Personality Cafe banner

New simple way of determining Ne/Si vs Se/Ni

21K views 38 replies 19 participants last post by  Convex 
#1 · (Edited)
one of my Ni aha moments led me to the following:

Ne/Si = abstract & conscious real time experience [Ne] + concrete & subconscious past memory/filter [Si]

Se/Ni = concrete & conscious real time experience [Se] + abstract & subconscious past memory/filter [Ni]

I see a lot of people refer to Ni as future oriented and Si as past oriented, I disagree to an extent. They both stem from past experience. Si is clear and detailed past experience and that's why the past is trusted for Si users, because it is vivid and clear -- Si users store clear physical impressions. Ni is fuzzy and abstract past experience, and this is the reason Ni users get gut feelings about situations -- ITS NOT MAGIC -- it's the SAME as Si except it's not the sensory experience that comes to mind, its the abstract meaning of the experience that comes to mind.


Anyone agree?

I see a lot of Ne/Si users [even dominant Ne users] speak clearly about past experiences. They can describe past situations in detail. Whereas a lot of Se/Ni users [even dominant Se users] speak about "vibes" of past situations. Detail [Si] vs Vibes [Ni].

Si vs Ni example (regardless of position in top 4 functions) :

Ne/Si user - This reminds me of the last time we went to 7-Eleven and Twenty One Pilots was playing on the speakers and they didn't have the candy I wanted, remember how pissed we were? [emphasis on detail, no extraction of underlying meaning]

Se/Ni user - I got a feeling this 7-Eleven isn't gonna have the candy because they usually don't have it there. I don't know why I got this gut feeling but I just know it won't be there. [emphasis on the underlying meaning of the past, ignored the actual details]

They are both going back to the same past oriented situation, but one remembers the actual details and one remembers the abstract lesson instead of the detail.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I got this minus the latter Se/Ni user experience. Could you give another example?

But I think this could apply in my case to some people and relationship with them - I don't know why something is going to work out or not but my instincts are usually right. My Si is also s**t which has also made me question if my understanding of Se vs Ne is inaccurate.

But thank you for this. Many sites offer long theories about the cognitions but they lack clear concise examples of these differences.
 
#3 · (Edited)
no problem at all

lets say for example purposes that the Se user was with the Ne user that day at 7 Eleven...

The Ne user because of Si remembered the details [Twenty One Pilots on the speakers, "remember how angry I was" etc] whereas the Se user forgot about the details like the music playing and the emotion and instead held on to the meaning or lesson of the situation -- in this case the meaning being that convenient stores don't carry enough supply of that candy -- this is what Ni stored in the persons mind, instead of the realistic details like Si did. It's a shitty example i'll admit lol but I made it basic for the purpose of easy understanding.
 
#4 ·
Si vs Ni example (regardless of position in top 4 functions) :

Ne/Si user - This reminds me of the last time we went to 7-Eleven and Twenty One Pilots was playing on the speakers and they didn't have the candy I wanted, remember how pissed we were? [emphasis on detail, no extraction of underlying meaning]

Se/Ni user - I got a feeling this 7-Eleven isn't gonna have the candy because they usually don't have it there. I don't know why I got this gut feeling but I just know it won't be there. [emphasis on the underlying meaning of the past, ignored the actual details]

They are both going back to the same past oriented situation, but one remembers the actual details and one remembers the abstract lesson instead of the detail.
I relate so much to Ne/Si in your example. People who know me well say that I have a vivid memory of the past, recalling things that they don't.

Now I'm wondering if I'm actually INFP or ISFJ instead of ISFP. Hmm.

Anyway, thank you for your concise explanation. I think this is the most relatable and clear explanation of Ni paired with Se that I've read.
 
#8 ·
Interesting, I'm an ISFP and I came down to say that whilst I'm an ISFP I really relate to the Ne/Si description! I'm very aware of the past and have very vivid memories. But I think surely Se isn't just limited to to that exact moment and then you forget. If we're so aware of our surroundings surely we'd remember the details we observed to clearly which is why we have such good memories?
 
