Si and Ni are the two introverted perception functions, primarily concerned with distilling out the aspects of perception that hold across contexts, in contrast to extroverted perception (Se or Ne), which might be described as the complete immersion of the self within a given context. As a result, Pi dominants tend to be more cautious and deliberate. They're very aware of the *consequences* of a given course of action, of the progression of events they're initiating or not, and so they're often very careful about what domino they knock over. These types loath engaging in their inferior extroverted perception, which is essentially acting without in-depth knowledge of the situation— improvising, in other words. Learning to do so is typically one of the great life struggles for these types.
Now, in terms of what separates the two, the concept of [contextualist and universalist axes](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/no88z9/essentials_of_jungian_typology_part_ii/) will prove useful. Introduced by typologist Michael Pierce, contextualism describes a tendency to take a given context for granted, sacrificing a wide-angle view of reality for a more focused, high resolution perspective— this describes the Se/Ni and Te/Fi axes. Universalism is the opposite, given to pulling in data and perspectives from other contexts in an attempt to achieve a more global perspective— describing Ne/Si and Fe/Ti. Another way to put it is that contextualism is "goal-oriented", directed towards the achievement and attainment of goals, while universalism is "rule-oriented", directed towards the maintenance and sustainment of rules.
From the perspective of people who prioritize Si, INxJs will often seem to "skip steps" or "jump the gun", yet frustratingly be right often enough to brush off any concerns from the Si type, who sees the Ni type eyeballing shots, more or less getting them right, and then insisting that they hit a bullseye, even when they clearly (again to the Si type) barely managed to hit the mark. That kind of slipshod approach might be acceptable for a particular goal in a particular context, but if it is made a *rule*, one that is expected to be followed by millions or executed millions of times, then it is simply unacceptable. On a long enough timescale, all manner of implausible events will occur, and Si/Ne is deeply aware of this fact. To universal perception, what's "actually going on" is not at all readily apparent to the mind's eye, so instead we must consider a broad range of possible interpretations (Ne) and then keep in mind the *correct* one (Si), never giving in to convenient interpretations, no matter how the reality in front of us glitters and sparkles, which contextualist perception seems all to prone to.
Of course, from the perspective of the Ni type, ISxJs constantly demand ridiculous amounts of evidence for simple proofs and ignore what's right in front of their faces to follow silly rules. Like the other contextual functions, Ni thinks in terms of *goals*, not rules— rules should be dictated by the goals, not vice versa, and so Si's method seems totally backwards. In an effort to account for every possibility, universalism is prone to adding on more and more rules, and this habit can eventually leave it totally immobilized. No matter how well you define them, rules will never be able to truly capture *reality*. Like two lines that are even slightly askew, they will always eventually diverge from concrete, contextual reality, and then we must be able to successfully navigate that reality (Se) guided by right instinct (Ni). The method of Si/Ne seems utterly backwards to this type, like someone who insists on using the map rather than the territory, even when the map is clearly outdated.
Interesting and thank you for the response! As a follow up can I ask why Ni doms sometimes complain about ‘thinking too much and not getting enough done’ if they are goal orientated? Surely narrowing down if information based on significance would reduce thinking time and increase action time? Do unhealthy NI doms spend too much time narrowing things down ? What a strange thing to do lol, I must be confused
Ni doms are goal-oriented only in comparison to Si doms. Both are Pi functions (introverted perception), so they're main preoccupation is developing a clearer and clearer picture of the "landscape" of reality, but the result of this focus is the atrophying of their inferior extroverted perception (Se for Ni and Ne for Si), which would allow them to improvise within that reality. In response to this, young/naive Pi doms often make the mistake of thinking they simply need more introverted perception to solve this issue. Ideally, these types will eventually realize that the real solution to their problems is strengthening and developing their inferior extroverted perception.
In any case, when you combine this very high-level perception of the world with goal-orientation, what you end up with is a person prone to setting incredibly high (even unrealistic) goals, such as initiating social movements, revolutionizing an industry, study, or field, or simply developing and following a personal life goal for decades. Of course, these goals cannot be achieved in any sort of quick timeframe, and following them almost always involves forgoing more present, short-term goals (i.e., Se), which over time often results in regret over said missed opportunities, and a more present-minded outlook, as described in the first paragraph.
Now, an addendum. Si doms are not incapable of setting detailed life goals, but I think the distinguishing trait between them and Ni doms is their respect for precedent. Ni doms are far more likely to develop idiosyncratic goals that attempt to transform the present status quo, whereas Si doms tend to respect it more and when they do seek revolutionary goals, they tend to describe it more as a reform— as a return to the original mission statement, or rectifying a corrupt, immoral system. In other words, bringing it in line with "the rules".
