# Model for Ni and Si



## Lozan (Mar 10, 2012)

I've been thinking about the introverted perceiving lately, and I think I have figure out a decent way of looking at them. I would appreciate any feedback on this, and whether it fits with people's personal experiences.


Both Ni and Si function like huge databases of associations. Ni builds associations for contexts and perspectives, while Si builds associations for sensations and images.

So, when Si "notices" something, it will pull up whatever is associated with it. For example, an Si dominant might notice a scent (say, of strawberries) and have it bring to mind any number of related experiences (gathering strawberries with family in the summer, eating strawberry pancakes, etc). 

On the other hand, when Ni "notices" something, it will bring up the state of mind / way of thinking associated with what it notices. For example, an Ni dominant might notice that there is a crack in a pavement, which will make them think about ways of looking at or thinking about things with cracks (how to fix them, what hazards they pose, etc.). On a more complex level, an Ni dominant studying a system would notice various features of the system, which will bring up multiple perspectives... and then find a way to reconcile these perspectives together. If that succeeds, they end up with a comprehensive way of looking at the entire system, which explains the "aha" moments that Ni is famous for (at the moment that Ni manages to merge the perspectives together, it comes up with a new perspective which makes everything clear).


----------



## Jubeanation (Apr 30, 2012)

This made sense to me. Thank you.


----------



## CataclysmSolace (Mar 13, 2012)

Wow… Me (ISTJ) and my best friend (INTJ), this lets me see how him and I both act.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

There's more to it but if you're only contrasting Ni and Si -- then yes, you got the very important bit.


----------



## Azure Bass (Sep 6, 2010)

Deleted. My post is irrelevant.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

I think it would be better to use the same stimuli as an example to contrast the Pi functions. 

Here is my revision.



Lozan said:


> Both Ni and Si function like huge databases of associations. Ni builds associations for contexts and perspectives, while Si builds associations for sensations and images.
> 
> *Si*
> 
> ...


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Urgh, all this "context" for Si! Si looks at things independent of time and place. It's almost a "pure" conception of it, in that way.

Tell me "strawberry" and I envision a strawberry. Not the juicy one from summer, nor the lukewarm one from spring, but a, I suppose I could say, "idealized" strawberry. To me it isn't idealized though because there is nothing to idealize it off from. It is simply a strawberry. Real life strawberries are simply specific instances of it. This is where the association part comes in.


----------



## Lozan (Mar 10, 2012)

@Owfin:
Your example demonstrates that you associate hearing the word "strawberry" with just a generic strawberry. Is this still the same when you actually experience the strawberry in some way (taste, smell, see, etc)?
@Nobleheart:
What do you mean when you say "on the basic Pi level"?
@Lunarprox:
Could you elaborate on what I missed?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Lozan said:


> @_Owfin_:
> Your example demonstrates that you associate hearing the word "strawberry" with just a generic strawberry. Is this still the same when you actually experience the strawberry in some way (taste, smell, see, etc)?


Yes. I also may identify it with some idea of, for example, taste, such as "sweet".


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Lozan said:


> Nobleheart:
> What do you mean when you say "on the basic Pi level"?


The areas in which Ni and Si overlap as Introverted Perception (Pi). 



Owfin said:


> Yes. I also may identify it with some idea of, for example, taste, such as "sweet".


Odd. All of the Si users I know have very vivid sensory associations with their memories. Are you sure you're not an ISTP? Sounds more like you're clarifying the concept of strawberry than making sensory associations.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> Odd. All of the Si users I know have very vivid sensory associations with their memories. Are you sure you're not an ISTP? Sounds more like you're clarifying the concept of strawberry than making sensory associations.


How would my association make it any less vivid? Just because I don't associate it with a specific experience, does not mean it is any less vivid or rich. I can have very strong ideas of things indeed. I can conjure up a taste in my mouth by envisioning it hard enough.


----------



## Lozan (Mar 10, 2012)

Nobleheart said:


> The areas in which Ni and Si overlap as Introverted Perception (Pi).


No, I got that. I was asking what your clarification, "on the basic Pi level," meant. What does it even mean for something to happen on an "introverted perception level"?


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Owfin said:


> How would my association make it any less vivid? Just because I don't associate it with a specific experience, does not mean it is any less vivid or rich. I can have very strong ideas of things indeed. I can conjure up a taste in my mouth by envisioning it hard enough.


Okay, that jives with how I understand Si to work. Thanks for clarifying. I don't have Si, so I rely on others to explain it to me.



Lozan said:


> No, I got that. I was asking what your clarification, "on the basic Pi level," meant. What does it even mean for something to happen on an "introverted perception level"?


P is not perception itself, but rather how we process our perceptions based on giving them meaning. Pi does this on a somewhat subconscious level through associations. For Si this means focusing on the tangible. For Ni this means focusing on pattern recognition.


----------



## TaylorS (Jan 24, 2010)

According to Jung, Si is about personal, subjective impressions of sense data; while Ni is about personal, subjective impressions of a archetypal mental image triggered by the sense data.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

TaylorS said:


> According to Jung, Si is about personal, subjective impressions of sense data; while Ni is about personal, subjective impressions of a archetypal mental image triggered by the sense data.


So they form an image of their image of an image, essentially? _Weird!_


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Lozan said:


> I've been thinking about the introverted perceiving lately, and I think I have figure out a decent way of looking at them. I would appreciate any feedback on this, and whether it fits with people's personal experiences.
> 
> 
> Both Ni and Si function like huge databases of associations. Ni builds associations for contexts and perspectives, while Si builds associations for sensations and images.
> ...


There is a website posted a long time ago talking about differences between Ni and Si, and also how Se and Ne people look at things. 

Edit: found the website: http://www.interstrength.com/content/how_to_tell_intuiting_from_extraverted_sensing

Here is a rough summary of the differences when looking at a forest:

*Ni* - Looking at a forest, one thinks of the interrelatedness and interdependence of all the organisms in it, and that one day, the city will expand to take over this land.

*Si *- Looking at a forest, one thinks back to one's childhood playing under the trees with friends, or having a walk with family.

*Se* - Looking at a forest, one appreciates the subtle shades of the trees, and notices the brilliant colors of flowers.

*Ne* - Looking at a forest, one thinks of the effects of city's pollution on the wildlife in the area, and how city expansion will impact the area.

In your case of noticing a crack on the pavement, an Ni might think of how the weather's effects produced it, how plants grow out of the cracks to reclaim the land that was once forested, and how the crack needs to be fixed, yet doing so would kill the plants inside it. 

In a time sense, there appears to be a past-to-future connection with the Ni scenario. In the Si scenario, it's all about past and present. The Se scenario demonstrates a purely present moment, while the Ne features a present-and-future moment.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

When I look at the forest, my mind wanders off very quickly into things that have little to do with reality. Which one is that?

