Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Perception. [Ne vs Se] vs [Ni vs Si]

  1. #1
    a two horned unicorn renegade Comatose Lamiac 007's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Location
    tickling your PoLR
    TIM
    ILE-H LEVF 7 so/sx
    Posts
    5,753
    Mentioned
    252 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default Perception. [Ne vs Se] vs [Ni vs Si]

    Perception aka streams

    Extraverted perception:
    Mode: Waves
    Style: Ne [manifestation: fictional, goal: to impose fiction to reality (views, science etc) via role]
    Style: Se [manifestation: factual, goal: to become a man of fiction aka legend via role]

    Introverted perception:
    Mode: Undercurrents
    Style: Ni [manifestation: development , goal: to give guidance for attainable goals via role]
    Style: Si [manifestation: sourcing, goal: to develop masterful conditions or piece of work via role]
    Measuring you right now

    Winning is for losers

     

    Sincerely yours,
    idiosyncratic type

    Your life is too short to actually do anything useful with it without being wasteful.

  2. #2

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Not sure why I'm doing socionics, but here goes, why not. Here I am on this forum.
    The main thing Ne and Se both have in common is that they are static, while Ni and Si are dynamic.
    Dynamic functions are about bringing out and expressing information, Si and Ni both look inward and bring fourth the internal perceptions. Static functions are more about taking in and integrating the information, basically...

    Ni kind of reminds me of machine learning... you have this set of impulses calibrated across repeated experience. After enough experience, the impulses become very refined and can handle complexity automatically... there is very little real thought involved, it is just refined automatic instinct, but it is internalized and subjective in the sense it deals with repeated experiences and it is embedded in the individual.
    I would say Si deals with undercurrents more - Si is actually more focused on the external world than Ni or Ne, but Si is kind of investigative. It wants to look into a thing and ask itself... what is this thing, really? What can this thing do, how can it potentially impact everything else?
    There's the stupid example you usually hear - is this a good toilet seat, is my chicken baked properly, etc.? A more interesting example would be... what does this person I'm speaking to really care about? What is missing from this picture, what is hidden from it? What truly is the actual answer to this question, the answer which is not yet known...? What is the true nature of this particular thing, am I perceiving it accurately? Etc. Answering these questions is... you could call it an internal process, really it's more of a bringing fourth of information. Si references a breadth of possible ramifications of a thing to round out a definition of it. In alot of ways Si is about attempting to pierce through the veil and perceive objective reality.
    TBH Si is more objective and "external" in a sense than Ne is, but that gets ignored because Si is internal in relation to Te, which it's closely related to.

  3. #3
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    Si is actually more focused on the external world than Ni or Ne, but Si is kind of investigative. It wants to look into a thing and ask itself... what is this thing, really? What can this thing do, how can it potentially impact everything else?
    There's the stupid example you usually hear - is this a good toilet seat, is my chicken baked properly, etc.? A more interesting example would be... what does this person I'm speaking to really care about? What is missing from this picture, what is hidden from it? What truly is the actual answer to this question, the answer which is not yet known...? What is the true nature of this particular thing, am I perceiving it accurately? Etc. Answering these questions is... you could call it an internal process, really it's more of a bringing fourth of information. Si references a breadth of possible ramifications of a thing to round out a definition of it. In alot of ways Si is about attempting to pierce through the veil and perceive objective reality.
    TBH Si is more objective and "external" in a sense than Ne is, but that gets ignored because Si is internal in relation to Te, which it's closely related to.
    I don't get why you think this is Si?? You are talking about something here that involves Feeling judgement and intuition and even thinking. You mention "objective reality", but that is Se, not Si. Si is sensing your impressions, like the experience of comfort or certain aesthetic impressions.
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  4. #4

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I don't get why you think this is Si?? You are talking about something here that involves Feeling judgement and intuition and even thinking. You mention "objective reality", but that is Se, not Si. Si is sensing your impressions, like the experience of comfort or certain aesthetic impressions.
    No, Se is the direct perception of objective reality. Se is integrating information into the self, and this is information of the most external kind. Si is as I said ascertaining perception. As a limited, subjective human you do not have direct access to perceive in full objective reality. When you perceive something, you must immediately doubt you're perceiving it accurately and search for more information about the thing, allowing you to more fully perceive it. That is not integrating information, it is searching for possibilities and contextualizing the perception.
    So you ascertain what objective reality is - it is a process that requires participation.
    Any sensory function automatically deals with perceiving objective reality, the difference with Si is merely that the subject has input.
    TBH you people just have very simplistic concepts of Si: "this is a good toilet seat". I'm not sure I have ever heard any of you describe Si in a way that was actually compelling. Ni on the other hand has been very romanticized.

    It is merely searching for more information with some input from the subject, it can integrate with thinking, feeling and so on, but is not thinking... it is internal perception, if you read carefully again and read this post for better clarification, you will see what I am saying.
    Last edited by returnofxenu; 11-15-2020 at 04:14 AM.

  5. #5
    What's the purpose of SEI? Tallmo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Finland
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    2,788
    Mentioned
    208 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by returnofxenu View Post
    No, Se is the direct perception of objective reality. Se is integrating information into the self, and this is information of the most external kind. Si is as I said ascertaining perception. As a limited, subjective human you do not have direct access to perceive in full objective reality. When you perceive something, you must immediately doubt you're perceiving it accurately and search for more information about the thing, allowing you to more fully perceive it. That is not integrating information, it is searching for possibilities and contextualizing the perception.
    So you ascertain what objective reality is - it is a process that requires participation.
    Any sensory function automatically deals with perceiving objective reality, the difference with Si is merely that the subject has input.
    TBH you people just have very simplistic concepts of Si: "this is a good toilet seat". I'm not sure I have ever heard any of you describe Si in a way that was actually compelling. Ni on the other hand has been very romanticized.

    It is merely searching for more information with some input from the subject, it can integrate with thinking, feeling and so on, but is not thinking... it is internal perception, if you read carefully again and read this post for better clarification, you will see what I am saying.
    I don't see any connection to Jung /Socionics understanding of Si in what you write. You seem to be talking about something different. Si has nothing to do with "ascertaining what objective reality is"
    A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
    (Jung on Si)


    My Pinterest

  6. #6

    Join Date
    Nov 2020
    Posts
    89
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tallmo View Post
    I don't see any connection to Jung /Socionics understanding of Si in what you write. You seem to be talking about something different. Si has nothing to do with "ascertaining what objective reality is"
    Of course it does, infact the quote in your profile pretty much says it (which is odd - did you just put this in your profile?):
    "he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus."

    What is the subjective perception of an objective stimulus? It is your interpretation of the stimulus. To interpret it is to ascertain it.

    If you disagree again than make sure you make some sort of rational argument, so far you've just kind of claimed that I'm incorrect, you haven't actually said much.
    Last edited by returnofxenu; 11-15-2020 at 04:21 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •