# Ni, demystified and defined.



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> The problem is that so many people want to define The Functions based on what _they_ want them to mean. This is ironically one of the biggest reasons why there is such a need to "demystify" them in the first place.


This is very true


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Reila said:


> Someone who doesn't even understand the function wanting to demystify it?


Spare me.
My understanding of Ni is complete and holistic.

I'm attempting to reduce it to a level that is easy for others to digest and understand in order to strip away the mystique.



Northern Lights said:


> _It is what it is_ :tongue2:
> 
> 
> Hmm ... not quite. I believe, for example, that it should be possible to understand everything and every situation by simply knowing the premise. The rest follows. Like, I know virtually nothing about archery. I never even thought about it before. However, I do know that you want to put an arrow on target, so I feel confident I can deduce correctly how it _should_ be done, if I wanted to. (You want to take care you don't come off as a smart-ass, btw, telling people who know more about it than you how it should be done -- and especially not if you then turn out to be _right_.)
> ...


Thanks mate - I get what you're saying, but note you're not claiming to be an Se dominant.

I imagine the majority of what you've posted about is your own Ti, rather than Se.

Could be wrong, keen to hear from Se doms.




Ocean Helm said:


> The problem is that so many people want to define The Functions based on what _they_ want them to mean. This is ironically one of the biggest reasons why there is such a need to "demystify" them in the first place.


Yea, this is true and the reason I made this thread.

There's too much bullshit out there and I want to boil everything down to its absolute core, so it's easy to digest and understand.

It's hard, but I want to strip away the byproducts or behaviours associated with the functions from the functions themselves.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Thanks mate - I get what you're saying, but note you're not claiming to be an Se dominant.
> 
> I imagine the majority of what you've posted about is your own Ti, rather than Se.
> 
> Could be wrong, keen to hear from Se doms.


Someone asked about Aux. I don't *think* it's Ti, but I never cared all that much to untangle one from the other either, admittedly; it works, and that is that 

*Edit*: Actually, this is exactly what I meant. I never really thought about it, but assuming your OP, it makes natural sense to me that it should be so, and not any other way.

I do wonder, though, if strong Ni people actually have a tendency to be self-perceived experts without knowing the matter. That should be verifiable, anyway.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Turi said:


> Spare me.
> My understanding of Ni is complete and holistic.
> 
> I'm attempting to reduce it to a level that is easy for others to digest and understand in order to strip away the mystique.





> There's too much bullshit out there and I want to boil everything down to its absolute core, so it's easy to digest and understand.
> 
> It's hard, but I want to strip away the byproducts or behaviours associated with the functions from the functions themselves.


Why is your understanding "complete and holistic", as compared to other interpretations?

All I see here, is belief that you know better than others, and belief that you have to dumb it down so the lesser beings (those who aren't Ni-dom) can understand the periphery of your deep, "holistic" understanding.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> Why is your understanding "complete and holistic", as compared to other interpretations?
> 
> All I see here, is belief that you know better than others, and belief that you have to dumb it down so the lesser beings (those who aren't Ni-dom) can understand the periphery of your deep, "holistic" understanding.


I'm not comparing my understanding to other understandings.

Your interpretation of events is messed up, typical of Ni, I suppose.

I'm seeking to do no more than explain it in a simple, easy to understand fashion, that strips it off any crap and exposes it for what it is, at its core.

I've already spoken to numerous Ni doms about my views on Ni, and the response has been wholehearted agreement.
I am beyond positive my interpretation and this simplification is correct and accurate.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi I mean that by saying that your OP about "demystifying" came off like "don't listen to those other people, listen to me!" which implicitly compares your self to those whom you deem have the wrong idea.

There's even an INFJ in this thread who called you out for not understanding Ni. A lot of similar people will probably disagree with your one-sentence stripped down interpretation. So it doesn't solve the "what is Ni?" dilemma outside of those who actually do want to take your interpretation, who may jump ship when a new interpretation comes along.

I don't have anything against your personal interpretation, it seems just as valid as a bunch of other ones. But in the greater context, it's just another stick in the pile of Ni interpretations. And that pile still exists and just got one stick higher, and likely won't ever be demystified, unless somehow things get more centralized (like with Socionics you can see it's partially-centralized so there is more convergence of thought there).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi I mean that by saying that your OP about "demystifying" came off like "don't listen to those other people, listen to me!" which implicitly compares your self to those whom you deem have the wrong idea.
> 
> There's even an INFJ in this thread who called you out for not understanding Ni. A lot of similar people will probably disagree with your one-sentence stripped down interpretation. So it doesn't solve the "what is Ni?" dilemma outside of those who actually do want to take your interpretation, who may jump ship when a new interpretation comes along.
> 
> I don't have anything against your personal interpretation, it seems just as valid as a bunch of other ones. But in the greater context, it's just another stick in the pile of Ni interpretations. And that pile still exists and just got one stick higher, and likely won't ever be demystified, unless somehow things get more centralized (like with Socionics you can see it's partially-centralized so there is more convergence of thought there).


Mate mate mate.
Is there really an INFJ in this thread calling me out on anything.
Is there?

Of course I understand where you're coming from re the rest of your post.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Yo, guys. Turi's just trying to help people understand Ni better, I don't think he's trying to be cocky or condescending about it. If you read many posts around here, you will see he is within the small handful of people that actually reach out and help people with closure on their type on a frequent basis. If he's right, cool, if he's wrong, then too bad. Thing is, nobody can prove anything because bottom line is that this whole personality theory cannot be proven, so why are we bashing based on semantics? Using words like demystifying doesn't mean the person using it is a know it all trying to better than others, in this context, it's being used to strip the strange "magical" stereotype that many descriptions of Ni have attached to it.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Turi


Reila said:


> Someone who doesn't even understand the function wanting to demystify it?


 @Bunniculla maybe I was too harsh, it's just that I see these descriptions everywhere and so many of them try to say something else about what these functions even are. And the problem is that so many people can read these descriptions and relate to them, who aren't even INxJ.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi
> @Bunniculla maybe I was too harsh, it's just that I see these descriptions everywhere and so many of them try to say something else about what these functions even are. And the problem is that so many people can read these descriptions and relate to them, who aren't even INxJ.


