Understanding Si vs Ni - ISTJ vs ISFJ vs INFJ vs INTJ | INFJ Forum

Understanding Si vs Ni - ISTJ vs ISFJ vs INFJ vs INTJ

Paladin-X

Permanent Fixture
May 2, 2012
1,091
248
163
MBTI
XXXX
Here's a very informative post I found on a random google search:

http://personalitycafe.com/articles/48813-si-te-fe-vs-ni-te-fe-wickedqueens-mbti-theory-7.html

This may help clear certain things up. I'll quote directly from Isabel Briggs Myers 'Gifts Differing' page 80 on Comparison of Extraverted Sensing and Introverted Sensing:

Se: Suppresses as far as possible the subjective element of the sense impression.
Si: Suppresses as far as possible the objective element of the sense impression.

Se: Values the object sensed rather than the subjective impression, of which he may hardly be aware of.
Si: Values the subjective impression released by the object rather than the object itself, of which he may hardly be aware of.

Se: Sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The "primrose by a river's brim" is simply a primrose.
Si: Sees things highly colored by the subjective factor, the impression being merely suggested by the object coming out of the unconscious in the form of some meaning or significance.

Se: Leads to concrete enjoyment, seizing very fully the momentary and manifest existence of things, and that only.
Si: Leads to ideas, though the activation of archetypes, seizing the background of the physical world rather than its surface.

Se: Attention riveted by the strongest stimulus, which invariably becomes the center of interest, so that life seems wholly under the influence of accidental outer happenings.
Si: Attention very selective, guided wholly by the inner constellation of interests, so that it is impossible to predict what out stimulus will catch and hold attention.

Se: Develops a pleasure-loving outer self, very rich in undigested experience and unclassified knowledge of uninterpreted facts.
Si: Develops an extremely eccentric and individual inner self, which sees things other people do not see, and may appear very irrational.


Now that Si is clearly defined - combine the definitions of Si with Te aka ISTJ (page 78):

Te: Is fed from objective data - facts and borrowed ideas.

Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance.

Soundness and value lie less in the thinker than outside in the facts, which are more decisive than the thinking itself.

Goal is solution of practical problems, discovery and classification of facts, criticism and modification of generally accepted ideas, planning of programs and developing of formulas.

Dwells upon the details of concrete case, including irrelevancies.

Danger lies in tendency to multiply facts until their meaning is smothered and thinking is paralyzed.

Consists of a succession of concrete representations which are set in motion bot so much by an inner thought activity as by the changing stream of sense perceptions.


Take the Definitions of Si and combine with Fe(page 79) aka ISFJ:

Fe: Determined chiefly by the objective factor, it serves to make the individual feel correctly, that is conventionally, under all circumstances.

It therefore adapts the individual to the objective situation.

Depends wholly upon the ideals, conventions, and customs of the environment, and is extensive than deep.

Its soundness and value do not lie in the individual, but outside int he collective ideals of the community, which are usually accepted without question.

Its goal is the formation and maintenance of easy and harmonious emotional relationships with other people.

Expresses itself easily and so shares itself with others, creating and arousing similar feeling, and establishing warm sympathy and understanding.

Danger lies in the tendency to suppress the personal standpoint entirely, and become a feeling process instead of a feeling personality, giving the effect of insincerity and pose.


Take the definitions of Fe above, apply it as auxiliary, combine with Ni(page81) aka INFJ:

Ni: Uses the objective situation in the interests of the inner understanding.

Regards the immediate situation as a prison from which escape is urgently necessary, and aims to escape through some sweeping change in the subjective understanding of the objective situation.

Receives its impetus from outer objects but is never arrested by external possibilities, being occupied rather by searching out new angles and understanding life.

May be creative in any field: artistic, literary, inventive, philosophical, or religious.

Finds self expression difficult.

Greatest value lies in the interpretation of life and the promotion of understanding. Requires the developmental of balancing judgment, not only for the criticism and evaluation of intuitive understanding, but to enable it to impart its visions to others and bring them to practical usefulness in the world.


Combine Ni as defined above with Te(page 78) aka INTJ:

Te: Is fed from objective data - facts and borrowed ideas.

