# Most misunderstood cognitive functions / function attitudes (and why?)



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

I've had some debates on this forum about oversimplification and misinterpretation of the function attitudes (Ne, Ni, Se, Si, Te, Ti, Fe, Fi), essentially because they say I was relying too heavily on other experts' work and not coming back enough to the original theory.

So, in the spirit of learning for everyone, I thought it would be interesting to give the floor to those who feel like they are very knowledgeable on cognitive functions and talk about which of the 8 cognitive function attitudes are the most misunderstood and why (and also maybe which they feel are the most easily understood).

The reason for this thread is I think it might show some common misconceptions and myths and might help illuminate some people's views about them. I also thought it would be interesting to see people's views on them.


----------



## The Last (Apr 19, 2020)

I think the most obviously mistaken one is Ni. Idk if it is just wishful thinking, the online tests, or just bleaching it of any meaning afterwards. People read "daydreams and comes up with ideas" and suddenly they are INFJ.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

The Last said:


> I think the most obviously mistaken one is Ni. Idk if it is just wishful thinking, the online tests, or just bleaching it of any meaning afterwards. People read "daydreams and comes up with ideas" and suddenly they are INFJ.


I'd have to agree.
All introverted intuition is, is the just taking external information, and grouping it together into one inner conclusion, framework or worldview. That's all it is. It doesn't make you psychic, or mystical. It just makes you particularly adept in recognizing patterns.

A good allegory to this is comparing introverted intuition to a sniper rifle scope. It may result in a failure to see anything to "the sides" of the scope, but the conclusion you are aiming for becomes crystal clear. Which is the opposite of extroverted intuition, in where it's more like a shotgun. 

I'd say another misconception is Fi and Fe.
Fi usually means inner morals that are derived from past experiences. Fe usually focuses on external ethics.


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

I have yet to hear an explanation of Si that I understand. Lots of times it's brushed off as just memory, but what does it do?


----------



## Swivelinglight (Jun 12, 2020)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> It doesn't make you psychic, or mystical.


Neither intuitive functions do, but I think a lot of Jungian 'intuitives' think it does


----------



## The Last (Apr 19, 2020)

Si is going off what you already know or what is already established to make decisions. Jung says it is about taking the subjective impressions of objects and going off of that as opposed to experiencing them like an Se would. Most of the time people hate being given Si as a typing. They will fight it by saying they aren't traditionalists, but, really, defending what you know probably isn't even tradition given the state of the world today. Maintaining whatever is already happening doesn't have to mean being old fashioned.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Jung's introverted functions derive their content from *primordial images *which he believed were present in the *collective unconscious. *

Introverted = subjective = inner world = collective unconscious = genetic memory = passed down through our ancestry 

Extraverted = objective = outer world = personally experienced = perceived through the senses, at some point in our lifetime = personal memory 

Understanding this is essential to understanding cognitive function theory.


----------



## Posie_girl90 (Jun 25, 2020)

Personally I think dom Fi is often viewed as either these ethereal beings that are all about poetry and flowers and feelings. Or they are looked at as selfish babies that are too preoccupied with themselves to worry about others' feelings. When really I see my friends with dom Fi as people who honestly just relate to the world through there own feelings, which can come off selfish because they say things like, "I think" or "I personally feel." That can often seem like they only care about there viewpoint, but it's quite the contrary! My friends with dom Fi are the sweetest people I know and just want to live through life being 100% themselves. Although I don't think this is the most misunderstood function out there.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

The Last said:


> *Si is going off what you already know or what is already established to make decisions*. Jung says it is about taking the subjective impressions of objects and going off of that as opposed to experiencing them like an Se would.


The first myth comes from the misunderstanding of Jung's use of the term "subjective". 
Introverted functions aren't directed from "what you already know" any more than extraverted functions are. 