Non INxJs don't relate to my description, this is evidenced already even in an ENTJ and a likely mistype.

By and large, other people I've spoken to - other Ni doms, relate to it entirely.

So it's accurate as far as I'm concerned but it doesn't simplify it enough.
I want it to be understandable to everyone.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Ocean Helm said:


> @Turi
> @Bunniculla maybe I was too harsh, it's just that I see these descriptions everywhere and so many of them try to say something else about what these functions even are. And the problem is that so many people can read these descriptions and relate to them, who aren't even INxJ.


 @Turi is ever the truth seeker. He has a good understanding of the functions, but he's always looking to hone that understanding and help other people understand the functions better while he's at it. He and I differ on our interpretation of some things, like he has a more MBTI bent while I have a much more purist Jungian bent (that also has its disadvantages!), but he tends to apply the theory well enough that I feel his understanding is good. 

Also, I don't relate to what he has said about Ni. Never have.  I like how he describes Ni as being a focus on what _isn't_. That is awesome. Why? Because Ni is paired with Se. Se is, pure and simple, a focus on what _is_ via your five senses. Ni-doms have inferior Se and suppress it so as to look beyond what is and contemplate/perceive hidden meanings, interpretations, and the inner images that come to the Ni-user. It really is as simple as that. The Ni-user will gloss over what is present and there to peer beyond the curtain at something's hidden causes - and those hidden causes tend to give the Ni user some kind of internal image or idea... at least I think so. What do you think of that @Turi?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Jewl said:


> @Turi is ever the truth seeker. He has a good understanding of the functions, but he's always looking to hone that understanding and help other people understand the functions better while he's at it. He and I differ on our interpretation of some things, like he has a more MBTI bent while I have a much more purist Jungian bent (that also has its disadvantages!), but he tends to apply the theory well enough that I feel his understanding is good.
> 
> Also, I don't relate to what he has said about Ni. Never have.  I like how he describes Ni as being a focus on what _isn't_. That is awesome. Why? Because Ni is paired with Se. Se is, pure and simple, a focus on what _is_ via your five senses. Ni-doms have inferior Se and suppress it so as to look beyond what is and contemplate/perceive hidden meanings, interpretations, and the inner images that come to the Ni-user. It really is as simple as that. The Ni-user will gloss over what is present and there to peer beyond the curtain at something's hidden causes - and those hidden causes tend to give the Ni user some kind of internal image or idea... at least I think so. What do you think of that @Turi?


I agree with everything you've said - that uber simplified descriptor or Ni is truly all there is to it, at its most basic and fundamental level, imo.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Reila said:


> Someone who doesn't even understand the function wanting to demystify it?


And I still don't think that he is typed correctly.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> And I still don't think that he is typed correctly.


Why.
Just why.
It mystifies me that people think it's okay to jump into other people's threads and question their type.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

:laughing:


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> Why.
> Just why.


Because Ti dom type fits you much better




Turi said:


> It mystifies me that people think it's okay to jump into other people's threads and question their type.


Maybe it's not entirely okay, but I couldn't help. Once I saw you Ni and word 'demystified', I couldn't think of anything other than bullshit. Sorry, but the way you have questioned Ni in the past makes me really think that you don't understand it well. Now you are trying to explain to people what it it. I wish you look in finding the answers to questions, but I can't look seriously at this at all. Sorry for that I'm harsh, I honestly am sorry for that. I looked at how you are trying to describe Ni here. It seems like you are getting closer to understanding it, but still you don't seem to get the essence of it. The core of it. Plz don't ask me how I would describe it myself, I can't do that. Truly can't, but once one ENTJ described it to me... While she was doing that I could understand it, I truly did. It requires some skills to see Ni and how it works. Perhaps, it's totally alien to me, so it's not surprise I don't completely get it. Anyway, I can see when people completely understand it or not. You seem to touch it and you are progressing, that's good, but ultimately it seems like you are stronger S user trying to make sense about it. I see nothing wrong with it. That's really good that you try, but I don't think that you are completely ready for demystifying it or explaining it in great depth. Though you wasn't wrong about two things. 1) You are a thinker, but previous INTJ typing was wrong 2) The subjective type of thinking, therefore Ti user. I personally love the way functions are described here: https://otterdot.tumblr.com/table_of_contents

That person just made Jung's work much shorter and much more comprehensible. I suggest you to read that, it certainly wouldn't hurt you.

BTW I'm not sure what sort of busy person you are, I truly don't. Maybe two jobs, kids, family and horrible schedule, but if you are not into extreme conditions like that it would be rather nice if you replied to PMs. It seems a bit pointless now, but I think we should continue after this month break (maybe even longer than month). You kinda promised me that one week ago, but nothing happened. If you are not replying to PMs, then please say at least one reason why not. Not here, but in new PM. Even something very simple is better than silence.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Reila said:


> :laughing:


:crazy:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@The red spirit - I can't engage with someone who's horse is so damn tall. lol.

Spare me.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Although I find this description a bit oversimplified, I think it's good enough to base your understanding of the function, so good job.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Turi said:


> @The red spirit - I can't engage with someone who's horse is so damn tall. lol.
> 
> Spare me.


Not sure what you meant here with horse, but it's probably requirements or ego. Maybe immaturity too. I think I may be able to keep all three in reasonable levels.


----------



## Igor (May 26, 2010)

I can't help but read some of the responses in this thread and think of that old chestnut from "Dr. Strangelove."

"Gentlemen, you can't fight in here! This is a war room!"

Anyway, I digress.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Mr Castelo said:


> Although I find this description a bit oversimplified, I think it's good enough to base your understanding of the function, so good job.


It's supposed to be oversimplified, the whole point is to reduce it to something very simple, easy to digest - something human and realistic.

Demystified.

