My present musings on the Ni-Se and Ne-Si divide

[Brilliand]

The downfall of Ne without Si: not being able to "sit back and enjoy" the present flow.

How about: Not able to bring the ideas into reality, or not able to improve the present reality due to not being in touch with it.

Ne and Se have the impetus - the change. Ni and Si have the understanding of the process of change.

Ni and Ne have the newness - the ideas to be brought into reality. Si and Se have the grounding - the focus on reality, where the ideas can be implemented.

[Jonathan]

This is another thread I found kind of interesting as I was stumbling through the forum today. Unlike the Fi/Te vs. Ti/Fe one, though, this very much corresponds with my way of seeing things. In fact, I was thinking about Ni/Se and Ne/Si in very much the same terms. Overall, I think the dynamic/static dichotomy is a very helpful construct in explaining things.

The only comment I would have (and I must admit, I haven't looked through this whole thread carefully...this is just my first reaction) is that one might want to flesh out more what is meant by "improvement" or "making something better" in an Ne sense.

"Improvement" can mean a number of things, such as working faster and with greater discipline, moral improvement, improved logical consistency, and so forth. I know that's not what you mean here, but it would be nice to try to put a finger on just want sort of "improvement" Ne offers, without over-limiting it.

It seems to me that in a sense, while Ne does offer a certain kind of "improvement," it is only part of the puzzle, as the rational functions play the primary role in being able to discern and measure if something really has improved.

Perhaps a hypothetical example with SLI can used to differentiate how Te and Ne differ in the ways they interact with Si to make something "better."

If, say, an SLI person is thinking of ways to improve something in the sense of reducing defects, becoming more efficient, etc., then that seems to be coming more from Te than from Ne, and it is the paring of the base and creative functions that is creating the synergistic effect of having some sort of "flow" and "improving" upon it.

To an extent, Ne offers a different way, a way out of ruts, an opportunity, that can be seen as the raw material of improvement, but may or may not really be better. It also provides a kind of improvement in the sense of variation and variety.

[jewels]

I think it's so neat how Expat just thinks up these things. Very creative and I like what you've done with it.

However, as far as this...

"How Ne-Si sees Se-Ni: "never contented", "not down to earth", "too ambitious", "more concerned with a future that may never come than with making the best of the present."

I'd say that usually, I see Ni as spacey, not practical and not relevant to the situation at hand. I get frustrated with it outside of say, a class on ancient greek architecture. Not to be offensive, but just to give my honest view, because I think that could be helpful.

I actually see Ni as being less future thinking that Ne. Ne wants to improve the entire future, but also the near future. Quickly. Ni wants to think about theories that may or may not apply, often for the fun of dissecting a theory and also feeling that things are connected (whether or not they actually are).

I would actually say that "too ambitious" is more how Ni/Se types usually see types like me. When I want to throw some Ne at something, I usually get the reaction "what's the rush? Why not wait a while and do something conventional using a Ti type system instead?"

I think Ne can get impatient because there are these amazing results "just around the corner." It's like you walk in to find someone's been living on dry flour and raw eggs and you say, "Oh come on! Let's just put this stuff in a bowl, and buy a baking pan, and now we've got an entire spread of delicious baked goods including cup cakes, bread, pancakes, etc, instead of eating dry flour, and it only took four hours to do this!" So I guess we might as well open a bakery since we did this so fast and it's tasty...etc.

I feel like Ni instead would want to purchase an encylopedia set of "cooking through the ages" books and study them, identify common themes, and get an PhD in cooking, and then would consider making something.

So I think that "too ambitious" thing might actually be flipped.

Though, now that I think of it, I knew an ESTp/INFp couple and I did think they wasted a lot of time on "unimportant" things, such as redoing decorations and buying expensive home furnishings they couldn't afford to "re-do everything!" even though they had just re-done it all very recently. It was like they'd get bored and re-do projects just for the sake of having something to do, so maybe that would be an instance of viewing them as "too ambitious." Or maybe, ambitious for things that are not efficient.

Or maybe I'm missing something...