Depends upon the facts of experience and regards the abstract idea as unsubstantial and of negligible importance.

Soundness and value lie less in the thinker than outside in the facts, which are more decisive than the thinking itself.

Goal is solution of practical problems, discovery and classification of facts, criticism and modification of generally accepted ideas, planning of programs and developing of formulas.

Dwells upon the details of concrete case, including irrelevancies.

Danger lies in tendency to multiply facts until their meaning is smothered and thinking is paralyzed.

Consists of a succession of concrete representations which are set in motion bot so much by an inner thought activity as by the changing stream of sense perceptions.
 
Hmm

"Se: Suppresses as far as possible the subjective element of the sense impression.
Si: Suppresses as far as possible the objective element of the sense impression."

Can you clarify what is meant by subjective and objective here? To me, it's not even possible to have a separate objective and subjective element of sense information.
 
Good points. :)

Personally speaking (someone do correct/troll/flame me if I'm wrong) :

Si is quite similar in Ni, as it 'connects' (or 'arranges').
Se....is quite similar in Ne, as it 'expands' (or 'explores').

Si and Se play and search in the realm of the outside (objects, sensations)
Ni and Ne play and search in the realm of the inside (ideas, meaning)

However, Ni and Se both seek to find 'hidden meanings'; they uncover meanings and add experience.
Si and Ne both seek to find 'extra meanings'; they stack meanings and repeat experiences.
 
  • Like
Reactions: the
Hmm

"Se: Suppresses as far as possible the subjective element of the sense impression.
Si: Suppresses as far as possible the objective element of the sense impression."

Can you clarify what is meant by subjective and objective here? To me, it's not even possible to have a separate objective and subjective element of sense information.

Subjective : "this soup reminds me of my mother's soup."
Objective : "This soup tastes like my mother's soup."
 
I dont think this is a very clear explanation and seems to contradict what Ive learned about ISTJ, cognitive functionsm and how I feel about things in general as an ISTJ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trifoilum
Subjective : "this soup reminds me of my mother's soup."
Objective : "This soup tastes like my mother's soup."
I'm sure this is the philosophy professor in me, but these are the same, they only vary in that the "subjective" one sounds like an urge to tell a story. The only way to be reminded of your mother's soup is if it tastes like your mother's soup. Would it make sense to say Se is about taking the sensations as is, while Si is taking a sensation to extrapolate how it's like other sensations?
 
I'm sure this is the philosophy professor in me, but these are the same, they only vary in that the "subjective" one sounds like an urge to tell a story. The only way to be reminded of your mother's soup is if it tastes like your mother's soup. Would it make sense to say Se is about taking the sensations as is, while Si is taking a sensation to extrapolate how it's like other sensations?

From what I understand Si is taking a sensory experience and harkening it back to a similar experience, then judging the new experience by how the old one made you feel.

I dont understand Se as well but I think it goes something like: I feel cold, better get a coat; or fist coming at my face, better duck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trifoilum
I dont think this is a very clear explanation and seems to contradict what Ive learned about ISTJ, cognitive functionsm and how I feel about things in general as an ISTJ.
Do explain more? It's more than interesting to hear an ISTJ's perspective in this
I'm sure this is the philosophy professor in me, but these are the same, they only vary in that the "subjective" one sounds like an urge to tell a story. The only way to be reminded of your mother's soup is if it tastes like your mother's soup. Would it make sense to say Se is about taking the sensations as is, while Si is taking a sensation to extrapolate how it's like other sensations?
Yes; as it is vs how it's like other.
True, the only way is to taste (well not the only way), but taste plays second fiddle to Si. What was important is the closeness of the taste inbetween this particular soup and the soup you've had before.
It's like, compared to pure Se, pure Si are more able to replicate the same soup, but pure Se are more able to detect it.
Radar (Se) vs Satellite (Si?)
Granted, I'm trying to give similar examples; so the area is more grey than usual. And -they- are quite similar, for they dealt in the same things. At one point one is gonna blur into the other. (especially talking about combination with other functions)

A similar example would be in...video games, say; part of a series.
Si will complain whether if the game is 'true to the series'; Discrepancies and differences will be noticed, comparison will be made.
Se might not bother about it too much, as long as the game is enjoyable by itself.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: the
Hmm

"Se: Suppresses as far as possible the subjective element of the sense impression.
Si: Suppresses as far as possible the objective element of the sense impression."