Cheers. This response makes me feel like I might have come closer to accomplishing what I set out to, than I thought.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Your description does seem to fit a lot the INTJs I've known, one of them my ex so I'm quite familiar with it from a 2nd-person perspective. I liked your Si description too. Both Ni and Si can be prisons or enjoyable functions, for example the "mystical" aspect of Si with recalling past experiences is something I do enjoy very much but it also makes adapting to new situations quite hard because of the need for familiarity.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Turi said:


> There are many misconceptions about Ni related to it being psychic, it being a bullshit function, it being mystical.. magical.. it's highly sought after, and in this thread I would like to turn it into something that is easy to understand for everybody and essentially humanize it, by simplifying what it is into a single sentence.
> 
> ---
> Ni is an _exclusive_ method of receiving and processing information, primarily focused on what *isn't*.
> ---


You could save a lot of time and effort if you just read the subject matter rather than making it up as you go along.

Ne sees potential. Behind a door could lie an amazing opportunity. A pair of pajamas could turn you into a fairy. There could be a bright, wonderful future behind every corner or a dark, nightmarish monster.

Ni subjectifies potential. So you get symbolic (see symbolic art) representation of ideas and the way time flows.



Red Panda said:


> Your description does seem to fit a lot the INTJs I've known, one of them my ex so I'm quite familiar with it from a 2nd-person perspective. I liked your Si description too. Both Ni and Si can be prisons or enjoyable functions, for example the "mystical" aspect of Si with recalling past experiences is something I do enjoy very much but it also makes adapting to new situations quite hard because of the need for familiarity.


Here's some logic for you:

Sensing isn't past oriented. Otherwise Se would be. Introversion isn't past oriented. Otherwise Ti/Fi/Ni would be.

Put sensing and introversion together and you don't have a past oriented function.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> Here's some logic for you:
> 
> Sensing isn't past oriented. Otherwise Se would be. Introversion isn't past oriented. Otherwise Ti/Fi/Ni would be.
> 
> Put sensing and introversion together and you don't have a past oriented function.


Si notices what is different, i.e. if the room becomes too hot, Si will sense it and compare it to past perceptions of the specific temperature and create a sort of memory which the judging function can use it to make decisions for the future, i.e what to wear to not experience the same sensation again, so in that way it definitely is past-oriented. Si will cling on what we like, which has its root in past experiences, sensations strongly connected to memories etc. It's hard to describe it but the differences are very noticeable when I discuss with low Si users like INTJs who do not experience most of those things and if they do it's not in the same way (different process).
The connetions you make here and present it as "logic" don't relate to what I said since I never claimed that Si is exlusively past oriented nor that S is generally past-oriented, but you also don't really present an argument on why Si isn't past oriented. So tell me your opinion, how does Si relates to the present and future?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Fried Eggz said:


> You could save a lot of time and effort if you just read the subject matter rather than making it up as you go along.
> 
> Ne sees potential. Behind a door could lie an amazing opportunity. A pair of pajamas could turn you into a fairy. There could be a bright, wonderful future behind every corner or a dark, nightmarish monster.
> 
> ...


You could save yourself some time by actually digesting what I posted.
Jesus christ.


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Fried Eggz said:


> You could save a lot of time and effort if you just read the subject matter rather than making it up as you go along.
> 
> Ne sees potential. Behind a door could lie an amazing opportunity. A pair of pajamas could turn you into a fairy. There could be a bright, wonderful future behind every corner or a dark, nightmarish monster.
> 
> ...


Si isn't past-oriented per say, but it is based on past experiences, that's how Introverted Perceiving functions work, both Si and Ni. From where do you think that Ni bases its assumptions? Symbolisms and subjective perspectives don't come out of nowhere. Ti/Fi aren't past-based because they're Judging functions, they don't perceive anything, hence they have no concept of past-future. Se/Ne aren't past-based because their focus lie on the external/objective, which is not the case with personal experiences. That's simple logic.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Mr Castelo said:


> Si isn't past-oriented per say, but it is based on past experiences, that's how Introverted Perceiving functions work, both Si and Ni. From where do you think that Ni bases its assumptions? Symbolisms and subjective perspectives don't come out of nowhere. Ti/Fi aren't past-based because they're Judging functions, they don't perceive anything, hence they have no concept of past-future. Se/Ne aren't past-based because their focus lie on the external/objective, which is not the case with personal experiences. That's simple logic.


And the INTJ jumps in to say exactly what I was thinking in a more succint way xD


----------



## Mr Castelo (May 28, 2017)

Turi said:


> It's supposed to be oversimplified, the whole point is to reduce it to something very simple, easy to digest - something human and realistic.
> 
> Demystified.
> 
> Cheers. This response makes me feel like I might have come closer to accomplishing what I set out to, than I thought.


I'm a bit wary of oversimplified descriptions because people can use them to connect things that aren't necessarily connected, but then again, that's better than overcomplicated descriptions that just confuse everyone.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> Sensing isn't past oriented. Otherwise Se would be. Introversion isn't past oriented. Otherwise Ti/Fi/Ni would be.


Sensing is past, present and future oriented in its nature. Sensing can and does operate in those dimensions. Both Se and Si.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

Turi said:


> You could save yourself some time by actually digesting what I posted.
> Jesus christ.


That was sincere advice, even though it apparently came across with a bad vibe. I've seen countless people who come here without any concrete basis for their reasoning and I've never seen it work out well. You need some form of standard for consistency or you'll just end up going in circles like every other person did.

Whilst I may well come across badly, it is not my intent. I am only trying to reason with all of you.



The red spirit said:


> Sensing is past, present and future oriented in its nature. Sensing can and does operate in those dimensions. Both Se and Si.


What's your reasoning?

Last I heard from you, you were telling me that Se is about only observing things and I asked you why you were being typist against yourself. Now you're telling me that sensing is not sensing. Your thoughts change so drastically but you're still adamantly telling me your thoughts as if they were truth. Perhaps you need to sit down and reflect on why your opinions are changing so drastically?



Red Panda said:


> Si notices what is different, i.e. if the room becomes too hot, Si will sense it and compare it to past perceptions of the specific temperature and create a sort of memory


You're right that Si can detect that the room is too hot. Si detects that the present sensation (S) is too hot for the person (I) in the present moment. But that doesn't have anything to do with the past.



Red Panda said:


> can use it to make decisions for the future, i.e what to wear to not experience the same sensation again, so in that way it definitely is past-oriented.


