# Ni vs Si test?



## INTJake

The definitions for these two functions keep changing...whenever I read them on different websites.
I was wondering if anyone had a quiz of Ni vs Si that they could post here and I could answer? (Like the Si-Se one I got from Kitty23).


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Vikinq said:


> The definitions for these two functions keep changing...whenever I read them on different websites.
> I was wondering if anyone had a quiz of Ni vs Si that they could post here and I could answer? (Like the Si-Se one I got from Kitty23).


While I don't have a test to give you, there are a few points that can be helpful in distinguishing these two.

In Jung's work, intuition is abstract perception and sensation is concrete perception. The essential difference between these two is that intuition always goes beyond the details of experience and perceives abstractions derived from experience (patterns, connection, possibilities, all of that stuff usually attributed to intuition), and sensation focuses on drinking in the experience and absorbing every minute detail.

The terms abstract and concrete can be a bit misleading with respect to introverted sensation, though, because concrete implies 'realness' or earthiness, and while Si-preferring types are indeed earthy, the nature of this function is such that their focus is on the concrete perceptions of the inner experience. Jung spend more than a few words describing the introverted sensate's focus on bodily experience, but their realm of perception extends beyond their physical form; any sort of inner event (bodily or otherwise) is subject to Si's perceptions. If a person becomes suddenly sullen, the ISxJ will find themselves arrested by the mood, attempting to absorb as much of it as possible. Compare this to the INxJ, whose focus is much less on the mood itself than it is diving the impetus of the mood or the possible actions they might take as a result of the mood. This of course doesn't mean that INxJs won't wallow in their moods and ISxJs won't try to figure out what's wrong with them, but that in general, all other things being equal, this is the general frame of thought that each type holds.

Based on all of this, the best way to define Ni and Si (if we are aiming to be close to Jung, that is), would be "abstract perception via the inner world" for Ni (which echoes Jung's definition of 'perception via the unconscious') and "concrete perception via the inner world" for Si. One common misconception about the introverted irrational functions is that their sole focus is on perceiving the inner world, and, while this is not untrue, it does forget that the orientation of a function does not limit its machination solely to that world, but instead provides the frame of reference through which the function processes information. For example, introverted thinking is introverted, but it is entirely capable of evaluating the external reality. The difference between Ti and, say, Te, then, is not _what_ it evaluates (inner/outer reality), but from where its standard of evaluation comes. The same is true for the perceiving functions. Ni and Si are not limited solely to perception of the inner reality, but their perceptions will always be referred back to the inner world, so as to further the introverted goal of venturing deeper into the psyche. The concept of impressions is a good illustration of this dynamic: the Pi functions perceive the impact external reality has on the psyche, what the outer world releases in the subject. Of course, like any introverted function, their preference will always be to stay within the inner reality (since interacting with the outer reality takes some elbow grease).

If these functions perceive by the inner world, that begs the question of what that means. Jung spent a great deal of lip on the introverted functions' relationship to the images of the collective unconscious (hence the 'perception via the unconscious' from earlier). The most prevalent example of this relationship is with Ni; much of its perception are located around these primordial images and the abstract perception thereof (if you can image abstraction abstractions further)--it perceives the possibilities and patterns within the unconscious, which is where Ni gets its propensity for symbolism and metaphor. It is my estimation that Si's relationship to the unconscious is a little less distinctive; these images are by nature elusive and difficult to grasp, which goes against Si's focus on the concrete aspects of inner experience. While I'm sure there is a relationship, I imagine that ISxJs are only tangentially aware of it (as an Ni-dom I can attest to the fact that even I am only somewhat aware of Ni's unconscious machinations).

Any sort of attempt to define the cognitive processes is somewhat futile. We might apprehend some aspects of their nature, but they are a lot larger than mere processes that can be reduced to x + y = z. The functions are frames of mind, fields of consciousness, whatever you want to call it. They are best defined by their limits, thus any definition can only be partial. Of course, if the definitions of the functions were even slightly clear, I doubt we'd still be discussing it today. The human psyche is a complicated thing, and this is only one tool in understanding it. I hope this has helped you out.