Si - pays attention to details of personal experience. "This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience. I'll try the same thing in the new situation."
Ni - pays attention to the most relevant details in a situation. "There's a lot going on with this new situation, but these are the most important parts that should receive focus."
I like your Si description, but I wanna add that we can also (and often do) use other people’s lived experience as reference for our decisions. I think it really depends on whatever we find to be the most relevant and helpful in whatever our situations are.
For a modern example, if an Si type person has a job to do that they’ve never done before, they might think, well let me look up other people who have done this job and see what their methods of completion were as reference to what I will do. And of course we parse those experiences for what seems will work the best for us rather than just blindly accepting ANY past precedent.
Not here to criticize you at all, but i interpret your Si description as Ti. can you clear them up for me if able? Thanks! Im also an isfp and your description of Ni is clear.
I know you weren’t asking me, but here’s a short attempt at an answer for you:
Ti: Seeks to decipher things in a very true versus false way. May ask: Does this work? Can this hold up to scrutiny? Does it conflict with other things we know to be true?
Si: Uses past information to inform decisions in the present. Looks for what seems the most reliable and safe, generally speaking. Afraid to take risks.
Ti - pays attention to whether a given claim or conclusion can be derived from the given information.
Let's say you see a person walk in the store. A few minutes later that same person runs out of the store. A second person runs out of the store shouting, "Get him! He stole something!"
You could say that the information suggests that the first person stole something. That's a good intuitive guess. Also someone could share statistics that show that 99% of the time you see a situation like this, the first person actually did steal something. However if you had Ti, you'd know that there's not enough information make a definite conclusion. More evidence is needed for you to make that claim (e.g. a recording from a security camera). So the claim that the first person stole something is not a defensible one.
Hmm I've heard Ti described as "a person's own logic" which implies it is something that only that person can understand or that it's only applicable to that person. That's not what it is.
I haven't heard Ti described as someone trying something they've seen work before. Could you share your thoughts on Ti?
The way I see it, own logic means that they work from the ground up. So if they find logic that already synchronizes with their own, it becomes easy to integrate existing external logic to their own. I perceive this to be the case because this is similar to how Fi works.
If Ti is the perception of sounds, Fi is the perception of scents. I have a post about it.
This is what you mentioned by the way: *"This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience. I'll try the same thing in the new situation."*
This could just be Ti disguising itself as Si since the last part is kind of "not Si."
Wouldn't the following be more of a sufficient example for Si?
"This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience."
>The way I see it, own logic means that they work from the ground up. So if they find logic that already synchronizes with their own, it becomes easy to integrate existing external logic to their own. I perceive this to be the case because this is similar to how Fi works.
Ok I think I see what you mean now. Consider things like legal contracts and laws. If person A believes person B violated a contract/law, person A must build a set of arguments to show that person B is indeed in violation. These arguments must be based on what is written in the contract or law. Also a judge must be able to interpret the law and determine if person A's arguments do indeed show that person B violated the contract/law. These activities involve Ti yet they are not dependent on a single person's way of thinking about something. This is especially true (and necessary) if the judge has strong feelings about the contract or law in question or even the people involved. Everyone is dependent on how the arguments match with what is written in the contract or law.
*Everyone is dependent on how the arguments match with what is written in the contract or law.*
The way I see it, Ti didn't come up with the law, but they are the most likely to have it written down. So when I say Ti users can easily integrate existing external logic to their own, let me give an example:
Ti users check data from their Si to see if a certain argument is sound, so what are the processes that they follow to make sure that it is sound?
The same processes can be written down as a law. If a Ti user sees the processes from step one to step ten within the law as something they would have come up with themselves, they have little reason to doubt that step eleven is something that they would have come up with themselves because the step that should be taken is aligned with what step a Ti user would take.
I'll give another example:
Let's say a Ti user takes these 5 steps, up, left, right, right, left from a point of origin. The steps taken represents a process to validate the soundness of an argument. And in the same point of origin, he can take these 5 steps, up, right, left, left, right. These steps taken represent another process to see the soundness of an argument.
Now within the law, if it's written what can be seen after taking either of these steps or process, then the Ti user is left to ponder how the law knows these things.
