Ni, Si, and Patterns

Trifoilum

Trifoilum

find wisdom, build hope.
MBTI
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
From what I'd read and what I'd seen; they both seem to play with those.

What I'm currently wondering is, what are the differences? The similarities?
 
For one Si is way better.
 
They do indeed! I have spent the last week trying to understand them better.

Si develops generalized surface level/concrete/tangible patterns.
Ni develops specific deeper level/abstract/intangible patterns.

Sorry. I will try to think of a better explanation. If only I could draw it.
 
Paladin-X said:
They do indeed! I have spent the last week trying to understand them better.

Si develops generalized surface level/concrete/tangible patterns.
Ni develops specific deeper level/abstract/intangible patterns.

Sorry. I will try to think of a better explanation. If only I could draw it.
Click to expand...
I'm stuck in this level too, but--
what differs between 'tangible' and 'intangible'? Even the most intangible patterns will, at some point, involve tangible elements.
 
From what I've gathered, both are intangible. Si seems to focus on the data surrounding the tangible things - not the things themselves.

Okay, let me theorize with some old news. If Si looks at a table and says, "A table has certain standardized features and purposes, depending on its context." What would Ni say? Would it say, "A table is basically a desk, which is basically a surface, which is basically a plane?"
 
knight in battle said:
From what I've gathered, both are intangible. Si seems to focus on the data surrounding the tangible things - not the things themselves.

Okay, let me theorize with some old news. If Si looks at a table and says, "A table has certain standardized features and purposes, depending on its context." What would Ni say? Would it say, "A table is basically a desk, which is basically a surface, which is basically a plane?"
Click to expand...

I apologize. I understand things better non-verbally and have difficulty with words. When I say intangible, I mean a surface level idea that you can easily see or relate to. It is concrete and literal. Ni is abstract and figurative. Ultimately they both relate back to the tangible object, but that is due to their relationship with Se or Ne.

The 4 perceptive functions are like a dictionary. Se is the word. Si is the definition(s). Ne is the synonym(s). Ni is the metaphorical/figurative definition(s). Does that make more sense?

Furthermore, all 4 functions can reach the same conclusion in understanding the word or concept. It is in how each function reaches that conclusion is what differentiates them. The same goes for the 4 judging functions.


Or another way, to confuse matters more, Se is a noun, Si is an adjective. Ne is a figurative noun, Ni is a figurative adjective. And to stretch it a little more... T is like a verb and F is like an adverb. (Sort of)
 
Last edited:
I can see why Si is a tandem function of Ne. It is supposed to compare current sensations with past sensations and in a detailed manner, and Ne is supposed to compare one thing to another, connect different things based on their similar patterns. (This is not to say that Se is not detailed, but probably not in the same way.)

Similarities. Si and Ni are both left-brained functions, and they both cooperate with a primary or secondary function to produce a "left-brained person", if that even makes sense. And since they are both left brained, they are both very categorical people.

Differences. Maybe understanding Ni is supposed to allow you to understand Si. Ni creates and analyzes things based on non-apparent, future possibilities. Si renders and analyzes things based on a thing's conformity with established things. They are both concerned with the way things should be, but with different emphases. My ISFJ brother appreciates MBTI more than he appreciates Socionics, because, according to him, MBTI has been around longer, and thus more tested, whereas I am equally drawn to Socionics as to MBTI, since Socionics is just a different spin on MBTI.

I am inclined to believe that both Si and Ni users converge on their conclusions eventually. The TypeLogic website indicates, for example, that ISFJs and INFJs reach the same conclusions through variant processes. This is not to say, of course, that ISTJs and INFJs reach the same conclusions.
 
Paladin-X said:
I apologize. I understand things better non-verbally and have difficulty with words. When I say intangible, I mean a surface level idea that you can easily see or relate to. It is concrete and literal. Ni is abstract and figurative. Ultimately they both relate back to the tangible object, but that is due to their relationship with Se or Ne.

The 4 perceptive functions are like a dictionary. Se is the word. Si is the definition(s). Ne is the synonym(s). Ni is the metaphorical/figurative definition(s). Does that make more sense?

Furthermore, all 4 functions can reach the same conclusion in understanding the word or concept. It is in how each function reaches that conclusion is what differentiates them. The same goes for the 4 judging functions.
Click to expand...

In what sense does Ne tied to the object?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top