# Si and Ni dominant, how come?



## EpiLope (May 1, 2016)

goamare said:


> Your transition from "They are opposites, but the exact same thing on different levels" to "So Ni and Se are the same" seems logically inconsistent. You're talking about "*temperature*" which is *a single concept*. "Hot" is "high *temperature*" and "cold" is "low *temperature*." They are talking about the same concept (both temperature). To be consistent, maybe you should rather say *"So Ni and Ne are the same (both intuition). Ni is the introverted version of Ne, while Si/Se is a totally different thing."*
> 
> What do ya think?


Logically inconsistent it is not. Unreasonable based on data input, it may be. 

"Ni is the introverted version of Ne, while Si/Se is a totally different thing."

N is directly opposed to S, while neutral to T and F. The relationship is closer than it may first appear.

In Jung's terms, S is the shadow cast by N. N is the shadow cast by S. 

And lastly... Ne is the extroverted version of Si, but Si is totally different than Se??? :shocked: AHH! THE SYMMETRY HAS BEEN SLAIN!


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

EpiLope said:


> Logically inconsistent it is not. Unreasonable based on data input, it may be.
> 
> "Ni is the introverted version of Ne, while Si/Se is a totally different thing."
> 
> ...


1. Just to make it clear, when I said "while Si/Se is a totally different thing" I meant "Si&Se together are a totally different thing from Ni&Ne." (of course this isn't my own argument btw)

2. You should still convince me why you are stating "So Ni and Se are the same" instead of "So Ni and Ne are the same." That's the part where it becomes logically inconsistent.

Like I said, "hot" and cold" were both "temperature."
So, what is your argument on the notion that Ni and Ne are NOT of the same relationship as "hot" and "cold," even though they're both intuition AND both perceiving functions?


----------



## EpiLope (May 1, 2016)

goamare said:


> 1. Just to make it clear, when I said "while Si/Se is a totally different thing" I meant "Si&Se together are a totally different thing from Ni&Ne." (of course this isn't my own argument btw)
> 
> 2. You should still convince me why you are stating "So Ni and Se are the same" instead of "So Ni and Ne are the same." That's the part where it becomes logically inconsistent.
> 
> ...


You're looking at this a little too concretely... What would you say is the essence of Ni, Ne, Si and Se? 

The essence of Se in itself is the most concrete. It is "concrete." That's the essence. 
The essence of Ni is the opposite. "Concrete" directly ruins it's function. 
(Both are passive to the extent that the only thing that really bothers them is the other)

Se in able to be as it is has to be very solid and direct. At the expense of being pushed around easily by the environment.
Ni is able to be as it is because it's lacking in solidity, so it can pass though places that Se is absolutely terrified of for good reason (it's solidity would make it be crushed on the same things that the Ni can pass though. (in the same way Ni is not exactly fit to live in a society dominated by heavy Se.)

---

In the same way Ne might have the essence of adventure seeking. The only thing better than a new thing is a newer new thing that's also shiny! What's the opposite of this? It's tempting to automatically assume Ni... But that doesn't follow. Ni is about distance from concrete while Ne is in a different spectrum of amusing itself with things. The opposite then is actually Si, which unlike Ne is trying to protect itself from the world and new things, rather than chase them. Ne has to suppress feelings of having to be safe and secure to work correctly. A Si filled Ne will just end in a depressed person with no energy. While Si would very quickly become stressed if it had to give up it's safety to follow whims. It's probably kind of obvious here that Se and Si do not care for each other, and tend to see each other as neutral, and maybe a little misguided. 


P.s. @sara101199 Sorry for highjacking your thread


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

EpiLope said:


> This is easy. Tell me what you think of this video -What impression it gives you.


Totally random--but I see a lot of sex and death. :x Well ahah, multiplying things and then people with towels on their head. Soooo. But that is an interesting one. I will google this thing now.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

EpiLope said:


> You're looking at this a little too concretely... What would you say is the essence of Ni, Ne, Si and Se?
> 
> The essence of Se in itself is the most concrete. It is "concrete." That's the essence.
> The essence of Ni is the opposite. "Concrete" directly ruins it's function.
> ...



Still doesn't explain your notion that Ne and Si are the "same," and Ni and Se are the "same," accordingly, and that Ne/Si and Ni/Se are two totally different "axes" that are hardly related.

To me this sounds like (I'll add water/oil analogy on your hot/cold analogy):



EpiLope said:


> Ni and Se are the same.


= Cold water(Ni) and hot oil(Se) are the same.



EpiLope said:


> Ni is the introverted version of Se, while Ne is a totally different thing.


= Cold water(Ni) is the cold(introverted) version of hot oil(Se), while hot water(Ne) is a totally different thing.

Tell me how my analogy is different from yours.