----------



## INTJake

KalimofDaybreak said:


> While I don't have a test to give you, there are a few points that can be helpful in distinguishing these two.
> 
> In Jung's work, intuition is abstract perception and sensation is concrete perception. The essential difference between these two is that intuition always goes beyond the details of experience and perceives abstractions derived from experience (patterns, connection, possibilities, all of that stuff usually attributed to intuition), and sensation focuses on drinking in the experience and absorbing every minute detail.
> 
> *That's the problem, it depends on my mood - I do both quite often.*
> 
> The terms abstract and concrete can be a bit misleading with respect to introverted sensation, though, because concrete implies 'realness' or earthiness, and while Si-preferring types are indeed earthy, the nature of this function is such that their focus is on the concrete perceptions of the inner experience. Jung spend more than a few words describing the introverted sensate's focus on bodily experience, but their realm of perception extends beyond their physical form; any sort of inner event (bodily or otherwise) is subject to Si's perceptions. If a person becomes suddenly sullen, the ISxJ will find themselves arrested by the mood, attempting to absorb as much of it as possible. Compare this to the INxJ, whose focus is much less on the mood itself than it is diving the impetus of the mood or the possible actions they might take as a result of the mood. This of course doesn't mean that INxJs won't wallow in their moods and ISxJs won't try to figure out what's wrong with them, but that in general, all other things being equal, this is the general frame of thought that each type holds.
> 
> 
> Based on all of this, the best way to define Ni and Si (if we are aiming to be close to Jung, that is), would be "abstract perception via the inner world" for Ni (which echoes Jung's definition of 'perception via the unconscious') and "concrete perception via the inner world" for Si. One common misconception about the introverted irrational functions is that their sole focus is on perceiving the inner world, and, while this is not untrue, it does forget that the orientation of a function does not limit its machination solely to that world, but instead provides the frame of reference through which the function processes information. For example, introverted thinking is introverted, but it is entirely capable of evaluating the external reality. The difference between Ti and, say, Te, then, is not _what_ it evaluates (inner/outer reality), but from where its standard of evaluation comes. The same is true for the perceiving functions. Ni and Si are not limited solely to perception of the inner reality, but their perceptions will always be referred back to the inner world, so as to further the introverted goal of venturing deeper into the psyche. The concept of impressions is a good illustration of this dynamic: the Pi functions perceive the impact external reality has on the psyche, what the outer world releases in the subject. Of course, like any introverted function, their preference will always be to stay within the inner reality (since interacting with the outer reality takes some elbow grease).
> 
> 
> If these functions perceive by the inner world, that begs the question of what that means. Jung spent a great deal of lip on the introverted functions' relationship to the images of the collective unconscious (hence the 'perception via the unconscious' from earlier). The most prevalent example of this relationship is with Ni; much of its perception are located around these primordial images and the abstract perception thereof (if you can image abstraction abstractions further)--it perceives the possibilities and patterns within the unconscious, which is where Ni gets its propensity for symbolism and metaphor. It is my estimation that Si's relationship to the unconscious is a little less distinctive; these images are by nature elusive and difficult to grasp, which goes against Si's focus on the concrete aspects of inner experience. While I'm sure there is a relationship, I imagine that ISxJs are only tangentially aware of it (as an Ni-dom I can attest to the fact that even I am only somewhat aware of Ni's unconscious machinations).
> 
> *I do have unconscious 'knowings' sometimes - I often 'just know' something's going to happen.
> 
> The case for Si:
> I have a very sharp fact-based memory. Like, I still remember everyone's birthday from a group that we used to be active in, that knowledge doesn't even do me any good but I still feel like the facts are 'stuck in there'.
> 
> The case for Ni:
> I do often know what will happen next just from the mood portrayed 'between the lines'. I also hear that Ni-Users are always 'trying to improve - even at the cost of security and tradition', which perfectly describes me. I believe concepts of respect and tradition are subjective and even dumb, sometimes.
> 
> *
> 
> Any sort of attempt to define the cognitive processes is somewhat futile. We might apprehend some aspects of their nature, but they are a lot larger than mere processes that can be reduced to x + y = z. The functions are frames of mind, fields of consciousness, whatever you want to call it. They are best defined by their limits, thus any definition can only be partial. Of course, if the definitions of the functions were even slightly clear, I doubt we'd still be discussing it today. The human psyche is a complicated thing, and this is only one tool in understanding it. I hope this has helped you out.
> 
> *Agreed. Too many people take Jung's theory as gospel. It's possible for someone to be both a strong Te AND Fe user (not me, but I've seen MANY people who are).*


