Si vs Ni

[redbaron]

What do you think of this (article from socionics.com):

The introverted data gathering functions revolve around self. For the Si, cause and effect are important while the Ni concentrates on interaction and association. The functioning of the body and mind centres in the Si psyche, and the state of the body and mind is a focus for the Ni.

Si is defined in terms of the impact that self makes upon the world and how self can defend against the world, whereas Ni is in terms of the effect the world has on them and the influence they have upon the world - their place within the 'celestial' whole.

For the Ni, the placing of one's self within a context of a whole is divine. Si builds self through practice - starting with basics and progressing to the more refined. Ni builds self through perspective on the order of things, that understanding is more important than skill. The Si considers experiences (including relationships) as validation of their impact on or defence against the world.

The more the Si wins or defends the more self-worth the Si acquires; thus, Si strives constantly for validation and hence, an accumulation of positive experiences. Ni seeks self-awareness and thinks that experiences are fleeting, only a means to an end and they pay little attention to their own physical functioning.

Ni seeks a path to inner space where the mind is isolated from the world, a place of clarity. Security for Ni is having inner peace from where the complexities and confusions of life have little impact. Ni must withdraw in order to cope or discover.

Every experience for Si affirms that they are alive. Si notices every detail about self, but views most of the world cursorily and with scepticism - they focus only on what immediately confronts them. For them, knowledge is less important but skill is paramount so Si will often not attempt to absorb meaning from any of their experiences - they only need to know how to cope.

Si addresses problems by knowing how to tackle them head-on with practiced skill. Ni will step back to address a problem because they need perspective, which would likely be fresh having forgotten a lot of what was done in the past; however, they would remember where they stood on such issues.

Ni seeks to understand their context and they would rather not confront the world so much as bend it toward their perspective. Si is the experience seeker, while Ni is the peace seeker. Ni will have faith while Si will always remain sceptical, never fully trusting the whole. Si fears missing something; while, Ni fears not having meaning. Si may look upon most Ni as lacking useful skill or ability while Ni may look upon Si as being shallow or crass.

[Creepy-male]

Every bit of Si description is done in Se terms. "Defend", "impact", "strives"

While it did help me understand how Ni works, it doesn't have a very accurate description of Si from a Si perspective.

[redbaron]

yeah I'm not sure about it. "Ni is the peace seeker"? hmmm.

[Creepy-male]

I think its pretty useful if you get beyond the annoying subtle details that don't match up...

Introverted Sensing; is an internal, subjective, introverted function that deals with sensory information. Its looking more to the inner experience of sensation, while Se looks to the outer more external, objective, experience of sensation. Introversion literally means... internal version... so broken down... introverted sensing... literally means internal version of sensing... Jung didn't just name it that because it sounded cool, it was because it did justice to what he meant.

This principle can be seen in this description especially in...

Si notices every detail about self, but views most of the world cursorily and with scepticism - they focus only on what immediately confronts them. For them, knowledge is less important but skill is paramount so Si will often not attempt to absorb meaning from any of their experiences - they only need to know how to cope.

The functioning of the body and mind centres in the Si psyche

most people probably are still skeptical of this... but consider some of the commonly associated tendancies of the Si-ego...

Information elements - Wikisocion

Si : a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment

Si : a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment

Notice all the reference to pleasure, comfort, security and so forth....

once again this can be understood in terms of the principle at the beginning and connected to what was discussed in the article.

with greater attention giving to sensation as it is internally experienced you would obviously be more attentive to your state of comfort, pleasure, security. Because comfort is something very much an internal sensation.. you can't truly tell if a person is comfortable or not from external cues, I mean they could just be acting uncomfortable... that's why it's internal and not external and that is why it is SUBJECTIVE.

Still not convinced?

Dynamic information is continuous and about things that are in constant fluctuation

Si : one's continuous physical exchanges with one's environment

This works with the above principle... the dynamic nature of Si is a result of the continued story of how one's internal state is changing... further all introverted irrational functions are dynamic because.... one's internal state can easily be considered as a connected story as its subjective percpetion. Objective perception cannot be accurately kept track of.. because it is not internally experienced, and must be consider discretely.

this also relates to information aspects... fields is the term for introverted functions... because they don't merely see something as an object independent and isolated, but as being an element in a field interacting with other things.

Their internal sensation is constantly being fed in through a relationship with the environment.

I.E Dynamics of Fields.... how the inner state of sensation moves and fluctuates as a result of its presence in the environment.

