# How do Si and Ni doms/users value/use details differently?



## Flatlander (Feb 25, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> All good points. I know for me, as a Te-dom, Ni leaps can frustrate me because there is an expected level of trust on the listener's end. I am expected to believe a conclusion without seeing the evidence to support it. That does not jive with my Te, and I will often ask people to explain their process...it's not a matter of how slow or fast I process. *It's simply a matter of validation. *
> 
> *People don't take me at my word when I let my Si make leaps; I'm not sure why people expect Ni should get the benefit of the doubt*
> Si doesn't.


A-men. Don't see what the problem is with giving explanation to achieve communication. Ni ain't god.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> You know what, this actually reminded me of a conversation that I had with Teddy at one point. I too feel like Ni will use multiple connections to find the correct answer, but I'm wondering why it appears so different. Does Ni filter through the connections and patterns quicker than Ne and determines what's good or bad (cutting corners)? I think that has me confused. I know for me as an INFJ, I need my own form of validation, and maybe that's where I need validation with Ni. I know to some my thoughts or concepts might not have facts or details to back them up, but I also have a hard time believing in things that can't be settled with some kind of truth (facts and details). I actually want my patterns and connections to lead somewhere, and I want them to be right.
> 
> To me somtimes Ne feels more comfortable settling with multiple ideas.
> Where Ni feels like it needs to settle and focus on one idea at a time, and it must be correct.
> ...


Ne doesn't cut corners; anything that's up for grabs is definitely going to be considered. In ENPs (maybe NPs in general? I'm not entirely sure how Ne acts in the auxiliary - or any other position, for that matter), Ji seeks perfection; in Ti's case, logical perfection - Fi, moral perfection. Ne supplies all the information Ji needs to try to find that perfection (though I'm fairly certain that I'm not alone in thinking that the perfection we seek is ultimately unattainable. Still, get as close as you can, right?). As @_Marlowe_ said:



> We can argue our final decision against other conclusions because we've already done all the mental legwork required.


If multiple ideas is what it takes for that perfection, then we'll take it. Usually, that means accounting for multiple contexts.



Ballast said:


> I'm thinking about how my NP friends shoot a lot of ideas out there and change their mind sometimes in the same conversation, exactly as you have described. From my perspective, claiming something with absolute conviction and then turning around and finding they were mislead or incorrect about it would trouble me, but to them they don't consider themselves wrong when they change their mind or perspective because it's more about the journey, the process of discovering ideas, than it is about the destination they reach.


Have you heard of something like fact or information decay (not the real title, but a quick Google search didn't give me a real name either)? It's this proposition (theory, hypothesis - I don't know its actual status) that over time, facts once held to be true are eventually disproved and replaced with different, newly discovered facts, which, over time, will also be disproved and replaced, ad infinitum.

That's what's happening. We seek truth, and we make do with the information available. Because Ne is constantly generating ideas and we are constantly assessing and reassessing, sometimes our initial judgments get overturned, but that's not really an issue for us (except when we _have _to stick to a side, because then it's usually, "Oh God, please don't let the other party see that little caveat I just saw." On the other hand, with discussions over subjects we've assessed multiple times, we're extremely well-equipped to counter a number of potential arguments). We couldn't care less about what the actual nature of the result itself is - it's how airtight the process is.



> Actually, you said the same thing yourself, right here:
> 
> 
> 
> > Actually, I think my current thought process can be a little informative: while I did have an initial, gut reaction-formed judgment, Ne is exploring all of the argumentative possibilities in the context, and Ji (Ti in my case) is analyzing each one, attempting to refine my judgment so there are fewer logical inconsistencies, while Ne continues generating ideas.


Yeah, I realized that. XD I wrote that part after the other one, so I contemplated deleting my inquiry but left it in case you had other thoughts. Ne strives to leave as many doors open as possible for the sake of thoroughness.



> As an Ne-dom, would you say you recognize the way you use Ne and the way SJs use Ne to be similar?


As I've said earlier, I'm not that familiar with how Ne behaves in other positions. If I had to give an assessment, I'd say that, though the idea-generation backbone is still there, they settle _much_ faster on an idea than I do. It really seems more like a short burst because once they attach to an idea, none of the other stuff matters.

On the other hand, I look at _everything_ my Ne generates, including the connections and intermediates, and I'll consider anything that comes my way. In that sense, it's more of a continuous stream that still operates in the background even if I've settled on a main line of argumentation. And, as opposed to SJs who seem only to use Ne in the incipient stages of forming judgments (though that might just be because their Ne is less developed; the age group I'm pulling from is not exactly ideal for mature samples, and Marlowe's use of Ne seems to be more similar to mine than what I'm describing), I use Ne to refine my judgments; it's present every step of the way.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Vox said:


> Ne doesn't cut corners; anything that's up for grabs is definitely going to be considered. In ENPs (maybe NPs in general? I'm not entirely sure how Ne acts in the auxiliary - or any other position, for that matter), Ji seeks perfection; in Ti's case, logical perfection - Fi, moral perfection. Ne supplies all the information Ji needs to try to find that perfection (though I'm fairly certain that I'm not alone in thinking that the perfection we seek is ultimately unattainable. Still, get as close as you can, right?). As @_Marlowe_ said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm. I think it's less of a development thing and more about how Ne fits in with the rest of my cognitive functions.

Te simply doesn't like to waste time after an answer has been chosen (unless new info is presented for consideration-- in which case the process starts all over). So yes, Ne is more a means to an end for me as an ESTJ; once I've reached the end, Ne disappears and I use Si and Te to back what Ne has generated.

I don't let my Ne motherboard keep running in the background. 