above I put in bold my comments

thanks for taking time to help


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Vikinq said:


> above I put in bold my comments
> 
> thanks for taking time to help


No problem. I enjoy helping people through this material.

Based on your comments, I find your case for Si to be flimsy. It seems to me that your definition of Si doesn't reflect what the process actually is. I can go into a little more detail if you'd like. The long and short of it is that Si isn't memory or facts, it's about inner experience.

Here's a bit of an odd question, but it might get things started. In your mind, will you occasionally think in images that don't exist in reality? And if so, is it possible for you to explain these images in any concise manner? For example, maybe you can see an object that is at the same time visible and invisible and still know what it is, or understand the world through symbols in your mind (for example, whenever I hear or sing a high note in my mind I see an image of a high G on a staff).


----------



## INTJake

KalimofDaybreak said:


> No problem. I enjoy helping people through this material.
> 
> Based on your comments, I find your case for Si to be flimsy. It seems to me that your definition of Si doesn't reflect what the process actually is. I can go into a little more detail if you'd like. The long and short of it is that Si isn't memory or facts, it's about inner experience.
> 
> Here's a bit of an odd question, but it might get things started. In your mind, will you occasionally think in images that don't exist in reality? And if so, is it possible for you to explain these images in any concise manner? For example, maybe you can see an object that is at the same time visible and invisible and still know what it is, or understand the world through symbols in your mind (for example, whenever I hear or sing a high note in my mind I see an image of a high G on a staff).


Yes, I do experience that.
I also play piano and when it comes to the notes, I picture them as 'things', but I can't explain them. Like, I always get a certain impression from the note, and my family is pretty amazed that I can recognize each note. 
For instance, when I hear an 'A' note, I see a certain red/rough texture, but I can't really explain it.

These images are subconscious you're saying, correct?


----------



## INTJake

KalimofDaybreak said:


> No problem. I enjoy helping people through this material.
> 
> Based on your comments, I find your case for Si to be flimsy. It seems to me that your definition of Si doesn't reflect what the process actually is. I can go into a little more detail if you'd like. The long and short of it is that Si isn't memory or facts, it's about inner experience.
> 
> Here's a bit of an odd question, but it might get things started. In your mind, will you occasionally think in images that don't exist in reality? And if so, is it possible for you to explain these images in any concise manner? For example, maybe you can see an object that is at the same time visible and invisible and still know what it is, or understand the world through symbols in your mind (for example, whenever I hear or sing a high note in my mind I see an image of a high G on a staff).


I do have the qualities of Ni - but the confusing part is I have some Si qualities. INxJ's supposedly have a 'hard time remembering details and just remember concepts', while I remember details, sometimes perfectly.
I also like to organize the past in my head, and see how it all led up to what's going on now, like to see how everything collided
Is that Ni or Si?


----------



## karmachameleon

If i got this correctly, people with a strong Si and inferior Ne tend to be very cautious because they imagine the worst possible outcome.


----------



## INTJake

karmachameleon said:


> If i got this correctly, people with a strong Si and inferior Ne tend to be very cautious because they imagine the worst possible outcome.


It depends on what the environment is. I'm very cautious when it comes to trusting people, I expect most people to have an ulterior motive.
But when it comes to exploring an idea, I'm not cautious at all, I dive in.