Usually Si types have a very good "body sense", which can lead to being good at mechanical oriented tasks (ISTp) or doing activities like meditating, yoga, or taking naps/breaks, conserving energy. These details are highly different between Si types... but it all is subordinated under this root principle of what Si really means... internal version of sensation. If it is not so then what is being discusses is not Si or if one must insist what is being discussed is in fact Si, then a new definition must be supplied.

Basically my point is... you don't need to memorize 540254 descriptions you've read over the years... it boils down to a single principle of what it really means... then you skillfully apply this with practice.... that is how those articles began to appear mysteriously on different website... they weren't created by god at the beginning of time, they are the results of seeing how this is manifested in reality

[Creepy-male]

Introversion literally means... internal version... so broken down... introverted sensing... literally means internal version of sensing... Jung didn't just name it that because it sounded cool, it was because it did justice to what he meant.

Well, "version" actually means "the direction in which something is facing". From Latin "vertere", "to face" according my macbook dictionary. Introversion is "facing inwards", extraversion is "facing outwards".

Sorry, had to nitpick.

[Creepy-male]

Well, "version" actually means "the direction in which something is facing". From Latin "vertere", "to face" according my macbook dictionary. Introversion is "facing inwards", extraversion is "facing outwards".

Sorry, had to nitpick.

hmm interesting... like vertex being the place at which a turn in direction occurs.

[Gilly]

I think when it says that Ni seeks "peace," it means a sort of internal peace, an end to internal restlessness that comes from "having one's place," feeling a sense of proper order or greater connection; Si seeks peace, but it is more of an immediate thing. I think Ni seeks to withdraw until it can experience direct connection or sense that its actions have weight, whereas Si holds engagement as a priorit regardless of its significance or long-term relevance.

Also I think it's interesting what it says about Si being interested in the functioning of the body/mind, whereas Ni is interested only in its state; this explains why Ni types can be such rabid hedonists We only care about the level of impact something will have on us/how far it takes us, as opposed to the more general effect it takes/what all of the relevant bodily consequences will be.

This is mostly Beta Ni vs. Delta Si, though, IMO.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Also, Si-people want to meditate to be able to confront the world, but Ni-people do it so they we can try to make it different. All INFp writers, even very successful ones- like Joss Whedon (whom I'm pretty sure is INFp) do this.

Si-people don't want to really change the world. They want to live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle. They aren't gung-ho about our ideals. I'd live in a shack if I had something that meant the world to me. (within reason of course, I'm being sort of extreme) Si-people just want to accept things as they are, and have everybody be happy in a democratic-ish way. But Ni/Se valuers...we just can't seem to do this, it makes us way too fidgety.

Not that Si people are 'careless' to human suffering, but they just seem to think more college institutions or a 'better system' is the answer, wheres a Se or Ni person would more likely to think that it's the problem, that people's psychological perceptions need to be shifted in a more pure level before anything is actually done.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I would say 'skill' is something more like Te instead of Si. I mean, although there is things I'm 'skillful' at probably, I'm just more like this pure romantic heart bomb. Uh, I mean, what I obviously do best is raise the vibration of humanity via writing. I'm not good at anything else really, or that 'skillful' at anything- I'm sure I could be if I tried at it and worked at it, but I don't want to and it's not natural. Like many IEIs I'm very awkward in technical shit.

I wouldn't think Si cares so much about 'Skill' or it wouldn't dual-seek Ne. Ne isn't very skillful it's just more about...the potential progress of all external projects at once. People who value Ne a lot, can't really separate the 'person' from these external projects either. It's weird.

[Creepy-male]

I think when it says that Ni seeks "peace," it means a sort of internal peace, an end to internal restlessness that comes from "having one's place," feeling a sense of proper order or greater connection; Si seeks peace, but it is more of an immediate thing. I think Ni seeks to withdraw until it can experience direct connection or sense that its actions have weight, whereas Si holds engagement as a priorit regardless of its significance or long-term relevance.

Also I think it's interesting what it says about Si being interested in the functioning of the body/mind, whereas Ni is interested only in its state; this explains why Ni types can be such rabid hedonists We only care about the level of impact something will have on us/how far it takes us, as opposed to the more general effect it takes/what all of the relevant bodily consequences will be.

This is mostly Beta Ni vs. Delta Si, though, IMO.

Yea one way of illustrating this is

Internal Dynamics of Fields (Ni)

vs

External Dynamics of Fields (Si)

as it applies to the individual...