When I look at a forest, I see the vibe of it more than anything, then I associate with the vibes other similar vibes, which spawn memories which begin to play out scenes and images that have never happened often unrelated to the forest. 

For example, at night, when the clouds have no discernible color from the ambient light of the city below and are silhouetting the leafless trees of late autumn or winter, I am feeling the vibe in the air which is very distinct to me in that moment. I might associate that with any number of memories that reference that vibe, and then build very clear fantasies / daydreams from it, which often end up as creative plans for artwork, stories I may write, but before I am done, I make realizations in the associations that I can't really explain about the people, places, things, in my life and where they are going. I could almost care less about the fate of the forest... but then, I know it's not going anywhere for a long time, so it is much less relevant than the vibe it is exuding, and even less relevant than what is going on in my head.

But then... this is my 'conscious' thought process. I would be unlikely to consciously think about "the interrelatedness and interdependence of all the organisms in it" or "the how the weather's effects produced it, how plants grow out of the cracks to reclaim the land that was once forested, and how the crack needs to be fixed, yet doing so would kill the plants inside it" because that's obvious to me. I'd go *from* there, not *to* there.


----------



## Sparky (Mar 15, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> When I look at the forest, my mind wanders off very quickly into things that have little to do with reality. Which one is that?
> 
> When I look at a forest, I see the vibe of it more than anything, then I associate with the vibes other similar vibes, which spawn memories which begin to play out scenes and images that have never happened often unrelated to the forest.
> 
> ...


Could it be F-dominant, like INFP (Fi>Ne>Si>Te)? It sounds like the Ne is affected by an Fi relating to subjective feelings and emotions, which triggers some memories about the past using tertiary Si, while also building fantasies upon it using Ne?


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Sparky said:


> Could it be F-dominant, like INFP (Fi>Ne>Si>Te)? It sounds like the Ne is affected by an Fi relating to subjective feelings and emotions, which triggers some memories about the past using tertiary Si, while also building fantasies upon it using Ne?


No, I think that Nobleheart's post was _very_ N. I found it new and fascinating, at any rate.


----------



## Verthani (May 8, 2012)

Well I think you've got to keep in mind that a person's personality is going to combine all 4 of your functions and you're never going to use your Ni or Si or even Ne or Se in a vacuum from the other functions you have. Whether its your main function and you have Fe or Te as your secondary is going to make a bit of a difference in how it works and gets used versus someone who has Fe or Te as their main and the Ni or Si as their secondary. And then you've go to add on top of that the individuals personal interests and knowledge database.

In INFJ who's into poetry and studies classic literature for a living is gonna to have a much different web of connections than an INTJ who's into comic books and does medical research for a living. Or, an ISTJ who collects toy cars and is an accountant is going to have a very different sensory memory than an ISFJ who loves historical romances and teaches 4th grade. And then all this is going to be different from someone who has Ni or Si as their secondary function instead of their main (not even going to get into the fact that sensors with Se have Ni as their tertiary or least function and Ne users have Si as their 3rd or 4th function.)

I think that sometimes when examples of the functions are given it can trip people up because they're surprised by how different the example is than what they are consciously aware of themselves doing (i.e. nobleheart's post). It's the actual process being described underneath the details of the description that are important and the only thing you can do is basically take a template of the function and lay it over your own cognitive functions and see if it matches up.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Verthani said:


> These anecdotes are definitely similar to how I seem to figure things out as well. And yes apparently as a child I would spend hours reading about things I was interested in until I got enough information to figure out what I wanted to. I have a fairly bad sense of what being a child was like, which is probably due to not having an Si which I imagine makes memories quite a bit stronger because you store the exact sense of what happened in your mental database.
> 
> I like that term Percolate a lot LOL. Trying to find a descriptive word for N is hard enough but Ni is all in your head. Percolate is definitely a good metaphor. I'm not really thinking about something as much as I am putting it into some sort of mental process and letting it brew until the product is finished.
> 
> I had trouble with Algebra because it seemed so step-by-step, straight forward that I didn't really know what to do with it. But then I finally got a teacher to taught us the ideas behind the different steps and problems and it became really easy and fun to me. It was like I was listening to him and suddenly it would just click in my brain what the problem was actually doing instead of just understanding and memorizing an order you do the actions in.





Nobleheart said:


> Yup, this was the difference between trying to teach you via Si and via Ni. I had the exact same problem in school. I often refused to 'show my work' because my mind simply didn't follow rote. I was also very good at finding ways to solve the problems that were faster and more intuitive, which left me entirely unable to show my work. Meanwhile, I did great in Geometry because there was a frame of reference that I could proof visually "This side is smaller than those two, therefore the correct answer can't be larger than either of those..." and it was more about concepts than rote. Most of the Si people I know are exactly the opposite. They did great in Algebra (rote) and lost it when they got to Geometry (concepts).





Verthani said:


> OH yes  I was so good at geometry when I got to it that I my teacher actually asked if I could help some of the students that where having a horrible time of it. I had a bit of math block before I got to geometry because a lack of perspective on it had plagued me for years. My health finally hit rock bottom at the time so I never got to take Calculus as a senior so I can't answer specifically about what that would have ended up like.
> 
> Another thing about Si is that I think it probably lends itself to recreating things better than even Se could. My grandmother is an ISTJ and she's so good at knitting its ridiculous. Not just efficient but her creations always always turn out consistent. She tried to teach me once and it was the same sort of train-wreck. She would put my hands into place and even guide them through a row and could not even remotely figure out how I was supposed to do this action over and over again and feed the thread through at the same time. She told me that I needed to "*memorize what its* *like to do it and try and recreate that movement every time.*" I remember I just stared at her with a dumbfounded look on my face with no idea what she was getting at lol.
> We worked it out though, she'd do the knitting and I'd do the logic problems in her puzzle books because she hated them at least as much as I hated knitting.



I think this last post touches on a very important idea about Si, which is Si doesn't simply associate new experiences with past memories, but the new experiences are added onto the old memories in a very sequential fashion. This is why Si users have such a strong sense of consistency in what they do, and why they desire it oftentimes. Si is very organized in the sense that it tries to find a place to put the new experiences...to kind of group them together with old ones.


I don't know how much of this is true for Ni, but I get the impression that Ni tends to make more connections with experiences to future potential possibilities.



As far as the math discussion goes, since I'm a high school math teacher, I see the points about Algebra and Geometry. However, I don't think this is down purely to Ni and Si, as I think anyone can be capable of using both types of thinking. I think it probably generally happens that way because Geometry is very difficult to teach in a rote manner. 


I do think that the "rote" processes in Algebra do help emphasize organization, detail, and concrete communication (that can be referred back to later). I also think the more conceptual type of thinking helps emphasize efficient thinking and mental connections that are important in more detailed problems (that would take a ridiculously long amount of time to do without this efficiency), and it also helps to have a deeper understanding of the actual meanings.