Jung explains this
"*The introverted attitude is normally governed by the psychological structure, theoretically determined by heredity, but which to the subject is an ever present subjective factor.* This must not be assumed, however, to be simply identical with the subject's ego, an assumption that is certainly implied in the above mentioned designations of Weininger; *it is rather the psychological structure of the subject that precedes any development of the ego*"


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> I'd have to agree.
> All introverted intuition is, is the just taking external information, and grouping it together into one inner conclusion, framework or worldview. That's all it is. It doesn't make you psychic, or mystical. It just makes you particularly adept in recognizing patterns.
> 
> A good allegory to this is comparing introverted intuition to a sniper rifle scope. It may result in a failure to see anything to "the sides" of the scope, but the conclusion you are aiming for becomes crystal clear. Which is the opposite of extroverted intuition, in where it's more like a shotgun.
> ...


Not derived from past experiences, they are derived from the primordial images, triggered by current and past experiences. 
Extraverted functions are derived from the external world, during current and past experiences. 

"The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. *They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object -- incorrectly, at bottom -- since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object.* "


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Kynx said:


> Not derived from past experiences, they are derived from the primordial images, triggered by current and past experiences.
> Extraverted functions are derived from the external world, during current and past experiences.
> 
> "The contents of the collective unconscious are represented in consciousness in the form of pronounced tendencies, or definite ways of looking at things. *They are generally regarded by the individual as being determined by the object -- incorrectly, at bottom -- since they have their source in the unconscious structure of the psyche, and are only released by the operation of the object.* "


Welp, guess I'm contributing to the stereotype lol


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

ImpossibleHunt5 said:


> Welp, guess I'm contributing to the stereotype lol


Lol. I was hoping for a little more resistance. 😂
You shattered my dreams.


----------



## ImpossibleHunt (May 30, 2020)

Kynx said:


> Lol. I was hoping for a little more resistance. 😂
> You shattered my dreams.


I've done worse lol


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

For me, Ni. No matter how often I read the explanations of various functions, that's the one I don't get.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

islandlight said:


> For me, Ni. No matter how often I read the explanations of various functions, that's the one I don't get.


What about it is the most confusing for you?


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

I can't even answer that. Discussions of Ni use vocabulary and examples that simply mystify me. Or they contrast it with other functions, but I can't see the difference.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

islandlight said:


> I can't even answer that. Discussions of Ni use vocabulary and examples that simply mystify me. Or they contrast it with other functions, but I can't see the difference.


I'm hoping someone will correct me with a more accurate explanation closer to Jung's original theory as that's the point of the thread, but I'll try and get the discussion going...

Intuition (both Ni and Ne) is focused on ‘what’s behind the curtain’ which, by definition, can't be directly experienced. So, in order to speculate on the things that can’t be directly known, both Ni and Ne become very good at advanced pattern recognition. You get clues on what’s behind the curtain by picking up on the data points you can see and then forming patterns to make speculative leaps.

Like Si, Ni does this in a ‘ruminatory’ fashion because it’s also introverted, or inwardly expressed. Which patterns are available in the ‘inner world’ of a human being? Since all the action is taking place in the brain, the patterns that become the most interesting are the ones that form in the mind. So with Ni, a combination of our beliefs, thoughts and feelings will form our subjective ‘take’ on how the world works.

Ni is focused on the patterns that form these "perspectives", and over time it starts to see the ‘pattern of the patterns’. Meaning, if my mind forms patterns in this way when given certain information and stimuli, then it’s a pretty safe bet others are, too. This is why users of Ni aren’t married to their own perspectives. They can take a meta-perspective and understand the ways in which we’re the same and different on a cerebral level.

I hope that at least gets a conversation started.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Dscross said:


> I'm hoping someone will correct me with a more accurate explanation closer to Jung's original theory as that's the point of the thread, but I'll try and get the discussion going...
> 
> Intuition (both Ni and Ne) is focused on ‘what’s behind the curtain’ which, by definition, can't be directly experienced. So, in order to speculate on the things that can’t be directly known, both Ni and Ne become very good at advanced pattern recognition. You get clues on what’s behind the curtain by picking up on the data points you can see and then forming patterns to make speculative leaps.
> 
> ...



"Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective form: the former is a perception of unconscious psychic facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the latter is a perception of facts which depend upon subliminal perceptions of the object and upon the thoughts and feelings occasioned thereby."

