# What is Ni and Si?



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

S8on said:


> Si would be about what that specific bank was like. It doesn't go beyond assessing that particular experience. Si would say "that bank was mundane and repetitive. I didn't like it". It would be Ne that helps Si assess new situations.
> 
> The statement you came up with "Maybe this will be similar" would be more like Ni. Ni would be about asking "What made aspect of that job at the bank seemed mundane and repetitive? What should I do to avoid this? etc.).


I might be more Ni favoring than I thought. I always thought I was moderately intuitive over sensing, but now you and yesterday three strangers guessed me as ENTJ after like 20minutes. I'm not sure how to approach this function. I truly don't get it.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Darth Alpha said:


> I might be more Ni favoring than I thought. I always thought I was moderately intuitive over sensing, but now you and yesterday three strangers guessed me as ENTJ after like 20minutes. I'm not sure how to approach this function. I truly don't get it.


Do you not understand Si still or do you mean Ni?

Either way try not to approach these functions in isolation. Consider them with their counterpart, Ni/Se and Si/Ne

What exactly do you not understand about the functions right now?


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

S8on said:


> Do you not understand Si still or do you mean Ni?
> 
> Either way try not to approach these functions in isolation. Consider them with their counterpart, Ni/Se and Si/Ne
> 
> What exactly do you not understand about the functions right now?


I understand Ni just fine. I use it, I get it, I see it. I've written many many posts explaining Ni to people who don't get it. Si and Ne to a slightly lesser extent escape me terribly, though. I feel as if I don't experience Si whatsoever. The entire idea of "reliving" an experience makes no sense to me. I remember, but I don't feel the experiences in my body again. If that's what it even is. It all seems very strange and intense to me.

These are easily the hardest functions for me to grasp.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

I think you might be interpreting "sensing" too literally. Instead of thinking of it as a "bodily" experience, think of it as how we might cognitively process the experience. 

Si would be more of imprinting experiences with specific meaning so they can be be added to a collection of experiences and be called upon later. This might encompass reliving a bodily experience, but that is only part of the idea of Si.

Allow me to draw upon my jigsaw puzzle analogy again

Imagine the puzzle unfinished and you are trying to finish it.

Ne would be about the possibilities for the next piece. You can maybe look for a specific color, or maybe a specific shape, or maybe a similarity shared with adjacent pieces.

Si would be about eliminating the different possibilities piece by piece. It is focused on one specific empty spot on the puzzle and it will try piece by piece to fill in the empty spot. It is effective in that it wouldn't try the same piece twice, but inefficient in that it has no direction. It is simply taking each piece that it hasn't tried using before to see if it fits.

Each time you take a puzzle piece and see if it fits would be like the imprinting of a specific experience with Si.


----------



## Love (May 20, 2012)

> Ni internally perceives and discerns a pattern only in data that the extraverted perceiving function (Se) transports inwardly... Furthermore, as it’s not a judging function, Ni cannot actively modify and organize abstract data residing in the inner world, whether they be emotions or other information, just passively observe the relationships that exist between them.


.


----------



## Tad Cooper (Apr 10, 2010)

Flatlander said:


> Because people don't really get what 'introverted perception' means. It's not that difficult to understand for me, though I kind of see Si mostly from an outsider's perspective.
> 
> Introversion (in this context) = "subjectivity"
> Subjectivity = appeal to your own libido // Objectivity = appeal to what would make sense in a common context
> ...


This is a nice way of describing it, thanks!
I was wondering if a way to tell them apart would be the level of detail?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Because people don't really get what 'introverted perception' means. It's not that difficult to understand for me, though I kind of see Si mostly from an outsider's perspective.
> 
> Introversion (in this context) = "subjectivity"
> Subjectivity = appeal to your own libido // Objectivity = appeal to what would make sense in a common context
> ...


