# Ni vs. Si



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

I am very curious as to how the JCF experts on this forum distinguish between them. I understand very clearly the difference between Ne and Se for example but it is generally much easier to understand the extroverted functions. So, how does Ni and Si differ? They are both perceptive leads and they are both introverted. Is it about ideas vs. facts? 

~Curious.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

I think it is helpful to not think of there being 8 functions, rather 4 in two attitudes. So rather than distinguishing Ne, Se, distinguish intuition and sensation perhaps, as the more one tries to distinguish Ni and Si while believing they can distinguish Ne and Se, the more murky I think the understanding of N and S at large will get.

I'd guess you already understand intuition and sensation on some level, and the more you reconnect with that, the better! Intuition is a form of perception essentially precisely not oriented to observing _precisely what IS_, whereas sensation pays attention to this.


----------



## elixare (Aug 26, 2010)

Similarities

-Both are introverted perceiving functions and can look similar from the outside to the untrained eye, ie: uber focused, deliberate etc etc
-Both are mapping functions that creates an internalized subjective worldview of how the world operates
-Both inform Je to further enhance Je's speed, efficacy, and efficiency which assists Je in quickly sizing up situations and making decisions in matters of split seconds
-Both perceives information selectively unlike the extroverted perceiving functions (Se/Ne) which is more undiscriminating and is more likely to absorb anything and everything it encounters compared to Ni/Si
-Both can be used to assist in strategizing/planning
-These internalized worldviews feel so "true" that Js in general tend to confidently assert their worldviews (especially if they're TJ since Te is another uber confident "I'm right you're wrong bitch" function) and believe/claim that their worldview is THE absolute truth (even though they often end up being falsifiable) 

Differences

-Ni operate in the realm of the abstract/theoretical/universal, Si on the tangible/sensory/experiential (though there are some abstractions performed by Si. Si is definitely more abstract than Se)
-Ni worldview is built mostly conceptually, Si worldview is built mostly experientially/by rote
-Ni is more concerned with storing the underlying dynamic mechanisms that generates the experience, Si is more concerned with storing the experience itself and turn the experiential information into a "reusable" experience
-Ni is more concerned with envisioning the future evolution of events and is more long ranged, Si is more concerned with reproducing the past in the present 
-Ni is more vague/cloudy/generalist/all-encompassing, Si is more vivid/detailed/specialist/specific. Hence Ni needs Se to supply it with the tangible details/sensory info from the external environment live in the present moment whereas Si relies on Ne to supply it with the information on the dynamics of processes from patterns/ideas/possibilities derived from the external environment live in the present moment
-Ni worldview doesn't really become obsolete since universal patterns persist throughout time (otherwise it wouldn't be a universal pattern lol) whereas Si worldview can get obsolete since experiences become irrelevant/out of date as time passes by. Hence the notorious SJ dinosaur stuck in the past stereotype which doesn't really apply as much to NJs since Ni-Se mindset is more Future-Present and cares little about the past.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

childofprodigy said:


> -Ni is more vague/cloudy/generalist/all-encompassing, Si is more vivid/detailed/specialist/specific. Hence Ni needs Se to supply it with the tangible details/sensory info from the external environment live in the present moment whereas Si relies on Ne to supply it with the information on the dynamics of processes from patterns/ideas/possibilities derived from the external environment live in the present moment
> -Ni worldview doesn't really become obsolete since universal patterns persist throughout time (otherwise it wouldn't be a universal pattern lol) whereas Si worldview can get obsolete since experiences become irrelevant/out of date as time passes by. Hence the notorious SJ dinosaur stuck in the past stereotype which doesn't really apply as much to NJs since Ni-Se mindset is more Future-Present and cares little about the past.


Thanks, very interesting.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

childofprodigy said:


> whereas Si worldview can get obsolete since experiences become irrelevant/out of date as time passes by..