----------



## Snakespeare

KalimofDaybreak said:


> While I don't have a test to give you, there are a few points that can be helpful in distinguishing these two.
> 
> In Jung's work, intuition is abstract perception and sensation is concrete perception. The essential difference between these two is that intuition always goes beyond the details of experience and perceives abstractions derived from experience (patterns, connection, possibilities, all of that stuff usually attributed to intuition), and sensation focuses on drinking in the experience and absorbing every minute detail.
> 
> The terms abstract and concrete can be a bit misleading with respect to introverted sensation, though, because concrete implies 'realness' or earthiness, and while Si-preferring types are indeed earthy, the nature of this function is such that their focus is on the concrete perceptions of the inner experience. Jung spend more than a few words describing the introverted sensate's focus on bodily experience, but their realm of perception extends beyond their physical form; any sort of inner event (bodily or otherwise) is subject to Si's perceptions. If a person becomes suddenly sullen, the ISxJ will find themselves arrested by the mood, attempting to absorb as much of it as possible. Compare this to the INxJ, whose focus is much less on the mood itself than it is diving the impetus of the mood or the possible actions they might take as a result of the mood. This of course doesn't mean that INxJs won't wallow in their moods and ISxJs won't try to figure out what's wrong with them, but that in general, all other things being equal, this is the general frame of thought that each type holds.
> 
> Based on all of this, the best way to define Ni and Si (if we are aiming to be close to Jung, that is), would be "abstract perception via the inner world" for Ni (which echoes Jung's definition of 'perception via the unconscious') and "concrete perception via the inner world" for Si. One common misconception about the introverted irrational functions is that their sole focus is on perceiving the inner world, and, while this is not untrue, it does forget that the orientation of a function does not limit its machination solely to that world, but instead provides the frame of reference through which the function processes information. For example, introverted thinking is introverted, but it is entirely capable of evaluating the external reality. The difference between Ti and, say, Te, then, is not _what_ it evaluates (inner/outer reality), but from where its standard of evaluation comes. The same is true for the perceiving functions. Ni and Si are not limited solely to perception of the inner reality, but their perceptions will always be referred back to the inner world, so as to further the introverted goal of venturing deeper into the psyche. The concept of impressions is a good illustration of this dynamic: the Pi functions perceive the impact external reality has on the psyche, what the outer world releases in the subject. Of course, like any introverted function, their preference will always be to stay within the inner reality (since interacting with the outer reality takes some elbow grease).
> 
> If these functions perceive by the inner world, that begs the question of what that means. Jung spent a great deal of lip on the introverted functions' relationship to the images of the collective unconscious (hence the 'perception via the unconscious' from earlier). The most prevalent example of this relationship is with Ni; much of its perception are located around these primordial images and the abstract perception thereof (if you can image abstraction abstractions further)--it perceives the possibilities and patterns within the unconscious, which is where Ni gets its propensity for symbolism and metaphor. It is my estimation that Si's relationship to the unconscious is a little less distinctive; these images are by nature elusive and difficult to grasp, which goes against Si's focus on the concrete aspects of inner experience. While I'm sure there is a relationship, I imagine that ISxJs are only tangentially aware of it (as an Ni-dom I can attest to the fact that even I am only somewhat aware of Ni's unconscious machinations).
> 
> Any sort of attempt to define the cognitive processes is somewhat futile. We might apprehend some aspects of their nature, but they are a lot larger than mere processes that can be reduced to x + y = z. The functions are frames of mind, fields of consciousness, whatever you want to call it. They are best defined by their limits, thus any definition can only be partial. Of course, if the definitions of the functions were even slightly clear, I doubt we'd still be discussing it today. The human psyche is a complicated thing, and this is only one tool in understanding it. I hope this has helped you out.