#5 ·
Makes a lot of sense, i think also depending on which function you're inferior in, you'll have a harder time relating to. Example: Se is clear and concrete real timinformation, while Ne Is fuzzy and abstract. Well, I agree that I live the present moment through real and concrete information, I but I also relate to "fuzziness" a little bit because I'm a very zoned out person, which is due to being an Ni Dom. My memories are never clear in detail, always in moods and big picture concepts; so yes I agree with your Ni realization (aren't those just the best) :proud:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pensive Fine
#6 ·
You brought up something that I know is flawed in my post but I cant figure out how to fix it yet and that is how the placement of each functions affects everything because you have a point, as an intuitive dominant it can seem like we live in a fuzzy/abstract real time experience so saying that is exclusive to Ne is probably bad wording, same thing with Se users not having clear memory, I think there has to be some overlap there because I notice strong Se users have clearer memory than strong Ni users but at the same time their memory isn't as detailed as a strong Si user. I fully believe that you experience a lot of overlap with your ignoring function, so that could be the reason we still feel like we live in a fuzzy abstract world because of Ne overlap...

Or

instead of saying Ne is fuzzy abstract experience maybe we can say it's objective abstract & fuzzy real time experience meaning it's detached from personal experience, because that's what separates Ne from Ni. although "objective abstract & fuzzy real time experience" is a mouth full lmao
 
#7 ·
Anyone agree?
Jung agree, that should in theory count a tiny little bit, even in Ti types who tend to reject authorities.

Firstly a general description:
I have often been asked, almost accusingly, why I speak of four functions and not of more or fewer.
That there are exactly four was a result I arrived at on purely empirical grounds. But as the following consideration will show,
these four together produce a kind of totality. Sensation establishes what is actually present,
thinking enables us to recognize its meaning, feeling tells us its value,
and intuition points to possibilities as to whence it came and whither it is going in a given situation.
In this way we can orient ourselves with respect to the immediate world as completely as when we locate a place geographically by latitude and longitude.
Secondly the definition: (Might be a bit hard to penetrate, but oh well)
35. Intuition (from intueri = to look into or upon) is according to my view, a basic
psychological function (v. Function). It is that psychological function which
transmits perceptions in an unconscious way. Everything whether outer or inner objects
or their associations, can be the object of this perception. Intuition has this
peculiar quality: it is neither sensation, nor feeling, nor intellectual conclusion,
although it may appear in any of these forms. Through intuition any one content is
presented as a complete whole, without our being able to explain or discover in what
way this content has been arrived at. Intuition is a kind of instinctive apprehension,
irrespective of the nature of its contents. Like sensation (q.v.) it is an irrational
(q.v.) perceptive function. Its contents, like those of sensation, have the character
of being given, in contrast to the 'derived' or 'deduced' character of feeling and
thinking contants. Intuitive cognition, therefore, possesses an intrinsic character of
certainty and conviction which enabled Spinoza to uphold the 'scientia intuitiva' as
the highest form of cognition. Intuition has this quality in common with sensation,
whose physical foundation is the ground and origin of its certitude. In the same way,
the certainty of intuition depends upon a definite psychic matter of fact, of whose
origin and state of readiness however, the subject was quite unconscious.
Intuition appears either in a subjective or an objective form: the former is a
perception of unconscious psychic facts whose origin is essentially subjective; the
latter is a perception of facts which depend upon subliminal perceptions of the
object and upon the thoughts and feelings occasioned thereby. Concrete and abstract
forms of intuition may be distinguished according to the degree of participation on
the part of sensation. Concrete intuition carries perceptions which are concerned with
the actuality of things, while abstract intuition transmits the perceptions of
ideational associations. Concrete intuition is a reactive process, since it follows
directly from the given circumstances; whereas abstract intuition like abstract
sensation necessitates a certain element of direction, an act of will or a purpose. In
common with sensation, intuition is a characteristic of infantile and primitive
psychology. As against the strength and sudden appearance of sense-impression it
transmits the perception of mythological images, the precursors of ideas (q.v.).
Intuition maintains a compensatory function to sensation, and, like sensation, it is
the material soil from which thinking and feeling are developed in the form of
rational functions. Intuition is an irrational function, notwithstanding the fact that
many intuitions may subseqently be split up into their component elements, whereby
their origin and appearance can also be made to harmonize with the laws of reason.
Everyone whose general attitude is orientated by the principle of intuition, i.e.
perception by way of the unconscious, belongs to the intuitive type (v. Type).
According to the manner in which intuition is employed, wheter directed within in the
service of cognition and inner perception or without in the service of action and
accomplishment, the introverted and extraverted intuitive types can be differentiated.
In abnormal cases a well-marked coalescence with, and an equally great determination
by the contents of the collective unconscious declares itself: this may give the
intuitive type an extremely irrational an unintellibible appearance.
 