That doesn't make a lot of sense. You basically just said that preparing for the future is about the past.

But that's where the past and the future are linked. They are both time, and intuition is the function that perceives time. A Si type may choose to over-prepare for the future, due to weak intuition having difficulty perceiving the future. But Si itself doesn't use the future at all.



Red Panda said:


> The connetions you make here and present it as "logic"
> 
> ...
> 
> but you also don't really present an argument on why Si isn't past oriented.


I did make an argument. Sensing and introversion aren't past oriented. Put together they make a whole - Si. That is a logical relationship. Since you insult my argument as invalid, please make your own argument as to why.



Red Panda said:


> I never claimed that Si is exlusively past oriented nor that S is generally past-oriented


I don't get it. Either Si uses past data or it doesn't. I'm saying it doesn't use the past/memory. At least not anymore than every other function does.



Red Panda said:


> So tell me your opinion, how does Si relates to the present and future?


Si doesn't relate to time at all. Intuition does. Whilst Fi deals in how much you personally value something, Si deals in how much you personally appreciate sensations.

Being able to remember that you personally value something or that you enjoy a particular sensation is just memory, not a function.



Mr Castelo said:


> Si isn't past-oriented per say, but it is based on past experiences, that's how Introverted Perceiving functions work, both Si and Ni. From where do you think that Ni bases its assumptions?


You are suggesting that I agree with you that Ni makes assumptions. What assumptions do you think Ni makes?

I see Ni as a perception function. It exists only to perceive and to make the most out of perceptions. To make an assumption, premise or a conclusion would imply a judging function.



Mr Castelo said:


> Symbolisms and subjective perspectives don't come out of nowhere. Ti/Fi aren't past-based because they're Judging functions, they don't perceive anything, hence they have no concept of past-future..


But why would sensing have a *concept* of past/future? Conceptualizing time is what intuition does.



Mr Castelo said:


> Se/Ne aren't past-based because their focus lie on the external/objective, which is not the case with personal experiences. That's simple logic.


But Ne perceives the potential of an object - the future potential or the potential of where/what the object has been in the past.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> I don't get it. Either Si uses past data or it doesn't. I'm saying it doesn't use the past/memory. At least not anymore than every other function does.


Given your arguments in the posts above, I'm curious to know your interpretation on the following in relation to past experience and Si (which I believe to be the starting point for the many later definitions of Si relating to past experience).



Jung in Psychological Types said:


> Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

AllyKat said:


> Given your arguments in the posts above, I'm curious to know your interpretation on the following in relation to past experience and Si (which I believe to be the starting point for the many later definitions of Si relating to past experience).


You're missing the greater context. Look at the earlier part:


> The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event. Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.


Jung had some crazy ideas about genetic memory past down from one person to another. He made a lot of references to this in introversion in general, and IIRC (it's been a while for me) also with intuition.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

Fried Eggz said:


> You're missing the greater context. Look at the earlier part:
> 
> Jung had some crazy ideas about genetic memory past down from one person to another.


I'm aware of the greater context. I was simply interested in your own interpretation of it in contrast to the other interpretations which choose to relate Si to past experience.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> You're right that Si can detect that the room is too hot. Si detects that the present sensation (S) is too hot for the person (I) in the present moment. But that doesn't have anything to do with the past.
> 
> That doesn't make a lot of sense. You basically just said that preparing for the future is about the past.


Si also accumulates those sensational imprints for future reference. Of course preparing for the future is related to the past, it just depends on what you are preparing for and if it's something you can prepare for. For example you may have certain sensations in your brain database that you want to make sure you avoid so you prepare for your future with that in mind. I.e. take an umbrella because when you didn't you got soaked and it felt horrible, you were cold and trembling and your shoes were full of water which had a disgusting sensation as the socks were stuck to your skin.



> But that's where the past and the future are linked. They are both time, and intuition is the function that perceives time. A Si type may choose to over-prepare for the future, due to weak intuition having difficulty perceiving the future. But Si itself doesn't use the future at all.


It doesn't use the future because it prefers the past, so the high Si low Ne person may not prepare properly because it's an unfamiliar situation they haven't encountered before. The Si type will prepare fine for situations they have already experienced.



> I did make an argument. Sensing and introversion aren't past oriented. Put together they make a whole - Si. That is a logical relationship. Since you insult my argument as invalid, please make your own argument as to why.
> 
> I don't get it. Either Si uses past data or it doesn't. I'm saying it doesn't use the past/memory. At least not anymore than every other function does.


I insult your argument? Need I remind you your "Here's some logic for you"?

Si uses past data but it also acts in the present to compare through the sensory inputs and build it's 'database' so to speak. In the present it may also want you to keep doing what feels good (i.e.scratching that scab) or avoid what feels bad (i.e. exercising).





> Si doesn't relate to time at all. Intuition does. Whilst Fi deals in how much you personally value something, Si deals in how much you personally appreciate sensations.


What about Se? I agree that Si deals in how much you appreciate sensations but it's not the only thing it does.

I see no reason why Si can't relate to the past and you haven't made a compelling argument for that. If you have intuition relating to the future what do you have to link you to your past? You can just compare behaviors between high Se and high Si users as well as Ni and Ne and see the differences. People I've discussed with more personally, who don't prefer Si, usually have very different ways of relating to past experience than me, their memories are not evoked the same way through sensation as they do for me nor do they seek past sensational comforts or have sensation routines in the same ways. People use all 8 functions and it makes sense that different perceiving functions can relate to the future differently.

This describes Si as I experience it well: (https://www.psychologyjunkie.com/2017/09/07/timeless-power-introverted-sensing/)



> In the book Dynamics of Personality Type, the authors say _“If you were to look out your window and see an apple tree and immediately recall an image of an apple tree you’ve seen before and you were then aware of the feel of autumn in the air (even if it is late summer) and remember being in an apple orchard picking apples, you would be engaging in a process of introverted sensing.”_
> The same book describes the extraverted sensors reaction to the apple tree. _“You might look out the window and notice the apple tree in your backyard-the contrast of the ruby red apples and the deep green leaves, the rich brown-gray of the trunk and branches, and how the sunlight plays across the yard. You go out the door, reach out, pick an apple, and bite into it with a crunch, savoring the tree-ripened sweetness and the aroma of a really fresh apple….You are one with the experience…The whole scene comes into your awareness almost at once.”_


----------



## Valtire (Jan 1, 2014)

AllyKat said:


> I'm aware of the greater context. I was simply interested in your own interpretation of it in contrast to the other interpretations which choose to relate Si to past experience.