Really, I think there are important strengths associated with both, and both Ni users and Si users are capable of using the type of thinking that they're not comfortable with. They may not be able to master it as strongly as the other user, but they can certainly develop it well enough to be proficient. I say this because I've seen it, even if it takes them much more effort. This is why I don't think it's purely down to Ni and Si.


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> Really, I think there are important strengths associated with both, and both Ni users and Si users are capable of using the type of thinking that they're not comfortable with. They may not be able to master it as strongly as the other user, but they can certainly develop it well enough to be proficient. I say this because I've seen it, even if it takes them much more effort. This is why I don't think it's purely down to Ni and Si.


I feel that I'm a bit of anomaly in this, since I don't recall finding geometry harder than algebra or vice versa. Nor do I recall having a preference for either. It was just lumped into the category of "math" in my head. :/ (Though as I said before, my high school accelerated geometry class did not bother with doing proofs. Yet I did well with conditional statements in that class and logic in a philosophy class, so I may have caught on to them.)


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

Math is a particularly "T" area, at least in its purest sense, as a basic description of the philosophy of mathematics matches up pretty effectively to a basic description of what Ti does.
Math: use underlying logic-rules in new scenarios, come up with new logic rules, requires proof from the ground up.
Ti: judge information and draw conclusions based on logic rules, work from the ground up.
Both result in a system of conclusions which, if pressed, can be very completely and very precisely explained.
So, yeah, going through Ni or Si doesn't actually seem too decidedly relevant as far as I can see >.>;;

Also: the concept of learning math without going through the proofs makes my heart break just a little :S what's the point if you don't prove any of it?


----------



## Angelic Gardevoir (Oct 7, 2010)

Lucky AcidStar said:


> Also: the concept of learning math without going through the proofs makes my heart break just a little :S what's the point if you don't prove any of it?


The teacher thought the opposite: She thought proofs were pointless and redundant. (Yet amusingly enough, she criticized people for not being smart enough to get it. Not a lot of people liked her.) Math doesn't seem to be explained well where I went to school, and that's probably true for the U.S. as a whole. As proof, on my very last day of high school, some freshmen were doing some last minute algebra homework. I helped them and they told me I explained it better than the teacher. That says a lot. That said, I'm no mathematician. 

As a side note though, my 7th grade Pre-Algebra class did logic puzzles (the kind where you have a chart and are given clues to figure out the problem by process of deduction). I thought they were kinda fun. 

*apologizes for off-topicness*


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Everyone missed my post! Argh:



pmj85 said:


> Just a thought - seeing as we have a collection of Ni users here (and some great theories / insights on how it works), why don't we pool our collective knowledge into one clear, concise article? As I said earlier in this thread, the Ni waters have been muddied somewhat by the careless splish-splashing of a great many people. Not that it can be helped, of course; it isn't exactly an easy function to understand.
> 
> I propose we have a little 'e-get together', exchange our write ups on the subject, compare / contrast and see if we can discern some ultimate Ni truth (or something). When we feel we have established a clear understanding of the function, we write an article and spam it all over the intertubes in a vain attempt to combat the lack of understanding.
> 
> ...


Unless it was politely ignored, of course. In which case....


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

pmj85 said:


> Do Ni users ever find themselves relaying vast amounts of detailed information they never knew they had? It isn't uncommon for me to find myself expertly explaining something I didn't even know I understood. Or, sometimes, I won't actually have an opinion on 'Topic A' until someone asks me for one... at which point my mouth runs away with me and I knock out a well articulated response.
> 
> Meanwhile, inwardly, I'm thinking "Where the hell is this coming from?!"
> 
> It happens in job interviews a lot too. Heh. Whatever function it is, it's bloody handy


I do that all the time, not sure if it's function related though. Te users tend to think their ideas out loudly, they are more likely to figure out stuff while conversating.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

> _Just a thought - seeing as we have a collection of Ni users here (and some great theories / insights on how it works), why don't we pool our collective knowledge into one clear, concise article? As I said earlier in this thread, the Ni waters have been muddied somewhat by the careless splish-splashing of a great many people. Not that it can be helped, of course; it isn't exactly an easy function to understand._
> 
> _I propose we have a little 'e-get together', exchange our write ups on the subject, compare / contrast and see if we can discern some ultimate Ni truth (or something). When we feel we have established a clear understanding of the function, we write an article and spam it all over the intertubes in a vain attempt to combat the lack of understanding._
> 
> ...


Sounds really good, call on @Nobleheart to collect the Ni/Si bits and make the article. 

People who are with me say ay! D:


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

It would be a collective effort, though. Whoever wrote the main article would only be collating already collected information / presenting it in an easy to digest format.

Is my Te showing here? Perhaps I'm a Te user. WHO KNOWS?!


----------



## Dark NiTe (Mar 5, 2012)

pmj85 said:


> Do Ni users ever find themselves relaying vast amounts of detailed information they never knew they had? It isn't uncommon for me to find myself expertly explaining something I didn't even know I understood. Or, sometimes, I won't actually have an opinion on 'Topic A' until someone asks me for one... at which point my mouth runs away with me and I knock out a well articulated response.
> 
> Meanwhile, inwardly, I'm thinking "Where the hell is this coming from?!"
> 
> It happens in job interviews a lot too. Heh. Whatever function it is, it's bloody handy


Yes, sounds like Ni/Te to me. I often do this much to the chagrin of Ti doms. I consider it talking (posting) out of my ass, but the majority of the time I am essentially correct. The problem is that I am sometimes left to explain something that pops into my mind subconsciously that I don't have the first clue how/where to substantiate it.

In retrospect, I believe that Ni is a subconscious guide for my behavior. I have done a great many things that initially appear to be idiotic in theory, but in the end seem to work out much better than simple logic would suggest. An analogy would be making a decision with poor equity in a poker game, but ending up winning the hand on an unlikely draw. Of course you can't know which card will be drawn, and sometimes doing the ostensibly unwise thing turns out to be the right choice. A relevant example would be the many times I have called someone's bluff without even realizing it until I interpret their behavior and discern what their intention was. I hope this makes sense lol. Maybe @WSidis will know what I am talking about.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Angelic Gardevoir said:


> I feel that I'm a bit of anomaly in this, since I don't recall finding geometry harder than algebra or vice versa. Nor do I recall having a preference for either. It was just lumped into the category of "math" in my head. :/ (Though as I said before, my high school accelerated geometry class did not bother with doing proofs. Yet I did well with conditional statements in that class and logic in a philosophy class, so I may have caught on to them.)


Well, I was like this in high school too. I didn't find Geometry harder than Algebra. What I've noticed is that for most honors students, they can do both without much trouble. There's certainly some variance, but in general, honors students can do well with both types of thinking, regardless of them being N or S. Now, how they go about learning it is quite different...but by the time they've gotten to high school, they usually have developed ways of learning material that works for them, even if one type is more difficult than another for them personally.