----------



## Monroe (May 13, 2016)

I have formed a brief friendship with someone who was a tested ISTJ. They tested that way and it just clicked for me that the typing was accurate as I hung out with them. I think people underestimate how spatially aware Si is and can be. I mean it's a big trait for them, and while different from Se, it can also take things in very concretely. Like my friend always knew where someone put their bag, where a car was, etc. Si can cast guesses in the future too, based on pattern recognition, but if you lack the spatial component, I would say Ni. Ni is much more to me like constant searching and absorbing of the environment unconsciously, and never really settling on it? If that makes sense. So, that is a good real life example for Si-dom.


----------



## sara101199 (May 3, 2016)

What you described as Si really sounds like me, thanks!


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

sara101199 said:


> I have been questioning lately whether I am an INFJ or ISFJ.
> Here are their functions in order:
> INFJ - Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si
> ISFJ - Si Fe Ti Ne Se Fi Te Ni
> ...


You should check out Socionics. You sound like an IEI to me going by your self analysis.
IEI type:
Ego: Conscious and Valued Ni and Fe.
Super-Ego: Conscious and unvalued Si and Te.
Super-Id: Unconscious and Valued Ti and Se.
Id: Unconscious and Unvalued Fi and Ne.

Function Strength:
Very Strong: Ni and Fi.
Strong: Ne and Fe.
Weak: Ti and Si.
Very Weak: Te and Se.

Special notes:
Ni is the Base Function. It is so intrinsic to the IEI they have a hard time existing outside of its framework.
Fe is the Creative Function. It is a tool to be used by the Base Function to interact with and understand the world.
Si is the Role Function. People see the Role as a personal weakness to be actively improved, and thus become better at it over time. When the Role is activated, the Base is deactivated.
Te is the Vulnerable Function. Criticism to this function is destructive, as the IEI is quite aware of their difficulty in accessing Te. This function tends to lead to mental stress.
Ti is the Hidden Agenda Function. People generally believe they are stronger in their Hidden Agenda than they are. They also tend to mistake it for the output of their Ni and Te.
Se is the Mobilizing Function. The IEI is very bad at using force and power to directly achieve goals. The IEI can do these things, but generally needs someone to help drive them to it as the IEI has trouble supplying Se on their own.
Ne is the Ignoring Function. IEI can activate it just fine, but doing so leads to boredom and mental distancing from it after a while.
Fi is the Demonstrative Function. IEI has powerful inner drives and uses emotional connectivity to work with others and develop relationships, but intrinsically prefers to pay attention to the emotional dynamism of the situation, so has trouble seeing their own Fi side.


You may find Temperaments helpful. http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/361090-closer-look-temperament.html


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

EpiLope said:


> This is easy. Tell me what you think of this video -What impression it gives you.


The spiral of life. All things grow, change, shrink. From nothingness to a sunburst of life and light to the darkness of the void once more. Beginning and endings. Circular motion, around and around yet never is it the same again on the same go-round. Explosion and implosion, fire and ice. The light dies, then shifts again into the circular patterns that enclose but portions of this action. Utter and absolute chaos.

This is delightful, I love it.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

goamare said:


> Still doesn't explain your notion that Ne and Si are the "same," and Ni and Se are the "same," accordingly, and that Ne/Si and Ni/Se are two totally different "axes" that are hardly related.
> 
> To me this sounds like (I'll add water/oil analogy on your hot/cold analogy):
> 
> ...


Sounds to me like you are saying the opposite of what he is saying. I took it away as this:

Ni=cold water
Se=hot water

Ne=hot oil
Si=cold oil

Ne and Si are the same in the sense that they are different expressions of the same thing, and the same logic for Ni and Se. This is why all Si types have Ne - they have oil. All Se types have Ni - they have water.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Sounds to me like you are saying the opposite of what he is saying. I took it away as this:
> 
> Ni=cold water
> Se=hot water
> ...


Not sure if this is also your opinion, but if what you're saying is what he meant, there is a big error on the logic.

Under your assumption, I see this:

Ni=cold water
Ne=hot oil

While Ni and Ne shares "N" (intuition), "cold water" and "hot oil" do not seem to possess a shared element.

If we're using analogy, there should be consistency with shared elements too.

What is it I'm missing here?:shocked:


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

goamare said:


> Not sure if this is also your opinion, but if what you're saying is what he meant, there is a big error on the logic.
> 
> Under your assumption, I see this:
> 
> ...


Both are liquid. Hot oil moves with a rapidity, much like a shifting stream of cool mountain water.

Cold oil moves sluggishly like sludge, much as hot water sits and stagnates in place, changing form.

There are more ways to draw the analogy than just temperature. Ni and Se are part of the same thing, but so too is Ni and Ne. It all depends on what it is that is you are looking at.


