems to stem from I-3

I think overall pretty good, but also the part in I-1 and I-3 paragraph 4 also applies to Subject - Object


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

myjazz said:


> @*Afterburner*
> 
> Since the idea is based on S and N concept there leaves a big gap and overlay from T and F.
> For instance it seems to be some Fi ( or subjective feeling tone) with what your INTJ friend detects in behavioral pattern's.
> ...


Yeah, definitely a lot left out. I'll maybe try to flesh things out with T and F another time. 

As for my INTJ friend, I agree in part. However, the detection I am pointing out is Ni-Se, since that's perception. The judgments she makes about those perceptions and people would indeed be Te-Fi, since they are explicitly subjective ethical judgments that she applies and holds to strongly. Or something. Now I see again that I'm not clear on T and F.

What do you mean about I-3?



> I think overall pretty good, but also the part in I-1 and I-3 paragraph 4 also applies to Subject - Object


Do you mean that the unity of sensation-intuition also applies to subject-object? If so, yeah, they're both distinctions in a more philosophical sense. Something more specific than being a mere pair, a grouping of two related things. These distinctions of S-O and S-N are deeper unities in their differences because each side of the distinction requires its opposite to be what it is, e.g. the subject is what it is only in contrast to the object and vice versa. Things _are_ partly by what they _are not_​. You can't understand one without the other. That's their dialectical relationship, as it is with S-N, or theory and observation in science. They are distinct but only in relation to their opposite, which they go with, so both are always essential.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Afterburner said:


> Sensation is the observation of things themselves. Pierce takes it to be broader than physical sensation and I think that's a good clarification. Sensations can include anything that hits the subject directly from the object - the tactile experience of tree bark, the emotional and aesthetic experience of a cute kitten that makes you cry (just this feeling of the cuteness and happiness), etc.


Take this part for example about steming from I-3 with a mixture of Perceiving and Judgment. Since everything is grouped with Sensation that hit the subject directly from the object, this combines both Perceiving and Judgment together.


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

myjazz said:


> Take this part for example about steming from I-3 with a mixture of Perceiving and Judgment. Since everything is grouped with Sensation that hit the subject directly from the object, this combines both Perceiving and Judgment together.


I'm not sure it does. If you're referring to emotional and aesthetic experience there, those are _experiences_, not judgments made. 

It is one thing to feel that something is beautiful - that is the perception of the feelings accompanying the aesthetic experience; it just happens, and you notice it. When start talking about what makes something beautiful, making conscious determinations about things e.g. your preferences, aesthetic standards, etc. - that is judgment, and not what I talked about in sensation. I was only talking about the feeling or experience, which is something that "hits" you, not a decision you make.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Afterburner said:


> I'm not sure it does. If you're referring to emotional and aesthetic experience there, those are _experiences_, not judgments made.
> 
> It is one thing to feel that something is beautiful - that is the perception of the feelings accompanying the aesthetic experience; it just happens, and you notice it. When start talking about what makes something beautiful, making conscious determinations about things e.g. your preferences, aesthetic standards, etc. - that is judgment, and not what I talked about in sensation. I was only talking about the feeling or experience, which is something that "hits" you, not a decision you make.


That to me still show's Feeling Judgment. 
Just like when you mentioned your INTJ friend to me showed a slight Fi behind the Ni which made it a Ni-Fi correlation 

The cat is yellow- Sensing 
Yellow is a perception 

The cat is cute- Feeling Judgment 
There is a reason a cat is cute. Someone else might think or feel the same cat is ugly.

Feeling Judgment is not always a thought out decision making process. Like telling someone you Love them will usually fall under Feeling. 




( don't take this as I am trying to argue)


----------



## Afterburner (Jan 8, 2013)

myjazz said:


> That to me still show's Feeling Judgment.
> Just like when you mentioned your INTJ friend to me showed a slight Fi behind the Ni which made it a Ni-Fi correlation
> 
> The cat is yellow- Sensing
> ...


Feeling is a decision-making process, right. But I'm not talking about decisions about aesthetics, like _saying_ the cat is cute. I'm talking about the _experience_ of seeing a cute cat, that warm fuzzy feeling that makes you want to cuddle with the cat. That isn't a decision being made, that's the feeling of a particular aesthetic experience that was intitated by the sight of the cat. If you listen to music, it's the same there. Just enjoying the music, the immediate experience, without reflecting on it, is not judgment, but perception. Taking in the sounds and the feelings associated with them is sensation - the object is striking you. But when you go on to say the music is beautiful and so on, then you are making value judgments, which is Feeling.