The end.

[marooned]

I think Ne can get impatient because there are these amazing results "just around the corner." It's like you walk in to find someone's been living on dry flour and raw eggs and you say, "Oh come on! Let's just put this stuff in a bowl, and buy a baking pan, and now we've got an entire spread of delicious baked goods including cup cakes, bread, pancakes, etc, instead of eating dry flour, and it only took four hours to do this!" So I guess we might as well open a bakery since we did this so fast and it's tasty...etc.

I would find this very helpful. But the problem is that someone has to actually do it. Like sometimes I perceive Ne leading types as saying "we could do this, and we could do that, and it would be amazing if we did these others things, and wow, we could do that too... and!" and I'm thinking "aaaaaaaah, okay, so what are we doing because I'm feeling overloaded and why aren't we actually doing it? and I don't feel like doing that..." It's like an ILE I know is great at coming up with ideas of things to do, and then eventually after a fit of spasticness will make a decision and then she wants to leave it to everyone else to do... and I don't feel like doing it. It's like she needs an army of ants to follow her wherever she goes to magically manifest her ideas for her. And she takes a really long time to make any decisions so after I'm around her for a while I start feeling even more indecisive.

[jewels]

yeah Loki, some Ne types can be like that. I get annoyed w/ that though because if I suggest something, I am down for doing it right then.

Like, I was walking through the park w/ a friend not long ago on a gorgeous day and there were some people playing tennis at not crowded courts. So I'm half-way kiddingly saying...hmm...we could buy some cheap tennis rackets down the street and...and if my friend had been up for that I would have played right then.

I almost never suggest something I don't want to do right then or in the near future.

However, I had an ENTp ex who would do that all the time. He'd be like "let's go on a picnic and bring icecream with us and we can play chess there and..." and I'd be like "awesome!!! Let's go!!!" and then he'd get distracted and we'd end up doing something else, which would drive me nuuuts. He could change direction right in the middle of something where as when I decide that I want to go somewhere I get cranky if I don't go.

w/ all that Ne it really was a ridiculous combination of random activities "hmm I wonder how to make a three layer cake?" "yeah, let's google it and give it a try!" and "How do you play the violin?" "Well, here, I'll show you.." And let's go swimming and then go to three clubs and learn to tango dance. Ok, I guess that was enough for one day. Or maybe we should drive out of town to the next city and get some pie? It was exhausting. I'd say maybe 1/3 of the time we'd actually do what he initially suggested. I think ENTps tend to "think out loud" more than ENFps, because I don't suggest activities unless I'm definite that I want to do them.

[jewels]

Probably a Si type would just start on one of the things the Ne person is babbling about, and then the Ne person would see what was going on and join in?

And maybe in contrast, a Ni person would come into the same situation and say, "We could put these together and make this kind of bread" and they and the Se person start doing it (while the Ne person is saying, or cupcakes, or brownies, or pancakes, or these one little fluffy tart things I saw once or or or or or or)

I like how you wrote "fluffy little tart thing" Lol that's cute

[Expat]

Jonathan, you got fixated into one word and made a huge deal out of it --

To an extent, Ne offers a different way, a way out of ruts, an opportunity, that can be seen as the raw material of improvement, but may or may not really be better. It also provides a kind of improvement in the sense of variation and variety.

That is what I meant. It may not be "better" in objective terms or as the end result, but would it catch the Ne types' attention if their perception was that it was "worse"? At the very least, they perceive it as more interesting.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Ni is a pure ideal. It sees something and sees how it can be better (or just a general vision), although it is still based in reality (everything is based in reality). I just dislike when people say certain things aren't real. If you can imagine it, how is it NOT real? It's just...not materialized yet, or it's not a concrete object, but so what? Human potential is limitless. We can and do and will achieve anything we can dream up, eventually. It might take awhile of course. Years, maybe eons. But it will happen with enough various, integrated factors.

Everything around you was once a mere idea.