But how could you think it before acting, it's a matter of miliseconds to decide to strive one way or another, you have to be like fully focused or something to achive that level of self measuring on what you see first, i mean, probably everyone will be able to see really quickly both: multiple conections and one image like some pentagram, jerusalem flag, mario stars, hitler, etc and also see they are separate and they can be conected in multiple ways, cause the choice is like pam quickly and fast. 
It's hard for me to understand it. I mean i think i understand the main concept for both functions, but when i start diggin on them i find that everyone uses every function and how hard it is to say that one uses something more.

Let's try another example: 

-i'm paranoid because my girlfriend is acting weird with me in various ways, so i go: she maybe is kinda depressed, she could have the period, she could be under some kind of personal stress for x reason, she maybe don't like me anymore. That's what Ne does?
-Ni will go like: *she's going to left me*.
It's like every person alive could see both, with almost no differentation or preference.
Sorry if i missed your point completly


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

SharpestNiFe said:


> And that's why I asked you if you could provide an example.
> 
> I think it's may be impossible to issue an example that exemplifies Ni and Ni alone without the help of other functions. I would like to hear an example of yours where you only Perceived through Ni w/o the help of Se and did not use Te/Fi to "Judge" your Ni perception.


See @Flatlander's post. Of course there's a point in communication itself requiring the involvement of a judging function, but if you are focusing on the definitions as opposed to the information that is attempted to be conveyed, then I dare say you are most likely not a perception dominant in the first place if your psyche is more naturally inclined towards judgement than it is perception. 

I see judgement and perception as definition vs experience. As such, any form of perception is unintelligible to convey without judgement because judgement helps us to define what experience is or how we experienced something. It gives experience a shape or a form. It tries to cut and paste parts of experience and deliver it in a neat little package. 

If one is intuitive enough when reading other's posts when they are reasoning around things, this becomes quite noticeable. Study my posts for example - it's quite obvious I shy away from defining more than what I have to. Instead what matters is the information itself and what it conveys rather than how it's being delivered or defined. 

Perception, in its purest or most raw form, is essentially the ability to just let oneself experience something. With Ni, this is the most pronounced when I get those "feelings" or "vibes" like I do from say, this opening sequence:






If I were to explain this to someone else, what I experience, it would be Ni data I'm primarily conveying. I think what I could summarize the OP around is the archetypal theme of "faith" because it presents ideas surrounding hope, redemption, salvation, life and death. So see, in this example, I did have to rely on Te to pick these words that are the best suited to convey what I'm picking up or I would just have to fall back on "you know, that thing" which is hardly meaningful in conversation, but my focus is not to explain what "faith" is but to express how I experience "faith". That's the difference between judgement and perception when it's the primal focus in someone's psyche. It's intuitive because I'm not relying on picking up sensory information. Chances are that if I were to show this to my ESFJ grandmother she might find it quite meaningless to begin with (I admit this video caters _a lot_ to Ni-Se types) but if I did prod her enough, she would likely end up talking about her concrete experiences surrounding faith in a personalized sense, because Pi is subjective experience. She picks up on that she finds the most subjectively meaningful to her. This was for example evident in my phone call with her yesterday with her asking me about this particular type of spring flower that to her represented spring time. In this sense Ni and Si are as archetype, just that whereas to the Si type the cross literally represents (Christian) faith and the sensory experience of belief, to the Ni type it represents faith in an intuitive sense not linked to the actual sensory object. I would think the same about all religious idols. Si types not necessarily if they lack concrete experience with them. 

Also, Ni must necessarily operate with Se. It's not possible to remove Se from Ni because they are the same thing and occur simultaneously when we collect information around us and experience things. The difference is where our focus lies - do we tend to focus more on the Se or the Ni aspect of data?


----------



## SharpestNiFe (Dec 16, 2012)

ephemereality said:


> See @_Flatlander_'s post. Of course there's a point in communication itself requiring the involvement of a judging function, but if you are focusing on the definitions as opposed to the information that is attempted to be conveyed, then I dare say you are most likely not a perception dominant in the first place if your psyche is more naturally inclined towards judgement than it is perception.
> 
> I see judgement and perception as definition vs experience. As such, any form of perception is unintelligible to convey without judgement because judgement helps us to define what experience is or how we experienced something. It gives experience a shape or a form. It tries to cut and paste parts of experience and deliver it in a neat little package.
> 
> ...


