02 The 8 cognitive function in-depth explanation (OLD AND OUTDATED)

UPDATE 2021-10-08: THE  POSTS ON THIS BLOG ARE SHIT. THEY WERE WRITTEN ONLY MONTHS AFTER I DISCOVERED TYPOLOGY  AND I DON'T AGREE WITH AT LEAST HALF OF THE STUFF HERE ANYMORE. I DO NOT REGRET MAKING THESE POSTS BECAUSE WRITING IS A LEARNING EXERCISE FOR ME BUT YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THEY ARE OLD AND OUTDATED.  READ AT YOUR OWN DISCRETION AND USE CRITICAL THINKING. 

The rational/irrational function dichotomy:

The best and simplest way you can describe the difference between the 4 rational (also called judging) functions (Ti Fi Te Fe) and the 4 irrational (also known as perceiving) functions (Ni Si Ne Se) is that judging functions distort, modify, understand information, basically they make judgments with it while perceiving functions simply take it as it is (absorb it) and leave it raw like that.

The fact that half are called rational and half irrational doesn't mean that irrational functions are less smart or inferior in any other way, it means they just can’t justify their judgments (evaluate information), they absorb raw information and leave it like that.

A good more in depth analysis of judgment (rational Ti Te Fi Fe) vs perception (irrational Si Se Ni Ne) is here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aV79vYnXH6s

Below I will try to give a brief introduction to each of the 4 functions and how they differ on each attitude (introverted/extraverted). So that means I will describe the functions in pairs of reversed functions (Ti with Te, Fi with Fe, Si with Se, Ni with Ne) as I believe that's the most effective way of learning them. First you need to learn what thinking is in general and then how it differs on each side, not the other way around.

As a bonus, I will also give a comparison of each pair of opposite functions (Ti with Fi, Te with Fe, Ni with Si, Ne with Se) to clear misunderstandings.  

;

RATIONAL/JUDGING FUNCTIONS:

THINKING:

Thinking, as I understand it is the judging function which works all by what is defined as LOGIC.

logic /ˈlɒdʒɪk/ (noun) 1. reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

“Thinking is that psychological function which, in accordance with its own laws, brings given presentations into conceptual connection.”

-Chapter XI of Psychological Types by Carl G. Jung.

Thinking (regardless of its orientation) is all about

1. Defining entities
2. Putting them to use.

An entity in this context is defined as a something. An event, an object, a living being, a concept, a theory, a thought, an emotion, a state of being, a thing, a “something”.

When thinking is oriented outwardly (Te) it defines entities objectively and puts them to use in the external world. “What it is and how can it be used?”

When thinking is oriented internally (Ti) it defines entities subjectively and puts them to use in the internal world. “What I think it is and how does it relate to my subjective system of how things work?”

Ti is like A-B-C-D-E, they see HOW and WHY things work and come to conclusions about why they do that and create and internal system while Te is like A-E, they are interested in the end goal, the output result and tend to deny any unimportant information.

The way Ti works is by a principle called “logical deduction”. It is focused on the consistency of facts, “If X is true then Y must be true as well!” or “Those two facts can’t exist at the same time! That means one of them must be false!”. Te will never make such assumptions, Te must have the facts laid out in front of him before making a choice, so what Te does is only gathering those objective facts, a process called “logical induction”.

Actually, Te also can make assumptions. In fact, there is a particular kind of assumption that I think Te is more likely to make, which is acting like a statement that is valid in one domain, one context, is valid universally. Like empirical research or this example I give below:

Example: Te says, "If I flick this light switch, that bulb will turn on." Ti says, "You are probably right, but there is a non-zero chance the bulb is burnt out." Te's assumption is a perfectly reasonable one to make, but it is still an assumption.

The main distinction between Ti and Te is absolute abstract truth vs empirical research: I will show you how mathematics is the realm of Ti while research is the realm of Te.

In math class when you are put to prove how E(x) is ALWAYS IN EVERY CASE bigger than 0 you have to abstractize the problem and find a way to show that no matter what number you replace x with, the equation will always be bigger than 0. What Te would make you do is replace “X” with a few numbers, give examples and show how in all of those examples the equation = 0. That only raises the chance of the statement to be true, but Ti would hop in and say “You only proved that generally E(x)=0 and that there’s a 99% chance of it being true, but what about that 1% particular cases? We need 100% ACCURACY”.