"*Introverted intuition apprehends the images which arise from the a priori, i.e. the inherited foundations of the unconscious mind.* These archetypes, whose innermost nature is inaccessible to experience, represent the precipitate of psychic functioning of the whole ancestral line, i.e. the heaped-up, or pooled, experiences of organic existence in general, a million times repeated, and condensed into types."


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Still too hard to follow. Let me throw a couple of things out there and see whether they're at all illustrative:

1. I was an academic editor. Lacking a hard science background, I started with social sciences and humanities. I soon found that the humanities drove me crazy: the thought processes, the writing style, everything. 

2. I believe my daughter is INTJ. Since her child (now a teenager) was born, my daughter has been disappointed that I don't fit her notions of grandmotherliness. If I were her, I would be intrigued by the uniqueness of the situation.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Ohndot said:


> I have yet to hear an explanation of Si that I understand. Lots of times it's brushed off as just memory, but what does it do?


I'm going to again ask for a more directly Jungian explanation from someone on this but as far as I understand it, Si wants reliable information the most, which is one reason why SJs seem so tied to personal experience and expert opinion to some people.

Both sensing function attitudes (Si and Se) use sense perceptions to gather information.

But Si doesn’t just take in information in the moment, like Se. It’s introverted, or inwardly directed. That means it captures the direct sensory experience and ruminates over it later. Which makes sense because what is more ‘reliable’ than a direct sensory experience that you get to spend time thinking about? A captured experience that can be reviewed later is a memory, the basis of this process.

That's why it gets mixed up with memory. Memory is a skill or talent (i.e. possessing a good memory). But Si is more linked to the actual noun, itself (a memory).

I believe @*Kynx *has given a better explanation of some of the subjectivity definition further up if you can think in Jungian language closer to the theory.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Dscross said:


> I'm going to again ask for a more directly Jungian explanation from someone on this but as far as I understand it, Si wants reliable information the most, which is one reason why SJs seem so tied to personal experience and expert opinion to some people.
> 
> Both sensing function attitudes (Si and Se) use sense perceptions to gather information.
> 
> ...



No, SI doesn't ruminate information later, it filters information in the present, according to whatever subjective structures one has in their psyche. This can give very peculiar results with the highly introverted person as they can perceive things very differently than others, or even perceive things that did not happen. I face this on the daily with my SI mother, she hears and see things very differently and has to take a while to observe something unknown to understand it's full shape and what it is. Superstition is also a common SI type trait, perhaps with some help from tapping into their bad N(I). Nostalgia seems more of a F thing to me, as it's basically something valued.

Also, as I've said before, SI isn't a function, which is important because you can put S and I on two different axes to represent one's inclinations. Same with the other function-attitudes. 

I'm apprehensive about his idea on the collective unconscious being some inherited memory thing that introverts use to navigate the world (object). But I guess if our brains have the inclination to see things in specific abstracted ways for the sake of making prognoses, and introverts, because of their defensive stance engage it more, it could make some sense.

And yea, SI is one of those that are very misunderstood. Has nothing to do with making lists either, which is a judging process, or as Jung called it Ratio-nal. Judging is responsible in creating formulas, measuring, and whatnot.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Key Introverted Sensing quotes 

"What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form"

"The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, *which alters the sense-perception at its very source*, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence."

"A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, *the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus*."

*"It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness — it is too genuine for that*. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. *This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious*."

"Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus"


----------



## Stevester (Feb 28, 2016)

Se sees the sensory world as an objective, one size-fits-all entity. You can't change it, you can only experience it and adjust to it. It's like being lost in the middle of the sea. If the waves are huge and dangerous, Se just accepts that and tries its best to ride them. Si however would probably freak out about those waves, they're too intense and dangerous, they should be more like this or that, the way I subjectively want them to fit my likes and needs. 

