# Ne-Si and Ni-Se.



## leviosa (Sep 28, 2017)

First picture: human labor.
Second picture: first I saw the phone and then I wondered if it is really possible for someone not to see a phone.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Turi, for the first image I just associated all the objects there with a general idea of wealth and offices. 

For the second, cell phone. Yup. One of the older ones. 

And as for the one with the vase, I instantly saw two faces. One on the vase, another one, a large one, in the window. But no others.


----------



## brightflashes (Oct 27, 2015)

Jewl said:


> And as for the one with the vase, I instantly saw two faces. One on the vase, another one, a large one, in the window. But no others.


That's so cool. I still can't see the second face, but I did see a lot of faces which I knew were just my mind filling in the blanks. Apparently the ability to recognize patterns quickly is a sign of a quick thinker (as far as I know).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> In the first one, the plant, money, and golf flag area can all be referred to as "green".
> In the second one, I saw a cell phone.
> 
> I definitely agree with you with these being great illustrations of the two perceiving axis. I wish the second one was more ambiguous, though.
> ...


Yep, that's one of the faces. The other one is a smaller one on the vase. It's sideways-ish.

I removed the second and third picture from the Ni-Se one - I think that better represents the general idea - the process of having it unfold before you ala the second and third pictures, is more representative of "Se-Ni" seeking out additional information - leaving it as just the first picture, with less information, better conveys the idea from the Ni-Se perspective in that your mind fills in the gaps - it's basically the same thing, but Ni-Se searches within your own mind/memory to flesh out the picture, and Se-Ni searches the outer world for information/data to flesh out the picture.

I think in a way, they're the same process - both are just trying to flesh out the 'big picture', one prefers to do this internally, the other externally.

Even when you think of say, some stereotypical "Se" hobby like.. rock climbing, or something - you can still imagine this same process applying as "Se" scans the environment for all sorts of external data to flesh out an understanding of the 'big picture' i.e :Where are my feet, I can slam my pickaxe in there? Won't screw anything up?" Energy conservation re: how far we have left to go.. general "Don't look down" thoughts creeping in as essentially your mind directing your attention to where it needs to be at the moment, etc..

I see all of that as basically an Se-Ni perspective of fleshing out an understanding of a situation.



Jewl said:


> @Turi, for the first image I just associated all the objects there with a general idea of wealth and offices.
> 
> For the second, cell phone. Yup. One of the older ones.
> 
> And as for the one with the vase, I instantly saw two faces. One on the vase, another one, a large one, in the window. But no others.


Yeah, those are the two faces - interesting that you're also the first ExxP type who has responded to that one..

To get this one immediately, i.e no thought required - your brain has to process multiple scale levels at the same time - which isn't what happened for me, even though I immediately spotted three faces.

The two incorrect ones were not at the same scale as the big face in the window - they were two smaller ones (one incorrect one was the same size as the correct face on the vase) and the Plants v Zombies face @Red Panda mentioned earlier which is made up of various things on the vase, rather than being a clear face in itself.


I think in general, you could associate how the S-N process works (or how I understand it, anyway) as a reductionist approach to everything - step by step, break things down, understand something before moving on, etc... and the N-S process as a holistic approach to everything - everything at once, just get 'the gist' and move on..
https://www.simplypsychology.org/reductionism-holism.html


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

The first one "If you eat healthy food, you won't need to waste money with dentists or even dentures in the future".

Yes, at first I only considered the drawings in the top row, for some reason.

Considering all of the pictures, I imagine an elderly person, writer, who prefers to write the old way instead of typing on a computer, but also likes to write on paper sheets rather than on notebooks, hence the paper clip which they use to hold the sheets together. They tend to get frustrated by their writing often, which leads them to ripping apart paper sheets and throwing them on the ground; Later, they naturally clean up their home, hence the dustpan. Despite the frustration writing brings to them every now and then, they make a good money with their books, so it is all worth the it in the end. A lover of nature, who lives in an apartment even though they would rather live in cabin, as close to nature as possible; They have a few plants, though — That is better than nothing. 

They don't really leave home all that often, except when neighbors invite them to friendly golf matches. In truth, they only accept because they enjoy the fresh air of the golf field, a contrast to the polluted air from the city they live in.

—

Second picture: One of those old cellphone models? 