Although interestingly enough, I don't always have control of when Ne decides to go into possibilities mode. It makes for some very awkward pauses in conversation sometimes.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

@teddy564339

Did you or @RunForCover07 still have questions about Si?


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

Marlowe said:


> Hmm. I think it's less of a development thing and more about how Ne fits in with the rest of my cognitive functions.
> 
> Te simply doesn't like to waste time after an answer has been chosen (unless new info is presented for consideration-- in which case the process starts all over). So yes, Ne is more a means to an end for me as an ESTJ; once I've reached the end, Ne disappears and I use Si and Te to back what Ne has generated.
> 
> ...


Mm, that makes sense. Some of the SJs I know operate similarly, though most of the ones I know automatically try to shoot down whatever I propose if it opposes their idea in the slightest. When they can't find any logical inconsistencies (this is very much my bias you're hearing), they usually try to return to arguing their point rather than counter-argue mine. Or, in the case of the ISFJ I know, she concedes my point, says she understands it, but still holds fast to her own opinion. It baffles and frustrates me every time.

I usually can't help but keep it running, for better or worse. :'D It only stops running when I make speeches. Blue screen of death for me. 

If anything, I send my conversational partner into a spiral of confusion as they try to keep up with my rambling. Verbalized Ne is...well, interesting, to say the least.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Vox said:


> Ne doesn't cut corners; anything that's up for grabs is definitely going to be considered. In ENPs (maybe NPs in general? I'm not entirely sure how Ne acts in the auxiliary - or any other position, for that matter), Ji seeks perfection; in Ti's case, logical perfection - Fi, moral perfection. Ne supplies all the information Ji needs to try to find that perfection (though I'm fairly certain that I'm not alone in thinking that the perfection we seek is ultimately unattainable. Still, get as close as you can, right?).


Okay, that makes sense. It actually sounds pretty similar to an INFJ in a lot of ways, except for I wouldn't consider everything that's up for grabs. I would only want to take the valuable information I need to get to where I'm going. If I were going on a road trip, I don't care about the multiple roads that can get me there, I just want to take the correct route that's going to get me there faster, and I want to stick to it unless something better comes up along the way. I guess when you throw too many options in there, it almost feels like getting too many unnecessary details.

That's really interesting. Thank you for that explanation. I guess that's why they may say that an INFJ would be much better at improving a system, versus building an entire system from scratch. I don't know how much of that is true, but it makes sense in this scenario.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

RunForCover07 said:


> Okay, that makes sense. It actually sounds pretty similar to an INFJ in a lot of ways, except for I wouldn't consider everything that's up for grabs. I would only want to take the valuable information I need to get to where I'm going. If I were going on a road trip, I don't care about the multiple roads that can get me there, I just want to take the correct route that's going to get me there faster, and I want to stick to it unless something better comes up along the way. I guess when you throw too many options in there, it almost feels like getting too many unnecessary details.
> 
> That's really interesting. Thank you for that explanation. I guess that's why they may say that an INFJ would be much better at improving a system, versus building an entire system from scratch. I don't know how much of that is true, but it makes sense in this scenario.


I personally prefer the scenic route myself.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> @_teddy564339_
> 
> Did you or @_RunForCover07_ still have questions about Si?


I may here soon, I'm just soaking things in a bit. Taking a knowledge bath. Lol


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Marlowe said:


> @_teddy564339_
> 
> Did you or @_RunForCover07_ still have questions about Si?




I think the main thing I'm still trying to figure out is exactly how Si and Ne work together. Of course, this will be very different depending on where they fall on the function stack. There's no question that an Ne dom will be very very different from me in this regard.


I think what makes it more complicated for me is that they're on opposite ends for me rather than in the middle. I've gotten a lot more confident in seeing how my Fe and Ti work together. But with Si...I don't know how much of what I do is Si and how much is Ne. I thought I knew, but your first post has made me re-think it.


I posted this in the other thread describing my Si and Ne. This is how it feels like for me and it lines up with some things I've read in a few MBTI books:



> Having inferior Ne means that you have a natural tendency to see negative possibilities. You're right when you say that inferior Ne is a "worry-wart function". My natural reaction of thinking about the unknown is to think of the worst-case scenarios.
> 
> I do this for planning purposes. I'm horrible at thinking on the spot. I'm at my best when I know what's coming. That's how I use my dominant Si...I can remember all kinds of past experiences, so when I feel like the future will be just like a past experience, I feel comfortable making a decision because I can compare it to something that I already know. This is partly why I crave consistency so much.
> 
> ...






So I know that this is what it feels like for me. I've always felt like it's my Si that makes me look to the past and use it to plan for the future. I've always felt like it was my Si that's made me crave consistency.


But now I don't know how much of it is my Si and how much of it is the negative aspect of my Ne.



On top of that....I don't know exactly how they currently work together or if they're supposed to be working in a different or better way.




However, I do think I've learned more about the "details" topic and I feel better about that than I originally did.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> Okay, that makes sense. It actually sounds pretty similar to an INFJ in a lot of ways, except for I wouldn't consider everything that's up for grabs. I would only want to take the valuable information I need to get to where I'm going. If I were going on a road trip, I don't care about the multiple roads that can get me there, I just want to take the correct route that's going to get me there faster, and I want to stick to it unless something better comes up along the way. I guess when you throw too many options in there, it almost feels like getting too many unnecessary details.
> 
> That's really interesting. Thank you for that explanation. I guess that's why they may say that an INFJ would be much better at improving a system, versus building an entire system from scratch. I don't know how much of that is true, but it makes sense in this scenario.


Yeah, Ne has a problem with information overload pretty often. I swear I'm almost chronically indecisive, and a lot of the decisions I do make will basically hinge on instinct because I simply don't have the time to make a detailed analysis of all the available options and their qualities. I've had to suppress Ne more and more often as I age because of how much it'd lock me in place otherwise (and the passive route is often not that pleasant). If I only had more time...



