Post by Heron on Jul 22, 2013 9:23:43 GMT -5
I was thinking about the main differences between the functions themselves. These are mainly personal thoughts about it, it will be great to start a discussion about it.
Firstly the differences between NeSi and NiSe. And the duality that elapses between Pi and Pe
This two pairs has points of high certainty and points of low certainty.
Speaking about NeSi, Ne is an intuitive process, his task is to find the correlations between things. His main problems to me is this: without the right experience, his ability to connect different things can change in doubt, doubt of "what of the 100 possibilities is the rightest?". Differently, Si (like Ni) is more decisive, not because is a sensing function (and all that is correlated with), but because is introverted, it gives more importance on what it gained than what is observed, is just like a bank (i like to use the example that SiNe works like a camera, taking various photos and reassembling them in another moment).
Now SeNi, i'll start with Se: i think it is a bit "undecisive" just like Ne, with the difference that is undecise basically on "what is living in that particular moment". It is just like Ne (i like the fact that the two for CT are called "exploring functions") but is based on the external world, on what it takes from it. This can lead to uncertainty about the external world, because nothing is enough to have a total comprehension (?). For Ni is the same, the high Ni users (just like the high Si users) are often depicted as "badass" because, being an introverted function, it isn't based on "what there's out of there?" but in "what i gained untill now?", like Si is a bank of informations. So, its demeanour is similar to Ne, with the difference that is more sure about his findings.
So, while a an high Ne type can have hard times to tell "what is the rightest from my hypothesis?" (this can lead to anxiety), Ni is completely sure but has great difficulties to be completely realist, and can find difficult accept that it can possibly be wrong. On the same way, Se is never completely sure on the current reality (an high Se user is more sure when is actually doing something) and nothing is enough, while Si tends to be completely sure of the informations it gained, but just like Ni, it has hard times to tell when it's wrong.
So, resuming it all: Pe is never sure enough, Pi is always sure (sometimes wrongly).
I like to use Steve Jobs to explain almost everything (i made this example another time), he had hard times in the first phase of his career. He was certainly a visionary, but his lack of realism (bad use of Se+Ti to see the consequences of his actions) brought to finacial problems his society. No one said that the Mac (and others of his projects) was a bad machine (actually in his first appearance it was a big suprise for everyone), but it was too expensive for its times, and he to accomplish is Ni almost blocked every possibility for other projects to see the light, and in the end, he got fired by his own company.
When he returned to apple (more experienced and probably more in touch with his Se) he used practically the same approach as before, with the difference that he was more aware of the consequences of what he wanted to do, and in the end he made apple richer than its golden time in the 80s.
What do you think?
Firstly the differences between NeSi and NiSe. And the duality that elapses between Pi and Pe
This two pairs has points of high certainty and points of low certainty.
Speaking about NeSi, Ne is an intuitive process, his task is to find the correlations between things. His main problems to me is this: without the right experience, his ability to connect different things can change in doubt, doubt of "what of the 100 possibilities is the rightest?". Differently, Si (like Ni) is more decisive, not because is a sensing function (and all that is correlated with), but because is introverted, it gives more importance on what it gained than what is observed, is just like a bank (i like to use the example that SiNe works like a camera, taking various photos and reassembling them in another moment).
Now SeNi, i'll start with Se: i think it is a bit "undecisive" just like Ne, with the difference that is undecise basically on "what is living in that particular moment". It is just like Ne (i like the fact that the two for CT are called "exploring functions") but is based on the external world, on what it takes from it. This can lead to uncertainty about the external world, because nothing is enough to have a total comprehension (?). For Ni is the same, the high Ni users (just like the high Si users) are often depicted as "badass" because, being an introverted function, it isn't based on "what there's out of there?" but in "what i gained untill now?", like Si is a bank of informations. So, its demeanour is similar to Ne, with the difference that is more sure about his findings.
So, while a an high Ne type can have hard times to tell "what is the rightest from my hypothesis?" (this can lead to anxiety), Ni is completely sure but has great difficulties to be completely realist, and can find difficult accept that it can possibly be wrong. On the same way, Se is never completely sure on the current reality (an high Se user is more sure when is actually doing something) and nothing is enough, while Si tends to be completely sure of the informations it gained, but just like Ni, it has hard times to tell when it's wrong.
So, resuming it all: Pe is never sure enough, Pi is always sure (sometimes wrongly).
I like to use Steve Jobs to explain almost everything (i made this example another time), he had hard times in the first phase of his career. He was certainly a visionary, but his lack of realism (bad use of Se+Ti to see the consequences of his actions) brought to finacial problems his society. No one said that the Mac (and others of his projects) was a bad machine (actually in his first appearance it was a big suprise for everyone), but it was too expensive for its times, and he to accomplish is Ni almost blocked every possibility for other projects to see the light, and in the end, he got fired by his own company.
When he returned to apple (more experienced and probably more in touch with his Se) he used practically the same approach as before, with the difference that he was more aware of the consequences of what he wanted to do, and in the end he made apple richer than its golden time in the 80s.
What do you think?