For some reason I also kinda saw a Formula One car at the first glance. Wut. 

Type me, @Turi.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

First picture took me a moment to think, but I concluded that three of the objects were green. Second picture, I immediately saw a cell phone.


----------



## nep2une (Jun 15, 2017)

Rydori said:


> Ok ok, these one of the interesting threads, I'll be the first one
> 
> Okay for the first image, I could make out those objects to be everyday objects of an elderly old person's room, first is the plant which could be a decoration in the old person's house at all. Then you have the dollar, which is part of the person's income and placed in their wallet. Next you have the set of teeth, which could easily be the old person's fake teeth since they most likely won't have any proper teeth and would need a new jaw. Next you have the dust pan, a cleaning tool for the old person to clean up the mess since they're most likely old and would not in time enough to use a vacuum. Next you have the pin clips, the old person uses this to write. Finally we have a golf course, which is a good representation of what the old man likes to do in his spare time, despite not being in in their room, it can correlate to what old people do in their spare time, which is most likely play a low energy sport such as golf. The whole image represents the life of the old person in their materials. The first image can be used to connect all in one.
> 
> Looks like I Ni'd the fuck out of the first image.


I actually did think of the fact that almost all of the objects could be in an old person's home, though I didn't decide to mention that thought. I could even just naturally imagine a little bit of what their house would be like - some dust, the time of day being dusk and everything having a bit of a blue cast to it, this subtle feeling of loneliness.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

@Turi

I just wanted to say that this is the type of thread I have been looking for FOREVER with cognitive perception functions. This thread is B R I L L I A N T.

I did want your opinions on the 2nd picture. For the first grouping I struggled to hit 3 connected until I saw the golf ball on the last picture and thought "it's on the green" and thought color with the dollar and the plant. I largely thought about how we interact with the objects and what the objects are used for rather than how the literally looked I guess. I am curious as to why that is though. I look to the names of the objects but not really the actual physically seen details such as the shadows or what you would physically see when looking at those objects. I thought about how the plant is in dirt and how you would use a dust pan to clean it up, but couldnt hit a third connection. I thought about how the dollar is paper and the paperclip has...well 'paper' in the name but then fell flat after that. I have to talk to myself in my head to do this as well(making connections) meaning my natural mode is probably not the MOST focused on literally seeing the objects. I have a hard time both focusing on physically what I am seeing, and trying to think or make connections. My eyes kind of glaze over when I think often. I saw the handle of the dustpan and thought about how you hold it with your hands, then saw the dentures and kind of internally imagined and saw(just like with the dustpan) a hand holding it. Then looked at all the objects and realized it fell flat since all of the objects you use with your hands lol. This all felt rather delibrate like you say, struggling to make a connection between 3 at once, struggling to juggle multiple qualities at once but rather focusing on one at a time.

For the second picture, I REALLLY struggled. Gave up almosy instantly actually. The area at the bottom was flat on the bottom left and rounded on the bottom right so i thought, "mabye a foot?" After that I entertained the idea of an antenna on the top right and tried to see if the rest was indicatice of a robot or mechanical type of thing. I couldn't find any, then instantly gave up. If the connection isn't made early with these things I give up, and like you said I want till I do see enough to know what it is. I would despise something that looks ambiguous like this and then the answer is never given. Or it's like "it is whatever you think it is." I would wait until enough that it is obvious like you said. I'm not cool with accepting an interpretation without it being clear, cognitively I would not accept it but rather realize it is temporary in my head. Not interested in going back to guessing again unless I'm given more info. It's just not fun to me.

It would be IMMENSELY appreciated if you can let me know what you think about these thoughts for perception and judging functions. Again, amazing thread. I love it. I hope we see more of these.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Rydori said:


> Ok ok, these one of the interesting threads, I'll be the first one
> 
> Okay for the first image, I could make out those objects to be everyday objects of an elderly old person's room, first is the plant which could be a decoration in the old person's house at all. Then you have the dollar, which is part of the person's income and placed in their wallet. Next you have the set of teeth, which could easily be the old person's fake teeth since they most likely won't have any proper teeth and would need a new jaw. Next you have the dust pan, a cleaning tool for the old person to clean up the mess since they're most likely old and would not in time enough to use a vacuum. Next you have the pin clips, the old person uses this to write. Finally we have a golf course, which is a good representation of what the old man likes to do in his spare time, despite not being in in their room, it can correlate to what old people do in their spare time, which is most likely play a low energy sport such as golf. The whole image represents the life of the old person in their materials. The first image can be used to connect all in one.
> 
> Looks like I Ni'd the fuck out of the first image.