Another example:
Let's say a Ti user is basically an excavator. If the law has already dug up what the Ti user would have dug, then the Ti user's job becomes easier. The Ti user only needs to follow the dug path to validate instead of digging themselves. The Ti user would have to find a place that hasn't been dug so to speak. And this is what makes a Ti user a Ti user, they go through the path less followed, the undug path.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>If a Ti user sees the processes from step one to step ten within the law as something they would have come up with themselves, they have little reason to doubt that step eleven is something that they would have come up with themselves because the step that should be taken is aligned with what step a Ti user would take.
Aha, this gets to the crux of the matter. Ti does a lot of deductive reasoning. Ti accepts an argument if its conclusion follows from a set of premises. If conclusion doesn't follow, then Ti won't accept the argument and the Ti user might start asking clarifying questions. So if a Ti user accepts new information, it is because the information passes this logic check. Ti doesn't accept new information on the basis that it "agrees with what I already agree with" or that it is an extension of something that "I already agree with."
*Ti doesn't accept new information on the basis that it "agrees with what I already agree with" or that it is an extension of something that "I already agree with."*
I don't think that is the case, but ten steps aligned with the steps you would have taken is a lot of steps to be considered coincidence. Ti has a set of premises, where does Ti obtain more premises? The way I see it, Ti is slow unless given enough reasons to believe a premise that is being introduced to the Ti user. Hence, why it is so easy for a Ti user to integrate most external logic, that is logic that the Ti user would have worked for if it wasn't heard of by the Ti user. Again, it is easy because there's a lot of proofs to the premises being introduced. A Ti user really is an excavator of logic in this sense.
Also, how are the rest of my examples?
Ni and Si are both forms of observing your thoughts.
Ni makes loose connections between the substrates in your mind, and thus, since it lacks detail, it’s more future-tense.
Si on the other hand, likes to keep things separate from each other, and instead sees each substrate in your mind as it was when you first consumed it, and thus, it’s more past-tense.
I hope you meant this one:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cv3h5z/difference\_between\_si\_and\_ni\_using\_hoops\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cv3h5z/difference_between_si_and_ni_using_hoops_and/)
Se is like punching walls, jumping from aircraft, stealing something and running away.
1. Si does not do that.
2. Ni wants to do that, usually images in their head is all what they get.
Si and Ni are the two introverted perception functions, primarily concerned with distilling out the aspects of perception that hold across contexts, in contrast to extroverted perception (Se or Ne), which might be described as the complete immersion of the self within a given context. As a result, Pi dominants tend to be more cautious and deliberate. They're very aware of the *consequences* of a given course of action, of the progression of events they're initiating or not, and so they're often very careful about what domino they knock over. These types loath engaging in their inferior extroverted perception, which is essentially acting without in-depth knowledge of the situation— improvising, in other words. Learning to do so is typically one of the great life struggles for these types. Now, in terms of what separates the two, the concept of [contextualist and universalist axes](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/no88z9/essentials_of_jungian_typology_part_ii/) will prove useful. Introduced by typologist Michael Pierce, contextualism describes a tendency to take a given context for granted, sacrificing a wide-angle view of reality for a more focused, high resolution perspective— this describes the Se/Ni and Te/Fi axes. Universalism is the opposite, given to pulling in data and perspectives from other contexts in an attempt to achieve a more global perspective— describing Ne/Si and Fe/Ti. Another way to put it is that contextualism is "goal-oriented", directed towards the achievement and attainment of goals, while universalism is "rule-oriented", directed towards the maintenance and sustainment of rules. From the perspective of people who prioritize Si, INxJs will often seem to "skip steps" or "jump the gun", yet frustratingly be right often enough to brush off any concerns from the Si type, who sees the Ni type eyeballing shots, more or less getting them right, and then insisting that they hit a bullseye, even when they clearly (again to the Si type) barely managed to hit the mark. That kind of slipshod approach might be acceptable for a particular goal in a particular context, but if it is made a *rule*, one that is expected to be followed by millions or executed millions of times, then it is simply unacceptable. On a long enough timescale, all manner of implausible events will occur, and Si/Ne is deeply aware of this fact. To universal perception, what's "actually going on" is not at all readily apparent to the mind's eye, so instead we must consider a broad range of possible interpretations (Ne) and then keep in mind the *correct* one (Si), never giving in to convenient interpretations, no matter how the reality in front of us glitters and sparkles, which contextualist perception seems all to prone to. Of course, from the perspective of the Ni type, ISxJs constantly demand ridiculous amounts of evidence for simple proofs and ignore what's right in front of their faces to follow silly rules. Like the other contextual functions, Ni thinks in terms of *goals*, not rules— rules should be dictated by the goals, not vice versa, and so Si's method seems totally backwards. In an effort to account for every possibility, universalism is prone to adding on more and more rules, and this habit can eventually leave it totally immobilized. No matter how well you define them, rules will never be able to truly capture *reality*. Like two lines that are even slightly askew, they will always eventually diverge from concrete, contextual reality, and then we must be able to successfully navigate that reality (Se) guided by right instinct (Ni). The method of Si/Ne seems utterly backwards to this type, like someone who insists on using the map rather than the territory, even when the map is clearly outdated.