#21 ·
I've seen it distinguished this way:

Ni / Se - world-rejecting

The attitude is one of timing and impact - the world is a place where battles are fought and destinies become manifest.



Si / Ne - world-accepting

The attitude is one of comfort and novelty - the world is a familiar and welcoming space that exciting possibilities spring from.

 
#22 · (Edited)
In general, the nature of the perceiving axes can be described this way:
Se/Ni asks ‘what is the bottom-line (Ni) of the raw data (Se)?’
Ne/Si asks ‘what is the Truth (Si) behind the perspectives (Ne)?’
These two attitudes can be summed up as ‘conjecturing’ and ‘examining’ respectively.

The one axis seeks to discover, envision or predict the potential course (Ni) plotted by their various raw experiences of things (Se); I am summoning here a scatterplot and line of best fit, though one could also summon the image of a researcher recording their observations and then forming overarching conclusions abstracted from that data. On the Ni side, a good example would be Karl Marx, who spent hours upon hours researching and observing social and economic conditions in society, from which data he developed his comprehensive theories of capital and dialectical materialism. On the Se side, a good example is Dale Carnegie, who is one of many Se types who concretize their wealth of experiences into practical wisdom, such as ‘How to Win Friends and Influence People’.

The other axis seeks to discover, cognate, or comprehend the true nature of things (Si) by compositing the uniting elements between various creative perspectives on things (Ne); the image I like to use here is of a diagram showing multiple perspectives of a 3-D object in 2-D space, where each perspective conceals something in order to reveal something else. A good example of this mentality can be found in the theories of Michel Foucault, who himself describes society as a series of power structure grids you can lay on top of the truth in order to reveal some things but conceal others, and our goal essentially should be to experiment with various power grids to discover the true limits or bounds of how human society can successfully be structured. Another example could be Martin Heidegger’s discussion of Being or existence, and how many different perspectives are required to observe it and get a full picture, because of our extremely subjective position in relation to the nature of our own existence, not to mention existence within the ever shifting realm of time.

I could go on, but I was told to keep it simple.
 
#24 ·
This description is amazing. I can somehow relate to the Se/Ni description here.

I might remember extremely good or bad memories. But other times, I can't remember specific things to say about past (even if it happened in a couple of hours ago) [again, unless it was too negative or too special/meaningful/unique].

For example, if you ask me right now to talk to you about the last time I did something, or went somewhere, and the specific details, I can't do it. I have to think hard and then I give you vague general details at its best. Unless you ask me about a specific strong memory of mine.

_________________________________________________

●●An example (not sure if it's related to your topic) ;

▪I go to gym (and come home).

A: hey, so how was it? What did you do?

Me: Nothing special! It was cool.

A: just cool? Come on! You went to the gym! Give me more detail !

Me: The gym was big and clean. I exercised, Lifted weights, nothing else.

A: tell me more! Who's your trainer? What did s/he tell you? Is s/he handsome? Did you make any friends? How do you work out? Etc etc etc!

Me: huh?

......................................................
While another person (Si-Ne? Or maybe Se dom) ;

A: so you went to the gym?!

B (someone else) : yea! It was cool ! I talked to C, D, E, F & G.
And guess what happened? I met X there. She had gained weight and was fat ! And my trainer is sooo handsome. His name is J and he's so cool. He told me this and that. I also talked to C. She's a good girl. We talked about this and that. But D is so awkward. I dislike her, so I try to avoid her. So I stick with C, E and F. They are kinder and cooler. Oh, and E has two kids. G's uncle died two weeks ago, he had lung cancer at the age 49. etc etc etc.



It was all "random" and just an example.



So, is it a correct Se-Ni vs Ne-Si difference ?
 
#26 · (Edited)
Ni-Se - perceives subjective perceptions of archetypal roles in its minds eye that are sourced from a combination of the current reality/situation and other similar subjective perceptions of archetypal roles Ni has observed previously. Perceiving these subjective interpretations of age-old archetypal roles comes at the expense of not observing the current reality as much (repressed Se). Knowing how these time-immemorial stories play out is how Ni has the "what will be" trope.