Holy fuck. I would never have thought about that...ever.


----------



## mp2 (Dec 18, 2016)

Interesting! I haven’t read the spoilers or other replies and I didn’t put much thought into either, just first impression.

In the first one, I thought of an old man that became rich from creating a new type of pot for houseplants but is now retired. But, now that he’s retired his mental health is starting to deteriorate and he’s become convinced that the cleaning staff is stealing his paperclips/office supplies and always insists on searching the dustpans for smuggled paperclips. 

With the second one, I see a fish.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

If we viewed the Ni-Se example through in the context of ones physical state - would it not be shifted to Si-Ne, then?

For example, consider that incomplete picture of the telephone as an incomplete interpretation of your own physical state.

I believe it would be Si, that actually searches within itself to flesh out this picture, rather than Ni, but in the exact same way as the example demonstrates.

For instance - say you've got the air-conditioner on, and you're feeling a little bit chilly - is it that same process that searches within yourself to basically tell you what temperature to set the air-conditioner to, in order to achieve the desired level of physical comfort?

I see it as the same thing, just oriented towards your physical self rather than 'meanings', if that makes sense. But, same process, nonetheless.


I can just imagine the same idea playing out in your head, like..

"I'm chilly - it's too cold, need to change the temperature of the air-con, I'll turn it up 2 degrees, that'll be perfect".

I don't imagine that as literal thoughts in a sequence, i.e words, in your brain - I imagine it as immediate, as an instantaneous urge to turn the air-conditioner up 2 degrees - I'm just trying to detail the 'process' that I think is occurring below your level of awareness - if you're a solid 'Si' type.

I would then propose that types with inferior Sensing would be less prone to these kinds of thoughts - immediate 'Ni' style thoughts regarding their own physical state - and this process would be conscious - i.e, play out like I detailed, literally in your head, because for types with inferior Sensing, this isn't instant, lightning fast connections aren't being made - so it's more like a form of active logical deduction.

Just some thoughts.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Bhathaway said:


> Holy fuck. I would never have thought about that...ever.


It should be noted that he didn't mention how long it took - which admittedly is my own fault, as I didn't intend this thread as a 'test' - rather I intended it to convey my understandings of each 'axis' - more like a demonstration/example, rather than a test.

If you examine his process - note he said he 'could' make those objects out to be everyday objects in an elderly persons room.

'Could' is important - it implies that he hasn't come to that conclusion _immediately_, and has rather _actively thought _about it, he has taken an Se-Ni approach to the task by fleshing out the 'big picture' via gathering information bit by bit - he literally includes each item, step by step - sequentially - and provides logical reasoning for his conclusions.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

this thread is a joke. i didn't see any telephone nor i picked up some hidden connection between all those items.
you can invent stories, you can redraw anything from that cellphone.
and above all, this ain't related to cognitive functions. you'all playing da wrong game folks.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Turi said:


> 'Could' is important - it implies that he hasn't come to that conclusion _immediately_, and has rather _actively thought _about it, he has taken an Se-Ni approach to the task by fleshing out the 'big picture' via gathering information bit by bit - he literally includes each item, step by step - sequentially - and provides logical reasoning for his conclusions.


This is also what I was forced to do(which you may have seen from my other post). Why is it that Se-Ni struggle to find the connections so much? What is the difference between an ni connection and an ne connection when related to external objects. And I think if you are approaching it logically you must be referring to your judging functions. I think you may have mentioned this earlier. I'm curious how a dominant perceiver approaches it versus a judger. Also curious what you have to say about what kinds of ideas each judging function would start with when looking at those objects. There is probably some general grouping that each judging function would aim to reference. In my other post I show my thinking so that might be useful. I think the people that are also posting "they are all green" should display their thought processes(if they can recall them) or if it was instant. Might be worth it to include in the OP too.