Ni is looking for the more internalized fluctuations that occur within the person's "inner world", while Si is looking for a more externalized fluctuations that occur in reality with sensation.

Both of them are after a sort of steady peace... the Ni is in their "inner world", a state of mind, entranced in a way. The Si is in the "physical world", a state of being, also entranced but more of an explicit physical trance than a mental/spiritual one.

This is why Ni/Si dominants are Se/Ne DS... the search for that stability or peace leaves them neglecting experiences or opportunities they could be having.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

The more the Si wins or defends the more self-worth the Si acquires; thus, Si strives constantly for validation and hence, an accumulation of positive experiences. Ni seeks self-awareness and thinks that experiences are fleeting, only a means to an end and they pay little attention to their own physical functioning.

YES YES YES. Frequently an Si-person will do something and I'll be all 'What did you do that for? What was the purpose or meaning of that action?' (maaaaan I can see me supervising ESFjs really bad lol) And it's not nearly romantic or ideal enough for me, it doesn't really make sense to me so then I go all 'Uhhh...'

[Creepy-male]

Well, "version" actually means "the direction in which something is facing". From Latin "vertere", "to face" according my macbook dictionary. Introversion is "facing inwards", extraversion is "facing outwards".

Sorry, had to nitpick.

Some more to say about this--

I think, before developing the personality types, Jung formulated this idea that he had two personalities: the first being what to us is markedly extraverted, in terms of engaging in the thrust and parry of intelligent conversation, succeeding at sports, getting buff and ripped, being a hit with the ladies, etc, etc; the second instead being one part of many, an element in a huge procession connecting him to his predecessors and stuff.

It seems reasonable to me at least, then, that there are two different cognitive worlds: that of within, and that of without. As these are entire worlds replete with data, our human minds can immerse themselves in only one. I would guess that this led Jung to formulating your "facing" as which of the two you keep your eye on, so to speak, similarly to how you can't be facing north and south at the same time.

Anyway, a disclaimer. This post was generated by sketchy memory, a brief stint with essentially a picture book, and some ¡¡SERIOUS INTERPOLATION!! Do not take anything in this as precise history, gospel, or any form of truth. It is pseudofactual in the extreme, and if you have any interest in Jung, I would read about him personally, or correcting the information I have presented in this post. Thanks.

</useless trivia>

EDIT

Also I think it's interesting what it says about Si being interested in the functioning of the body/mind, whereas Ni is interested only in its state; this explains why Ni types can be such rabid hedonists We only care about the level of impact something will have on us/how far it takes us, as opposed to the more general effect it takes/what all of the relevant bodily consequences will be.

Yeah. Si is about balancing things. Extremes of hedonism for me are really tame things like eating rich, fatty foods that flood my brain with UNADULTERATED PLEASURE despite the fact that I know it's going to hit me with some serious goddamn batman indigestion. That's extreme for me because it comes with an associated negative cost: I'm going to be carrying a pissed off stomach around with me all day because I had some deliciously creamy, eggy burritos the night before, pleasurable or not.

Also, "functioning" is not limited to Te. Te is well suited to eliminating extraneous actions within a given task, but it does not have sole dominion over "efficiency". I'm still constantly weighing up how things will influence my ability to do "stuff" and my comfort in doing so. Really basic things like, "If I'm sleep deprived, I'm going to feel like fried fuligo when I have to wake up, and my concentration and ability to do mental tasks is going to be shot to pieces".

It's also interesting to think of how Si types can be very energy-conservative in this way. In reality, my low energy levels (and consequent subjective need to protect them) probably exacerbate my inaction, so my low energy is self-sustaining (law of inertia, right?) My Extravert counterparts take this to the opposite extreme by constantly needing to Do Stuff, and having to burn off all their energy (needing to expend energy to return to a state of equilibrium).

Anyway, I'm going off on a tangent and probably spouting useless self-evident stuff that everyone knows already.

[Creepy-male]

Si-people don't want to really change the world. They want to live a comfortable, middle-class lifestyle.

Nah that's a little unfair, Si dominants are just comfort seeking sensory based people. They want to live comfortable lives, they seek things that produce sensations that create in them positive states of well being.

Now because of this, sure you may find them in comfortable middle-class lifestyles, but by all means I find this is mostly because it's what is available to them. I know plenty of SEI's who would rather be adventurous than live boring middle-class lifestyles. It's just human nature imo... Si-dominants are just a piece of the puzzle, they are concerned with comfort... IEI's like yourself are another piece, but vastly different imho.