I'm distinguishing between aesthetic experience and aesthetic judgment. They are different things. You're talking about the latter, which is indeed judgment; I'm talking about the former, which involves perception. The experience of the beautiful is not the same as talking about the beautiful object.



> ( don't take this as I am trying to argue)


 No worries. Misunderstandings are productive.


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Afterburner said:


> Feeling is a decision-making process, right. But I'm not talking about decisions about aesthetics, like _saying_ the cat is cute. I'm talking about the _experience_ of seeing a cute cat, that warm fuzzy feeling that makes you want to cuddle with the cat. That isn't a decision being made, that's the feeling of a particular aesthetic experience that was intitated by the sight of the cat. If you listen to music, it's the same there. Just enjoying the music, the immediate experience, without reflecting on it, is not judgment, but perception. Taking in the sounds and the feelings associated with them is sensation - the object is striking you. But when you go on to say the music is beautiful and so on, then you are making value judgments, which is Feeling.
> 
> I'm distinguishing between aesthetic experience and aesthetic judgment. They are different things. You're talking about the latter, which is indeed judgment; I'm talking about the former, which involves perception. The experience of the beautiful is not the same as talking about the beautiful object.
> 
> No worries. Misunderstandings are productive.


Okay so your referring to more of the feeling tone mixed with emotions instead of the actual feeling judgment. But the way it was worded can cause a mix up in understanding in way it was intended, especially if someone doesn't know the separation of regular Feeling Fe/Fi. It would seem if you was to include actual feeling's or emotions into Cognitive this can be interesting to read when completed. This also has a slight similarity to Libido in the way the idea is being used


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Afterburner said:


> I. The important distinctions are the following.
> 
> 1. _Subject-Object
> _
> ...


Thank you infinitely for this-- really cleared some stuff up


----------



## Lupus Rex (Jun 27, 2016)

The perceiving axis are much harder to explain than the judgement axis. Let me try it in short.

Ne Si: Ne Si has a multifaceted view of the world. It can see objects from many different angles. This information is then saved in an internal database. This internal database in considered to be more important to the Ne Si user than the actual factual external reality. Ne Si is zoomed out. I'd say that Ne Si is big picture orientation.

Se Ni: Se Ni on the other hand doesn't see things from multiple perspectives but rather focuses on the information given in the moment and builds internal visions based on that information. Se Ni is zoomed in. Se Ni is not big picture oriented but has a very perfectionistic view of something (Ni) that is perceived in the external world (Se) it tries to reach.


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

My experience with Si/Ne and Se/Ni users goes as follow...

Si/Ne - Very light-hearted. Even the most hardcore ENxPs I've known kinda approach the world in a ''safe'' way. That's because Si/Ne, no matter where it stacks up, is always extremely meticulous. Curious, but meticulous. The world is one branching path after another to them (Ne) but it takes Si to inspect these said paths thoroughly. This ultimately leads to someone who always thinks twice about everything (Again, no matter where functions stack up). Si/Ne has has tendency to get energized by the thought of doing something, sometimes moreso than doing the thing itself. Changing their minds, hesitating, wanting a second opinion is extremely frequent in both SJs and NPs. 

Se/Ni - is intense! No matter where it stacks up, Se/Ni users see reality as very sharp and vivid. It essentially thinks in a straight line. Therefore it's very possible to see Se/Ni users to wake up one day and wanting to do something, right here and now. That's where the ''intensity'' comes from. No need to second guess over and over again, let's just do it. This is true even for INxJs. It may take them a long time to contemplate, but once their minds say ''go'', you best believe it's ''go''. They might hit walls of course, but they get up and follow one singular trail again.


----------



## infPromi (Sep 26, 2016)

xntrc_ said:


> Or, for another example, how do you think Ne-Si and Se-Ni would differ in how users of each create art (and by art I mean anything from paintings to photographs to poems to sculptures to songs or anything in between)? How would motivations to create differ? Which would seem more inclined to which mediums? Where does the desire to create come from in Se-Ni vs Ne-Si?


Without putting much thought into it I would say Se-Ni art would have a clear physical vision (Se) with also some deep underlying meanings (Ni- and also probably some of that Ti or Fi)- while Ne-Si art would seem more spontaneous (at least the origin for the idea would) while it would still be grounded in this Ne vision with Si to create a good product. As for the rest of it... I'll have to think about it.


----------



## Lupus Rex (Jun 27, 2016)

infPromi said:


> Without putting much thought into it I would say Se-Ni art would have a clear physical vision (Se) with also some deep underlying meanings (Ni- and also probably some of that Ti or Fi)- while Ne-Si art would seem more spontaneous (at least the origin for the idea would) while it would still be grounded in this Ne vision with Si to create a good product. As for the rest of it... I'll have to think about it.