I'm imagining a three-headed purple dragon that breathes flame and fire. Now, is this 'real' as in the sense, does the beast exists in our current, physical reality? No, of course not. Can it be real, possibly through evolution and such, one day- if the right environment was created for a creature? Of course. Maybe that was an extreme example but my point is- even ideals are real. Everything is real.

I like your idea of Se being a 'snapshot' of the ideals, kind of freeze one idea in place so it can be made into reality, and thus actually effect things. Because Ni can wander since human ideas do sprout so easily (well especially for me, being a Ni-ego) This is also why Ni-polrs to me are just so bizarre. They'll do something 'just to do it' and it will be a really horrible idea, but to them 'doing anything' and working at something seems to be good even it produces bad results. Their inability to see an ideal vision, to be so muddied up in what they view of as 'reality' - is their greatest downfall. I have to constantly counter the bad ideas of ESFjs especially.

[Jarno]

Ni is a pure ideal. It sees something and sees how it can be better (or just a general vision), although it is still based in reality (everything is based in reality). I just dislike when people say certain things aren't real. If you can imagine it, how is it NOT real? It's just...not materialized yet, or it's not a concrete object, but so what? Human potential is limitless. We can and do and will achieve anything we can dream up, eventually. It might take awhile of course. Years, maybe eons. But it will happen with enough various, integrated factors.

Everything around you was once a mere idea.

I'm imagining a three-headed purple dragon that breathes flame and fire. Now, is this 'real' as in the sense, does the beast exists in our current, physical reality? No, of course not. Can it be real, possibly through evolution and such, one day- if the right environment was created for a creature? Of course. Maybe that was an extreme example but my point is- even ideals are real. Everything is real.

Oke here's a question I have regarding this. Just to get things straight.

If I draw a picture of a house on a piece of paper.

Should we call that 'a house' or 'a picture of a house' ?

[Jarno]

It's a real picture of a house, of course.

If someone wants to build the house, it can become a real house. If someone displays it on the wall, it's a real picture of a house.

exactly.

So thinking of the purple dragon is only real to the extent that it's a real thought. Not a real dragon.

So bulletsanddoves is incorrect in claiming a purple dragon is real.

[Jarno]

I think we are on the same side.

Maybe BD shoud elaborate on what he calls real and physical etc.

Anyways, I also think I am derailing the thread to much.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Ideas->reality.

There is of course block computation, which involves mathematical equations so perfect (ideas) that they transcend into real physical objects.

I believe the boy Adric from doctor who specialised in this thing.

Not sure if it helps, but the recent conversation reminded me of it, heh.

[Creepy-Cyclops]

I think it's an Ni thing, although crudely put by me I think. Basically it's something do with the essense of things being the same? Which removes time? When it comes to the essense of something it's the same thing. Ideas, reality, perhaps in this case it is the idea of the object and the reality of the object being equal, the 'essence' if you will. (I think off the top of my head there is a philosopher who talked about the 'essense' of things. ie fruits are different but something to do with the essense of the fruit making it and all things connected, the same).

I'm sort of rambling just now as i'm in the middle of different things, so perhaps apologies are in order by me.

Maybe you could explain..and..or I'll come back later when more pressing matters aren't around and try to engage my third function, ha.

[And I hope i'm not clogging up the thread with a little post! (two)].

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

He would be incorrect if he was claiming a purple dragon is a physically real dragon, but it's not how I understood him. As I saw it, he was claiming that ideas are just as real as physical objects.
- A drawing of a house is not the same as a physical house
- a physical house is not the same as a home
- a home is not the same as a happiness
etc. etc.
However, they are all real.

Even physical objects are nothing but ideas. You can project "home" onto a house, but it isn't a home unless there is another dimention added. So why is a "house" more real than a "drawing of a house"?? Does "real" mean it must be PHYSICAL to you? All things are ideas of other things.

Yes!!! You get it.

Maybe it is easier to see it the other way around? Physical objects are just as unreal as ideas.

Very good, yes - that's a great way to put it!