----------



## Peter (Feb 27, 2010)

sara101199 said:


> I have been questioning lately whether I am an INFJ or ISFJ.
> Here are their functions in order:
> INFJ - Ni Fe Ti Se Ne Fi Te Si
> ISFJ - Si Fe Ti Ne Se Fi Te Ni
> ...


The first thing to do is to understand the ordering of the MBTI and also to understand what the cognitive functions are and do.

Your main problem is that you analyse yourself based on conscious thoughts only. That means you look at what a function does and then you ask yourself, do I do this too? And in conscious thought, the answer is yes to many of the functions. But the cognitive functions describe what your brain does, not what you do.

For example, You claim that your most used functions are Ni and Si,.... That's not possible. These 2 contradict eachother. Ni is about your brain having a preference to look at how things relate to eachother. Ni tries to understand how one thing leads to another. Si is about your brain having a preference to remember facts, to remember specific things, and not how things relate to eachother.

Ni dominant people can tell you how things happened, and when they recall an event they recall what their brains have stored, how one thing led to another. When you ask someone like that what the actual individual events were, what you get is many little mistakes. That's because their brains try to extrapolate the individual events from the causal relationships that they do have stored. Si dominant people are much better at remembering the little individual events because that's what's stored in their brains. They make few mistakes.

I hope that shows you how your brain can't do both at the same time. Ofcourse you can argue that it can and that that's why the MBTI is wrong,.. but really,.. that logic doesn't work because the MBTI is based on the logic of the cognitive functions. So what you really are claiming is that the cognitive functions are wrong. Which could be true by the way, perhaps it is possible that there are brains out there that can both remember details and the causal relationships,.. but it seems almost superhuman to have those abilities.

What is more common is that people analyse their conscious thoughts and, I'm sorry, but your conscious thoughts are very limited. Your brain does so much more than what you are aware of that just analyzing your conscious thought is not going to give you very accurate results.

Fe and Ti also, are quite opposite from eachother. In an ISFJ for example, Ti only appears when a situation is judged for which Fe has no opinion.

By the way, only look at the first 4 functions. The second 4 are the same as the first 4 only with their introversion/extroversion reversed. The idea is that, when in stress, the second 4 functions take over, but as these are poorly developed, the result is ugly.


So to answer your question: Why does there have to be only 16 types when there so many unique people in the world?

The 16 types don't describe you completely. They are high level categories. Not complete description of every single human being in the world. And the cognitive functions just describe how your brain processes information. There is nothing about the information it self. So, in other words, the effect of your experiences through life are not taken into account while these experiences do have a profound effect on your personality. Your personality is not your personality type and your personality type is not you. It's just a high level category.

So don't expect more from the MBTI than it can give. Use it for what it is, not for what you want it to be.


----------



## EpiLope (May 1, 2016)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Sounds to me like you are saying the opposite of what he is saying. I took it away as this:
> 
> Ni=cold water
> Se=hot water
> ...


That is exactly what I was trying to get at. :kitteh:
Haha, I could say Se and Ni use the same reasoning that is pointed in opposite directions. Likewise with Si and Ne.


----------



## goamare (Feb 27, 2014)

Fenix Wulfheart said:


> Both are liquid. Hot oil moves with a rapidity, much like a shifting stream of cool mountain water.
> 
> Cold oil moves sluggishly like sludge, much as hot water sits and stagnates in place, changing form.
> 
> There are more ways to draw the analogy than just temperature. Ni and Se are part of the same thing, but so too is Ni and Ne. It all depends on what it is that is you are looking at.





EpiLope said:


> That is exactly what I was trying to get at. :kitteh:
> Haha, I could say Se and Ni use the same reasoning that is pointed in opposite directions. Likewise with Si and Ne.



You can't say that "Ni=cold water, and Se=hot water." Ni and Se don't share anything *explicit*. "Introverted intuition" and "Extraverted Sensing" do *NOT* share anything *explicit* (which is obvious). On the other hand, cold water and hot water share something very explicit. Guess what, they are both _water_. Well, you can't use analogy like that. This is like saying _"okay, there is a big orange and a small apple, and they are the same because they are like hot water and cold water." _Does that sound logical to you?


Well, OK, let's agree that what Fenix Wulfheart has said is right (rapidity, stagnancy etc) for now.
Those things are *implicit*, and implicit only. This is the part where it is *debatable*. And you need to prove that it exist, and if it exists at all, you also need to prove that it is a lot more important than what is *explicit*, that, in the end, you are actually allowed to use such a bizarre analogy like "Ni=cold water, and Se=hot water."


What on earth is that "_water_" here????


Without proving it, you cannot use such an analogy.


Also, FYI:


Fenix Wulfheart said:


> All Se types have Ni.