Ah, so that explains it.

I was trying to get away from the standard definitions of Ni and Si and find concrete examples of each (obviously, concreteness is not a strength of mine). One almost has to incorporate other functions to make that possible though, otherwise, it'll come across as a bunch of jargon.

So, a better question would be "What is NiSe and SiNe?" or "NiTe, NiFe vs. SiTe, SiFe?"

You get the idea.

Rereading your post, I thought to myself, "that's EXACTLY what I was trying to say." Perhaps I didn't say it nearly as eloquently.

I feel as if this has happened before between you and I in another thread?


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

tine said:


> This is a nice way of describing it, thanks!
> I was wondering if a way to tell them apart would be the level of detail?


Perhaps in a sense, as I find types with Si in the ego are more adept with finding meaningful impressions of an object which can lead them to all sorts of associated detail recall, while I am not particularly great at details, but rather deal in progressive deepening or refining of the concepts that seem to connect what I have seen. 

I look for cognition format, though, because the two types can have some external similarity to each other - so it's about what the person really seems to be trying to understand or evoke.



DonutsGalacticos said:


> But how could you think it before acting, it's a matter of miliseconds to decide to strive one way or another, you have to be like fully focused or something to achive that level of self measuring on what you see first, i mean, probably everyone will be able to see really quickly both: multiple conections and one image like some pentagram, jerusalem flag, mario stars, hitler, etc and also see they are separate and they can be conected in multiple ways, cause the choice is like pam quickly and fast.
> It's hard for me to understand it. I mean i think i understand the main concept for both functions, but when i start diggin on them i find that everyone uses every function and how hard it is to say that one uses something more.
> 
> Let's try another example:
> ...


Er.. huh.

One thing you seem to have missed is that the dominant, whatever function it is, refines itself progressively in your mindset as you grow up, especially if you continue to practice your mentality around it. You can end up with the ability to make quick, astute thoughts surrounding the perspective, while the others in your mindset are at varying levels of strength in terms of preference, priority to yourself, etc. depending on their place in the type.

The principle is: You get best at what you constantly and consistently rely on.

So Ni and Si will both eventually get to the point where they will make these snap 'perceptions'. (I should add that the amount of data can make it take longer to do this, but it still works in kind of a 'flash'.) An Ni type will tell you what connection looks most meaningful, and an Si type will tell you that an object perceived has had an impression. Defining that meaning or impression is the purview of the further dynamics of the person's type - an ISFJ, for example, will filter Si through Fe/Ti for evaluation and communication to the world.

The caveat of habituated function is that you may not even see yourself using this perspective in thought, because the mind stops paying attention to repeated stimuli. I first considered Ti dominance for myself - not only because I tested as INTP (lol doesn't everynerd?) but also because, after I had a bare concept of the functions and type outlines, I thought I saw myself doing a lot of Thinking. Then someone evaluated me as an Ni type. I had to think awhile about the functions and nature of type as well as revisit my intellectual history to reconcile his perception with how I actually work, which I'm satisfied at this point is Ni dominant.

Now as for everyone "doing both", yes, everyone can have a moment of insight. It's just a matter of figuring out the format or reasons your insights come to you. Si "insight" is along the lines of built up impressions giving you a clearer picture of how patterns tend to turn out, while Ni "insight" is along the lines of what connections you are inclined to believe, perhaps as a situation bears itself out.

And yes, everyone can think up multiple possibilities for how things might connect or see things in their bare form. Technically, everyone can "do" the things associated with every function. It's just.. what perspective naturally comes to your mind, and what do you need to run your mind through extraneous processes to see, processes that may work against where you find your mental "self" and stability.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Ni is an archetypal inner observation.
The essence of a pattern/idea/ideal.
To restrict it to the future is a big mistake, it can operate on the past, present or future.
These archetypal observations may become the basis of religious or spiritual understandings of the world.
Ni draws on Se for material to feed it with material.