Marlowe said:


> I personally prefer the scenic route myself.


Me too.  You never know what you could find.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

@_teddy564339_

Oh. My. God. Thank you for that post. Can I hug you? :crazy: I've been deliberating about how Fe and Si work in my own function stacking, even thinking that I might have to relearn them, but I think I've gained a bit of insight about my inferior Si. Well, I mean, I was turning the general idea around in my head, but reading your post just gave me a crucial connection. We're functionally inverses of each other, after all.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Vox said:


> @_teddy564339_
> 
> Oh. My. God. Thank you for that post. Can I hug you? :crazy: I've been deliberating about how Fe and Si work in my own function stacking, even thinking that I might have to relearn them, but I think I've gained a bit of insight about my inferior Si. Well, I mean, I was turning the idea around in my head, but reading your post just gave me a crucial connection. We're functionally inverses of each other, after all.



You can definitely hug me. My avatar is a teddy bear after all. :wink:


On a more serious note, though...I actually mentioned in that other thread that I have an MBTI book that describes how each type's inferior function affects them when they're stressed. I definitely read the inferior Ne section and I related to it. I read a few of the others, but I don't know if I ever read the inferior Si section...so I may go back and do that to see what it says.


I also thought I remembered some old threads talking about inferior Si somewhere in one of the ENP forums, but I don't remember where it is or what it's titled.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> I think the main thing I'm still trying to figure out is exactly how Si and Ne work together. Of course, this will be very different depending on where they fall on the function stack. There's no question that an Ne dom will be very very different from me in this regard.
> 
> 
> I think what makes it more complicated for me is that they're on opposite ends for me rather than in the middle. I've gotten a lot more confident in seeing how my Fe and Ti work together. But with Si...I don't know how much of what I do is Si and how much is Ne. I thought I knew, but your first post has made me re-think it.
> ...


I can’t really explain or give you a proper answer here, but I just noticed a connection between you and my ISFJ friend. It might have some helpful insight.

Him and I were talking about how we see the future. He told me that he thinks about the future, and the things that he listed to me sounded very negative. When I brought this up he said, “No, they’re not negative. I’m taking precautions of what could go horribly wrong in the future.” Where he thinks that I don’t take enough precautions. It's interesting to see how he views it as a positive tool to help him, and you view it as a negative experience. I thought that was very interesting.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

RunForCover07 said:


> I can’t really explain or give you a proper answer here, but I just noticed a connection between you and my ISFJ friend. It might have some helpful insight.
> 
> Him and I were talking about how we see the future. He told me that he thinks about the future, and the things that he listed to me sounded very negative. When I brought this up he said, “No, they’re not negative. I’m taking precautions of what could go horribly wrong in the future.” Where he thinks that I don’t take enough precautions. It's interesting to see how he views it as a positive tool to help him, and you view it as a negative experience. I thought that was very interesting.



Well, it's interesting because it is my natural tendency. It is what feels comfortable. If I just let myself do what comes naturally, I'll picture all of the bad things and plan for it. Then, I feel like if it is as bad as I thought, I'll be in the best position to deal with it. And, if it's not as bad as I thought, then I'll feel a whole lot better once I get there because I'll be relieved.

So there are some cases/times where it's a positive for me too and it helps me to cope and make it through things. I think if I use it for planning purposes, it can be effective.


But, when I let this dominate everything I do, it can become a huge negative. This is especially true if what I'm thinking about is far in the future. If I spend tons and tons of time worrying about something that may never actually happen (or something in the present that I don't know...things that I'm imagining that may or may not be there)....then I'm wasting all kinds of time and energy. Instead of enjoying and making the most out of the present, I'm ruining it.

I read some quotation about worrying that was along those lines. It was something like "Worrying won't make the future any better. All it does is ruin the present." 


So I think there's a difference between worrying and planning. It goes back to what you can change and what you can't. 


The other problem is when an ISJ assumes that everyone else needs to plan as much as the ISJ does. If we assume that everyone else has our own limited version of intuition and adaptability, it makes others find us to be overbearing. You see this a lot of times with parents who can be over-protective of children. 



So I can see why he would find it to be a positive. But like with any function, I feel that if it's taken to the extreme, it has a lot of negative impacts too.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> Having inferior Ne means that you have a natural tendency to see negative possibilities. You're right when you say that inferior Ne is a "worry-wart function". My natural reaction of thinking about the unknown is to think of the worst-case scenarios.
> 
> 
> I do this for planning purposes. I'm horrible at thinking on the spot. I'm at my best when I know what's coming. That's how I use my dominant Si...I can remember all kinds of past experiences, so when I feel like the future will be just like a past experience, I feel comfortable making a decision because I can compare it to something that I already know. This is partly why I crave consistency so much.
> ...


I have a close ISFJ friend who seems to use Ne in much the same way you've described. Everything someone says or does, she'll almost exclusively go through the negative interpretations. She's only optimistic when it comes to other people's lives, though I suspect she still sees some of the negative possibilities - just never vocalizes them unless someone else mentions it first.



> So when there's an unknown, I imagine the worst case scenario so it won't take me by surprise. I feel like if I can imagine the worst case scenario, I can compare it to some other similar bad scenario and I'll be able to plan for it. That way I can "minimize the damage".


That actually sounds pretty similar to how I sometimes deal with things completely out of my control, though I do have to force it a bit (I don't know how natural it is for you). I naturally gravitate towards a more optimistic view, but there's always a good bit of oscillation. In my earlier, more pessimistic phase, it leaned heavily towards the negative; really, the shred of optimism I clung to was the only thing that kept me sane then, if you'll excuse the cliche. As if a remnant of that, I always force myself to grab hold of the worst case scenario for the precise purpose you mentioned: damage control. If I focus on that branch and prepare the necessary safeties, then I'll be more or less fine no matter what happens.