Ti generally recognizes that no number of examples or real world proof can accumulate the complexity of mechanical objects, this is why Ti must be so ruthless with their content and data. Some people nickname Ti as “Accuracy” because it wants to find absolute truth, looking at particular cases “it must be true in all 100% cases, we mustn’t neglect small amounts. 99.999% probability is not enough”.

Research would then be Te. Let’s say you take 1000 research subjects and test them to see how they react connected to EEGs: taking 500 males and 500 females and testing them and seeing that all males showed more right brain usage while females showed more left brain usage, Te would assume that males generally have more right brain activity while females have more left brain activity. Ti would find this insulting, stating that it might be a coincidence and that in fact males are left brained and females are right brained, because you haven’t tested all 7 billion people of earth. It is a low chance, but there is still that 1% chance that most males are left brained and most females are right brained but the coincidence is that you picked exactly the 1000 ones that are reversed.

So when Ti deals with similar situations, to get 100% accuracy it either tries to test ALL of them (if the number was very small and it wouldn’t consume too much time) or try to abstractize the whole situation like a math problem (can’t do that on the male/female brain example either, so in that situation Ti can’t do anything useful so it would just leave it blank and say it’s a mystery and we can never get accuracy), that’s why in empirical research Ti is close to useless and you need Te. Ti is good in situations where you can use logical deduction (“Can those two facts be both true at the same time?”) for abstract problem solving, like in mathematics.)

Since Te asks “will this work?” it will just apply a formula learnt in math class that’s proven to work (tested) (if the problem really requires to prove that in all 100% scenarios E(x) = 0 or whatever)

NOTE: I am not stating that left/right brain activity is different in the two sexes, that was just a random example I made up on the spot.

We will see that distinction in the Fi vs Fe part too, where Fe wants to communicate their feelings through language or certain gestures while for Fi that is almost an insult, stating that the emotional intensity of each individual human being is far too complex to be covered by language.

Ti is generally associated with the ability to recognize logical consistency and correctness, generate classifications and systems, organize systematic and conceptual understanding, see logical connections between things (including logical similarities, differences, and correlations) by means of instinctive feelings of validity. It is like common sense, in that it builds on one's expectations of reality, through a somewhat personal and subjective, though explicable, understanding of general truths and how they are manifested.

Types that value Ti naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgment, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort. They think that information is information regardless of source and that even a beggar or an uneducated person has a small chance of being right about a subject. Similarly, they think that (even though the chance is smaller) there is also a chance that an expert in a field or a form of authority on a subject can be wrong about certain things.

Te deals with the external activity of objects, i.e the how, what and where of events, activity or work, behavior, algorithms, movement, and actions. The how, (contrary to the "why" of Ti) what and where of events and objects. “Stop telling me ‘your opinion’, give me the facts! What happened, when, how and where?”

Te usually asks “what can I do with this piece of information? Is it useful? Can I achieve a goal with it?” contrary to Ti who asks “How does this work? Why is this here?” regardless of practical application. The only way to know if something works for Te is if it plays out in the “outer world”. For Ti, a logically consistent argument is the proof that supports their speculation. This is why Ti must be so ruthless with their content and data. The criteria isn’t necessarily provable to an outside observer, and so an internally consistent argument may be the best it's got to give credibility to their conclusions. "Quality" to Te is how well an object performs the functions for which it was made. A Te type can judge a person to be "effective" if he is able to achieve his purposes without wasting any energy or producing unwanted side effects. Ti measures quality by accuracy and “correctness”, regardless of whether it’s useful/practical or not.

“Ti dominants seek to understand and fit their observations to their models. Ti, no matter how objective it tries to be, is actually quite subjective (…)The Extraverted nature of Te exalts a distaste for letting the subjective factor poison the judgment process. It isn't much concerned with the validity, (...) but more with how the perceived facts can be used to achieve what one wants (Te-Fi).” (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6bcd1h/the_adventure_of_the_mistyped_consulting/?st=j2rpyeh3&sh=78ab53b5)

“Te is objective because it considers phenomena in the outside world, and implicitly distrusts anything of the inside world. It uses logic to come to conclusions about concrete things using observable facts.