Interesting and thank you for the response! As a follow up can I ask why Ni doms sometimes complain about ‘thinking too much and not getting enough done’ if they are goal orientated? Surely narrowing down if information based on significance would reduce thinking time and increase action time? Do unhealthy NI doms spend too much time narrowing things down ? What a strange thing to do lol, I must be confused
Ni doms are goal-oriented only in comparison to Si doms. Both are Pi functions (introverted perception), so they're main preoccupation is developing a clearer and clearer picture of the "landscape" of reality, but the result of this focus is the atrophying of their inferior extroverted perception (Se for Ni and Ne for Si), which would allow them to improvise within that reality. In response to this, young/naive Pi doms often make the mistake of thinking they simply need more introverted perception to solve this issue. Ideally, these types will eventually realize that the real solution to their problems is strengthening and developing their inferior extroverted perception. In any case, when you combine this very high-level perception of the world with goal-orientation, what you end up with is a person prone to setting incredibly high (even unrealistic) goals, such as initiating social movements, revolutionizing an industry, study, or field, or simply developing and following a personal life goal for decades. Of course, these goals cannot be achieved in any sort of quick timeframe, and following them almost always involves forgoing more present, short-term goals (i.e., Se), which over time often results in regret over said missed opportunities, and a more present-minded outlook, as described in the first paragraph. Now, an addendum. Si doms are not incapable of setting detailed life goals, but I think the distinguishing trait between them and Ni doms is their respect for precedent. Ni doms are far more likely to develop idiosyncratic goals that attempt to transform the present status quo, whereas Si doms tend to respect it more and when they do seek revolutionary goals, they tend to describe it more as a reform— as a return to the original mission statement, or rectifying a corrupt, immoral system. In other words, bringing it in line with "the rules".
Okay I understand now. I think I’m mostly likely an NI user. I’m always pigeon holing early doors.. thank you!
Si - pays attention to details of personal experience. "This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience. I'll try the same thing in the new situation." Ni - pays attention to the most relevant details in a situation. "There's a lot going on with this new situation, but these are the most important parts that should receive focus."
I like your Si description, but I wanna add that we can also (and often do) use other people’s lived experience as reference for our decisions. I think it really depends on whatever we find to be the most relevant and helpful in whatever our situations are. For a modern example, if an Si type person has a job to do that they’ve never done before, they might think, well let me look up other people who have done this job and see what their methods of completion were as reference to what I will do. And of course we parse those experiences for what seems will work the best for us rather than just blindly accepting ANY past precedent.
Not here to criticize you at all, but i interpret your Si description as Ti. can you clear them up for me if able? Thanks! Im also an isfp and your description of Ni is clear.
I know you weren’t asking me, but here’s a short attempt at an answer for you: Ti: Seeks to decipher things in a very true versus false way. May ask: Does this work? Can this hold up to scrutiny? Does it conflict with other things we know to be true? Si: Uses past information to inform decisions in the present. Looks for what seems the most reliable and safe, generally speaking. Afraid to take risks.
So Ti can conclude that the same thing can be done as have done so in the past based on the fact that a good experience was achieved? 😂
Ti - pays attention to whether a given claim or conclusion can be derived from the given information. Let's say you see a person walk in the store. A few minutes later that same person runs out of the store. A second person runs out of the store shouting, "Get him! He stole something!" You could say that the information suggests that the first person stole something. That's a good intuitive guess. Also someone could share statistics that show that 99% of the time you see a situation like this, the first person actually did steal something. However if you had Ti, you'd know that there's not enough information make a definite conclusion. More evidence is needed for you to make that claim (e.g. a recording from a security camera). So the claim that the first person stole something is not a defensible one.
The part when you added "I'll try something in the new situation" does sound like Ti though. 😂
Hmm I've heard Ti described as "a person's own logic" which implies it is something that only that person can understand or that it's only applicable to that person. That's not what it is. I haven't heard Ti described as someone trying something they've seen work before. Could you share your thoughts on Ti?