My friend does something vaguely similar, but it's a totally different method. Rather, it seems focused on avoidance, whereas I feel I'm focused more on confrontation. She'll find the worst case scenario just as easily as I will, but the steps she takes are to avoid it ever happening rather than planning for it. It leads to a _lot_ of long-term problems, especially because she's also extremely sensitive to any potential warning signs and reacts immediately and pretty intensely when she spots them. It's very different from what you've described, but it still feels like Si - correct me if I'm wrong.

Ahh, sorry if I'm not really adding anything to the discussion. I feel a little lost. Si is my inferior, so I guess that makes sense. My ISFJ friend confuses me a lot sometimes; I can't tell which reading is the most accurate, and she always rejects the assertions I pitch to her without providing a clear response about why they're wrong. I just want to understaaaaand...



> It's possible that with Ne doms it's the opposite. It's like you said...just like how I don't trust my Ne, they don't trust the stability of Si.


I feel that that's true with me. Sometimes, when I'm in a familiar situation, I'll instinctively go for what I did last time, but I never feel comfortable with the choice. "There's always something different about each situation; you can't just round up or down and pick the same solution as last time." Even when I know I'm being presented with the exact same situation, say, a recycled test question, I have to reassess it again to feel comfortable with my choice. (...I can see how that can still be construed as Si, though.)


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> So recently, @_RunForCover07_ (and INFJ) and I have had some long conversations about the differences between INFJs and ISFJs, with a lot of it being in this thread:
> 
> http://personalitycafe.com/isfj-forum-nurturers/172313-infj-isfj-dynamic.html
> 
> ...


O man. This is confusing me even _more_. But, I really appreciate the insight from an Si-dom contrasting Ni-- It's not something you see so often on the forums.

I notice this behaviour with my SO, who was recently typed on this forum as an ISTP. But, he could have easily been mistaken for INFJ, INTJ or ISTJ, imo. 

Now I wonder if his behaviour can't be explained with Si. But, now I wonder about _my _behaviour. I was certain I was coming from the perspective of Ne-Ti.

With my lovely husfriend, he loves to go into intricate details, becoming very absorbed in constructing the scene verbally. Impatiently, I already knew where he was going and wanted to move on. I have to bite my impatience back, and wait... And not surprisingly, he says exactly what I knew he would. 

He _hates _when I cut him off, and I wish that he'd move on when I already know what he's saying. Yet, I don't think he believes that I'm understanding if I do this.

But, I don't attribute this to Ni, in my case. I don't necessarily _predict _as much as I simply _fill in the blanks _with the most likely possibilities. And I'm generally right about them. I finish peoples sentences a lot (not necessarily a very appealing trait). Much of this is just extroverted impatience. Still, it's something to consider.

With an Ni-dom, I don't imagine them interrupting information being given (Particularly Ni-Fe). Details are generally fairly important to them. Efficiency and 'getting to the point', seems more like Te. 

For an Ni-Fe, I'd think that they would first patiently listen and hear it out, and then maybe repeat it from how they may understand it, being particularly concise to the original idea. But, that's just an educated guess.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> *With an Ni-dom, I don't imagine them interrupting information being given (Particularly Ni-Fe). Details are generally fairly important to them. Efficiency and 'getting to the point', seems more like Te. *
> 
> For an Ni-Fe, I'd think that they would first patiently listen and hear it out, and then maybe repeat it from how they may understand it, being particularly concise to the original idea. But, that's just an educated guess.


First the bold section. It would really depend on what is being talked about. If it's something that I have no experience in and I can't compare it to something, I will listen to get to the point. But, that doesn't mean that I need all of the details to understand, where I think certain details to a sensor would be different to what an intuitive might consider an important detail.

*Example conversation that I kind of did with the ISFJs:*

Today I went shopping online. I sat down in front of my computer and I registered for this clothing website. I put in my credit card and started shopping for clothes that I really liked, and I added what I wanted to my cart. *sensor then goes into their sensory details, which is fine* I'm getting them on January 16th. I'm going to feel more confident now that I have nice clothes to wear.

*How an INFJ might say that:*

I don't really have many nice clothes to wear, so I went shopping online today and bought clothes that I liked. I'm going to feel pretty confident now, it feels great. *Goes into what they looked like and what they are*

The sensor experience might be a bit extreme in my example, but as you can see, I would much rather get to the point of why buying the clothes were important, an what they looked like. I don't need the step by step process to understand where the sensor was going, those details mean nothing to me, but they had great importance to the sensor.

I guess if you look at my examples, this is a great example of the INFJ jumping or cutting corners. The things in red above are things I would have assumed already if the sensor didn't tell me.

That conversation for the sensor is pretty much what I experience with my ESTJ mother daily. I'm asking her to get to the point, and she's asking me for more information (details). It can be frustrating for both people.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> First the bold section. It would really depend on what is being talked about. If it's something that I have no experience in and I can't compare it to something, I will listen to get to the point. But, that doesn't mean that I need all of the details to understand, where I think certain details to a sensor would be different to what an intuitive might consider an important detail.
> 
> *Example conversation that I kind of did with the ISFJs:*
> 
> ...


Indeed... Hm... Further pondering of my partner using Si dominantly.... :ninja:


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> [MENTION=68233]
> I have to admit, this does get me much more curious to see how Ne doms/auxs interact with Ni doms/Auxs. A lot of times it seems like Ns or NFs or NTs just all get grouped together as being the same, and now I feel like I should probably investigate to see if any of these same issues pop up between them
> 
> So yeah, hearing your perspective is very helpful for me.