Si is a subjective interpretation of sensations, in a way it is creating an interpretation
that what is sensed is a spirit (positive force) or deamon (negative force) depending on the attractivness of the sensation.
Si create rituals that may become transformed into religious worship of the forces subjectivly experienced.
Si draws on Ne to connect their inner experiences to outer shared icons and their ebb and flow.


----------



## -Alpha- (Dec 30, 2013)

S8on said:


> I think you might be interpreting "sensing" too literally. Instead of thinking of it as a "bodily" experience, think of it as how we might cognitively process the experience.
> 
> Si would be more of imprinting experiences with specific meaning so they can be be added to a collection of experiences and be called upon later. This might encompass reliving a bodily experience, but that is only part of the idea of Si.
> 
> ...


I don't do this, but you'll get the idea.

Is it like when I think about nails on a chalk board and cringe already?


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Distinguishing Ne and Ni:

Ni is essentially the gravitation and affection for one certain assumption, possibility, or timeline.

An example of this might be the tactics of a chess game:

The Ne user would see several different ways to checkmate during the mid-game, but would not divert too much attention to any particular plan and would attempt to delay any hasty decision that would cancel out certain possible routes (as Pe and Ji dom/aux users, they want to keep all of their options open so that they can't be trapped into only following one route, due to the fact they can envision everything that might go wrong with committing to only one route). 

The Ni user however, would acknowledge that there are probably several different ways to checkmate, but would immediately gravitate to the most promising and most efficient route, ignoring other routes and committing to the first route that appeals to them. The Ni user would then perfect that one route in their mind to ensure that nothing can go wrong by making preparations (controlling files, ranks, applying pressure, pins, etc.). When they find their route, they utterly commit to it and follow it, not stopping for anything that is deemed unimportant. Evidently, due to the fact that we narrow our horizons to one, deeply formulated plan, when it goes awry, we are completely set-back and alternate to a more Ne approach, scampering for another possibility that appeals to us.

I feel as if chess is a great way to figure out peoples' types that we haven't really tapped into. For instance, I have several ESTP friends that (shockingly) play chess with me. You can tell that they are Se dominants by the way they approach the game. Their strategy is to play aggressively and to apply pressure at all times, to the point where they are merely taking pieces to satiate their need to dominate. Their strength is that they can completely dismantle others' plans with their quick, assertive movements (happens to me all the time), but their downfall is that they are relatively weak when it comes to thinking moves ahead and don't immediately look at what the other player is conspiring. I'm going to gather some different types together and see if I can't decode something from the way they play chess.

(I'll let you guys know when I play some Si users, though I have some hypotheses as to how they play)

If it's any consolation to you Si-types, the ones that were bad at chess (really, really bad) would try to make their opening as symmetrical and aesthetically appealing to themselves as possible.


----------



## S8on (Nov 23, 2013)

Darth Alpha said:


> I don't do this, but you'll get the idea.
> 
> Is it like when I think about nails on a chalk board and cringe already?


I don't know what to say about that. I view it more as something that might be unconsciously imprinted but consciously recollected to be used, hence the term "cognitive function." When you think nails on a chalk board, you don't really use it unless in anticipation of leaving the room or something.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> Because people don't really get what 'introverted perception' means. It's not that difficult to understand for me, though I kind of see Si mostly from an outsider's perspective.
> 
> Introversion (in this context) = "subjectivity"
> Subjectivity = appeal to your own libido // Objectivity = appeal to what would make sense in a common context
> ...


i love the dot example because my brain _immediately_ filled that in with a network of overlapping and criss-crossing lines with a movement-like fluctuation, so if what you said about Ni seeing one thing is true, then it really works as an Ni/Ne difference.


---

by the way, i am still nursing my pet theory that that NeSi is personalized sensation combined with objective intuition, whereas NiSe is objective sensation combined with personalized intuition.