So do they (or you?) ignore the other mentions of it that aren't related to Si? Kinda curious here.



Red Panda said:


> I see no reason why Si can't relate to the past and you haven't made a compelling argument for that.


Is it even possible for me to make a case that you would see as compelling? You're clearly not interested in my internal logical consistency, and that's the only way I argue.



Red Panda said:


> Si also accumulates those sensational imprints for future reference. Of course preparing for the future is related to the past, it just depends on what you are preparing for and if it's something you can prepare for. For example you may have certain sensations in your brain database that you want to make sure you avoid so you prepare for your future with that in mind. I.e. take an umbrella because when you didn't you got soaked and it felt horrible, you were cold and trembling and your shoes were full of water which had a disgusting sensation as the socks were stuck to your skin.


But those 'imprints' are the subjective archetypes that all introverted functions use. Si is no different in this regard.



Red Panda said:


> I insult your argument? Need I remind you your "Here's some logic for you"?


Sorry I was rude. I wasn't speaking emotionally, I was asking you to address the point I made rather than just dismiss it offhand:

Premise 1: Sensing is present oriented (See Se).
Premise 2: Introversion is present oriented (See Ti/Fi).
Conclusion: Sensing with Introversion is present oriented too.

There you go, formal logic used in debates.



Red Panda said:


> It doesn't use the future because it prefers the past, so the high Si low Ne person may not prepare properly because it's an unfamiliar situation they haven't encountered before. The Si type will prepare fine for situations they have already experienced.


So are you suggesting that learning from experience and using experience is Si-specific and not universal to all people? That makes no sense to me at all.



Red Panda said:


> What about Se? I agree that Si deals in how much you appreciate sensations but it's not the only thing it does.


Se isn't personal. It's focused on the intensity of the experiences themselves. Gathering new/intense experiences, not focusing on how they impact you personally.



Red Panda said:


> Si uses past data but it also acts in the present to compare through the sensory inputs and build it's 'database' so to speak. In the present it may also want you to keep doing what feels good (i.e.scratching that scab) or avoid what feels bad (i.e. exercising).


So do you call Ti's understanding and Fi's values databases too? If not, your logical inconsistency is bizarre to me.



Red Panda said:


> This describes Si as I experience it well


You have subconscious Si though...?

Still, self-referential reasoning is too subjective.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Fried Eggz said:


> What's your reasoning?


Believe me, quality stuff only lol. 



Fried Eggz said:


> Last I heard from you, you were telling me that Se is about only observing things and I asked you why you were being typist against yourself.


I don't recall doing that, maybe it's only your conclusion out of observed data. With time I polished definition of Se a bit, but it's still an observing function, seriously it's not magical nor exclusively the function of adrenaline junkies.




Fried Eggz said:


> Now you're telling me that sensing is not sensing.


Calm your tits, bro. Nothing like that at all. Sensing is sensing. Now this explains your previous statement, you wanna bend reality in the way you see it. I have no special googles to see like you do, my bad.




Fried Eggz said:


> Your thoughts change so drastically but you're still adamantly telling me your thoughts as if they were truth.


Because time didn't stop and people are always improving creatures. You seem to have no faith in that. BTW I see nothing drastic, just small fixes and reduction of misconceptions.




Fried Eggz said:


> Perhaps you need to sit down and reflect on why your opinions are changing so drastically?


Oh my darling, I certainly don't need that. I know that perfectly myself. It's because I'm inconsistent with everything MBTI related and my approach isn't systematic, else my brain would explode. But none of that means I can't change slowly.

Now straight to the business. By the past, present and future of S I meant something very simple, extremely simple. Here's a shot example of what Se person might say, just stronger Se person, which specific type doesn't matter:
About past: Aw, I loved my long black scarf, so many nice memories about it. (Information said is raw sensing data, pretty objective aside J function)
About now: Oh look at this new sofa, it look good and I want it (Rather normal thing and that's what people can easily identify as Se, nothing special) 
About future: When I grow up, I wanna drive BMW E36 coupe and go to *insert specific college*. (Information is focused on senses, no iNtuition here at all. Sensing is so strong and future vision is all about Sensory details. Help of Thinking or Feeling function was definitely needed to form such a long term goal)
Overly simplified example of Se: After school I will buy ice cream (I guess there's nothing to explain here)

Those are really simple examples of how Se can and is a function of 3 dimensions. Same for every other function. I won't write you about Si for now as I still can't clearly define and understand it myself, but I can tell that it's also not single time focused. I don't think that there's any function, which is only one time exclusive, sure they all can focus on one time only, when is interested in specific stuff as our brains work like single core CPU, but except such cherry picking and talking about averages, none of functions are exclusive to a single time. Yet on average majority of people would think about present, just because it is what is happening now and it's usually the most important thing. Past and future times are less used due to our need to always be stuck in the present.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

The red spirit said:


> Here's a shot example of what Se person might say, just stronger Se person, which specific type doesn't matter:
> About past: Aw, I loved my long black scarf, so many nice memories about it. (Information said is raw sensing data, pretty objective aside J function)


There is literally nothing objective about this except for perhaps the colour and length of the scarf.
This statement is practically all Fi value judgments - _loved _the scarf, _nice _memories.



> About now: Oh look at this new sofa, it look good and I want it (Rather normal thing and that's what people can easily identify as Se, nothing special)


This again is Fi.. it looks _good_, I _want _it - this is Fi. These are decisions being made.
The Se part is the bit where it caught your eye in the first place. Se doesn't make decisions or judgments like this.



> About future: When I grow up, I wanna drive BMW E36 coupe and go to *insert specific college*. (Information is focused on senses, no iNtuition here at all. Sensing is so strong and future vision is all about Sensory details. Help of Thinking or Feeling function was definitely needed to form such a long term goal)


No, mate, this is Fi. You want to drive the BMW because you like it. You want to go to a certain college because you like it.
Tell me I'm wrong.