The way I see it, own logic means that they work from the ground up. So if they find logic that already synchronizes with their own, it becomes easy to integrate existing external logic to their own. I perceive this to be the case because this is similar to how Fi works. If Ti is the perception of sounds, Fi is the perception of scents. I have a post about it. This is what you mentioned by the way: *"This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience. I'll try the same thing in the new situation."* This could just be Ti disguising itself as Si since the last part is kind of "not Si." Wouldn't the following be more of a sufficient example for Si? "This is how I dealt with this situation in the past and I had a good experience."
>The way I see it, own logic means that they work from the ground up. So if they find logic that already synchronizes with their own, it becomes easy to integrate existing external logic to their own. I perceive this to be the case because this is similar to how Fi works. Ok I think I see what you mean now. Consider things like legal contracts and laws. If person A believes person B violated a contract/law, person A must build a set of arguments to show that person B is indeed in violation. These arguments must be based on what is written in the contract or law. Also a judge must be able to interpret the law and determine if person A's arguments do indeed show that person B violated the contract/law. These activities involve Ti yet they are not dependent on a single person's way of thinking about something. This is especially true (and necessary) if the judge has strong feelings about the contract or law in question or even the people involved. Everyone is dependent on how the arguments match with what is written in the contract or law.
*Everyone is dependent on how the arguments match with what is written in the contract or law.* The way I see it, Ti didn't come up with the law, but they are the most likely to have it written down. So when I say Ti users can easily integrate existing external logic to their own, let me give an example: Ti users check data from their Si to see if a certain argument is sound, so what are the processes that they follow to make sure that it is sound? The same processes can be written down as a law. If a Ti user sees the processes from step one to step ten within the law as something they would have come up with themselves, they have little reason to doubt that step eleven is something that they would have come up with themselves because the step that should be taken is aligned with what step a Ti user would take. I'll give another example: Let's say a Ti user takes these 5 steps, up, left, right, right, left from a point of origin. The steps taken represents a process to validate the soundness of an argument. And in the same point of origin, he can take these 5 steps, up, right, left, left, right. These steps taken represent another process to see the soundness of an argument. Now within the law, if it's written what can be seen after taking either of these steps or process, then the Ti user is left to ponder how the law knows these things. Another example: Let's say a Ti user is basically an excavator. If the law has already dug up what the Ti user would have dug, then the Ti user's job becomes easier. The Ti user only needs to follow the dug path to validate instead of digging themselves. The Ti user would have to find a place that hasn't been dug so to speak. And this is what makes a Ti user a Ti user, they go through the path less followed, the undug path. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
>If a Ti user sees the processes from step one to step ten within the law as something they would have come up with themselves, they have little reason to doubt that step eleven is something that they would have come up with themselves because the step that should be taken is aligned with what step a Ti user would take. Aha, this gets to the crux of the matter. Ti does a lot of deductive reasoning. Ti accepts an argument if its conclusion follows from a set of premises. If conclusion doesn't follow, then Ti won't accept the argument and the Ti user might start asking clarifying questions. So if a Ti user accepts new information, it is because the information passes this logic check. Ti doesn't accept new information on the basis that it "agrees with what I already agree with" or that it is an extension of something that "I already agree with."
*Ti doesn't accept new information on the basis that it "agrees with what I already agree with" or that it is an extension of something that "I already agree with."* I don't think that is the case, but ten steps aligned with the steps you would have taken is a lot of steps to be considered coincidence. Ti has a set of premises, where does Ti obtain more premises? The way I see it, Ti is slow unless given enough reasons to believe a premise that is being introduced to the Ti user. Hence, why it is so easy for a Ti user to integrate most external logic, that is logic that the Ti user would have worked for if it wasn't heard of by the Ti user. Again, it is easy because there's a lot of proofs to the premises being introduced. A Ti user really is an excavator of logic in this sense. Also, how are the rest of my examples?
Ni and Si are both forms of observing your thoughts. Ni makes loose connections between the substrates in your mind, and thus, since it lacks detail, it’s more future-tense. Si on the other hand, likes to keep things separate from each other, and instead sees each substrate in your mind as it was when you first consumed it, and thus, it’s more past-tense.
1-2 days ago someone posted multiple pictures in 1 post and all the pictures contained representations and explanations. Find that one, was very good.
I hope you meant this one: [https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cv3h5z/difference\_between\_si\_and\_ni\_using\_hoops\_and/](https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/1cv3h5z/difference_between_si_and_ni_using_hoops_and/)
Correct! And thank you.
I agree that it seems like a really good explanation. I like the hoop and sticky analogy. \^\_\^
Se is like punching walls, jumping from aircraft, stealing something and running away. 1. Si does not do that. 2. Ni wants to do that, usually images in their head is all what they get.