Can you clarify what is meant by subjective and objective here? To me, it's not even possible to have a separate objective and subjective element of sense information.

Se focusses on what is. Si focusses on the impressions of what is.

Objective refers to the object. Something outside the Psyche. Subjective refers to the subject. Something inside the Psyche.

Does that make somewhat more sense?
 
Good points. :)

Personally speaking (someone do correct/troll/flame me if I'm wrong) :

Si is quite similar in Ni, as it 'connects' (or 'arranges').
Se....is quite similar in Ne, as it 'expands' (or 'explores').

Yes.

Si and Se play and search in the realm of the outside (objects, sensations)
Ni and Ne play and search in the realm of the inside (ideas, meaning)

Se and Ne are both objective processes. Ni and Si are subjective processes. The latter two will both connect ideas, and meaning. However, Ni will use abstract meanings and Si will use concrete meanings.

However, Ni and Se both seek to find 'hidden meanings'; they uncover meanings and add experience.
Si and Ne both seek to find 'extra meanings'; they stack meanings and repeat experiences.

Not quite. Though I'm unsure how to explain it any better.
 
I'm sure this is the philosophy professor in me, but these are the same, they only vary in that the "subjective" one sounds like an urge to tell a story. The only way to be reminded of your mother's soup is if it tastes like your mother's soup. Would it make sense to say Se is about taking the sensations as is, while Si is taking a sensation to extrapolate how it's like other sensations?

Si is a difficult thing to explain.

Se will say - this tastes like soup.
Si might say - this tastes as good as my mother's soup.

Se can still come to the same conclusion as Si, but will rely upon F or T functions to add the "as good as my mother's soup" bit on.
 
Do explain more? It's more than interesting to hear an ISTJ's perspective in this

Well I already explained it above this post I just quoted, but I will explain it again.

You have to keep in mind that I have a memory bank of experiences (like presumably everyone, AKA your memory), so when I encounter a new problem I just recall how I solved it last time and try to do the same thing unless it doesnt work then I do something different. Obviously every problem isnt the same so only when I have identified that this solution isnt working would I try something different. If the problem is entirely new then I probably shift gears into Te.

So as you can see I like things to be similar because it makes my life easier. One way to make things similar is to order them. That is why in another thread someone was whining about thier ISTJ likes the towels to be in order. I like towels to be in order too. However it is not rocket science to use a towel that is out of order, its just my preference. If an ordered towel is surprisingly filthy I would probably be disgusted and think that the rest of the room, or maybe the whole house is secretly filthy and the owner was a dirt bag; if the ordered towel was how it is supposed to be =Awesome! Maximum comfort achieved!

More Si: when I encounter a new thing, like the soup example above, if it tastes like grandmas soup then I would probably think that to myself and not share that thought because who cares? Well on second thought, feelers care about things like grandmas so I might tell them. I wouldnt tell an NT because they actually dont care, and and any ST may or may not care depending. I might tell an ISTJ and perhaps we would relate to each other better because we both have grandmas who make soup, Te would probably be the one to decide that for me though because what if the person had a bad grandma? Then I could use Ne (my 4th and worst function!) to over think things until I was paralyzed and didnt know what to do, I would think of hidden meanings and other worthless non relaevant crap, etc etc etc. So if the soup looks good (aka has a tomato base) I would eat it; if it is cheesey soup (which I havent liked in the past) I would not waste my time to try it. In fact I would be disgusted to try it because I already know from the past that I hate cheesey soups.

Even more Si: If I meet a new person I will immediately judge them based on the thing INFJs cry injustice about: their appearance! I look at them and immediately and even subconsciously determine thier hygene, their body language, their clothes, their social class,... EVERYTHING! As I get to know the person I will treat them based on those first impressions. If those first impressions were inaccurate like say they had a dirty shirt and were unshaven, then the next time they had a nice suit on and shaved; then I will think to myself this is the kind of person who is lazy and unhygenic but when something important is going on they straighten up and act appropriately. Si is now moving that person from the 'lazy category' into the 'not lazy all the time category'.