> Overly simplified example of Se: After school I will buy ice cream (I guess there's nothing to explain here)


*Fuuuuuuuuuuuucckkkkkkkkk *me. This is *Fi*. Se _doesn't _make decisions. Se *doesn't **decide *it wants to *buy *shit.
Se is a perceiving function.

Christ.

Se is the moment right before you make the decision.
Se takes in information. What the person does with it - which is literally what all of your Se examples are revolved around - is up to the J function it works with.

Quick example of Se - you're walking up the road and a car drives past - you hear a car. Se.

Get it?
You _see _a car. Se. You _touch _the car. Se. You _smell _the car. Se. You fucking _taste _the car. Se. You stick your hands in the exhaust and _feel _that shit up real good like your mumma always wanted you to. Se.

You thought it sounded _nice_? Fi. Looked _cool_? Fi. Felt _good_? Fi.
I don't need to go on.

What you think is Se, is Fi.

Do some research on the perceiving functions.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Fried Eggz said:


> Is it even possible for me to make a case that you would see as compelling? You're clearly not interested in my internal logical consistency, and that's the only way I argue.


Of coursei it's possible
I just don't think it's about 'logical consistency' because I don't think functions necessarily have to be one-dimensionally, univerally defined as you are trying to do, but each one a has specific role.




> But those 'imprints' are the subjective archetypes that all introverted functions use. Si is no different in this regard.


Yea and I didn't disagree with the subjectivity of it.



> Sorry I was rude. I wasn't speaking emotionally, I was asking you to address the point I made rather than just dismiss it offhand:
> 
> Premise 1: Sensing is present oriented (See Se).
> Premise 2: Introversion is present oriented (See Ti/Fi).
> ...


In this exampe here you make premises that sensing is persent oriented and you use Se as an example, which I agree that Se is mostly present oriented but not exclusively. I don't think judging functions have time perception because they can be consciously used to analyze any situation, past present or future. The I/E axis is a subjective/objective axis not a time axis as you yourself said before. 
I also slept on it a bit and realized that intuition isn't exclusively future oriented either. For example I can use Ne to analyze 'what ifs' when I reflect on my experience, i.e. if I think of the behavior of a person I can use Ne to imagine possibilities of why they acted a specific way. Maybe perceiving functions change time direction preference depending on their position in the stack, so if I had subconcious N it would be used more to give future visions, but now that it's conscious I can use it actively to search possibilities in any time frame.
I think it's important to add here that time isn't exactly something strictly defined, by the time you finish this sentence, it's already a thing of the past, so trying to strictly define time reference in perception functions may be somewhat faulty (tho not entirely) to begin with.



> So are you suggesting that learning from experience and using experience is Si-specific and not universal to all people? That makes no sense to me at all.


No, they don't learn or use experiences in the same way because that's what different functions do, they may make people have the same end result but they have reached that place through different internal process. That's why I gave that specific example of using an umbrella.



> Se isn't personal. It's focused on the intensity of the experiences themselves. Gathering new/intense experiences, not focusing on how they impact you personally.


Yes I agree, Se is extroverted, therefore focuses on the objective environment, whereas Si on the subjective imprints of sensation.



> So do you call Ti's understanding and Fi's values databases too? If not, your logical inconsistency is bizarre to me.


No because they are not perception functions, but since you mention it in some ways they could be since they are subjective. It seems bizarre to you because you have made false premises (see a few lines above). I/E axis is a subjective/objective axis and perception functions don't adhere to strict time preference



> You have subconscious Si though...?
> 
> Still, self-referential reasoning is too subjective.


My subconscious Si, for the most part, gives me sensory visions of the past the way it is described in that quote and otherwise makes me seek comfort in the present, based on what I know to be comfy through experience. I'm not sure whether it's really subconscious, sometimes it feels either.

Well, there's no objectivity in MBTI only 'collective' subjectivity since it's not scientifically confirmed to be real.


----------



## Nephandus (May 16, 2017)

Turi said:


> Ni users attach meaning and symbolism to everything and these meanings/symbolism feed into the Ni insights we often hear about.
> 
> Consider the meanings/symbolism attached to every day objects as glimpses through the smoke - something as mundane as a fan might make lift the veil and allow the Ni user to make sense of something, and that something might not be related to the fan.


That I never got. I don't do symbols. I feel my Ni working, occasionally knowing what's kinda forming or what's kinda missing (and possibly what kinda thing I need to expose myself to to finish what its doing). I don't "see" representational shit unless I'm thinking of something's physical parts or cybernetic-ish function diagram-like bits, mostly as overlays. It's "stuttery", which I've described this in the past as a bit of a blipvert with pauses, jumps, and alternate versions. I'd say rewinds, but that's way too linear. Mostly imagery is woefully insufficient. My awareness of/in the process is at least 4D+. No image can represent that. No static or consistent symbol can either. It's too small/constrained and too slow. The closest I can think of any symbolism would be the abstract/undefined bits of symbolic logic or the aforementioned cybernetic diagram icons, but I never use the later when only thinking for my own purposes, and I don't use any for the former when it's in my head. It's not emotionally invested symbolism even then, just placeholders when there aren't already sufficient direct descriptors for a thing/relation, mostly for other people to follow in lieu of experiencing my internal hyperspace.

Of course, I do think this kind of thing is where Jung leaves the reservation and starts making shit up to fit his personal fixations. Very Christian myth shit mostly, particularly just after it's eaten some pagan myths and shat out something rather unlike the originals. The "monomyth" myopia, which ironically is such a boring non-narrative with no meaningful application to humans not steeped in it thus not remotely "the" human myth. Ask about a fan, I would give an Se or Te description. There's nothing to intuit about the fan other than your apparent fixation in the questioning. Apparent designer considerations or my own functional or aesthetic preferences would be other functions.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

Ocean Helm said:


> So if we get nothing else from this thread, we can see that there is little agreement on what The Functions even mean.
> 
> No indication if we are talking Jungian, Myersian, Tumblrian, or constructed by our very own selves. Everyone can think they know what The Functions mean, but if the symbols mean different things to different people, what is the use in communicating about types based on function stacks (even here there are quite a few function stack models), when the abstract elements that make up these stacks are so subjectively defined?