Ti on the other hand distrusts the outside world, considering facts to be unreliable because they are a confluence of various phenomena and what exactly the fact implies is up for grabs. It uses its perception of the outside world to discover the underlying principles that govern the world, all couched in terms that are separate from facts of the world. In this case logic is directed at the intangible, and because the principles that are used are dependent on the observations of the user, it's very much subjective.” (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6dsehc/ti_question/?st=j38nnon7&sh=5289cd90)

“While Te is responsible for gathering data, Ti seeks to limit data. For example, here are some facts:

Chickens have two legs.

Turkeys have two legs.

Hummingbirds have two legs.

Te is responsible for gathering facts like this. However, the human mind has only so much capacity to remember facts; Ti is what reduces the mental load by joining facts together into a framework or into a reduced set of facts. In the above case, Ti might form the conclusion "Birds have two legs." (…). If, however, Ti created a rule like "Birds have two legs" and Te found a bird that had five legs, this would make Ti reconsider its beliefs. If Te gathers data which Ti has evaluated as inconsistent with known facts and rules, then this results in conflict between Te and Ti. (This conflict is sometimes referred to as cognitive dissonance.)” (Source: http://wholesocionics.herokuapp.com/articles/1-Information-Domains)

“Te is more goldfishy in nature. So, it really doesn't generalize like Ti, it just observes facts. For example:

Te: A bird had two legs!

Ti: Hm, all birds must have two legs.

Te: A bird had five legs!

Ti: But you said birds have two legs!

Te: No I said the first one had two legs, and it did. The second had five.

Ti: Fine. Then birds must have either two or five legs.” (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6fv32j/ti_vs_te_dilemma_i_need_help_answering_some/dilfg1r/?context=3&st=j3o9cs5e&sh=828aabf5)

"As I understand them, both Ti and Te are capable of overgeneralizing or nitpicking depending on the context.

Ti is consistency-based. By this, I mean that it is concerned with whether a given set of data, assumptions, conclusions, etc. are consistent with each other. It seeks to form causal and other logical links between things (e.g: all birds have two legs) and will by necessity make generalizations when doing so. These internals models are not necessarily fixed, however, and when conflicting data is presented, a healthy Ti-user will question both the new data and their own model until a resolution is found. Even a single five-legged bird will cause Ti to seek a resolution - in this sense it can be extremely nitpicky. It wants a perfectly consistent model.

Te is results-based. The key question is "will this work?" It is most concerned not with internal consistency, but with consistency between input and output, so to speak. If I want C to happen, what must be done? Should I do A? B? Both? Neither? (…) So while a Ti user nitpicks details with their model, they are prone to generalize the actual facts of the case. Similarly, a Te user can be nitpicky with the immediately relevant facts of a situation, but their internal model will often be generalized or oversimplified if they don't see how those internal details affect the outcome.

So, Te might criticize Ti for being too abstract and impractical, taking Ti's carefully constructed theory and demonstrating that, if applied in reality, it would break. Similarly, Ti might criticize Te for being too shallow or situational in their understanding, taking Te's refined system and demonstrating an inherent logical fallacy or providing a set of preconditions in which the outcome would theoretically change." (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6fv32j/ti_vs_te_dilemma_i_need_help_answering_some/dilc7ww/?context=3&st=j3ne81tb&sh=385dcf31)

We often see the Te=consistency between input and output and Ti=consistency with itself in Fe and Fi too where Jung even described Introverted Feeling/Fi as “feeling itself”.

“Another example: Let's say you want to make a tower out of random irregular objects. For example a book, an eraser, a pencil and a cup.

A Te approach would be to think of the tower as a list. And try to reduce variables to a minimum. For instance, you would only use the book closed to keep variables down. If you use every object in only one way you only have 24 combinations in total. That way you can be sure that you make the best choice. Then you can decide to put the book with the biggest base first. So you put the book first, then the cup, the eraser and the pencil. Done.