The comfort seeking nature of Si's usually leaves them in a boring peaceful state. Ne-DS helps add new horizons, possibilities, and so forth to fulfill this unconscious need in them they neglect and can't provide.

Not that Si people are 'careless' to human suffering, but they just seem to think more college institutions or a 'better system' is the answer, wheres a Se or Ni person would more likely to think that it's the problem, that people's psychological perceptions need to be shifted in a more pure level before anything is actually done.

Once again I feel this is a little unfair. Si's are not system advocates anymore than any person out there. Si's are more than happy to criticize the institution or system when they feel it is responsible for an uncomfortable life.

SLI laborer's complain about poor working conditions, other Si's complain about bad medical care policies, drug company scandals, genetically altered food, and about economic issues that reduce the security they have in monetary savings. All these things in their view are a result of a system which makes it hard to live comfortably.

Si's aren't system advocates, it's just they advocate for a better life from a totally different perspective. For Delta ST and Beta NF... these perspectives are completely foreign.

A Delta ST may feel content in a particular institution while a Beta NF is suffering hardcore... the Delta ST won't realize this immediately, because it's kind of like his blindspot. And yes it works the other way too.

I wouldn't think Si cares so much about 'Skill' or it wouldn't dual-seek Ne. Ne isn't very skillful it's just more about...the potential progress of all external projects at once. People who value Ne a lot, can't really separate the 'person' from these external projects either. It's weird.

Si skill is about the capacity to do something, feeling internally capable. Se is about observing the property of capability (strength, weakness, etc). That's where Si skill comes from, a perception of one's internal physical state to perform.

Ne skill is about the potential to advance these skills. Prospects and Potentials that don't already exist.

Together Si-Ne produces a mentality of looking to the external world for prospects and potentials and then cultivating this inside oneself as a physical state of being.

Also Ne-value has nothing to do with being a robot unaware of their humanity. You must understand what Ne is... it's looking at reality directly and seeing possibility, uniqueness, potential, prospect... just perceiving that... seeing it clearly and vividly, having a strong intuition of it. It's not like Ni which is internal and subjective, a more melancholic internal intuition of contemplation that is free from the external world. You Ni valuers have Se as your objective "reality" sense.... Ne valuers have Si as their internal "subjective" sense. Si is very subjective... though physical... this physical refers to sensation and not physical as in reality... sensation is highly subjective... you can't tell what a person's physical sensations are just by looking at them... you can't actually experience this sensation... its purely personal and subjective.

[Creepy-male]

Some more to say about this--

I think, before developing the personality types, Jung formulated this idea that he had two personalities: the first being what to us is markedly extraverted, in terms of engaging in the thrust and parry of intelligent conversation, succeeding at sports, getting buff and ripped, being a hit with the ladies, etc, etc; the second instead being one part of many, an element in a huge procession connecting him to his predecessors and stuff.

It seems reasonable to me at least, then, that there are two different cognitive worlds: that of within, and that of without. As these are entire worlds replete with data, our human minds can immerse themselves in only one. I would guess that this led Jung to formulating your "facing" as which of the two you keep your eye on, so to speak, similarly to how you can't be facing north and south at the same time.

Yea essentially this seems to be the concept behind introversion and extroversion from what I've heard of Jung.

In socionics the ego always consists of one introverted and extroverted function because in the context of socionics it's considered one is an objective and another a subjective function... they are gateways into both worlds, there interaction together forms your ego a continum which spans throughout both worlds. It explains the way you interact with your environment cognitively.

[para]

Bumping this thread. What do you people think of this distinction?

[Hope]

Its all wrong, mixing up concepts and saying contradictory things one after the other. Makes "distinctions" left and right but they are not such since there is no logic in them. For example...

The functioning of the body and mind centres in the Si psyche, and the state of the body and mind is a focus for the Ni.

If body functioning is Si, why Ni would be body state? I mean why Ni has even a base in the body if its intuition?

Si is defined in terms of the impact that self makes upon the world and how self can defend against the world, whereas Ni is in terms of the effect the world has on them and the influence they have upon the world- their place within the 'celestial' whole.

Here is basically saying the same thing (again) for both elements, if you defend of the world, you must be aware about the effect the world makes on you, and caring about the impact one have in the world is caring about ones influence.

The article goes on and on like this, is pure nonsense and the writer seems to have no clue that what s/he says have no basic coherence. Its a mere play of words.