However, with my regular classes, I've noticed it's much easier to teach Algebra than it is Geometry. Assuming that most of them are Ss, this does support the theory that Ss think more easily in terms of procedures and facts and Ns think more easily in terms of concepts. 




Lucky AcidStar said:


> Math is a particularly "T" area, at least in its purest sense, as a basic description of the philosophy of mathematics matches up pretty effectively to a basic description of what Ti does.
> Math: use underlying logic-rules in new scenarios, come up with new logic rules, requires proof from the ground up.
> Ti: judge information and draw conclusions based on logic rules, work from the ground up.
> Both result in a system of conclusions which, if pressed, can be very completely and very precisely explained.
> So, yeah, going through Ni or Si doesn't actually seem too decidedly relevant as far as I can see >.>;;


Well, here's the issue with how this plays out in reality. In terms of actually learning and understanding math, I agree with you. The problem is...the vast majority of people don't actually understand math. I was an honors student in high school (made an A in Calculus) and there are a number of basic math concepts that I didn't truly understand until I got to college (and there are still some concepts of what I teach that I'm still working through understanding completely). Considering most people aren't honors students at all, a large number of them probably never even "learn" most mathematical concepts, despite being pushed through the system. 

So this supports your point..since many people don't use Ti, they probably don't really truly understand a lot of the math that they "do". However, if we're talking about having a basic knowledge of the material (even to reach the "right answer"), then I think the Si/Ni difference plays a big part.




Lucky AcidStar said:


> Also: the concept of learning math without going through the proofs makes my heart break just a little :S what's the point if you don't prove any of it?


There's no way you could stand teaching high school math in the US then (at least at public schools). A large majority of students don't even understand the procedures of arithmetic, much less the arithmetical concepts. A lot of them know simply how to follow the steps they're told, and that's all that they do. So we're really not teaching a lot of them anything. And they don't want to learn a lot of of the concepts. This isn't surprising, since they don't even know the arithmetical concepts. How can they be taught algebra when they don't even understand arithmetic?

But this is true in a number of academic subjects, not just math. However, you might find this article quite interesting...I know I have, and it lines up very strongly with what you're saying.


http://www.maa.org/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf


Edit: Sorry if this has been derailing the thread.


----------



## Lucky AcidStar (Apr 23, 2012)

Well here's a question (semi on topic I think lol...): How do you teach an Ni user mathematics? My INFJ girlfriend hates math, and after reading some of this I'm guessing it's because she tries to learn and do math like an Si user. She also has this strange hatred for numbers in general. I'm curious to hear some sort of perspective.

Also, thank you for the above post. Most of my reply consists of this: *sigh*
Oh well :kitteh:


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Lucky AcidStar said:


> Well here's a question (semi on topic I think lol...): How do you teach an Ni user mathematics? My INFJ girlfriend hates math, and after reading some of this I'm guessing it's because she tries to learn and do math like an Si user. She also has this strange hatred for numbers in general. I'm curious to hear some sort of perspective.
> 
> Also, thank you for the above post. Most of my reply consists of this: *sigh*
> Oh well :kitteh:



I typed out a really long response, but since it's so long and is quite off topic, I'm just PMing it to you instead. If I see a way to get it back on track with this thread, I'll post future stuff in the thread.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Lucky AcidStar said:


> Well here's a question (semi on topic I think lol...): How do you teach an Ni user mathematics? My INFJ girlfriend hates math, and after reading some of this I'm guessing it's because she tries to learn and do math like an Si user. She also has this strange hatred for numbers in general. I'm curious to hear some sort of perspective.
> 
> Also, thank you for the above post. Most of my reply consists of this: *sigh*
> Oh well :kitteh:


Turn it into a game and make it relevant to something she is interested in. 

In my own case, I had a lot of trouble overcoming the fact that I should just accept a variable that I couldn't reconcile as having relevance to anything. This was a huge stumbling block. A few years after high school, I found a pen and paper roleplaying game called Champions, which was actually rather math heavy. However, my friends were all playing it, and I love the superhero genre, so I forced myself to learn the mechanics. There were two factors here that helped a lot. First, the math always referred to something directly, even when there were unknowns. Second, it was fun and involved fun with other people.

Let's say she's interested in humanitarian causes and anime? Then create some anime characters (or reference some of her favorites) to be part of a story that gives reference and relevance to the math.

As an example of how this process could work with something like FOIL method...

Inuyasha has a bag full of fruit of several types but he isn't sure how much. Kagome has a scroll that will make more fruit but she doesn't know how extra much fruit it will make. X is the number of kiwis and Y is the number of mangoes. Since Inuyasha doesn't know how many he has, we will say his bag is x+y. Since Kagome doesn't know how much the spell will multiply the fruit by, we will also call it x+y, because it will make more kiwis and mangos. When she applies the spell, these multiply like this (x + y)(x + y). Explain the math step. Then show how to get to the answer x^2 + 2xy + y^2. At this point, she's likely going to skip a gear because she wants to know how many fruit are in the bag and outcome. That's good. She's now invested. Now, put actual numbers in there. Let's say Inuyasha has 11 kiwis and 7 mangoes. With this method, that would be (11+7)(11+7), then work out the problem with numbers. 11^2 + 2x77 + 7^2 = 121 mangoes + 154 (hybrid kiwi-mangoes because the spell merged them when multiplying) + 49 kiwis = 324! Wow that's a lot of fruit! Then go in and change the variables. "But, let's say he only had 4 kiwis and 3 mangoes... what would the spell make?"

Once she gets the concept and principle, THEN add in more complications and variables as straight math without anecdotes for relevance. For example, once she gets it, try (2x+5)(8y+3). She will likely not need the training wheels of a frame of reference any longer.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Turn it into a game and make it relevant to something she is interested in.
> 
> In my own case, I had a lot of trouble overcoming the fact that I should just accept a variable that I couldn't reconcile as having relevance to anything. This was a huge stumbling block. A few years after high school, I found a pen and paper roleplaying game called Champions, which was actually rather math heavy. However, my friends were all playing it, and I love the superhero genre, so I forced myself to learn the mechanics. There were two factors here that helped a lot. First, the math always referred to something directly, even when there were unknowns. Second, it was fun and involved fun with other people.



See, this is something that I find fascinating. The conventional wisdom is that Ns are abstract thinkers, and that Ss are concrete thinkers. This would suggest that Ns are capable of learning a concept just for the sake of a concept, without the need for a concrete situation to apply it to, but that Ss would need an actual situation that they can understand and relate to in order to understand it.


But at least with math, I don't think that's true. I think everyone would prefer to learn something in a more enjoyable and relevant way. Everyone wants it to relate to something they're interested in.