Ne/Ni works pretty much similarly. For Ne the world of ideas is open to everyone, each and everyone of us can speculate, make guesses because anything can happen. For Ni the world of ideas is a personal abstract construct in their mind only that forever shapes into single ideal


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Dscross said:


> I'm going to again ask for a more directly Jungian explanation from someone on this but as far as I understand it, Si wants reliable information the most, which is one reason why SJs seem so tied to personal experience and expert opinion to some people.
> 
> Both sensing function attitudes (Si and Se) use sense perceptions to gather information.
> 
> ...


Si isn't necessarily more reliable, it is all about how the sensation impacted the ego.
It is a subjective take on the impression.
Hence the Si information is more about how did it impact me, rather than Se,
who is more about, what actually is going on out there now.
I'm often frustrated with my Si dom mother, since she constantly have faulty conclutions about things.
Something impacted her, and she is willing to angrily argue over the "facts" of her subjective impressions.
Her aux Fe doesn't help, since it is what makes sense to her weak Ti that feeds her feeling consensus.
As opposed to Si with Te that gets hung up on what actually happened, and wants to build a thinking consensus,
i.e. finding out empirically what their initial impression was all about.
This is why Si and especially Si+Te likes detective novels/shows, as it is all about making sense of the impressions.
Of course any type can enjoy a mystery from their own point of view, but I've noticed that it mostly cater to Si.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Inveniet said:


> Si isn't necessarily more reliable, it is all about how the sensation impacted the ego.
> It is a subjective take on the impression.
> Hence the Si information is more about how did it impact me, rather than Se,
> who is more about, what actually is going on out there now.
> ...


Yeah, I would say that there is a difference between the 'goal' of getting reliable information or putting faith in reliable sources and actually obtaining it, especially when we are talking about mental processes. Depending on how self-reflective the individual is, it could end up being a mental trap - believing something is reliable when it's not. I'd imagine everyone falls into this trap with different things no matter what your type.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Dscross said:


> Yeah, I would say that there is a difference between the 'goal' of getting reliable information or putting faith in reliable sources and actually obtaining it, especially when we are talking about mental processes. Depending on how self-reflective the individual is, it could end up being a mental trap - believing something is reliable when it's not. I'd imagine everyone falls into this trap with different things no matter what your type.


Yeah all the introverted functions are subjective, and do not even try to adhere to the object,
rather they try their hardest to undermine it.

From a Jungian perspective, they are archetypal or primordial images.
Which is a fancy way to say that they are encoded in our genes. (The Jungian claim, not proven)
Of course objective functions are projections as well.
The colors are not really out there, but encoded in our mind.
The cells in the eye encode different wavelengths of light and assign inner color variables.
The colors are part of our genes, the light isn't the object either, but an intermediary.
We can never really know the object itself, our nerves encode it to an inner protocol.
This protocol is as objective as it gets, subjective functions then resist even this protocol.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Inveniet said:


> Yeah all the introverted functions are subjective, and do not even try to adhere to the object,
> rather they try their hardest to undermine it.
> 
> From a Jungian perspective, they are archetypal or primordial images.
> ...


So are you asserting that the 'goal' of Si is not to get reliable information? Just to clarify for the sake of the thread.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Dscross said:


> So are you asserting that the 'goal' of Si is not to get reliable information? Just to clarify for the sake of the thread.


In an objective sense yeah.
Si doesn't care about what is objectively real, it cares about how the sensations impact the self.
Hence when the ego/self collide with sensory information, Si is the part that studies the collision.
Se is interested in the information itself, while Si only care about the impact and how to mitigate it.
Fi only care about the impact of feelings on the Self, Ti about the imapact of thought and Ni about the impact of patterns.
It cares to the point of obsession, which is why Si types likes to repeat the sensations in question.
To recreate the familiar/pleasant impacts and shield from unfamiliar/disturbing impacts.
Se doesn't care about the impacts, and view all sensations as equal,
hence it just goes with the flow and seek out more of any sensation.
It is only when Ti or Fi step in and modify the agenda that Se types actually care about the type of experiences they have.
As Se itself is never disturbed by any sensation.