None really, but we knew that. And as there is a lot of communication that is useless, this being one more doesn't matter down the line, I think.





l’espirit rouge;39404673 said:


> Why would Ti not like or dislike something? Are they some sort of gods without anger and appreciation?


Yes.


l’espirit rouge;39404673 said:


> Would anyone point out at sofa and say look at this sofa and then nothing? I'm pretty sure person would want to say something more about sofa.


Yes. No.

Don't mind me though, I'm just injecting words because


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes. No.
> 
> Don't mind me though, I'm just injecting words because


You are making this absurd for no reason, right?


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

l’espirit rouge;39405865 said:


> You are making this absurd for no reason, right?


Well, I intentionally ended a sentence without full stop, so that all Ne and Ni would go crazy figuring out how it ended. I don't think that's absurd, but which measure are we applying?


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> Well, I intentionally ended a sentence without full stop, so that all Ne and Ni would go crazy figuring out how it ended. I don't think that's absurd, but which measure are we applying?


Not sure what do you mean by measure, but it's probably Sensing + some T. Obviously all your yes and no answers should be inverted, but for some reason they are not. You may seem to know how all of them should be answered, but you purposely inverted them for an unexpectedness. Too bad reason why you did that is unknown for me. I may ave some ideas, but I don't think I have something that would fit there well. I'm sorry, but I often suck at seeing hidden meanings in such things.


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

l’espirit rouge;39406377 said:


> Not sure what do you mean by measure, but it's probably Sensing + some T.


A valid response, though I intended it to mean "measure" as in "gauge": Absurd by what standard?

But I can work with that. Absurd compared to S and T ... heh, that does make more sense than I expected it to, funny. Then the answer is no: it's not absurd. But we knew that, too!

Where is what we don't know? I don't know. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, I point at sofas.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> A valid response, though I intended it to mean "measure" as in "gauge": Absurd by what standard?


By normality. Imagine, you punch a guy in the street for no reason and he would coldly say to stop it. That's how you portrayed ISTP. You know that unrealistic ISTP will think about damage that has been made to the body, but nothing else. How I would see realistic ISTP, when you punch him, is rather different. I expect him to get angry at least a bit and dislike a punch, without thinking about damage done. By that I meant absurd as pretty much no sane person punched in the street won't just walk away, even some simple emotions like anger would be visible in such a bad example. It's absurd to expect something unrealistic. That's just an example.



Northern Lights said:


> But I can work with that. Absurd compared to S and T ... heh, that does make more sense than I expected it to, funny. Then the answer is no: it's not absurd. But we knew that, too!


Why it's not absurd?




Northern Lights said:


> Where is what we don't know? I don't know. Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes, I point at sofas.


lol, so there was no meaning in that...


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Don't feed the ibis.


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

Turi said:


> Don't feed the ibis.


Well you gotta feed yourself, don't ya?


----------



## Northern Lights (Mar 25, 2016)

l’espirit rouge;39406769 said:


> lol, so there was no meaning in that...


Ah, but isn't that exactly what y'all were debating?

I'm so meta I see this thread from space, I think.


Regarding myself: Punching me gets you a raised eyebrow. Kissing me gets you a raised eyebrow. Actually, that eyebrow is either up or down, and it doesn't move a lot. So mostly down. What, would you say, is the point of "anger", by the way?

... I think I had Ne for dinner. So many tangents. But perhaps it's just Se and I'm relevant again. ANYWAY. I think anger is kind of superfluous, so I decided not to get angry. Either punching or kissing causes confusion, because there is no logical reason. Then again, there is no reason when I point at sofas either, other than it being there, so perhaps I should be more understanding. Perhaps I was just there as well?

Do note though that I shall punch you back. Without being angry. Regardless of your reason. Just because you punched me. That _is_ a reason. (Kissing depends on your gender and 1-10 scale rating.)

And I don't think this has anything to do with the topic anymore, but then it's pretty much on-topic ... compared to the last page. I also assure everyone that all my words contained truth and call as witness every Ti-person out there, but I think I want some Intuitives in here to tell me how many layers of meaning my posts have. I constructed between zero and three, are there more?


@Turi: I just saved your thread. You don't have to thank me, though, it's alright. That Ibis was all I would ask for.


----------



## The red spirit (Sep 29, 2015)

Northern Lights said:


> Ah, but isn't that exactly what y'all were debating?


Not at all. I have clear picture of what I say, what you say is too abstract to be clear. It has been incomprehensible for a few posts.



Northern Lights said:


> I'm so meta I see this thread from space, I think.


That pretty much sums up what you did right here. Some unreasonable text.



Northern Lights said:


> @Turi: I just saved your thread. You don't have to thank me, though, it's alright. That Ibis was all I would ask for.


You saved a thread by giving it again to destructor...


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Sheesh. This thread. Seems every time @Turi tries to start a cool discussion, it gets turned into a "you're typed wrong" thread. 

I did like what @AZH had to say actually. Maybe because he seems to be pretty Jungian and so am I. 

I also don't think Si is necessarily the "memory" function. I think it's first and foremost all about perceiving subjective impressions of what _is_. However, I can see why how MBTI tries to test for this is it makes Si a past thing. My sister self-identifies as an ESTJ - I agree with that typing. She tests as such as well. But it's funny. I wouldn't call her "past-oriented", definitely not more than I am. Even the Si-doms I know I wouldn't necessarily call "past-oriented". Not more than any other person.

Everyone _remembers_ stuff. Every person compares experiences they've had in the past. Everyone thinks about things that have happened in some way. I personally think there's too much judgment involved in that process to call that process the thing that defines Si. It could be true that Si-users are more likely to be more past focused (?), but I don't know enough to make that judgment. And even if it were true, I'd say the heart of Si lies somewhere else. 

It is an Introverted Perceiving function first and foremost. It is more similar to Ni than people give it credit.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

You're ISTJ now??!!