Wooooooow. I can't thank you enough for this. I have searched for exactly what you wrote for soooo long. You explained it very very well, my friend. I would say Si isn't as concrete as you wrote, but that's based on that I'm an Si-dom, which I'm not totally sure about but still. :kitteh: Again, thank you. You deserve an award. Why aren't you the author of every description out there? Anyways, your help is very appreciated, even though this isn't my thread. I just had to comment.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Vikinq said:


> Yes, I do experience that.
> I also play piano and when it comes to the notes, I picture them as 'things', but I can't explain them. Like, I always get a certain impression from the note, and my family is pretty amazed that I can recognize each note.
> For instance, when I hear an 'A' note, I see a certain red/rough texture, but I can't really explain it.
> 
> These images are subconscious you're saying, correct?


To my knowledge, this is a process unique to Ni. They are subconscious if you mean that you do not consciously assign them to the things you do.

You memory for detail could be learned. It's also possible that you have a strong S-type role model in your family (father or mother), which could bring out repressed S traits if indeed your dominant function is intuition. The same could be true if your dominant function was sensation, but I'm not getting a strong S vibe from you through this conversation.

Let's try another approach. What is the function you have the hardest time wrapping your mind around? Not just understanding the function in theory, but also how the minds of the people who prefer it work.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Snakespeare said:


> Wooooooow. I can't thank you enough for this. I have searched for exactly what you wrote for soooo long. You explained it very very well, my friend. I would say Si isn't as concrete as you wrote, but that's based on that I'm an Si-dom, which I'm not totally sure about but still. :kitteh: Again, thank you. You deserve an award. Why aren't you the author of every description out there? Anyways, your help is very appreciated, even though this isn't my thread. I just had to comment.


Thank you for the praise.  For my edification, how is Si less concrete? (This is something I've grappled with for along time and haven't really found a good answer.)

EDIT: I was also thinking of writing a little primer and posting here as an introduction to typology. So maybe in the future I'll have written a few.


----------



## karmachameleon

> To my knowledge, this is a process unique to Ni. They are subconscious if you mean that you do not consciously assign them to the things you do.


I think everyone does that, lol


----------



## Kitty23

Gosh, I should create a test for that too! Anyways, so far this is what I have for difference between the two. Hope it helps  

Si
•	Focuses on their subjective experience of events (what happened, but also how it impacted them). Subjective experiences is pretty much the essence of Si 
•	Decides what is realistic based on what things have been possible/have worked in the past
•	Desires stability, reliability, preservation of simple joys in their life, and maintaining a connection to times that have made them happy
•	Appreciates being told that they are trustworthy, down-to-earth, reliable, responsible, and conscientious 
•	Conflict with lots of unnecessary change, fickleness, abandoning methods that work well
•	May be criticized for being conservative, uptight, too set in their ways

Ni
•	Focuses on the underlying meaning or potential of a situation, look to understand the “thematic essence” 
•	May not have a good sense of what is realistic, create a singular vision based on what they think will happen or what they hope will happen and work towards this
•	Desires meaning, understanding, striving towards their idealistic vision, and cultivating hidden potential, intention
•	Is motivated by intangible gut feelings, achieving a vague vision of potential
•	Appreciates being told that they are profound, understanding, deeply complex, meaningful, seeks understanding
•	Conflict with superficiality, shallowness, mindless hedonism, reckless spontaneity
•	May be criticized for being overly abstract, unrealistic, over analytical


----------



## INTJake

KalimofDaybreak said:


> To my knowledge, this is a process unique to Ni. They are subconscious if you mean that you do not consciously assign them to the things you do.
> 
> You memory for detail could be learned. It's also possible that you have a strong S-type role model in your family (father or mother), which could bring out repressed S traits if indeed your dominant function is intuition. The same could be true if your dominant function was sensation, but I'm not getting a strong S vibe from you through this conversation.
> 
> Let's try another approach. What is the function you have the hardest time wrapping your mind around? Not just understanding the function in theory, but also how the minds of the people who prefer it work.


My Dad is an ISFJ, so that would make sense as an influence. My Mom is an ESxx (that's another story).