Fantasies are real, and so are potentialities. Potential energy (self-buff spells) are the very essence of the type of magic that I use. When people advocate people to not give up their dreams, they're not just saying that to be nice. Before you act you need some sort of ideal that, you will get something of benefit to you, upon completing the task- or you will not try anything, nothing moves without the ideal vision of that which came before. Now of course your dream is going to be balanced with everybody else's dream, and have enough integrating factors to not make one dream control everybody else's dreams, but our dreams work in beautify harmony with each other- good ideas, good mindful ideas -- are what we hold to be of the highest value.

Our ideals can be dangerous and misguided. Well they are rawly speaking. I view ANY function it its truly 'pure form' as this sucking hole of sucky vortex that just obliterates anything its path (including its own self) but luckily, full reality just doesn't work that way- everything is connected. Ideas are part of reality. We have to stop dualizing and contrasting the two.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

If you are not ideally connected to a greater part of you upon doing a task , you will be too tired to do the task properly and won't give it your all. But if you can connect your ideal self with your real self and realize the two really aren't all that different, then you will shine.

You have to act as though something was already true usually, to get what you desire to be.

Details are important too, I'm sure- but you wouldn't even try to muddy through details if you weren't sure that your ideal self has already completed the task, that you will be okay. It seems rather esoteric the way I'm explaining it, but that's all what 'self-confidence' truly is. You have to already arrive to get there.

So IEIs as priests and healers can easily help people learn this profound connection within ourselves. It seems 'spiritual' but it's always real, as real as number crunching or business logic or the most complicated math problem known to man. There is no true duality between anything. There are just levels of distance.

[Olly From Wally World]

Me likes. Fits my understanding and experience.

I can especially relate to this with my Alpha friends:
How Se-Ni sees Ne-Si: "no vision", "no ambition", "too contented with the present", "so focused on the present as not to think about the possibilities of the future".

[silverchris9]

Yeah, this is very good. Yay for bumps.


Also I like what someone said above about how Ni in particular might perceive Ne as "too ambitious," which really means "ambitious in a way that is useless/not stimulating to me." Like, it does me no good for you to say "oh! Look at those eggs and flour and shit! You can make a cake! Why don't we make a cake!" Then I might respond with, "argh, why do you always want to jump right in and do things? I'm trying to figure out HOW to bake a cake, which is probably better than just looking and a bunch of shit and saying, OMG there's a cake in here!" Yet somehow, paradoxically, if someone walks up and says "So we're making a cake now, right? Let me see those eggs, I'll start cracking them and put them in a bowl" then I'm like "oh no no you can't crack them first here... you have to... and let me help with the... no, but I think if we put the vanilla in first..." and before I know it I'm making a cake. Honestly the goal and the action is not that different between Se and Ne, it's just that the presentation, the manner is complementary to different types.

Maybe for Si/Se versus Si/Ne, the Si person would be sitting there, and then an Se person just runs in and starts throwing shit together and the Si person is like... "what? I don't want to all of a sudden start doing things! I was GOING to do that, or at least I would have if you hadn't barged in and messed up how I had the eggs together and how I was about ready to get started." Whereas with Ne, which is just a suggestion, Si is more like, "oh! oh! Yeah, we totally could. I mean, okay, yeah, give me a second, let me run and grab my apron and put on some fun music, and we'll bake a cake! What a great idea!"

I think a lot of times when we complain about things, we complain about an "undualized" (I don't really like that phrase) version of them, which is only logical given that the complementary functions are supposed to... help each other be whole and be the most successful versions of themselves. So sure, an undualized Ni might just dream and read and suppose and research and figure out and play with the ideas and then come up with a revolutionary method of cake baking they never actually try. But with Se that Ni can not only invent a revolutionary method of cake baking, but actually put it into practice, and gain the experience necessary to figure out what a (successful) revolutionary method of baking cakes might actually be. Or suggest incremental improvements that improve each individual batch until you've slipped, without really noticing, into a revolutionary way of baking cakes. And sure it might seem like Se just charges in and starts baking without really figuring out how, but then you add Ni and all of that initiative has somewhere to go, and slows down while it needs to be slow, and goes full speed ahead when that's called for, and that Se is producing hella cakes and never screwing them up or accidentally ruining a pre-existing system or stepping on somebody's toes because the Ni is there to kinda guide and shape it. But left to their own devices, each can be super annoying to people who aren't set-up to value that way of working (and instinctually cover the inherent weakness of their complementary function).