I disagree. Si also deals with the archetype and thus resides outside time. That's why Jung writes that Si types get hung up on and create idols. Examples of Si idols are religious symbols where certain sense-impressions become generalized into one archetype picture of what something is, yet retains the more physical qualities since we are discussing sensation, not intuition. Take Jesus on the cross. No one knows how Jesus looked like anymore, yet this idol is reproduced all over the world and pretty much in the same manner because it essentializes the religion and distills it into physical form. Yet it is obvious the meaning is personal being a religious idol. That is the timelessness of Si. The world of Si creates stability and longs for that to ever will be which is very different from what you write about Si types being stuck in the past. Si types aren't as stuck in the past as much as they place emphasis on the physical world retaining some similarity in character, taking the physical world and decompressing it into archetype symbols. What disturbs the Si type is when these symbols and their meanings are disturbed. And before you say this sounds like Ni, yes, it does, because Ni and Si are more similar than your description allows them to be. Ni and Si are both Pi, and thus ward against Pe.

Most of what you wrote about Si are unfair simplifications of what Si truly is. I don't like, get or understand Si, but the more I understand about functions the more I also realize how _complex_ Si is. Si isn't about rote memory, and Si just like Se can be experiential, but so can Ni. Where would Ni otherwise get information from? Si is detached from the physical world too, because Si does not want to see the world as it is, that would be more akin to Se, but Si likes to see the personal and focusing on the personal sense impressions something creates in them. This is extremely different from what you write here and most of it just seem to be poor SJ stereotypes where SJs suck and NJs are the bestest. That's not how it works.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

I think a way of putting it is that Si imbues data with certain meta data, where Ni extrapolates meta-data from the general data. If we're taking a photograph, Si adds in tags, relating to the subjective perception of the details in the picture, whereas Ni extrapolates more data from the picture based on an internal knowledge base. 

So, in a sense both are additive in that they add data, but the data is fundamentally different. I also think of Si as being "bottom-up" and Ni "top-down" in that Si builds up a whole based on the many details it's constructed from and as a result you get a very close replica, where Ni starts from the generalized patterns, and works its way down.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

@_childofprodigy_, every one of your contrasts between Ni and Si is at least partly wrong and at least partly "Othering." It's really quite striking. And though I realize that it's quite difficult to tune into the manner in which one does that, if you want to continue generalizing responsibly (or even halfway-objectively) about Sensation and Intuition then it's probably essential, so I'd like to suggest you read up.

(More broadly, though I acknowledge and respect that there's a lot that y'all intuitives can share only with one another, that's not "abstraction" or "future-orientation" contrasted against "life in the present moment" but much more narrowly "conscious intuition" contrasted against "conscious sensation" -- and no matter how pure your motives when thinking about type there's always a risk that some folks'll begin to use cognitive functions to legitimize some exclusive claim to whatever chunks of the universal human experience they'd most like to identify themselves with, over and against those who don't share those preferences, and I'd like to ask that we not do that.)

@_Scelerat_, I mostly agree, though I think what you've described is more an evaluation of Si as a possible auxiliary-to-Te (and as such that's honestly quite interesting). I'd add that when it's your dominant what you get is less akin to a discrete / localized / self-contained "photograph with tags" as a disparate / distributed / multitudinous / wide-ranging network of "tags to which one can recall photographs / with which one interprets future photographs." So the distinction between what-you've-described and what-I-experience is something like the difference between a glass of water and a rainstorm. 

(Most descriptions of Si seem to draw mostly from the experience of folks with it much further down their stack, and they miss most of what it's like / what it does.)


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> @_Scelerat_, I mostly agree, though I think what you've described is more an evaluation of Si as a possible auxiliary-to-Te (and as such that's honestly quite interesting). I'd add that when it's your dominant what you get is less akin to a discrete / localized / self-contained "photograph with tags" as a disparate / distributed / multitudinous / wide-ranging network of "tags to which one can recall photographs / with which one interprets future photographs." So the distinction between what-you've-described and what-I-experience is something like the difference between a glass of water and a rainstorm.
> 
> (Most descriptions of Si seem to draw mostly from the experience of folks with it much further down their stack, and they miss most of what it's like / what it does.)