Now if a person has bad manners and then consistently shows good manners then I will eventually start to expect good manners from them all the time. If they mess up I will be like 'So what? He is the kind of guy to have bad manners sometimes'. My Si feels okay about that because he reminds of of others who were easy to deal who were just like him. But if my past experiences were negative regarding people with good manners (maybe all good mannered people screwed me over in a business deal or something) I would steer clear as much as possible.

EDIT

IDK but maybe new experiences coupled with no prior experience to fall back on (learning in the early years) is what makes ISTJs resistant to new ideas. Although as I have gotten older I have become more accepting. I wouldnt say that I am change resistant as much as I would say I am resistant to the new/untested/risky version of change. Changing into something I am familiar with and is appropriate would meet no resistance.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nixie
[MENTION=731]UBERROGO[/MENTION]
Thank you. That is precisely what I thought it was, though was unsure and could not verbalize it so well. I would argue that all Introverted functions perform similarly.

Si houses a database of attributes/properties.
Ni houses a database of perspectives/possibilities.
Ti houses a database of logical heuristics.
Fi houses a database of value-based heuristics.

Well sort of anyway...
 
@UBERROGO
Thank you. That is precisely what I thought it was, though was unsure and could not verbalize it so well. I would argue that all Introverted functions perform similarly.

Si houses a database of attributes/properties.
Ni houses a database of perspectives/possibilities.
Ti houses a database of logical heuristics.
Fi houses a database of value-based heuristics.

Well sort of anyway...

Maybe I am off base, but could you relate what you mean to this wikipedia definition of an INFJs Ni:
Attracted to symbolic actions or devices, Ni synthesizes seeming paradoxes to create the previously unimagined. These realizations come with a certainty that demands action to fulfill a new vision of the future, solutions that may include complex systems or universal truths
 
Se and Ne are both objective processes. Ni and Si are subjective processes. The latter two will both connect ideas, and meaning. However, Ni will use abstract meanings and Si will use concrete meanings.
mmmm. I think we both complement each other's statements?

I can see what you mean; but I dunno about the extroverted ones being purely objective and the introverted ones being purely subjective; hence I was thinking in the mind/body dichotomy purely.

Not quite. Though I'm unsure how to explain it any better.
Yes, this one I'm the most unsure. It's a vibe I got.

You have to keep in mind that I have a memory bank of experiences (like presumably everyone, AKA your memory), so when I encounter a new problem I just recall how I solved it last time and try to do the same thing unless it doesnt work then I do something different. Obviously every problem isnt the same so only when I have identified that this solution isnt working would I try something different. If the problem is entirely new then I probably shift gears into Te.
...That makes perfect sense yet I JUST CANNOT GET IT. *headdesk*
So as you can see I like things to be similar because it makes my life easier. One way to make things similar is to order them. That is why in another thread someone was whining about thier ISTJ likes the towels to be in order. I like towels to be in order too. However it is not rocket science to use a towel that is out of order, its just my preference. If an ordered towel is surprisingly filthy I would probably be disgusted and think that the rest of the room, or maybe the whole house is secretly filthy and the owner was a dirt bag; if the ordered towel was how it is supposed to be =Awesome! Maximum comfort achieved!
Fi as relief function?
More Si: when I encounter a new thing, like the soup example above, if it tastes like grandmas soup then I would probably think that to myself and not share that thought because who cares? Well on second thought, feelers care about things like grandmas so I might tell them. I wouldnt tell an NT because they actually dont care, and and any ST may or may not care depending. I might tell an ISTJ and perhaps we would relate to each other better because we both have grandmas who make soup, Te would probably be the one to decide that for me though because what if the person had a bad grandma? Then I could use Ne (my 4th and worst function!) to over think things until I was paralyzed and didnt know what to do, I would think of hidden meanings and other worthless non relaevant crap, etc etc etc. So if the soup looks good (aka has a tomato base) I would eat it; if it is cheesey soup (which I havent liked in the past) I would not waste my time to try it. In fact I would be disgusted to try it because I already know from the past that I hate cheesey soups.
...First of all. Cheesey soup? ........'_____'
Hmm. I can see Te users thinking 'concretely' about these things / 'care'/'share'/'relate'.
Even more Si: If I meet a new person I will immediately judge them based on the thing INFJs cry injustice about: their appearance! I look at them and immediately and even subconsciously determine thier hygene, their body language, their clothes, their social class,... EVERYTHING! As I get to know the person I will treat them based on those first impressions. If those first impressions were inaccurate like say they had a dirty shirt and were unshaven, then the next time they had a nice suit on and shaved; then I will think to myself this is the kind of person who is lazy and unhygenic but when something important is going on they straighten up and act appropriately. Si is now moving that person from the 'lazy category' into the 'not lazy all the time category'.