This is a very superficial understanding of the so-called "function stack." No Se type simply just *has* Ni. My assumption is that this misunderstanding really came from the notion that Tertiary function is something that a type *has*. In fact, it rather means something that a type *lacks*, along with the Inferior function.



Lenore Thomson said:


> Conscious awareness, however, is a top-down affair. What we believe about ourselves and what we want for ourselves is reflected by the layers near the surface of the lasagna.
> 
> The top layer is our dominant function, which governs most of our conscious behaviors. It's subject to our will, and the traits it encourages feel like "us."
> 
> ...


FYI, Lenore Thomson is the author of _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual._

Looking at the so-called function stack and go "Oh, I see those four functions, well they're present there in the stack, that should mean that those functions are present in me!" is a very shallow and superficial approach. A more "intuitive" approach would be investigating what the function stack really means on a more fundamental level.

Additionally, empirically speaking, there are NO studies at all where it show Se users also *has* Ni. Please, please show me just one source where it is shown, because I haven't come across a source that ever shows a graph where SP(Se user) and NJ(Ni user) are together on one end of the spectrum, and SJ(Si user)/NP(Ne user) are on the other. I'd love to see one.


----------



## Lord Fenix Wulfheart (Aug 18, 2015)

goamare said:


> You can't say that "Ni=cold water, and Se=hot water." Ni and Se don't share anything *explicit*. "Introverted intuition" and "Extraverted Sensing" do *NOT* share anything *explicit* (which is obvious). On the other hand, cold water and hot water share something very explicit. Guess what, they are both _water_. Well, you can't use analogy like that. This is like saying _"okay, there is a big orange and a small apple, and they are the same because they are like hot water and cold water." _Does that sound logical to you?


No, but pointing out they are both fruit with internal juices and are edible is a logical thing to say. They share traits. Not all of the traits, but some.

I'd appreciate it if you don't tell me what analogies I can and cannot use.



goamare said:


> This is a very superficial understanding of the so-called "function stack." No Se type simply just *has* Ni. My assumption is that this misunderstanding really came from the notion that Tertiary function is something that a type *has*. In fact, it rather means something that a type *lacks*, along with the Inferior function.


Depends on the function system being used, and the interpretation you are taking.



goamare said:


> Additionally, empirically speaking, there are NO studies at all where it show Se users also *has* Ni. Please, please show me just one source where it is shown, because I haven't come across a source that ever shows a graph where SP(Se user) and NJ(Ni user) are together on one end of the spectrum, and SJ(Si user)/NP(Ne user) are on the other. I'd love to see one.


Bleh. I don't care enough, I'm just relating what I thought was being said.


----------



## EpiLope (May 1, 2016)

goamare said:


> You can't say that "Ni=cold water, and Se=hot water." Ni and Se don't share anything *explicit*. "Introverted intuition" and "Extraverted Sensing" do *NOT* share anything *explicit* (which is obvious). On the other hand, cold water and hot water share something very explicit. Guess what, they are both _water_. Well, you can't use analogy like that. This is like saying _"okay, there is a big orange and a small apple, and they are the same because they are like hot water and cold water." _Does that sound logical to you?
> 
> 
> Well, OK, let's agree that what Fenix Wulfheart has said is right (rapidity, stagnancy etc) for now.
> ...


"Plops his hairy toe over arbitrary line"




> Also, FYI:
> 
> 
> This is a very superficial understanding of the so-called "function stack." No Se type simply just *has* Ni. My assumption is that this misunderstanding really came from the notion that Tertiary function is something that a type *has*. In fact, it rather means something that a type *lacks*, along with the Inferior function.


You seem to be viciously attacking your perception of what you think I said... So, have fun.
If you really want to understand what I said, just look over what I wrote in a different way. You might also get a better idea if you go read up on what is meant by Jung when he references "the unconscious mind". The concept is much deeper than it may appear. 



> FYI, Lenore Thomson is the author of _Personality Type: An Owner's Manual._
> 
> Looking at the so-called function stack and go "Oh, I see those four functions, well they're present there in the stack, that should mean that those functions are present in me!" is a very shallow and superficial approach. A more "intuitive" approach would be investigating what the function stack really means on a more fundamental level.
> 
> Additionally, empirically speaking, there are NO studies at all where it show Se users also *has* Ni. Please, please show me just one source where it is shown, because I haven't come across a source that ever shows a graph where SP(Se user) and NJ(Ni user) are together on one end of the spectrum, and SJ(Si user)/NP(Ne user) are on the other. I'd love to see one.


Typology is not an empirical science, nor is there any objective empirical evidence to support cognitive functions.


----------



## penny lane (Nov 21, 2011)

Sorry I didn't respond sooner

Si seems like my dominate function.If understand it right . I compare things to past experiences and my impressions of them.It doesn't even have to be something I experienced if it reminds me of a book I read, a song or movie I will make the comparison.


----------