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

So an Si perception would be considered 'done' after the sensory experience has been washed and re-washed with fragments of similar sensory experiences and other contents of the unconscious until they are rich with many qualities. The experience of 'eating an ice cream cone' would be refined slightly each time, but there would be an overall unchanging quality about 'eating an ice cream cone' since the preference is not to dramatically change this 'timeless' thing the Si user is building. In this way, the Si user is creating what's reliable for themselves.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ohndot said:


> So an Si perception would be considered 'done' after the sensory experience has been washed and re-washed with fragments of similar sensory experiences and other contents of the unconscious until they are rich with many qualities. The experience of 'eating an ice cream cone' would be refined slightly each time, but there would be an overall unchanging quality about 'eating an ice cream cone' since the preference is not to dramatically change this 'timeless' thing the Si user is building. In this way, the Si user is creating what's reliable for themselves.


Pretty much, an exellent real world example is wine tasting.
The field was more or less created to cater to Si types.
However in later years it has been popular for other types to enter the field with their own takes.
An example of a Si type talking about wine tasting.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

islandlight said:


> Still too hard to follow. Let me throw a couple of things out there and see whether they're at all illustrative:
> 
> 1. I was an academic editor. Lacking a hard science background, I started with social sciences and humanities. I soon found that the humanities drove me crazy: the thought processes, the writing style, everything.
> 
> 2. I believe my daughter is INTJ. Since her child (now a teenager) was born, my daughter has been disappointed that I don't fit her notions of grandmotherliness. If I were her, I would be intrigued by the uniqueness of the situation.


Just to clarify on this for the thread, are you wanting explanations of Ni using these two examples? How do you think they are connected to Ni? I'm just getting clarity because I think people would be more likely to respond if they knew what you meant?


----------



## cosmoetic (Mar 24, 2020)

People severely misunderstand Si and STJ types. What they don't understand is that STJ is the most practical analytical combination you can get, though they associate it with NTJ or NTP.
We'll never know how much mistyping there is, or how many people misunderstand sensors just because of the words used to describe them. I do believe that the MBTI community is mostly intuitive despite initiatives making up 30% of the population. Si and Se perceives are just less interested in MBTI, which I really want to point out could be one of the biggest problems. Maybe we're getting front seats to why sensors are needed.


----------



## islandlight (Aug 13, 2013)

Dscross said:


> Just to clarify on this for the thread, are you wanting explanations of Ni using these two examples? How do you think they are connected to Ni? I'm just getting clarity because I think people would be more likely to respond if they knew what you meant?


Descriptions of Ni are so difficult to understand (for me). So I try to imagine how it would look on the outside, and/or how it might contrast with my experience of Ne. 

I present two examples of things I find puzzling, and ask whether Ni could be a factor--that is, whether my lack of Ni could contribute to my puzzlement. 

In other words, are philosophers and other humanities writers using Ni, and could that be why their thought processes/writing styles are so difficult for me to follow? And does my daughter's preconceived notion of what a grandmother "is" come from Ni?

If these examples make no sense to others, that's fine. It just means I have to find another way, or perhaps other examples.


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

Inveniet said:


> Pretty much, an exellent real world example is wine tasting.
> The field was more or less created to cater to Si types.
> However in later years it has been popular for other types to enter the field with their own takes.
> An example of a Si type talking about wine tasting.


Wow, if I ever needed wine tips, he would be the one to check out. For all the 'Si is boring' talk, this illustration actually looks quite extreme. Continous honing and refinement of stored perceptions. How much more can one squeeze out of drinking a glass of wine?

The best part -->
"I like to break the rules. I don't even mind trying white and red at the same time." 

Uh oh.. playing with fire


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ohndot said:


> Wow, if I ever needed wine tips, he would be the one to check out. For all the 'Si is boring' talk, this illustration actually looks quite extreme. Continous honing and refinement of stored perceptions. How much more can one squeeze out of drinking a glass of wine?
> 
> The best part -->
> "I like to break the rules. I don't even mind trying white and red at the same time."
> ...


LOL yeah, but that is the thing, different types cannot really relate to each others focus.


----------



## Ohndot (Apr 12, 2015)

Inveniet said:


> LOL yeah, but that is the thing, different types cannot really relate to each others focus.