I really don't have a hard time grasping any function, except for the fact that the descriptions often overlap.


----------



## Snakespeare

KalimofDaybreak said:


> For my edification, how is Si less concrete? (This is something I've grappled with for along time and haven't really found a good answer.)


The way I have interpreted Si to work in me is almost completely bodily sensations, and while that may be something concrete, what these sensations feel like or interpreting them isn't. Si doesn't give me "past, concrete facts", like many sources state. If I recall something from the past, I remember the feeling (don't confuse this with emotion) of it, either the bodily sensation or the mindset I had at the time, but I would guess most times it's about the mindset. I don't remember specifics at all. Some describe SJs as being capable of remembering the exact date of things and remembering what people wore but I really don't do that. 

I'm almost never unaware of my body. To me, that's more of a bad thing than a good thing, to be honest. That also makes me very conscious of how I look, all the time, and just forgetting about it every now and then would be nice.

I really like nostalgia and "reliving" things, I'm a total sucker for it, can't deny that. :laughing: Do you as an Ni-dom never/very rarely experience nostalgia? If you do, what is nostalgia like for you?

Okay, so, to give you more of a real life example, when I enter a room or a place I get a strong reaction about this place. I don't react outwardly, what this reaction is like is me reacting to the way I feel like when I'm in the room. You talked about Si and moods, which I think is very accurate. It's not really emotional moods, more like "atmospheric" moods. The way some external environment affects your inner experience. Vibes. To me, Si is a lot about vibes, be it about a person or place. 

However, I'm not completely sure where to draw the line between Si and Se, so... yeah. I thought that was worth mentioning. 

Anything else? I can answer anything! :kitteh:



> EDIT: I was also thinking of writing a little primer and posting here as an introduction to typology. So maybe in the future I'll have written a few.


@ me when you do! :hearteyes:


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

karmachameleon said:


> I think everyone does that, lol


I honestly don't know; I've asked around and only Ni-doms have mentioned processes like this. This is hardly an empirical study, though.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Vikinq said:


> My Dad is an ISFJ, so that would make sense as an influence. My Mom is an ESxx (that's another story).
> 
> I really don't have a hard time grasping any function, except for the fact that the descriptions often overlap.


Hmm. I suppose it is possible you just have no preference either way (Jung said that he imagined those with type were in the minority of people).

My other idea was to have you focus on what you're not good at. Obviously you've said that you think you're pretty decent at sensory stuff. Let me explain from my own life. I determined that I preferred intuition because I'm bad at sensation. Not just in terms of memory or anything like that; I'll miss things that are obviously right in front of me, I forget where my body is (or that I even have one). Are there any behaviors such as these that you exhibit? On the other hand, do you not really acknowledge that things have possibilities inherent to them, do you have a hard a time thinking abstractly, etc? I know that this isn't super helpful, but I think it's likely that if you don't do any of these things _at all_ It's more likely that your dominant function is a rational function (which, you seem fairly T to me). Or, if you're certain of your Te, it is possible that you just don't have a meaningful preference.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

I was with a friend over the holidays, we were having a drink of wine at a local Jazz club. She was wearing a white blouse and before you know it she spilled a drink of red wine all over the front by accident. I was with 2 other women + her. The moment I saw her spill her drink I completey zoned out. I starting thinking about the time I was on a blind date, we were sharing a bottle of red wine, he spilled wine all over his white shirt. I must have been zoned out for at least 5 mints, because I also starting thinking obout our evening activites and how nervous he was, he could hardly speak with me, nevous wreck, ha, and handsome as FUK....anyway I relate my zoning out with Si, now I haven't thought about this in many years, I'm talking about 20 at least. I love my Si, when memories are good they are stellar, when they are bad I can easliy detach myself from that moment and block everything out. I train my mind to use it for the good, good times good memories, good friends and good food :happy:


----------



## KalimofDaybreak

Snakespeare said:


> The way I have interpreted Si to work in me is almost completely bodily sensations, and while that may be something concrete, what these sensations feel like or interpreting them isn't. Si doesn't give me "past, concrete facts", like many sources state. If I recall something from the past, I remember the feeling (don't confuse this with emotion) of it, either the bodily sensation or the mindset I had at the time, but I would guess most times it's about the mindset. I don't remember specifics at all. Some describe SJs as being capable of remembering the exact date of things and remembering what people wore but I really don't do that.