Se-Ni - perceives the current sensory experience of the literal and specific information as it is in actuality, this is to say it perceives what you can literally and tangibly see and hear without the subjective factors influence with regards to the sensory perceptions (it sees a red apple, it does not focus on the subjectives of the apple such as its "redness"). This comes at the expense of not perceiving the subjective interpretations of age-old archetypal roles in the minds eye that are related to the current situation (repressed Ni). An extreme preference for observing the actual and tangible information over any immaterial or intangible information is why Se has the trope "what is".

Si-Ne - perceives the subjective perceptions of the current sensory experience, this is to say it sees not so much "an apple", but it sees the inherent subjective qualities in the apple (its redness, how it feels to the hand) - these are subjective sensations and not the same sensory perceptions as Se perceives. These perceptions come at the expense of not perceiving the possibilities relating to the subjective sensory perceptions as the focus is on how the subject perceives the sensory information and not of any intangible external possibilities the object might possess. These subjective perceptions of sensory information build up a database that is constantly used to compare what is being perceived with has already been perceived, this is how Si has the trope of "what was".

Ne-Si - perceives immaterial possibilities born from the subjective sensory factor. This is to say it focuses on "what ifs" that relate to how one is perceiving the the sensory information they are observing and not of relation to the literal sensory information itself (Ne sees possibilities relating to the apples redness or how it feels to touch or what ever else as opposed to seeing possibilities that are purely in relation to the existence of the apple itself such as how Se perceives it). These intuitive perceptions spawned from the subjective factor of sensation are why Ne has the trope of "what could be".

Ni sees Ne as superficial and not able to discern which immaterial information should be perceived and brought to conscious awareness.
Ne sees Ni as lacking richness and open-mindedness in its dogmatic insistence on focusing on only perceiving the subjective interpretations of archetypal roles and nothing else.

Si sees Se as superficial and not able to appreciate and apprehend the subjective information that objects in the tangible world possess, such as subjective comparative qualities like how red something is or how cold something is so on and so forth.
Se sees Si as lacking richness and awareness in its imperious perspective that the subjective impressions the sensory information in the outer world makes on itself are all that is of interest.

 
edit: according to my own understanding I am a best fit for Se-Ni, my thoughts are generally about what is tangible and have a focus on questioning this, even questioning reality itself which in its own way is still evidence of a focus on what is tangible, it would be difficult to question something I am not perceiving or can not perceive. I am aware of and perceive my subjective interpretations of age-old archetypal roles however I notice myself repress having faith in these stories in favour of what is actually happening on occasion or at the very least I will seek proof to clarify and vindicate my Ni. Often times I regret this and I feel more comfortable with rolling with my intuition, but my intuition simply does not appear enough in the first instance for me to actually believe I prefer it as a dominant perception function. It appears when I need it to appear, it is not 24/7.

The subjective factor of Sensation is something I am aware of at all times but is not of much concern to me, only when something strikes me in such a way that I can not NOT pay attention to it am I ever really focused more on the subjective factor of Sensation than the objective factor. Ne intuitions are a constant thing in my life however lately I have been wondering if perhaps what I think is "Ne" is in reality, my Thinking/Feeling working alongside Se in a healthy manner.
 
#27 ·
In each scenario, regardless of axis, N is about instinct whereas S is about fact. Jung describes N as being what used to connect us to a rich awareness of the archetypes inherent in nature through tales we told in religion or fairy tale in pre-history (times of oral tradition rather than written word). As we moved away from nature toward cities, we stopped being able to "talk to" the spirits of nature and we had to repress our N to cope with an increasingly fact-based (sensory) world.

The idea that N - the metaphorical used to be what was perceived and prioritised and somewhere along the way in our evolution, we switched from that to S and now S pervades nearly all developed countries. I would much rather be a creature of the world than feel so "other" as it's these unnatural things I find myself most wanting to block out.

That said:

Ni-Se: Repression of external sensate units in favour of internal visceral units
Se-Ni: Repression of internal visceral units in favour of external sensate units

Ne-Si: Repression of internal sensate unites in favour of external visceral units
Si-Ne: Repression of external visceral units in favour of internal sensate units.

Where unit = a perception gleaned either in a sensate or visceral way.

I don't see how it could get more simple than that.
 
#28 ·
Who the hell could even related to your Ne-Si example? It makes zero sense and makes it look like their thought process is idiotic, yeah guys let's just remember unrelated details to get to our point rather than just look at our point to get to our point.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top