Se Ni art is often considered to be more visual, as it is expressed through sensing. It tries to express a Ni vision through Se, whereas I think Ne Si art is more trying to express oneself's situation (Si) in a more abstract way (Ne) like through writing or poetry.

So in short,
Se Ni: Visualisation
Ne Si: Expression


----------



## myjazz (Feb 17, 2010)

Lupus Rex said:


> So in short,
> Se Ni: Visualisation
> Ne Si: Expression


I like this example


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Hm, art? I love Monet. Standing in front of this one, for example, I could practically feel the warm, wooden planks under my hands, smell the tar and the salt ...










I'm not sure art has anything at all to do with types. But it's a fantastic picture XD


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

So much bullshit...

Get out of theory and start learning how to properly observe and categorize reality.


----------



## Kito (Jan 6, 2012)

jkp said:


> So much bullshit...
> 
> Get out of theory and start learning how to properly observe and categorize reality.


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Kito said:


>


haha


----------



## xntrc_ (Oct 2, 2016)

Lupus Rex said:


> So in short,
> Se Ni: Visualisation
> Ne Si: Expression


In general, I agree, but I would also think that strong F or T would further divide this... so a dominant Fi user who uses Ne-Si would indeed be very expressive, but a dominant Fi user who uses Se-Ni would _also_ be quite expressive... just in a more visual way. Or, alternately, a dominant Ti user who uses Se-Ni might indeed be very visual and less expressive, but a dominant Ti user who has Ne-Si might _also_ be somewhat less "expressive" and instead more visual. 



So (to trace that whole thing back and provide actual examples):

An ISFP would indeed be quite visual, considering his Se-Ni would drive him to create tangible (Se) art with underlying Ni meaning (as Lupus Rex said). However, his dominant Fi would also incline him to incorporate a fair deal of (seemingly Ne-Si) abstract self-expression into his very visual Se-Ni art. So, for ISFPs, the drive to create is both a drive to express oneself, and a drive to physically create something beautiful. (This is perhaps why ISFPs are stereotypically known to be great artists.)

An ISTP, on the other hand, would likely create very visual Se-Ni art, and her Ti would lend a very unique and intricate and perfectionistic element to it, but wouldn't contribute the same passion and sensitivity and self-expression as her ISFP companion's Fi would. The ISTP would likely be more drawn to sculpture or photography or technical drawing (or even painting or cartooning or anything else), but the drive would be, almost exclusively, the physical act of creating something tangible.

An INFP would possibly be the most expressive (of the four types I'm providing examples for*). His Ne-Si would compel him to create more abstract (Ne) art with influence from acute and subjective sensory experiences (Si), and his Fi would add a highly personal and subjective flavor to whatever he creates. This would likely cause him to be drawn to poetry and creative writing in particular, but it wouldn't blow my mind if this INFP enjoyed painting or drawing as well. The emphasis is just that he would be driven to create something almost exclusively as a means of self-expression. 

An INTP who uses Ne-Si would certainly create art with a Ne-Si "abstractness" and creativity, but his Ti would reign the "self-expression" part in quite a bit. He would likely be drawn to creative writing (similarly to his INFP buddy), but he would be more interested in playing with the _actual words_ he's writing as opposed to their subjective and personal meaning, and his writing style would likely be less expressive and more witty or quirky (lots of Ne, minus the personal and emotional quality of Fi). He might also enjoy drawing or photography or music due to Ne's desire to find interesting new ways to create stuff and Si's keen perception of detail and technique. The INTP really just wants to create something (tangible or otherwise) interesting and clever. 



So, in summary, I'd say Fi would lend the most personal and expressive quality to an individual's art, Ne-Si would add the most abstract creativity, Se-Ni would add the most keen sense of vision and use of tangible mediums, and Ti would add the most clever and perfectionistic aspects as well as a desire to create just to create as opposed to create as a means of self-expression. 

In order of how visual each type would likely be, I's say it would go as follows:

ISTP
ISFP
INTP
INFP

And in terms of how expressive their art would be, I would actually say 

INFP
ISFP
INTP
ISTP



There. That was a bit long, but I have nothing else to do**, so whatever. 




*Ive only provided examples for those types who use their extroverted perceiving function as their auxiliary function. If anyone wants to do an analysis of the types with their extroverted perceiving functions in different places in their function stacks, be my guest. I'm just sicking to the IxxPs because I think they exhibit quite well the differences I'm trying to point out.

**There are so many things I should be doing that are not this.


----------