----------



## LittleDreamer (Dec 11, 2016)

For the first one, I saw the top row as one group and the bottom as another. So my thoughts were: 
“well if you eat enough plants, then you won’t have to pay the money to see a dentist”:laughing:
“If you clean up all the paperclips and clutter around the office, you’ll have more time to play golf” lol
It didn’t come so instantaneous and took me a few seconds to string them together so is that more Si-Ne?

For the second image of the broken lines, I immediately thought they were supposed to be sunglasses at a slanted angle, not a telephone:blushed:


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Bhathaway said:


> @Turi
> 
> I just wanted to say that this is the type of thread I have been looking for FOREVER with cognitive perception functions. This thread is B R I L L I A N T.
> 
> I did want your opinions on the 2nd picture. For the first grouping I struggled to hit 3 connected until I saw the golf ball on the last picture and thought "it's on the green" and thought color with the dollar and the plant. I largely thought about how we interact with the objects and what the objects are used for rather than how the literally looked I guess. I am curious as to why that is though. I look to the names of the objects but not really the actual physically seen details such as the shadows or what you would physically see when looking at those objects. I thought about how the plant is in dirt and how you would use a dust pan to clean it up, but couldnt hit a third connection. I thought about how the dollar is paper and the paperclip has...well 'paper' in the name but then fell flat after that. I have to talk to myself in my head to do this as well(making connections) meaning my natural mode is probably not the MOST focused on literally seeing the objects. I have a hard time both focusing on physically what I am seeing, and trying to think or make connections. My eyes kind of glaze over when I think often. I saw the handle of the dustpan and thought about how you hold it with your hands, then saw the dentures and kind of internally imagined and saw(just like with the dustpan) a hand holding it. Then looked at all the objects and realized it fell flat since all of the objects you use with your hands lol. This all felt rather delibrate like you say, struggling to make a connection between 3 at once, struggling to juggle multiple qualities at once but rather focusing on one at a time.


I would suggest thinking and logical analysis took over from lightning fast connections/associations here - not to suggest anything re: T/F of course.
Sounds kind of like both Se-Ni and Si-Ne approaches, general preference for S over N, perhaps.
I think where intuition doesn't make those lightning fast connections (which may or may not be accurate, I don't want any "Te" types jumping in and having a go at me because they assume "fast = good" and then tell me this whole thread is anti-sensor) - then Thinking takes over, with these.



> For the second picture, I REALLLY struggled. Gave up almosy instantly actually. The area at the bottom was flat on the bottom left and rounded on the bottom right so i thought, "mabye a foot?" After that I entertained the idea of an antenna on the top right and tried to see if the rest was indicatice of a robot or mechanical type of thing. I couldn't find any, then instantly gave up. If the connection isn't made early with these things I give up, and like you said I want till I do see enough to know what it is. I would despise something that looks ambiguous like this and then the answer is never given. Or it's like "it is whatever you think it is." I would wait until enough that it is obvious like you said. I'm not cool with accepting an interpretation without it being clear, cognitively I would not accept it but rather realize it is temporary in my head. Not interested in going back to guessing again unless I'm given more info. It's just not fun to me.
> 
> It would be IMMENSELY appreciated if you can let me know what you think about these thoughts for perception and judging functions. Again, amazing thread. I love it. I hope we see more of these.


I would suggest again, this demonstrates Si-Ne and Se-Ni preferences - what you've typed up demonstrates Se-Ni in that you're uncomfortable with ambiguity and prefer to receive more information in order to flesh out the 'big picture' - and Si-Ne in that you're basically rummaging through your inner library of stored impressions searching for resemblances, and discarding ones that aren't a match.

I like what you're wrote, as it highlights one of the greatest things about Sensing - clarity - Sensing types prefer to have all the information before they accept something - need to 'see it for themselves' so to speak, you can apply this to practically every situation ever, and easily grasp how Sensors prefer to build from the bottom up with regards to the 'big picture', and therefore, develop a more intricate and complete understanding of this 'big picture' over time, as it's developed basically sequentially, bit by bit, brick by brick.

I believe this would indicate that Sensors would then be better equipped to express their ideas and thoughts to others, as they have a better understanding of them, a more logical, grounded, realistic understanding - one that's based in accumulated facts and information they've gathered, rather than just 'made up' ala the N approach.


I'll add another couple of pictures in here to demonstrate the Sensing approach - I'm still hoping it's understood as an 'idea' or a 'concept', rather than a literal 'this is how Sensors flesh out a picture of an old mobile phone'.