----------



## spaceynyc (Feb 18, 2017)

Jewl said:


> Sheesh. This thread. Seems every time @Turi tries to start a cool discussion, it gets turned into a "you're typed wrong" thread.
> 
> I did like what @AZH had to say actually. Maybe because he seems to be pretty Jungian and so am I.
> 
> ...


The thing is I would say both Si and Ni are subjective impressions of a something or a situation.

Si's impression is based on actual conscious [remembered] experience and Ni's impression is more based on theory and subconscious [not-remembered at least in a detailed fashion] experience. I think that's the difference.

Si likes to relate things to their personal experience which is why it is seen as past oriented, and Ni likes to relate things to it's personal ideas/theories or visions which can kind of be seen as future oriented but not always.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Jewl you bring up an interesting point of "what is Si anyway?"

If by Jungian you mean haphazardly cutting and pasting Jung's functions into a model not meant for Jung's functions, then you just confuse things further. Jungian Si types = MBTI ISxP mainly, with some INxP and ISxJ.

But the other definitions are written in a way that most people with life experience can relate to in varying degrees.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Ocean Healm, you mean MBTI's four function model? For the record, Jung thought people would have auxiliary and inferior functions. It is rather the attitude of the tertiary that people debate about. Myers' model was, after all, inspired by Jung. It is indeed an interpretation and the way MBTI goes about _testing_ for functions is certainly debatable, but four function model it uses is one I as a fairly purist Jungian don't see too much of a problem with. 

Jung was just more general. He thought that the other functions that weren't dominant would all take on somewhat of the opposite attitude of the dominant, with _perhaps_ the auxiliary being more differentiated than, say, the inferior. But for the most part, he thought the further it was away from the dominant, even for the auxiliary, it would take the opposite attitude.

So really, a more Jungian model might look like this for ENFP: Ne-Fi- Thinking in general, perhaps Ti - Si. Jung always placed more emphasis and importance on figuring out one's dominant and inferior function, but he did talk about the others from time to time. He did think that if you lead with a Perceiving function, your other preferred function would then be a Judging (aka: rational) function that would be probably the opposite attitude of the dominant. 

Later we started getting people talking about eight-function models like Beebe. 

So no, even coming at it from a Jungian standpoint, I think a solid argument could be made for the ISFP to in fact be Fi-Se with inferior Te. 

So I don't necessarily disagree with MBTI's very _model_. I do tend to interpret the actual function definitions differently. But Myers did get her ideas from Jung, so I like finding out the common ground the theories have and where Myers got her interpretations. 

Mostly, I can see ways she tried to make the functions _testable_, and it is generally at _that_ point I start disagreeing. I'm not saying there's not a way to come up with a test - I just wonder if the MBTI way of testing is the best and most accurate. 

I think I can critique Myers' interpretation of Jung and say, actually, I think it's more accurate to define Si this way. I'm not taking MBTI's interpretation and I'm still critiquing it from a Jungian perspective. Take that for what it's worth.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Is any one else noticing that there seems to be something weird going on in the forum? Like, it wouldn't let my reply by quoting at first, and when I posted last it acted as though I'd posted twice when I hit "post quick reply" and took me to a page where it said, error. You have to wait 30 seconds before posting again. So when I refreshed the page and went back to the thread, my post was there.  But that was the first time I'd posted it. Dunno why it took me to that page. It also it messing up my mentions... I wonder if it's just me.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

@Jewl which Jungian concepts do "Perceiving" and "Judging" most closely align with?


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Ocean Helm, to Jung the "Perceiving" (or "irrational") functions are Sensation and Intuition. The "Judging" (or "rational") functions are Thinking and Feeling. Same as it is in MBTI. It's just MBTI when it goes about testing for type adds a P/J dichotomy whereby it uses _behavior_ (ex. how organized someone is typically) to try and figure out whether someone has a Je function as their auxiliary or dominant. 

Hence why those who use Te+Si are called ESTJs and would be called "Judging types", but also those who lead with Si with Te as auxiliary would also be classified as a "Judging type" according to MBTI despite leading with a _Perceiving_ function.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Jewl said:


> @Ocean Helm, to Jung the "Perceiving" (or "irrational") functions are Sensation and Intuition. The "Judging" (or "rational") functions are Thinking and Feeling. Same as it is in MBTI. It's just MBTI when it goes about testing for type adds a P/J dichotomy whereby it uses _behavior_ (ex. how organized someone is typically) to try and figure out whether someone has a Je function as their auxiliary or dominant.
> 
> Hence why those who use Te+Si are called ESTJs and would be called "Judging types", but also those who lead with Si with Te as auxiliary would also be classified as a "Judging type" according to MBTI despite leading with a _Perceiving_ function.


And how does Jung think that those lead with Si would look externally?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Ocean Helm

Jungs Si types are basically what you might imagine an Ni type to be, as it's currently understood - somewhere along the way, the magic and mystique of Si morphed into Ni.

Si types are focused on their own subjective impressions of objects/things - the object itself only means anything, in so far as it produces these impressions.
If the object is a person, the Si types can have trouble determining what is reality - the person themselves, or their subjective impression of the person?
You can see how this easily morphs into a focus on what 'isn't' even though it's definitely derived, from a very specific, what 'is'.

Jungs Si types see into the background of the world, rather than the world itself, they see how objects (anything.. includes people) impress upon them and focus internally, on these impressions, rather than reality itself.

My example earlier in the thread of Si types noticing a piece of jewelry basically hits this on the head beautifully.


As for how the look externally - straight from Jung:



> But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula - all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds.


I interpret this as essentially describing the Si types defence mechanism against being overwhelmed by too many subjective impressions - i.e they blank everything out that doesn't attract their attention and ignite the subjective impressions.

So they will look like anyone else, unless something piques their interest and even then from the outside, they might still look the same - it's inside that changes, when they're focusing on these subjective impressions.

Jung suggests the Si type with an underdeveloped thinking or feeling function to be someone who:



> ..lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or malevolent demons. That they appear thus to him never enters his head, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions.


Sounds similar to what we think of as Ni types symbolism and interpretation of dreams, etc, doesn't it?


----------