Now if a person has bad manners and then consistently shows good manners then I will eventually start to expect good manners from them all the time. If they mess up I will be like 'So what? He is the kind of guy to have bad manners sometimes'. My Si feels okay about that because he reminds of of others who were easy to deal who were just like him. But if my past experiences were negative regarding people with good manners (maybe all good mannered people screwed me over in a business deal or something) I would steer clear as much as possible.
Makes perfect sense. From a personal experience, a lot of STJ (...TJ people, actually) grade people in a 'scale'...thus, outbursts and impulsive (emotionally charged) actions aren't exactly their best friend.

IDK but maybe new experiences coupled with no prior experience to fall back on (learning in the early years) is what makes ISTJs resistant to new ideas. Although as I have gotten older I have become more accepting. I wouldnt say that I am change resistant as much as I would say I am resistant to the new/untested/risky version of change. Changing into something I am familiar with and is appropriate would meet no resistance.
Which, I would assume, is the point of growth for most Si doms? To take courage against the unknown-- against not knowing. Unfamiliarity.
In that particular context, I'd really think Ni doms have the same problems. Only like, Si dom's problems are pertaining wild / random ideas, while Ni's are more of the fluid, wild external world.

Thank you for answering so detailed and eloquent to my simple query. *curts*

Oh, and if I may supply an answer to your query to OP below, I personally find it somewhat true, and I do relate. accessing possibilities / perspective WILL create a logical paradox; where one is wrong from one side, and right in another. Thus most of the time, the middle side; the clash WILL be addressed. Sometimes via cognitive dissonance, other times via revelations.
 
mmmm. I think we both complement each other's statements?

I can see what you mean; but I dunno about the extroverted ones being purely objective and the introverted ones being purely subjective; hence I was thinking in the mind/body dichotomy purely.

I do not mean Objective and Subjective in the sense of biased vs unbiased, but more about the object and the subject. The lines between the self and outside the self blend because of the shadow process. Ni/Se or Si/Ne. This is why Ni might seem like an objective process, because it is accurate and not usually swayed by our bias'. Like the person looking for gold in the river - Se is the handful of dirt and Ni the sieve. Because we want to find gold, that is what Ni sifts for. If we wanted to find smooth shiney rocks, it would sift for that and let the gold fall through (metaphorically speaking :p). This is how Ni is subjective.

EDIT - Ok I see where you were going with your definition. Where I use concrete and abstract, you use objective and subjective.
 
I do not mean Objective and Subjective in the sense of biased vs unbiased, but more about the object and the subject. The lines between the self and outside the self blend because of the shadow process. Ni/Se or Si/Ne. This is why Ni might seem like an objective process, because it is accurate and not usually swayed by our bias'. Like the person looking for gold in the river - Se is the handful of dirt and Ni the sieve. Because we want to find gold, that is what Ni sifts for. If we wanted to find smooth shiney rocks, it would sift for that and let the gold fall through (metaphorically speaking :p). This is how Ni is subjective.

EDIT - Ok I see where you were going with your definition. Where I use concrete and abstract, you use objective and subjective.
Yes, essentially that. Glad we can settle this up! :p

Yeah, I somewhat agree with your words. I..just don't know if it can be applied everytime.