[Exodus]

Good thread. The point about intuition being "far" and sensing being "near" is very important, it's a fundamental part of the dichotomy IMO. I'm not sure about the whole "cause and effect correlations", maybe it's better to say Ni and Si are about how things (or events) affect or relate to one another.

How about: Not able to bring the ideas into reality, or not able to improve the present reality due to not being in touch with it.

Great point. One problem Ne types have is that their ideas are often too generalized or disconnected from the actual problems that need fixing or needs that need to be addressed. Si types help direct their attention to the immediate situation so that they can apply insight to that as well.

[squark]

Good thread. The point about intuition being "far" and sensing being "near" is very important, it's a fundamental part of the dichotomy IMO. I'm not sure about the whole "cause and effect correlations", maybe it's better to say Ni and Si are about how things (or events) affect or relate to one another.

I think cause and effect can work okay for Ni and Si since they're both dynamic processes, and I'm trying to think of another way things could be related in a dynamic way without it being a cause/effect kind of relationship, but I can't. Do you have some ideas on that? For instance when picturing them, I see something acting on something else in a physical, tangible way as Si (wind rustles leaves, sun warms skin, gear turns another gear, lever lifts a weight) and see Ni as intangible, and non-immediate where one thing leads to another thing, (government action led to civil unrest led to revolution forming which will lead to overthrow of government) yet both seem cause-effect to me.

Great point. One problem Ne types have is that their ideas are often too generalized or disconnected from the actual problems that need fixing or needs that need to be addressed. Si types help direct their attention to the immediate situation so that they can apply insight to that as well.

Definitely agree with this point, and agree that the thread brings up some good distinctions.

[Exodus]

something acting on something else in a physical, tangible way as Si (wind rustles leaves, sun warms skin, gear turns another gear, lever lifts a weight)

ok but these examples are all Si with Te. Cause and effect seems to be more directly related to Ni and Te.

[squark]

ok but these examples are all Si with Te. Cause and effect seems to be more directly related to Ni and Te.

I was more asking if you had an idea or mental image in mind of a case where it wasn't cause and effect, which is why I gave examples of what comes to mind for me when I picture these elements.

[The Reality Denialist]

Out of the 4 quadras alpha is best described as timeless flow from oneself but on the other hand as a result it might actually describe the essence of time.
Fantastical paradox.

[Exodus]

I was more asking if you had an idea or mental image in mind of a case where it wasn't cause and effect, which is why I gave examples of what comes to mind for me when I picture these elements.

Like I said, I think that "effects" is a good way to describe Si information, how one thing affects another, e.g. "these pretzels are making me thirsty", "this chair is uncomfortable", "this guy is annoying", etc. But once you get into causes it's more on the objective side and could involve other elements like Ne, Te, Fe, Se, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to describe it in the most precise way possible.

Actually some clear non-examples for Ni would be e.g. paranoia, or seeing a deeper meaning in an event. It's not a cause/effect relationship, it's merely looking beyond the surface of what's going on.

[squark]

Like I said, I think that "effects" is a good way to describe Si information, how one thing affects another, e.g. "these pretzels are making me thirsty", "this chair is uncomfortable", "this guy is annoying", etc. But once you get into causes it's more on the objective side and could involve other elements like Ne, Te, Fe, Se, etc. I'm not saying you're wrong, just trying to describe it in the most precise way possible.

Actually some clear non-examples for Ni would be e.g. paranoia, or seeing a deeper meaning in an event. It's not a cause/effect relationship, it's merely looking beyond the surface of what's going on.

Ok, that is useful. I did misread your first post skipping the "affect." Also, the other suggestions for Ni - yeah you're right those aren't cause/effect. Thank you.