Think of it as the process of gathering more information before feeling comfortable, that is a Sensing approach.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

VoodooDolls said:


> this thread is a joke. i didn't see any telephone nor i picked up some hidden connection between all those items.
> you can invent stories, you can redraw anything from that cellphone.
> and above all, this ain't related to cognitive functions. you'all playing da wrong game folks.


I think you're missing the point.



Bhathaway said:


> This is also what I was forced to do(which you may have seen from my other post). Why is it that Se-Ni struggle to find the connections so much? What is the difference between an ni connection and an ne connection when related to external objects. And I think if you are approaching it logically you must be referring to your judging functions. I think you may have mentioned this earlier. I'm curious how a dominant perceiver approaches it versus a judger. Also curious what you have to say about what kinds of ideas each judging function would start with when looking at those objects. There is probably some general grouping that each judging function would aim to reference. In my other post I show my thinking so that might be useful. I think the people that are also posting "they are all green" should display their thought processes(if they can recall them) or if it was instant. Might be worth it to include in the OP too.


It's impossible to know what kinds of ideas judging functions would start with when looking at these objects, because it's all so subjective - it's dependent upon your own personal experience, I'm curious as to whether there's a connection between Se types utilising explicit memory more often, and Si types utilising implicit memory more often, but eh, I'm new to this.

Declarative Memory (Explicit Memory) and Procedural Memory (Implicit Memory) - Types of Memory - The Human Memory


..it's not that Se-Ni struggles to find connections, imo, it's more like.. it wants the actual facts, details, real-world information etc to flesh out a situation/big-picture, etc - so it's hesitant to just rely on 'connections' - and if someone prefers this approach, it makes sense they wouldn't have developed the Ni-Se approach, or Ne-Si approach as well - because, well, they don't trust it - that's not how they live their life - so why would they have developed these skills?

Likewise, the types that prefer N over S probably haven't developed the more analytical, all-encompassing S approach, because that's not how they live their life - they rely on those connections, they trust them - so why would they have developed those S skills?


I really like how we can see that even though the examples demonstrate really clearly my understanding of each axis - that it's so easy to connect Si and Se together in people, and Ni and Ne together.


----------



## Bhathaway (Dec 17, 2016)

Turi said:


> It's impossible to know what kinds of ideas judging functions would start with when looking at these objects, because it's all so subjective - it's dependent upon your own personal experience, I'm curious as to whether there's a connection between Se types utilising explicit memory more often, and Si types utilising implicit memory more often, but eh, I'm new to this.
> 
> Declarative Memory (Explicit Memory) and Procedural Memory (Implicit Memory) - Types of Memory - The Human Memory
> 
> ...


True it would be extremely nuanced due to individual past, but I was curious is something would come to mind more quickly if someone was an Te dominant vs a Ti dominant. Would the categories built tend to be different(not every time, just a tendency).

Exactly! I think this thread in particular is amazing for achieving this I think because its ability to bring out where people were making their connections from. That shit seems near impossible for the questionaires.

Idk if you are able to, but do you remember your thought process when looking at these? Or a lack thereof since it seems a great deal of you dominant intuitives just feel that instant connection. The old man thing that keeps popping up with high Ni types is really interesting. It's very much in line with that all encompassing vibe of pieces it all together into one complete image.(granted idk how much time they took like you said).


----------



## Chatshire (Oct 12, 2017)

For the first pic:
Golf is a sport associated with elderly people who also wear dentures. At night an old person puts their dentures on their bedside table next to a house plant. The old person gets up at night to go to the bathroom but is unsteady on their feet and knocks over the pot and some paperclips (??) which they then have to dust up. Then they’ll have to pay money for a new houseplant.

Second pic:
I thought they were sunglasses lol

Third pic:
I saw three, on the window, vase and leaves


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Turi said:


> There are three options for self-evaluation:
> 
> A - "Got it instantly" - no thought required at all. Immediate connections. Clash of thoughts occurred instantly.
> B - "Took a few seconds" - not instant. Thought required. Ordinary 'thinking' takes over while memory percolates.
> ...


Curses Turi, you aren't supposed to ask them if they see faces, because it will focus their minds on making connections. You ruined the natural process by forcing it.. XD


----------