That Ne sees "what is there" / "surface level" ideas, an all-encompassing undifferentiated experience of a mass of ideas experienced at once. Is aware of an "everything"ness, ie lots of differing input at once.

That Se sees "what is there" / "surface level" sensation, an all-encompassing undifferentiated experience of a mass of sensation experienced at once. Is aware of an "everything"ness, ie lots of differing input at once.

Whereas Ni, Si are the subjective flipsides, the filtered-down, personalized, laser-focused versions of the idea/sensation processes.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

S8on said:


> I think you might be interpreting "sensing" too literally. Instead of thinking of it as a "bodily" experience, think of it as how we might cognitively process the experience.
> 
> Si would be more of imprinting experiences with specific meaning so they can be be added to a collection of experiences and be called upon later. This might encompass reliving a bodily experience, but that is only part of the idea of Si.
> 
> ...


....no.
no, i think that is not it. 

here's Si:
There are two puzzles, both of which Si has seen before.
Some of the pieces got lost.
Si is cleaning the house when they find a puzzle piece.
Something about the shape and coloring of the puzzle piece feel "familiar" to the Si. There is an instinctive sense of recognition, and Si will be able to stick the puzzle piece into the correct box.

Si has nothing to do with eliminating possibilities piece by piece. Nothing. That's definitely a judging function.

Edit: What could happen is the Si is doing a 1000 piece puzzle... they're looking for the green bit with a brownish edge... they find such a piece, but it doesn't fit, they put it back down... 400 pieces later, they've hit a patch of empty space and something about it 'clicks' with the 'impression' of 'green-brownish', and they also remember where they put the green-brownish piece (without having consciously thought about it at the time)... so then they reach over for the green-brownish piece and tada, it fits!)


----------



## outsidedogdiner (Mar 15, 2014)

well said


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Pelopra said:


> i love the dot example because my brain _immediately_ filled that in with a network of overlapping and criss-crossing lines with a movement-like fluctuation, so if what you said about Ni seeing one thing is true, then it really works as an Ni/Ne difference.


I wish I had an equivalently snappy example for Si and Se. I consider to myself how different people would view "home", Si with more of a personalized sensory association/feel to it and Se with more of a starkly realistic view on what it is, and this example works in my mind but I don't think it yields as immediate an understanding for some people because it can still drag in other perspectives (Feeling especially).




> ---
> 
> by the way, i am still nursing my pet theory that that NeSi is personalized sensation combined with objective intuition, whereas NiSe is objective sensation combined with personalized intuition.
> 
> ...


It sounds like your grasp of them is coming along well so far.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Flatlander said:


> I wish I had an equivalently snappy example for Si and Se. I consider to myself how different people would view "home", Si with more of a personalized sensory association/feel to it and Se with more of a starkly realistic view on what it is, and this example works in my mind but I don't think it yields as immediate an understanding for some people because it can still drag in other perspectives (Feeling especially).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Not what you're looking for, since it's not pithy, but:

Si-- home is a sense that fills your body. the actual image and details are almost blurry, like a faded out photograph. 
Focused in on, parts of the photograph suddenly become bright, vivid, in an over-saturated film sort of way-- details sorted individually, one by one, not as a whole. The taste of the lasagna, the texture of it, the color, the smell, each almost separate from each other, maybe two at once max, but the sensation of the experience and all the associations of it are preserved in amber--
and replayed, and replayed. 
lasagna becomes a folded over mosaic of scenes overlaid one over another, stretching backwards, life folded carefully over and over on thin tissue paper.

I don't know whether NiSe users have anything remotely similar in how they experience the past.



edit:
tentative suggestion:
Si is a home video, wandering around, zooming in for too-close close-ups on things of interest
Se is a hollywood $200 million production with MUSIC and ACTION and SPECIAL EFFECTS.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Ni is the part of your leg that your shin bone and thigh bone both connects to. The Ni can jerk as a reflex movement

Si is something that the eyes are responsible for. It is also a large amount of water like an ocean


----------