True enough!


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

islandlight said:


> Descriptions of Ni are so difficult to understand (for me). So I try to imagine how it would look on the outside, and/or how it might contrast with my experience of Ne.
> 
> I present two examples of things I find puzzling, and ask whether Ni could be a factor--that is, whether my lack of Ni could contribute to my puzzlement.
> 
> ...


OK, I would like a better explanation from someone here but I'm going to start the ball rolling since no-one is.

I can only speak from the experience of an Ne-dom, but I find it easier to explore ideas on a smaller scale than putting together complex theories. This might be why Ni could be better at putting together philosophical ideas in a writing sense. Ne is more of a 'would happen if I did this? Why is this here? What's this for?' sort of function than a 'how can all these ideas be collated' sort of function. So it's easier for us to take in and analyse smaller chunks of ideas at once. It bores our brains if we spend too long dwelling on how it all fits together. So that might account for the first point.

I don't know if your second example is an Ni thing. What is her type?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Dscross said:


> OK, I would like a better explanation from someone here but I'm going to start the ball rolling since no-one is.
> 
> I can only speak from the experience of an Ne-dom, but I find it easier to explore ideas on a smaller scale than putting together complex theories. This might be why Ni could be better at putting together philosophical ideas in a writing sense. Ne is more of a 'would happen if I did this? Why is this here? What's this for?' sort of function than a 'how can all these ideas be collated' sort of function. So it's easier for us to take in and analyse smaller chunks of ideas at once. It bores our brains if we spend too long dwelling on how it all fits together. So that might account for the first point.
> 
> I don't know if your second example is an Ni thing. What is her type?


Well if you compare it with Se, Se types get bored really fast if they have to deal with the Si of the sensory experience.
I drink my wine, I don't really care what kind of wine it is, as long as it tastes like wine and gets me drunk.
Si on the other hand gets caught up in wine tasting.
You could view Ni's focus on theories and ideas as a sort of abstract winetasting.
Very faint distinctions and perspectives are relished sort of like a winetaster relishing some trace taste in the wine.

Both Se and Ne are superficial, they jump from impulse to impulse, not really caring about anyone in particular.
Ne uses Si to ground them so they don't get too caught up in the web of Ne.
While Se uses Ni to ground them, so they don't get too embroiled in the web of Se.
Both Si and Ni could be viewed as an inner map making sense of all the scattered Ne and Se impulses.
In dom types there will only be a crude map, that to types with heavier valuation of Ni/Si will seem pretty pathetic.
Of course on the flip side, the heavy Si/Ni types have a pretty pathetic approach to Se/Ne.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Dscross said:


> OK, I would like a better explanation from someone here but I'm going to start the ball rolling since no-one is.
> 
> I can only speak from the experience of an Ne-dom, but I find it easier to explore ideas on a smaller scale than putting together complex theories. This might be why Ni could be better at putting together philosophical ideas in a writing sense. Ne is more of a 'would happen if I did this? Why is this here? What's this for?' sort of function than a 'how can all these ideas be collated' sort of function. So it's easier for us to take in and analyse smaller chunks of ideas at once. It bores our brains if we spend too long dwelling on how it all fits together. So that might account for the first point.
> 
> I don't know if your second example is an Ni thing. What is her type?


That sounds more like weaker NE than dom. NE casts a wide net, putting complex theories together and exploring how the large scale connects is exactly what it does. NI does this in a more subjective manner, they focus on what leaves an impression on them and are more comfortable with leaving things out that don't match that, they're more prone to protect that impression whereas NE to challenge it.


----------



## Dscross (Jul 7, 2017)

Inveniet said:


> Well if you compare it with Se, Se types get bored really fast if they have to deal with the Si of the sensory experience.
> I drink my wine, I don't really care what kind of wine it is, as long as it tastes like wine and gets me drunk.
> Si on the other hand gets caught up in wine tasting.
> You could view Ni's focus on theories and ideas as a sort of abstract winetasting.
> ...


Good analogies. I like this. The wine tasting comparison I thought was quite clever.


----------