So you use your inner physical experience as the point of reference for understanding the world?



Snakespeare said:


> I'm almost never unaware of my body. To me, that's more of a bad thing than a good thing, to be honest. That also makes me very conscious of how I look, all the time, and just forgetting about it every now and then would be nice.


It is until you end up harming the people around you and yourself because you forgot that, yes, you do indeed have hands. 



Snakespeare said:


> I really like nostalgia and "reliving" things, I'm a total sucker for it, can't deny that. :laughing: Do you as an Ni-dom never/very rarely experience nostalgia? If you do, what is nostalgia like for you?


It's my favorite emotion. I spent this entire morning listening to one of my favorite songs from my choir tour last year. Spending time in that state of missing being there and yet being so happy that it happened (we go on tour for a few weeks each year; you get know each other very well). I don't so much to the reliving, though, just the remembering. I have to consciously project myself back to sort of 're-experience' it. I don't buy the whole Ni doesn't do nostalgia. I think it's more of a feeling thing if anything (although reliving does smack a good bit of Si, which could be where those descriptions get that).



Snakespeare said:


> Okay, so, to give you more of a real life example, when I enter a room or a place I get a strong reaction about this place. I don't react outwardly, what this reaction is like is me reacting to the way I feel like when I'm in the room. You talked about Si and moods, which I think is very accurate. It's not really emotional moods, more like "atmospheric" moods. The way some external environment affects your inner experience. Vibes. To me, Si is a lot about vibes, be it about a person or place.
> 
> However, I'm not completely sure where to draw the line between Si and Se, so... yeah. I thought that was worth mentioning.


I can see this being an aspect of both Se and Si; Se trying to pick up the mood from the room and Si focusing on the mood that the room gives to you. I know that my state of mind tends to match the weather, which I blame inferior Se for. 



Snakespeare said:


> Anything else? I can answer anything! :kitteh:


Not at the moment, but I'll message you if I do. Thanks for helping out!



Snakespeare said:


> @ me when you do! :hearteyes:


Definitely.


----------



## INTJake

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Hmm. I suppose it is possible you just have no preference either way (Jung said that he imagined those with type were in the minority of people).
> 
> My other idea was to have you focus on what you're not good at. Obviously you've said that you think you're pretty decent at sensory stuff. Let me explain from my own life. I determined that I preferred intuition because I'm bad at sensation. Not just in terms of memory or anything like that; I'll miss things that are obviously right in front of me, I forget where my body is (or that I even have one). Are there any behaviors such as these that you exhibit? On the other hand, do you not really acknowledge that things have possibilities inherent to them, do you have a hard a time thinking abstractly, etc? I know that this isn't super helpful, but I think it's likely that if you don't do any of these things _at all_ It's more likely that your dominant function is a rational function (which, you seem fairly T to me). Or, if you're certain of your Te, it is possible that you just don't have a meaningful preference.


I do miss things in front of me (sometimes, depends on mood, but it's very often).
I often forget I'm in reality also.

I have a hard time thinking abstractly with school concepts I'm forced to learn. But when it comes to stuff I'm doing willingly by myself (theology, etc.) I do perfectly fine. I'd say I am overall pretty good with abstract concepts.
Definitely right about the T (primarily Te). I think my Te is stronger than my Ni, but my Si is so strongly existent, that overall my Pi > my Je. Which makes me an IxTJ, and eventually the only existent Te>Ni INTJ.
Possibly, my Ni may just be down-turned from use of shadow functions via depression from loss of social activity. We're moving and I lost nearly all connection with people so...


----------