What I find hard to figure out is what motivates someone to still learn it even when they can't see how it relates to an area of interest. What is it about someone that makes the general concept itself fascinating, without a need for the context? 

Because that's the way I've been with math. For me, it's always been like a puzzle to solve...I get satisfaction just from the way the numbers and concepts all fit together. I didn't need a concrete situation to actually enjoy doing it. Sure, I think it's even better if I can see a direct application or if it's related to an area that I enjoy doing something for recreation...but it's not necessary for me to enjoy the mathematics.


But this doesn't seem to be type related...it seems like there are Ns like me in this regard, and Ss that need the context. But I'm an S who doesn't need it, and you're giving an example of an N who would prefer it.



So do you have any thoughts on how this could be related to Si or Ni? That's something that's confused me.


----------



## Owfin (Oct 15, 2011)

Nobleheart said:


> As an example of how this process could work with something like FOIL method...


I hated the FOIL method. It seemed so arbitrary, and so I used the distribution method, that seemed far less like just another formula but a logical principle applied to a new areas. I'm always trying to figure out what's going on behind the scenes with math, and I try to connect it so that it follows from earlier principles. FOIL doesn't do that, but the distribution method does.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Owfin said:


> I hated the FOIL method. It seemed so arbitrary, and so I used the distribution method, that seemed far less like just another formula but a logical principle applied to a new areas. I'm always trying to figure out what's going on behind the scenes with math, and I try to connect it so that it follows from earlier principles. FOIL doesn't do that, but the distribution method does.


What I think is really interesting about this is that I view FOIL and distributing as one and the same. I always thought FOIL was just a trick to remember that distributing still works when multiplying binomials.

But what I find interesting is that for some reason, a large number of my students don't understand what I'm saying when I show them to distribute four times, but if they memorize the order of "first, outside, inside, last", they get that just fine.

So I think FOIL has become a "cheap trick" used to get students to distribute without actually understanding what they're doing. They just multiply four numbers, and they think that this is somehow magically different than distributing.

The funny thing is that any teacher that teaches it this way runs into a roadblock when they then try to teach a student how to multiply a binomial by a trinomial. Of course, there are all kinds of box methods and visual diagrams that they use to help with this process.

So it's interesting how different people understand the same ideas in different ways. I think the problem is that a lot of teachers (including myself sometimes) get into a habit of using tools and tricks as a *substitute* for a concept rather than a way to make the concept easier to understand. This is because a lot of students have a resistance to thinking hard about a concept, and they often need particular motivation to do so (as mentioned in Nobleheart's example). Which is why teaching one concept to a lot of people is very difficult, because each one has their own specific set of motivations.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

teddy564339 said:


> See, this is something that I find fascinating. The conventional wisdom is that Ns are abstract thinkers, and that Ss are concrete thinkers. This would suggest that Ns are capable of learning a concept just for the sake of a concept, without the need for a concrete situation to apply it to, but that Ss would need an actual situation that they can understand and relate to in order to understand it.
> 
> So do you have any thoughts on how this could be related to Si or Ni? That's something that's confused me.


I can't speak for other N's, but I know in my case I learn in concepts not principles. The only way I can understand a principle is if someone explains the concept behind it. Otherwise, it's just memorization. I think the assumption you are making is that concepts and abstractions are opposites. They're not. Concepts and principles are. A principle is "this is how to do it". S types seem to be able to just accept this. A concept is "this is why it works". N types seem to need this to learn. The only time we can accept the "this is how to do it" approach is when we can see the concepts involved, at which point we tend to deviate from the formula because we don't need it to understand the concept. In my experience, this makes S types nuts when they're trying to teach a principle.

In the case of your INFJ... I think as an INTP, you have a much greater ability to see and grasp logical concepts. As an INFJ, she's going to need to use her Fe (to relate it to people or characters) and Se (to relate it to real world activity or personal stories). INFJs take in information via their Se and Fe (via processing what they care about). It's only then can we use our Ni to see the pattern. If *new* concepts or information isn't presented to us in a format that can come through our Se and / or Fe, we won't get to put our Ni / Ti laser on it because we won't have enough to work with. Once we understand it, we don't need Se or Fe to act as an introduction. Our Ni will just spot the pattern. For example, once your INFJ understands a math concept, she will pretty much always understand it. If you get her to memorize it, she will do well to remember it in a week.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> I can't speak for other N's, but I know in my case I learn in concepts not principles. The only way I can understand a principle is if someone explains the concept behind it. Otherwise, it's just memorization. I think the assumption you are making is that concepts and abstractions are opposites. They're not. Concepts and principles are. A principle is "this is how to do it". S types seem to be able to just accept this. A concept is "this is why it works". N types seem to need this to learn. The only time we can accept the "this is how to do it" approach is when we can see the concepts involved, at which point we tend to deviate from the formula because we don't need it to understand the concept. In my experience, this makes S types nuts when they're trying to teach a principle.


Ok, I think I've got it now. If what you're saying is true, then it's not a matter of all Ss or all Ns needing concrete examples (or even personal relevance) to understand something. This is something that's going to vary from person to person that is not determined by being an S or an N (or maybe Si vs. Ni).


So for an S, they may learn more easily with principles (as well as procedures, which I think is a better definition for "this is how to do it"...I think principles are more basic starting facts). However, some Ss will be able to learn the procedure well without a concrete example, and some will need the concrete example for them to see how it works. Likewise, for an N, they will need to understand the concept to make sense of the principle, but some will need concrete examples, and others will not. 

The determination of how helpful these examples will be isn't based purely on S/N, but on other factors as well, including some of the ones you mentioned below. 





Nobleheart said:


> In the case of your INFJ... I think as an INTP, you have a much greater ability to see and grasp logical concepts. As an INFJ, she's going to need to use her Fe (to relate it to people or characters) and Se (to relate it to real world activity or personal stories). INFJs take in information via their Se and Fe (via processing what they care about). It's only then can we use our Ni to see the pattern. If *new* concepts or information isn't presented to us in a format that can come through our Se and / or Fe, we won't get to put our Ni / Ti laser on it because we won't have enough to work with. Once we understand it, we don't need Se or Fe to act as an introduction. Our Ni will just spot the pattern. For example, once your INFJ understands a math concept, she will pretty much always understand it. If you get her to memorize it, she will do well to remember it in a week.



And that makes your advice fit even moreso. The advice I PM'd Lucky AcidStar focused more on explaining a concept and less on the idea of creating a concrete example, so I feel better about what I sent.


----------



## Verthani (May 8, 2012)

A lot of what you're talking about now is what I was trying to explain when I was talking about my experience with math. The teacher that taught Algebra so well to me actually mentioned that he realized that people learn in different ways. So one of his goals in a class was to incorporate something that everyone could latch onto. The Procedures, the Concepts, examples and how the math itself is used in the real world.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

benr3600 said:


> A relevant example would be the many times I have called someone's bluff without even realizing it until I interpret their behavior and discern what their intention was. I hope this makes sense lol.