I haven't read all the posts, but I don't think the issue is with Ne verse Ni. Here's an example: my ENFP mother will have an unexpected guest over and she offers everything in her kitchen for them to eat. "Do you want a sandwich? I have leftover meatloaf?" "I could run to the store and buy something?" "I just peeled this orange, do you want that instead?"

She might be an extreme case, however it demonstrates the "possibilities" aspect of Ne. For me, when someone comes over unexpected I ask to give them something that is convenient for me. "I have bottled water and juice." That is if I remember that social norm at all. 

Ne seems to focus on the exciting adventure of possibilities. The _what will you choose and where does it lead._ They just enjoy getting there. 

Si focuses on the details because caution is better than adventure and it is a tried and true method. Ni jumps to the conclusion because details are bothersome, and we get bogged down when we just want to answer.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> I haven't read all the posts, but I don't think the issue is with Ne verse Ni. Here's an example: my ENFP mother will have an unexpected guest over and she offers everything in her kitchen for them to eat. "Do you want a sandwich? I have leftover meatloaf?" "I could run to the store and buy something?" "I just peeled this orange, do you want that instead?"


You pretty much just explained my dad and confirmed he does in fact have Ne. This quality about him drives me completely nuts. “How many times do I have to say I’m fine before you stop trying to feed me?” Of course, I don’t say this out loud. Damn you Fe.



> She might be an extreme case, however it demonstrates the "possibilities" aspect of Ne. *For me, when someone comes over unexpected I ask to give them something that is convenient for me. "I have bottled water and juice." That is if I remember that social norm at all. *
> 
> Ne seems to focus on the exciting adventure of possibilities. The _what will you choose and where does it lead._ They just enjoy getting there.
> 
> Si focuses on the details because caution is better than adventure and it is a tried and true method. *Ni jumps to the conclusion because details are bothersome, and we get bogged down when we just want to answer.*


The bold sounds just like me, but with Fe tossed in there. I almost forget how much INTJs are like me, I really need to look more into your type. They're like a more blunt and honest version of myself. LOL


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

RunForCover07 said:


> You pretty much just explained my dad and confirmed he does in fact have Ne. This quality about him drives me completely nuts. “How many times do I have to say I’m fine before you stop trying to feed me?” Of course, I don’t say this out loud. Damn you Fe.


Yes, it drives me crazy. If she's offering me something, I will stop her and confirm I'm fine. Sometimes I see hurt in her eyes, but if I don't stop her I might start laughing, which would hurt her feelings more. 



> The bold sounds just like me, but with Fe tossed in there. I almost forget how much INTJs are like me, I really need to look more into your type. They're like a more blunt and honest version of myself. LOL


My mom will ask me questions by starting out, "I know you'll be honest..." It makes me wonder why people aren't honest, not that I don't temper my comments if I know they will hurt someone I love. I just prefer honesty.

I like to scan through the INFJ forum. I see a lot of similarities as well.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Kathy Kane said:


> Yes, it drives me crazy. If she's offering me something, I will stop her and confirm I'm fine. Sometimes I see hurt in her eyes, but if I don't stop her I might start laughing, which would hurt her feelings more.
> 
> My mom will ask me questions by starting out, "I know you'll be honest..." It makes me wonder why people aren't honest, not that I don't temper my comments if I know they will hurt someone I love. I just prefer honesty.
> 
> I like to scan through the INFJ forum. I see a lot of similarities as well.


It’s bittersweet, honestly. There is nothing I value more than honesty and to be authentic, but I really watch what I’m saying around Fe/fi users to make sure that what I’m saying doesn’t sound too blunt. It actually makes me uncomfortable when I’ve upset somebody (harmony). I tend to run into problems with INFPs and ISFJs at times, both for different reasons.

I really hate sugarcoating things, so I will either lighten the blow, or try avoiding it completely. Lol But when I see an INTJ say what I want to say in the purest logical form they can with removing their emotions, I can't deny that I admire that quality, because I can't always do that.

I tend to fight with my Fe and Ti a lot. I can't really explain it.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> It’s bittersweet, honestly. There is nothing I value more than honesty and to be authentic, but I really watch what I’m saying around Fe/fi users to make sure that what I’m saying doesn’t sound too blunt. It actually makes me uncomfortable when I’ve upset somebody (harmony). I tend to run into problems with INFPs and ISFJs at times, both for different reasons.
> 
> I really hate sugarcoating things, so I will either lighten the blow, or try avoiding it completely. Lol But when I see an INTJ say what I want to say in the purest logical form they can with removing their emotions, I can't deny that I admire that quality, because I can't always do that.
> 
> I tend to fight with my Fe and Ti a lot. I can't really explain it.


God, I run into the same problems. My default mode is blunt, so if it really gets to be too much for me to handle, I forget about being nice whatsoever and rant unfiltered. It's particularly bad with my ISFJ friend because I often use words in a different context than she's used to, which sounds either emotionally distant or cruel to her. She can never discard her initial understanding, either...I have a similar problem with one of the ISTJs, but he doesn't get upset - he just thinks my thoughts are invalid. =_=



Kathy Kane said:


> I haven't read all the posts, but I don't think the issue is with Ne verse Ni. Here's an example: my ENFP mother will have an unexpected guest over and she offers everything in her kitchen for them to eat. "Do you want a sandwich? I have leftover meatloaf?" "I could run to the store and buy something?" "I just peeled this orange, do you want that instead?"
> 
> She might be an extreme case, however it demonstrates the "possibilities" aspect of Ne. For me, when someone comes over unexpected I ask to give them something that is convenient for me. "I have bottled water and juice." That is if I remember that social norm at all.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I'm starting to think it is actually Ni v. Si rather than Ni v. Ne. I've been mulling over this for a while because, even as an Ne-dom, I'm extremely detail-oriented. I thought it was Ti, but I think that's detail orientation in a different context. I can see how the attention to detail that I experience can be a manifestation of Si, specifically while interacting with Ne. I'll leave Ni to you guys, though, as I feel like I still don't understand it.