I don't have Si among my major functions, so most of my knowledge on it comes from theories and observation of people who do and the two major users that I've dealt with are ISTJ and ESTJ, with the ISTJ being a very clear slave to his Si. Of course, the translation outwards which is what forms the basis for most of my reasoning will be different depending on the externalizing function.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Scelerat said:


> I don't have Si among my major functions, so most of my knowledge on it comes from theories and observation of people who do and the two major users that I've dealt with are ISTJ and ESTJ, with the ISTJ being a very clear slave to his Si. Of course, the translation outwards which is what forms the basis for most of my reasoning will be different depending on the externalizing function.


Oh I don't doubt it (though I'm not sure what "slave to his Si" means). 

But I think you've misread me -- what I meant to emphasize / call attention to was the manner in which, when you yourself are thinking through what Si is and how it works, you're implicitly / perhaps-unconsciously thinking of it from the perspective-of-Te / treating it as an aux-to-Te presumably since that's just your personal default perspective-on-Pi, and that when members-of-your-audience have a different angle on it with which to contrast it, this shows up clearly and vividly in your descriptions / analysis, and then I tried to suggest briefly what that entails. Nothing wrong with that of course, and I don't disagree with your analysis -- that angle's precisely why I found it interesting.


----------



## Scelerat (Oct 21, 2012)

Conclusion said:


> Oh I don't doubt it (though I'm not sure what "slave to his Si" means).


Slave to Si = OCD-ish, resistance to change, rigidity and a general predisposition towards slow-rate iterative development. 

If I take a look at decision-making among Si-Te users (ESTJ or ISTJ) their approach tends to be to search for familiarity, they can accept change as long as that change is linear and has a degree of familiarity. I'm not sure how that would work with Si - Fe, but I suspect that it would take on the somewhat generalized pattern of changes in systems-environments and changes in social-environments.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

@Conclusion, describe Si from dominant experience? I'm curious though I'm unlikely to understand it.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

There's so much contention held for Si. It truly isn't much different than Ni. Some of the differences you will read hear are largely overblown. 

For example, some Ni doms will insist on reinventing the wheel out of the sheer idea that research and other forms of experiential learning are relegated to Si doms. This could not be any more untrue; ideas such as these are more pathological than function related. In fact, Ni and Si are both experiential; they have been since their inception into typological psychology. 

The difference lies in minute detail. Si doms tend to backwards interpolate; that is, they will tend to use the new idea or thought to figure out a portion of the framework that has already been made. This is very useful for doctors and a great deal of scientists (which is probably why INTPs best INTJs in terms of IQ). 

Ni is more extrapolation, which is why it often needs to be tested more (Ni obsession can be just like the OCD like obsession in Si doms; it's just over ideas than physical). For example, an Ni dom may read about a neurotransmitter and then extrapolate its other uses outside of the current document being read. It may or may not be correct; the correctness depends on their ability and intelligence, as just backwards interpolation in Si can lead to inconsistencies if the deficiencies abound in their ability to and intelligence.


When I see some of this "Si doms living in the past, OCD like features" I wonder if people conflate pathology with type.
This is like saying Ni-doms reinvent the wheel to an unsatisfactory degree and have megalomaniac features.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> (which is probably why INTPs best INTJs in terms of IQ).


I largely agree with this post except this one because it frankly makes no sense and is a little stereotype. Since when was IQ related to type this way? I don't think any type is smarter; rather, we simply got different kinds of skills where our cognition is more useful. This is why you find so many INTJs in theoretical physics because it fits their cognition well.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> I largely agree with this post except this one because it frankly makes no sense and is a little stereotype. Since when was IQ related to type this way? I don't think any type is smarter; rather, we simply got different kinds of skills where our cognition is more useful. This is why you find so many INTJs in theoretical physics because it fits their cognition well.


They aren't well studied largely because this theory is not well-respected in psychology (for many reasons). From what I have seen of scant studies, INTPs seem to have higher IQs than INTJs. This of course is predicated on the idea that: A) they were typed correctly B) type exists C) IQ measures innate ability. NPs seemed to score higher than NJs, with a core difference being the presence of Si. 