That makes a great deal of sense, actually. Quite often I find (upon reflection) that I have manipulated people through conversation with startling adeptness. I'm also frighteningly good at turning the tables when losing an argument. It isn't something I do to 'one up' other people and there certainly isn't any malicious intent... it's just something I do on autopilot. I can say without ego that I do occasionally feel like a puppet master. Again, though, this isn't something I do maliciously... it's seldom even a concious process. 

If that is Te, I need to rethink my type (I'm supposed to be an INFJ, though that's up for debate).


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

pmj85 said:


> Actually, yes - your assumption is entirely correct. I played StarCraft II (briefly) with an INTP friend. Whilst I was fairly quick on the uptake, I found playing against him utterly frustrating; he was _brilliant_ at simultaneously managing several groups of units, attacking from various angles, micro-managing them in real time to avoid losses where possible, expertly weaving in to the dynamics of any situation presented / emerging entirely victorious in the vast majority of cases.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'd sit there shouting "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THIS IS RIDICULOUS I... HOW DID YOU... WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUU!", etc.
> 
> ...


You are welcome. I've had similar experiences. With RTS, I can't even beat the computer on the lowest possible settings. Meanwhile, I was once 11th in the word at Counterstrike. The ENFJ I played with on a regular basis (who owned the cybercafe we played at... yes this was a while back) was 3rd.


----------



## Ashneversleeps (May 28, 2011)

@_Nobleheart_, what you were saying earlier about Ni requiring some parameters to really get going was very insightful! I remember as a kid I would stare at carpets/rugs with interesting patterns on them, or raindrops on a windshield to see the abstract patterning and then play around with/extrapolate different scenarios using that system. For example if I was asked to envision a landscape out of the blue, I'd likely fail or come up with a very simple one, but if I was asked to do so after looking at something with an interesting pattern, I'd be able to transfer that abstract system into a vast, meticulous landscape. In retrospect, this seems to be a product of Ni, correct?

In any case, I really wanted to respond to this post:


pmj85 said:


> Actually, yes - your assumption is entirely correct. I played StarCraft II (briefly) with an INTP friend. Whilst I was fairly quick on the uptake, I found playing against him utterly frustrating; he was _brilliant_ at simultaneously managing several groups of units, attacking from various angles, micro-managing them in real time to avoid losses where possible, expertly weaving in to the dynamics of any situation presented / emerging entirely victorious in the vast majority of cases.
> 
> Meanwhile, I'd sit there shouting "WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON THIS IS RIDICULOUS I... HOW DID YOU... WHAT THE FFFFFFFFFFFFUUUU!", etc.
> 
> ...


In RTS games I find I'm always bewildered during the early and mid game because there are just so many possible strategies/build orders/unit compositions that I get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of contingencies so I try to play as standard and safe/defensive as possible until my opponent reveals what he's doing so that I can specifically respond to it. The longer the game goes, or in other words the more strict the parameters become and the fewer options that are available, the better I do because I just sort of "envision" a complex process of moves we both make (which end in my victory of course ) based on the narrowed scope of elements in the game.

The Ni is invaluable once everything’s gone to shit, basically, whereas I think Ne would thrive most at the start of the game where all possibilities are open (?). It's natural for me to look at the elements available to me, once they're set and create a specific, step-oriented response (the aha moment). I find it difficult to deviate from that masterplan however. And I still can only really keep up on 2 (MAYBE 3 if I'm caffeinated) fronts =\.

FPS games just make me rage a lot though :frustrating:. Maybe if no one used bs OP weapons and only stuck to the ones I also use, everything would be okay. I was only ever any good at CS 1.5 and DoD anyway. Bah.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

> In RTS games I find I'm always bewildered during the early and mid game because there are just so many possible strategies/build orders/unit compositions that I get overwhelmed by the sheer amount of contingencies so I try to play as standard and safe/defensive as possible until my opponent reveals what he's doing so that I can specifically respond to it. The longer the game goes, or in other words the more strict the parameters become and the fewer options that are available, the better I do because I just sort of "envision" a complex process of moves we both make (which end in my victory of course ) based on the narrowed scope of elements in the game.


 This is very interesting. It's exactly like you say, being overwhelmed by mechanics and possibilities is probably Ni. 



> The Ni is invaluable once everything’s gone to shit, basically, whereas I think Ne would thrive most at the start of the game where all possibilities are open (?). It's natural for me to look at the elements available to me, once they're set and create a specific, step-oriented response (the aha moment). I find it difficult to deviate from that masterplan however. And I still can only really keep up on 2 (MAYBE 3 if I'm caffeinated) fronts =\.


 This also has to do with learning the mechanics, a part of Ni's job is to exclude possibilities. 

When playing Sc2, LoL, Dota, CaQ -- basically any RTS games I'm fully experienced with, once I get the mechanics, applying strategy is relatively easy. And once I'm fully experienced with the players and varieties, I start getting hunches on what to do. I think the biggest difference between FPS and RTS in terms of cognitive functions; (at least: generally speaking), Ni will have fewer things to study and can focus on one thing, hence you get that real intuitive feel playing CoD and CS.

I don't think people with Ni will necessarily have a harder time playing (or play better at FPS games for that part), I do get more subconscious playing FPS. You're not playing SC2 if you can't apply strategies, and you can't apply strategies without understanding the basics.


----------



## Lunarprox (Feb 16, 2012)

pmj85 said:


> This thread is rubbish - I've poured my heart out and I still have no idea as to whether or not I'm an INFJ or ENFJ.
> 
> Sod it - ENTP.
> 
> ...


You're still radiating ENFPness imo.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

@*Lunarprox*

Translation: "You're a prick".

I know your game, sonny. I know it well.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

Lunarprox said:


> This is very interesting. It's exactly like you say, being overwhelmed by mechanics and possibilities is probably Ni.


Yup. This is that percolate 'hourglass' effect that has been mentioned.



Lunarprox said:


> This also has to do with learning the mechanics, a part of Ni's job is to exclude possibilities.


This is what's going on during the percolate 'hourglass' effect.



Lunarprox said:


> When playing Sc2, LoL, Dota, CaQ -- basically any RTS games I'm *fully experienced *with, once I *get the mechanics*, applying strategy is relatively easy. And once I'm *fully experienced* with the players and varieties, I start getting hunches on what to do.


I've never pushed long enough to get over the learning curve with RTS. I'm glad you mentioned this, because it is very accurate with any game I've played long enough to overcome the Ni assessment curve.



Lunarprox said:


> I think the biggest difference between FPS and RTS in terms of cognitive functions; (at least: generally speaking), Ni will have fewer things to study and can focus on one thing, hence you get that real intuitive feel playing CoD and CS.