There is something that doesn't sit well with me in your summations of Ne, Si, and Ni, but I can't quite pinpoint it. I dunno, maybe it just seems too simplistic to be considerably accurate. (Hail, details!)



> She might be an extreme case, however it demonstrates the "possibilities" aspect of Ne. For me, when someone comes over unexpected I ask to give them something that is convenient for me. "I have bottled water and juice." That is if I remember that social norm at all.


Yeaaahh...I do that too. I'm not a very good hostess.  I only start going through all the other options if they still say no, but only because I'm desperately trying to be remotely accommodating.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

@Kathy Kane



> Si focuses on the details because caution is better than adventure and it is a tried and true method. Ni jumps to the conclusion because details are bothersome, and we get bogged down when we just want to answer.


This is a misunderstanding about Si. Si is not about details or safety or a lack of adventurous spirit. Si is, at its most basic, subjective sensory recall. That's it. It has nothing to do with the "safe path." 

As to "tried and true," that's more an Te thing. Te doesn't want to waste time finding new paths where an efficient method has already been employed.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

@RunForCover07

Your mother's explanation of her day would kill me. My Te would be flipping out inwardly thinking, "move along! I have other things to get to in this lifetime!"


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Vox said:


> Yeah, I'm starting to think it is actually Ni v. Si rather than Ni v. Ne. I've been mulling over this for a while because, even as an Ne-dom, I'm extremely detail-oriented. I thought it was Ti, but I think that's detail orientation in a different context. I can see how the attention to detail that I experience can be a manifestation of Si, specifically while interacting with Ne. I'll leave Ni to you guys, though, as I feel like I still don't understand it.
> 
> There is something that doesn't sit well with me in your summations of Ne, Si, and Ni, but I can't quite pinpoint it. I dunno, maybe it just seems too simplistic to be considerably accurate. (Hail, details!)


The other thing I do is expect everyone to know the rest of the details. Kind of, _I got there, so you should just know those details I missed._ It frustrates the Si people I know.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> @_RunForCover07_
> 
> Your mother's explanation of her day would kill me. My Te would be flipping out inwardly thinking, "move along! I have other things to get to in this lifetime!"


Yeah, it's not that extreme, but she sure does love her details.

I must ask you while I have you here. Do ESTJs have this habit of explaining the same thing about 2 different times while talking? I notice my ESTJ mom does this a lot, and I wanted to know if there was some kind of correlation to a function. Yes, I would say at times it's when she wants me to understand, but for the most part it sounds like she's thinking out loud, as if she's talking through me, not with me. I think that's the only way I can explain it.

And then I'm looking at her like, "You just said the same thing 3 different times, literally."


----------



## Khiro (Nov 28, 2012)

teddy564339 said:


> All of this seems to make sense to me. But if that's the case, why would an Ni user get so irritated by the details that an Si user mixes in along the way? Is it just because they already know what the picture looks like and can enjoy it, while an Si user may not know what the picture looks like first? Is is that the INFJ would want to talk about the picture and the ISFJ couldn't talk about it because they didn't know what it looked like?


In my experience the irritation comes because I can't handle too many details. I do value the ones that seem important to me, but in the moment it feels like I have a tremendous amount of information to retain, much of which comes from my own _filling in the blanks_ (which is vital to my ability to understand) and the extra influx of detail makes it difficult for me to incorporate it into my own impression of what I'm being told and I end up feeling like I'm holding onto too much to process the information, focus on what's meaningful and prepare a response.

In terms of downside, I have one example that springs to mind - quite simply, a lot of people do value more detailed explanations of things. I'm writing a book at the moment and I was recently asked to tell someone (an ESFJ, I believe, but that's far from certain) what it was about. I summed up the entire story in about five seconds and the look on his face told me how limited it must have sounded. That's all I could do though, because to try to provide more detail would result in me not really knowing which parts were interesting to others and which weren't. If I try to explain something in too much detail I end up tripping over my words and running around in circles because I forget the big picture and thus lose my ability to prioritise.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

Kathy Kane said:


> The other thing I do is expect everyone to know the rest of the details. Kind of, _I got there, so you should just know those details I missed._ It frustrates the Si people I know.


See, I don't trust that. When I relay information, I rarely sacrifice details because there's just too many possible interpretations that can result from one piece of information. The more details there are, the more I can hone in on a specific interpretation, and the less likely (theoretically) the other party will arrive at a different interpretation. In a way, we operate backwards in relation to each other. You present the end, and expect the other party to be able to infer the process; I present the process, and expect the other party to be able to infer the end.

If you look at it like that, it sounds a lot more like Ni v. Ne than Si. Si _might _play some sort of role in that it sort of "feeds" Ne in my case, but that need for detail does sound more attributable to Ne than Si.

Thoughts?


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

RunForCover07 said:


> Yeah, it's not that extreme, but she sure does love her details.
> 
> I must ask you while I have you here. Do ESTJs have this habit of explaining the same thing about 2 different times while talking? I notice my ESTJ mom does this a lot, and I wanted to know if there was some kind of correlation to a function. Yes, I would say at times it's when she wants me to understand, but for the most part it sounds like she's thinking out loud, as if she's talking through me, not with me. I think that's the only way I can explain it.
> 
> And then I'm looking at her like, "You just said the same thing 3 different times, literally."



LOL. You have me while the coffee pot at work is boiling...