Most theoretical physicists I know of are of the NP variant, though we can't type them because they're dead. However, Einstein, Heisenberg seem INTP. Conversely, most TJ types (Fermi) for example are normally on the border of theory and application in experimental/applied physics. Bohr, most likely INTJ, created many theories based on empirical notes while not looking at the entirety of the implications (which is why I detect Ti/Si being a huge benefactor for the two former). 

It may not be IQ, as again, this is poorly correlated as its not even given much credence in psychology; however, it seems the thought patterns evoked by Ti/Si with Ne (does not need an immediate primer that Ni/Se does) are more of the theoretical nature. Most TJs such as Newton had a great deal of primer. 

Come to think of it, I can't think of many TJ types prominent in the development of quantum. Likewise, I can't think of TPs who bested Newton at deductive prowess.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> They aren't well studied largely because this theory is not well-respected in psychology (for many reasons). From what I have seen of scant studies, INTPs seem to have higher IQs than INTJs. This of course is predicated on the idea that: A) they were typed correctly B) type exists C) IQ measures innate ability. NPs seemed to score higher than NJs, with a core difference being the presence of Si.
> 
> Most theoretical physicists I know of are of the NP variant, though we can't type them because they're dead. However, Einstein, Heisenberg seem INTP. Conversely, most TJ types (Fermi) for example are normally on the border of theory and application in experimental/applied physics. Bohr, most likely INTJ, created many theories based on empirical notes while not looking at the entirety of the implications (which is why I detect Ti/Si being a huge benefactor for the two former).
> 
> ...


Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, that black guy I can't remember the name of now but he's quite vocal about spreading general knowledge about physics is likely INFJ and the list goes on. Leonard Susskind stands out to me though, because he's such a good and obvious example of an INTJ. In socionics I would type him ILI-Te though Hawking is probably the most known based on this list. And the guy who said that life is just stardust (fuck names and my shit memory) struck me as an INFJ as well.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Leonard Susskind, Stephen Hawking, that black guy I can't remember the name of now but he's quite vocal about spreading general knowledge about physics is likely INFJ and the list goes on. Leonard Susskind stands out to me though, because he's such a good and obvious example of an INTJ. In socionics I would type him ILI-Te though Hawking is probably the most known based on this list. And the guy who said that life is just stardust (fuck names and my shit memory) struck me as an INFJ as well.


That's nice, but none of them are coming for Einstein, Heisenberg, and others as far as I've seen. Susskind and the others don't even have Nobel Prizes. If we're really going to get into it, the majority of this field is overthrown by NP types, including Feynman (who despite a "low" IQ of 125 still has diagrams that are used in physics today). Again, I think NTJ types are better at teaching because of the connectivity (primer is there for Ni/Se), which is why I think they expound quite well on TV and lectures.

Of course, at this point, we're playing like Yugioh with physicists because in actuality the division is not very clear because they have not typed nor may type even be in existence aside from its believers (it has little credence in actual psych). 

If I were to say that type played a role; i'd not say it was due to IQ but rather the innate benefits to which the cogitive patterns bestow. NTJ is very much (stereotyped) to be supremely deductive, while NTP is supremely inductive. Most of this stuff doesn't even exist, ergo it requires more induction.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> That's nice, but none of them are coming for Einstein, Heisenberg, and others as far as I've seen. Susskind and the others don't even have Nobel Prizes. If we're really going to get into it, the majority of this field is overthrown by NP types, including Feynman (who despite a "low" IQ of 125 still has diagrams that are used in physics today). Again, I think NTJ types are better at teaching because of the connectivity (primer is there for Ni/Se), which is why I think they expound quite well on TV and lectures.


What do you mean by this? Why would Nobel prizes for example be used to determine someone's intelligence when I even read somewhere that it's sufficient for most academics, and thus of course, also Nobel Prize winners to be in the range of 120-135 or so IQ? I would say that the holographic principle is one of the most ground-breaking ideas in physics currently, especially because of how many problems it solves. The holographic principle may not be taught in schools, but it's certainly something that is considered a big theory in physics.

I am not even sure why Einstein is put on such a big pedestal more than the fact that he was big during his time and had a quirky persona. 