Yes, it feels like pure Ni/Se to me. Maybe a dash of Ti thrown in.



Lunarprox said:


> I don't think people with Ni will necessarily have a harder time playing (or play better at FPS games for that part), I do get more subconscious playing FPS. You're not playing SC2 if you can't apply strategies, and you can't apply strategies without understanding the basics.


I don't think is inherently a bonus for FPS. I just think there is a much less steep learning curve for it. I can also see where your Te would be a real advantage in RTS games that NFJs don't have. I can't make this up. My biggest problem in RTS is once I start building people and houses and stuff, I care about them (Fe) and then get upset when they get blown up. I was just starting to bond with them. *sadface* This has made me lose interest in getting past the RTS learning curve.



Lunarprox said:


> You're still radiating ENF*Pness* imo.


Heh, he said Pness.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Hmm... I wonder if Ni is responsible for the times I slipped in to 'the zone', then. 

The most memorable instance of this happening was back on UT2003 on a map called CTF-Maul. I was playing a game of instagib (one shot kills) when I suddenly, right outside the enemy base, lost all sense of time, space, reality, whatever. I felt like a distant observer in my own skull as I unthinkingly slaughtered the entire enemy team over and over with 100% accuracy and the most insane reaction times I've ever known. I was vaguely aware of the fifth or sixth "HOLY SHIT!", but it was eventually the "GODLIKE!" announcement that made me snap out of it. I wasn't even watching the bloody screen, for crying out loud - I seemed to be looking through it somehow.

Amazing experience. I seemed to click autopilot on and completely whoop ass like I've never whooped it before.

Heh.


----------



## Nobleheart (Jun 9, 2010)

pmj85 said:


> Hmm... I wonder if Ni is responsible for the times I slipped in to 'the zone', then.
> 
> The most memorable instance of this happening was back on UT2003 on a map called CTF-Maul. I was playing a game of instagib (one shot kills) when I suddenly, right outside the enemy base, lost all sense of time, space, reality, whatever. I felt like a distant observer in my own skull as I unthinkingly slaughtered the entire enemy team over and over with 100% accuracy and the most insane reaction times I've ever known. I was vaguely aware of the fifth or sixth "HOLY SHIT!", but it was eventually the "GODLIKE!" announcement that made me snap out of it. I wasn't even watching the bloody screen, for crying out loud - I seemed to be looking through it somehow.
> 
> ...


Sounds like an Ni 'zen mode' moment to me. However, if you're not prone to them, this implies it's an auxiliary or inferior function.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Nobleheart said:


> Sounds like an Ni 'zen mode' moment to me. However, if you're not prone to them, this implies it's an auxiliary or inferior function.


Interesting. I can't say I am all that prone to them, truthfully. The one I mentioned in my previous post was the most profound I've ever experienced due to the length of time / unfaltering accuracy and almost beyond-human reaction times. I do have 'mini' instances of this quite often (for example, I'm currently playing Tribes Ascend and quite frequently I land a nigh on impossible mid-air shot over a great distance because I casually turned, analysed where my opponent will be in ~ 5 seconds time / fire nonchalantly, grinning seconds later when I hear the 'THUD' of my UI confirming a direct hit).

I can also recall entering a similar state when I trained at a Karate club as a kid - taking gradings always saw me enter 'the zone' and I always (bar my first grading) came away with top marks. It was a state in which my physical surroundings melted away; in that moment my mind and body came into perfect synchronisation and I performed to the peak of my abilities. The world around me quite literally vanished from my perception - it only came flooding back once I'd finished.

This day in age, I'm far more prone to just 'popping afk' for a while and finding myself somewhere entirely different when I return. Also, I'm constantly waking up from power naps with this huge, nigh on euphoric burst of energy which feels bestowed upon me somehow. With it always comes a clear insight into something that has been playing on my mind. It's as though my subconscious has taken the problem, brushed away all of the crap surrounding it and offered me a completely crystal clear, objective look at the situation. When this state occurs, I always understand something on a deeper level. 

That being said, it isn't always insightful. Sometimes it's deeply inspiring and I feel utterly compelled to 'go after' something in life, almost as though I'm being spurred on by some internal process which hides in the shadows.

You may be on to something with auxiliary, but I can (with absolute certainty) assert that it isn't an inferior function. I've been surrounded by sensors all of my life y'see... and I've always been the "Weird" one  I fail so hard at sensing it's untrue; the physical world is a strange and inconsistent (buh?) place, seemingly full of mystery and, when I allow my mind to run away, enchantment. Don't even get me started on Si. If I thought it possible, I'd swear I didn't have any Si at all. Anyway...

For Fe-Dom: (perhaps) 

- I can be extremely quick to assert value judgements, though this is often when I'm worn out and on auto pilot

- The whole 'The first shall be last!' thing is quite apt for me; I'm forever (accidentally) double or even triple booking friends at weekends

- There was a point in life where I liked to go out and socialise a lot

Against Fe-Dom: (maybe)

- _Fairly_ certain I'm an introvert (read: I am). The fact that I want to run and find a dark corner after a couple of hours socialising sort of gives that away

- I reside predominantly in my own head, often blissfully unaware of the people / world around me

- I can be extremely cold and unfeeling - some days I really don't give a shit

I'd say I have fairly well developed Fe, but I don't think it's dominant.

Ok, leaving now - pre coffee morning rants never end well ;p


----------



## Razare (Apr 21, 2009)

pmj85 said:


> Do Ni users ever find themselves relaying vast amounts of detailed information they never knew they had? It isn't uncommon for me to find myself expertly explaining something I didn't even know I understood. Or, sometimes, I won't actually have an opinion on 'Topic A' until someone asks me for one... at which point my mouth runs away with me and I knock out a well articulated response.
> 
> Meanwhile, inwardly, I'm thinking "Where the hell is this coming from?!"


This happens on almost every post I make on this forum. I sometimes think it's being stuffed into my brain by someone else.

The thing about what Ni has learned, it doesn't remember facts or details well... it sort of exists as this ethereal construct within the mind that can't be transcribed, only drawn upon like water from a faucet... you don't know what you'll get until you turn on the spigot and ask for something.

Then Ni pieces together what it must supply based on the request, it pieces together an instantaneous mish-mash of beliefs, logic, and experience that you have little to no recollection of, but it doesn't matter, because the pattern was formed by real experiences and beliefs. That pattern shall remain so long as it's deemed correct.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

... and when someone _does_ ask you to cite specifics, you can't. Well, I can't. Vague, ethereal 'constructs' floating in a dark void that has no perceptible dimensions, yet somehow I am aware that the depth is both vast and somewhat unsettling. It's like that quote, from something "Peer into the abyss long enough and the abyss..." 

No, wait. Fuck it - Google time.


"When you look into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you."​
​
That's how I feel about my 'inner world' anyway.