I'm not actually sure about the repitition thing. I've never had it pointed out to me, personally.

If I'm really emotionally upset and ranting about something I'll repeat myself multiple times...kind of a lame way to talk out what's upset me while conveying the depths of my raging inferior Fi.

I might also repeat something if I think someone isn't listening. Generally, though, if I think you aren't listening, or aren't going to listen, I won't bother speaking at all unless absolutely necessary. I'd rather not waste my time and frustrate myself.


----------



## Vox (Mar 16, 2012)

RunForCover07 said:


> Yeah, it's not that extreme, but she sure does love her details.
> 
> I must ask you while I have you here. Do ESTJs have this habit of explaining the same thing about 2 different times while talking? I notice my ESTJ mom does this a lot, and I wanted to know if there was some kind of correlation to a function. Yes, I would say at times it's when she wants me to understand, but for the most part it sounds like she's thinking out loud, as if she's talking through me, not with me. I think that's the only way I can explain it.
> 
> And then I'm looking at her like, "You just said the same thing 3 different times, literally."


That seems to be an Ne/Si thing. I guess we're currently debating whether it's more attributable to Ne or Si.

I know that I seem to do that a lot, but usually it's just me trying to hone in on an incredibly specific meaning - each "explanation" is really just another description of some "parameter," if you will, that defines the concept (...detail, basically. See?). I only actually delve into alternate explanations when my current one _really_ isn't getting through.

Come to think of it, I've been getting better at spotting the parts that other people would think are redundant when I talk or write...


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> LOL. You have me while the coffee pot at work is boiling...
> 
> I'm not actually sure about the repitition thing. I've never had it pointed out to me, personally.
> 
> ...


I think you answered my question, actually. I mentioned a couple of times that when I'm getting overstimulated by too many details in a conversation, I will take the important information (key words) to get to the point and reply when given the chance, so sometimes I tend to daydream, but I'm still listening at the same time. I think because I'm not giving a response, and I'm thinking in my head, that may make her think that I'm not listening or I don't understand.

That's interesting. Thank you.

And, enjoy your coffee. Haha


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

RunForCover07 said:


> I think you answered my question, actually. I mentioned a couple of times that when I'm getting overstimulated by too many details in a conversation, I will take the important information (key words) to get to the point and reply when given the chance, so sometimes I tend to daydream, but I'm still listening at the same time. I think because I'm not giving a response, and I'm thinking in my head, that may make her think that I'm not listening or I don't understand.
> 
> That's interesting. Thank you.
> 
> And, enjoy your coffee. Haha



Haha. Yeah, deer in the headlights and/or vacant zombie gaze makes us think nobody's home...

And thanks. 

Edit: not that you have either, but that's often how we perceive it.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

@RunForCover07

Quick question: what kind of "thinking" do you do when waiting for someone to finish their end of the conversation?


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> Haha. Yeah, deer in the headlights and/or vacant zombie gaze makes us think nobody's home...
> 
> And thanks.
> 
> Edit: not that you have either, but that's often how we perceive it.


Hopefully it's like a cute deer.

View attachment 91291


Don't...don't you just want to...you know, cuddle it? Lmao

I think you explained it perfectly. I think too Vox made some good points above.


----------



## RunForCover07 (Apr 9, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> @_RunForCover07_
> 
> Quick question: what kind of "thinking" do you do when waiting for someone to finish their end of the conversation?


I'm usually making connections, or figuring out how to reply so it can be understood. Although, I have a bad habit with interrupting when given the right details. I'm learning to let people finish. So, if I've come to the conclusion, I'm usually thinking about what I'm going to do that day, projects, or whatever, really.

Once they stop talking, I start talking about the point again. It's actually kind of scary how this is done, because I can actually stay on topic pretty well for the most part.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Marlowe said:


> @Kathy Kane
> 
> This is a misunderstanding about Si. Si is not about details or safety or a lack of adventurous spirit. Si is, at its most basic, subjective sensory recall. That's it. It has nothing to do with the "safe path."
> 
> As to "tried and true," that's more an Te thing. Te doesn't want to waste time finding new paths where an efficient method has already been employed.


I suppose I could be wrong on the purpose of the perceiving, as that is how I view Si in the people I know. It might go to the attitude more than the cog function. 

I say tried in true in the sense that the Si user relates the information perceived to previous familiar subjective (personal) information. If familiar they can apply it, but if not then they need to build a library of the new subjective sensory input. It doesn't want to move on until the entire section is complete. 

Ti and Te would only be different in which systems and authority they choose to process information. Te uses external systems and authority and Ti uses personal systems and authority. In that sense they both could be described as "tried and true" by the different prerogatives.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

@_Marlowe_ 
@_RunForCover07_
@_Vox_
@Kathy Kane

So after reading a few more responses by people, I'm starting to develop a theory here, and I'm curious to see what you think of it.



For Si doms (and maybe other Si users too, though probably to a lesser degree), I'm beginning to think that the most important way for us to know something is to physically experience. We place value on a personal subjective interpretation of any sensory event.

So, for us the process is so important because we want to experience every step of the way. We want to take in every single detail so it can be as tangible as possible to us...we understand things by experience rather than by just verbal description.


So when we're describing something....we either don't understand that non Si users don't have this need to experience it, or we have a desire for the other person to experience exactly what it is we're experiencing. There can't be too many details because the details are never going to actually live up to the actual experience anyway...but the more we can throw in there, the closer we get to that.

Basically, we get frustrated because we can't get others to experience our own personal subjective interpretation of the event. We want them to have that same experience that we had...we feel like they can't truly understand what we're saying unless they have that actual experience.