> Of course, at this point, we're playing like Yugioh with physicists because in actuality the division is not very clear because they have not typed nor may type even be in existence aside from its believers (it has little credence in actual psych).
> 
> If I were to say that type played a role; i'd not say it was due to IQ but rather the innate benefits to which the cogitive patterns bestow. NTJ is very much (stereotyped) to be supremely deductive, while NTP is supremely inductive. Most of this stuff doesn't even exist, ergo it requires more induction.


Which is what I was suggesting somewhat, though I don't think INTJs are deductive and INTPs inductive. Viktor Gulenko claims that both LIIs and ILIs respectively are deductive. The ILE would be inductive and so would the LIE.


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> What do you mean by this? Why would Nobel prizes for example be used to determine someone's intelligence when I even read somewhere that it's sufficient for most academics, and thus of course, also Nobel Prize winners to be in the range of 120-135 or so IQ? I would say that the holographic principle is one of the most ground-breaking ideas in physics currently, especially because of how many problems it solves. The holographic principle may not be taught in schools, but it's certainly something that is considered a big theory in physics.
> 
> I am not even sure why Einstein is put on such a big pedestal more than the fact that he was big during his time and had a quirky persona.
> 
> ...


The holographic principle would be nothing without Einstein's work. String theory is largely trying to bring Quantum Physics and General Relativity together. Why? Then you'll have equations for things that move really fast (relativity) and are really small (quantum). You can then size and scale accordingly. Both of these schools are of NTP origin (Heisenberg/Einstein mostly)

Susskind would have nothing to work on without Einstein. Likewise, Newton would have had nothing to work on without Aristotle. I don't know what to tell you. In comparison, it would seem like NTJs largely expound upon NTP thought in physics. Is that a bad thing? No, Aristotle's ideas were largely right but largely wrong. But it does highlight that the majority of inceptions of thought begin with NTPs. 

Nobel Prizes also are indicative of the novel and advancement qualities of the thought, so I'd count them in.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

FlightsOfFancy said:


> The holographic principle would be nothing without Einstein's work. String theory is largely trying to bring Quantum Physics and General Relativity together. Why? Then you'll have equations for things that move really fast (relativity) and are really small (quantum). You can then size and scale accordingly. Both of these schools are of NTP origin (Heisenberg/Einstein mostly)
> 
> Susskind would have nothing to work on without Einstein. Likewise, Newton would have had nothing to work on without Aristotle. I don't know what to tell you. In comparison, it would seem like NTJs largely expound upon NTP thought in physics. Is that a bad thing? No, Aristotle's ideas were largely right but largely wrong. But it does highlight that the majority of inceptions of thought begin with NTPs.
> 
> Nobel Prizes also are indicative of the novel and advancement qualities of the thought, so I'd count them in.


Sure, but isn't that what Gulenko predicts too with the differences of left-right or process-result? I am not saying it's bad either, and I do recognize that Te types operate this way, I do too unfortunately, but I don't think means they are more brilliant or better thinkers per se. Is it not just you having a bit of a Ti lovefest here lol?


----------



## FlightsOfFancy (Dec 30, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> Sure, but isn't that what Gulenko predicts too with the differences of left-right or process-result? I am not saying it's bad either, and I do recognize that Te types operate this way, I do too unfortunately, but I don't think means they are more brilliant or better thinkers per se. Is it not just you having a bit of a Ti lovefest here lol?






> Is it not just you having a bit of a Ti lovefest here lol?


And this is why I think these theories are rightfully not within psychology at this time.

1) How do you even know I use Ti? In fact, some others have claimed to see a lot of Te in my posts. I wear the "type badge" almost out of desire to rid people of ambiguity, because it seems like that's what people want to eschew here. The most you can do is give your own perspective, to which many others may not agree. It's untenable.

2) I never claimed Ti to be the driving force. In fact, as far as I can recall, I stated it to be Ne/Si with Ti. I'd be missing 2/3rds of the equation so I have nothing to gain. My own accomplishments, knowledge-base, and overall intelligence are restricted to me, not my relation to physicists with more work done than on a largely disavowed psych theory.

3) You didn't get why Einstein's work was so central, so I told ya. This can be looked up. Susskind even goes into it in his lectures, if you watch them that is.


----------