[EDIT] I just realised I appear to be copying you with the description ("Ethereal constructs") but I have actually said that in the past too. Which is interesting, actually.

​


----------



## Bohemea (Jan 8, 2012)

To be honest i always find the discriptions on the internet of Ni and Si and the differences between them to vague and not very helpful. They are very very different from each other in the way how they function.

Thing is when trying to explain Si to a Ni – dom they will only get a part of what you meant and what you experience as Si – dom, because it’s a shadow function to us and at the 8th position in our stack so it’s hard for us to get a grip on it. Same sory other way round.

*Ni: *For me a good phrase to describe Ni is stream of unconscious.
*Example:*
- do you know that feeling when you had a intense dream and then you wake up at all that is left is just a vague sense or feeling. Nice analogy how to describe how Ni feels like. Highly abstract, perceiving and working on an unconscious level.

So because of the fact that Ni is abstract and works more unconscious Ni– doms have to work out their other functions (INFJ: Fe,Ti,Se ,INTJ: Te,Fi,Se) to bring this abstract sense of something from an unconscious level to an conscious one. So to undertand Ni you have to understand it within the whole functional stack and the function pair Ni-Se (Ni: unconscious,abstract meaning, Se: conscious, concrete).

Se is presenting the mass of sensory, concrete details to Ni. Now Ni processes the Data with the help of Fe and Ti by synthesizing the whole mass of details to one right impression, idea, thought.

*First Level:* Ni is just the perceiver, the idea producer the neverending interpreter of the Sensory Data. The Idea Person so to speak. Ni is dominant so the natural state is interpreting , idea generating.

*Second Level:* Now the Ideas of Ni are tested against the outer world. In INFJ this is the work of Fe in INTJ’s it’s the work of Te.
Fe – emphasis if the idea works for a human system , which parameters are set by human interaction (subjective , idea for people)
Te - emphasis if the idea works within a logical system which parameters are set by the (scientific) rules of the outer world. ( objective, idea for logical system )

*Third Level: *Now Ni Te or Ni Fe came with an idea that was tested within the outer world. Now Fi or Ti try to correct any errors and adding the missíng objective or subjective meaning that is needed.
Ti – adding the objective meaning to subjective Fe , is the idea logical?(does it make sense?)
Fi – adding the subjective meaning to objective Te, what does this mean for me?(how do i feel about it?)

If the idea of Ni worked through all of this succesfully it enters the conscious Se and is ready to be acted upon. Now Ni wants to see the ideal work in the real world (Se). So Se (outer world) will always be coloured with ideas and interpreations for Ni – doms.

*Summary:* Ni is highly abstract, perceiving, idea function which visons have to tested through Fe/Te Fi/Ti before they can be acted upon or lead to that one right meaning.


----------



## Bohemea (Jan 8, 2012)

So now my thoughts on Si.

Whereas Ni is highly abstract and vague, Si is more concrete and definite. Everyone experiences Si, it’s the everyday experiences. You take the world in via your five senses, you smell, taste, see and hear your environment. Si stores this sensory details. 
It is perceiving like Ni, but where Ni is storing your ideas, interpretations , and impressions and is highly unconscious, Si is storing tangible sensory Data and is conscious. What Si users experience as unconscious is how their mind interprets and generates ideas and possibilities out of the Data using Ne.

*Ni – Se* synthesizes the sensory data to one right meaning, from broad to narrow, so in INFJ,INTJ’s world meaning and idea is implemented in their immediate environment and reality.
The whole environment is just a perception of one’s impression from it.

*Si – Ne* creates possibilities from concrete sensory experience, from narrow to broad, so in ISFJ,ISTJ’s world sensory details are implemented in their ideas and impressions of reality.
You need a starting point from where you can derive ideas and build new possibilities from.

Comparing Ni and Si.

*Ni: *
emphasis on the bigger picture, first i have to see the bigger meaning , the idea, system behind it, and from that on i can shape and shift the perspective and the sensory details to achieve it.

*Healthy:* introspective, adding meaning to the world and life, coming with new perspecties, shifting forming one’s reality.

*Unhealthy: *overanalyzing unimportant little details, get so lost with interpreting and meaning that they don’t see that they are misled and out of touch with reality -> paranoia
Or overananlyzing possibilities, seeing to many perspectives to the extent of being totally absent from the here and now and therefore miss important new facts.

*Si:*
Emphasis on your own reality, on the sensory, first i have to drink in the sensory details and facts, before i put them in the right order so that they build a bigger picture for me.

*Healthy: * creating pragamtic realistic approaches how to achieve maintain the bigger idea, anchored within the real world and helping to add the necessary stability and long livety to the one right idea. Implement the sensory Facts to the Abstract Idea.

*Unhealthy:* Getting lost and clinging at unimportant details and rules to the extent of loosing one‘s meaning behind rules, static incapable of shifting ones interpretation of reality and the sensory facts and therefore block new ideas.

Well you see as a Ni-dom it’s a bit harder to get the right grip on Si, so i’m open for any corrections.


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

@*Bohemea *Fantastic posts, cheers!


----------



## pmj85 (Jul 31, 2010)

Hmm.

I've had a bit of a crappy week, so I've been down in the dumps today (everything has caught up with me, I'm beating myself up once again, all that jazz). Somewhat fed up of my own internal (and external - oops) moaning / the _insane_ heat in the UK at the moment, I retired to my room and drifted off into unconsciousness for a bit.

... then woke up, as per usual, with crystal clear insights into where my life is going wrong and an overpowering feeling of conviction to 'sort shit out'. Today, two things were revealed to me:

1 - many of my socks are becoming frayed and this is obviously troubling me on some subconscious level; my mind replayed a memory of me staring at one of said socks (whilst on my foot) thinking "Bastard socks. I look like a right tramp". I then adjusted my posture so the offending sock was facing away from the person I was sat next to. Obviously, this is incredibly insightful (;p)

2 - the root of all of my problems. The reason I can't focus, the reason my life is a complete shambles right now.

So, I leapt off my bed and quickly jotted down a 'Shit to do' list for the week. On it, I've added things like enrolling on a counselling course; catching up with people; meeting a special someone; sell my pc (the reason); sell car (financial freedom here I come); write a hopefully informative post on here that helps a newcomer and, finally, _must get new socks_. Correct use of semicolons there? I do worry about my grammar.

This is how my brain works. 'Issues' build up, I quiet my mind and take my focus off all external stimuli (read: have a nap) and *pop* - I wake up with the most incredible insights into whatever was bothering me completely independent of any concious thought. Or so it seems. However, it would appear that I do indeed need to nap to access this ability - sure, I get gut feelings about things (and occasionally an insight in to something will 'click' from nowhere) but the truly profound "Aha!" moments only come when I am awakening from a light nap. Within those moments, I can see things for what they truly are.

Ni dom, Ni auxillary or not Ni at all?

Answers on a postcard...


----------