But...Ni users don't really care about that experience. They don't need it to understand enough for them to get what they want out of the situation. They only care about the details that are important to them...that's to say, just enough details to get them to their goal. The only purpose of any experience is to use it for a purpose...which would make sense because their Se doesn't attach a personal subjective value onto any sensory details....it just sees them in the same objective manner that anyone else would see them.



I think this is why Si users' details get on the nerves of Ni users....because the Si user is trying to get the Ni user to experience something that the Ni user either can't or doesn't see the need in doing. Meanwhile, when the Ni user is trying to convey something, they're trying to explain the main goal or point...the Si user has trouble understanding what they're talking about because they can't attach a physical experience to it.




In my case as an SFJ, I tend to do this more with feelings and relationships. I feel like the other person can't understand what I'm saying unless they feel what I'm feeling, and I have a strong desire to connect with them. When I don't get that connection, it feels lonely and distant to me. I would imagine an STJ would be more apt to feel like someone else can't understand the logical message they're getting across unless the other person can experience the situation.



Does that sound about right? What I keep reading is that INJs only care about the necessary or important details...not the details for the sake of having details. And I think what I"ve been having trouble with is conveying exactly why those details are important to me *in themselves*....not for some higher purpose. It's because I try to get the other person to experience exactly what it is that I'm experiencing, even though that's a highly subjective thing.




Does that sound right?


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

Vox said:


> I have a close ISFJ friend who seems to use Ne in much the same way you've described. Everything someone says or does, she'll almost exclusively go through the negative interpretations. She's only optimistic when it comes to other people's lives, though I suspect she still sees some of the negative possibilities - just never vocalizes them unless someone else mentions it first.


I think this is probably due to the Fe nature of an ISFJ. I think sometimes we have a desire to sacrifice ourselves for the group, so we tend start feeling like everyone else is better than we are. I think you're right...she probably has those same worries about other people but wouldn't want to express them because she would think other people would say it's not her business or because she doesn't want to irritate them.



Vox said:


> That actually sounds pretty similar to how I sometimes deal with things completely out of my control, though I do have to force it a bit (I don't know how natural it is for you). I naturally gravitate towards a more optimistic view, but there's always a good bit of oscillation. In my earlier, more pessimistic phase, it leaned heavily towards the negative; really, the shred of optimism I clung to was the only thing that kept me sane then, if you'll excuse the cliche. As if a remnant of that, I always force myself to grab hold of the worst case scenario for the precise purpose you mentioned: damage control. If I focus on that branch and prepare the necessary safeties, then I'll be more or less fine no matter what happens.
> 
> My friend does something vaguely similar, but it's a totally different method. Rather, it seems focused on avoidance, whereas I feel I'm focused more on confrontation. She'll find the worst case scenario just as easily as I will, but the steps she takes are to avoid it ever happening rather than planning for it. It leads to a _lot_ of long-term problems, especially because she's also extremely sensitive to any potential warning signs and reacts immediately and pretty intensely when she spots them. It's very different from what you've described, but it still feels like Si - correct me if I'm wrong.
> 
> Ahh, sorry if I'm not really adding anything to the discussion. I feel a little lost. Si is my inferior, so I guess that makes sense. My ISFJ friend confuses me a lot sometimes; I can't tell which reading is the most accurate, and she always rejects the assertions I pitch to her without providing a clear response about why they're wrong. I just want to understaaaaand...



Well, I think one thing that's important to distinguish is when it's something outside or your control or under your control.

The situations I was talking about were ones that I had no control over. They were coming no matter what I did.

If it's under my control, then I am like your friend. I'll often side step things or "sweep them under the rug". If it's something unpleasant and I'm worried about it being bad, I'll do what I can to avoid it. 


In some cases this can be helpful, and in some cases it can be very problematic. I think this happens much more with SFJs than STJs, though....STJs are much more likely to tackle conflict head-on while SFJS are more likely to want to avoid the conflict. This is why ISFJs are known to bottle up their feelings until they boil over and explode. We have to work on not being scared of unpleasant things like conflict so we can take care of them before they get too big.





Word Dispenser said:


> O man. This is confusing me even _more_. But, I really appreciate the insight from an Si-dom contrasting Ni-- It's not something you see so often on the forums.
> 
> I notice this behaviour with my SO, who was recently typed on this forum as an ISTP. But, he could have easily been mistaken for INFJ, INTJ or ISTJ, imo.
> 
> ...



I just made a post describing a theory I had about this...it's on page 6 of this thread. I guess I should have tagged you but I forgot.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Vox said:


> See, I don't trust that. When I relay information, I rarely sacrifice details because there's just too many possible interpretations that can result from one piece of information. The more details there are, the more I can hone in on a specific interpretation, and the less likely (theoretically) the other party will arrive at a different interpretation. In a way, we operate backwards in relation to each other. You present the end, and expect the other party to be able to infer the process; I present the process, and expect the other party to be able to infer the end.
> 
> If you look at it like that, it sounds a lot more like Ni v. Ne than Si. Si _might _play some sort of role in that it sort of "feeds" Ne in my case, but that need for detail does sound more attributable to Ne than Si.
> 
> Thoughts?


When you said "so many possible interpretations" I thought Ne. I don't see all the other possible interpretations. In fact when I debate I can be vague and generalize, which gets me in trouble. Someone will come back with a bunch of other possible interpretations. When that happens, I have to concentrate and add in extra stuff just in case someone misinterpret again, but it still can be lacking. You see all the possibilities so you figure everyone else sees them as well. You then focus on the details to combat it. 

The mention of theorizing also points to Ne. Si really doesn't want to theorize about the sensations. It wants to gain the sensations so it can store them. The theories are irrelevant to personal sensory input. 

That is the way I see it. So I'm still thinking the problem is Si verse Ni.


----------