Ti, on the other hand, would encourage you to pick two objects and try to add more. Feel them, consider all the possibilities. Once you are very familiar with each object you can picture everything in your mind. You can see how they fit and how they interact with each other in time. But you don't longer think in 'objects', you think in gestals. You see everything as a fluid. For instance, you consider now the table and your breath as part of the system. You are familiar with the everything in a way that you can consider things like keeping the book open, or taking pages out of it and add them elsewhere to keep balance. After playing with everything a little you see how it would work best and you just do it.” (Source: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin/content.php/134-Lenore-Thomson-MBTI-Functions)

Ti TWISTS FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES WHILE TE TWISTS THEORIES TO SUIT FACTS!!!  (that is, of course, when the two conflict. When the theory and fact don’t match up perfectly the Ti is changing the fact first while Te is changing the theory first, it takes a lot for a Ti user to change theory or Te user to change fact.)

CONTROVERSIAL OPINION: Ti = being smart while Te = being knowledgeable. Ti would prefer figuring things out on its own rather than using an external approach (deduction), so xxTPs would rather do something like on a test when not remembering a formula to “re-discover” it by understanding how the system works, this is also why xxTJs are considered jack of all trades (being knowledgeable), especially IxTJs since the auxiliary role is more flexible than the dominant.

Ti is memory of definitions, systems... If Ti can break things down and figure out how they work it will remember them fast... Ti will only remember mathematical formulas if the user truly understands them and how they work. Te has nothing to do with memory because memory is a time-based process and extraverted functions are present-only. Memory/information stocking = Ti, Fi, Si, Ni.

Now, what I tried to describe above for the most part is a theoretical description of the two functions. I described how they deal with information and what is really going on in their heads, but I also find the need to provide a more “practical’ description of the functions to get a clear and full view of the functions, the types and typology as a whole; how the two are used in society, how dominant or auxiliary Te users appear in real life compared to dom/aux Ti users and how you can type yourself or others. Keep in mind that to provide a more “practical” description requires that I analyze more behavior than cognition which is merely a product of cognition, therefore, the behavior is often a consequence of other various phenomena not related to typology getting in the way. That said, Te users might act exactly like Ti users in some situations and vice-versa because of various phenomena getting in the way of the cognition-behavior path. So take the bonus, additional “practical” descriptions for granted as even though to make them I won’t describe behavior-only, but I will still lean in the “behavior” area. That said, here is the practical one too:

As I mentioned above in the less practical description, Ti first asks “Why does this happen? How does this work?”. As a result Ti will often encourage thinking for the sake of thinking, it’s like the curious cousin of Te, going after thoroughness and clarity instead of applicability or relevance.

Te is an attitude that encourages an external, objective standard when dealing with logic. Te, when arguing, will tend to cite appeals to authority and other widely accepted, externally focused evidence; i.e., The only way to truly know if those patterns have merit is if they play out in the ‘outer world’.

For this reason Te will usually insist on seeing quantifiable, repeatedly demonstrable, empirical evidence before accepting anything. If you can't put it in a test tube, measure it and repeat these results any time for all to see, it's not valid. The scientific method is extremely Te-oriented. From the Te perspective, there is no such thing as logic without this sort of externalized validity, because impersonal ideas are to be shared and agreed upon by large groups instead of individuals and determined by objective consensus.

Ti is focused on the blueprint, the design, the idea--while Te is focused on the application of that idea into an objectively measurable process. Externally measurable application is not nearly as important to Ti as internal structural integrity and logical consistency with itself. For that reason thinking in the introverted attitude tends to be somewhat iconoclastic and even rebellious sometimes. “Thinking for the sake of thinking” is how Jung described it, “It makes sense to me”. Types that value Ti naturally question the consistency of beliefs that are taken for granted in everyday life. They strongly prefer to make decisions based on their own experience and judgment, as opposed to relying on external authorities for knowledge, which they use only as a last resort.

These two functions will also be somewhat different when learning something. With Ti, aka “thinking for the sake of thinking” they accumulate data in them that may or may not help them in the future. “I don’t have a clear goal with this, but it just makes me smarter and more experienced in general which might help me in the future”. With Te, it will not learn something if it won’t help the user. That way Te is much more goal-oriented, “1. Set goal -> 2. Learn the needed information and only that which is needed to not waste time -> 3. Do goal -> 4. Repeat”.

!!Important note!!: Keep in mind that Te will not follow commonly accepted ways of doing things just because everyone else does them, that is the work of Extraverted Feeling (Fe) which I will describe later (Fe=go with the crowd, just do what everyone else does, etc.). Extraverted Thinking (Te) is often objective because we all live in the same universe, the same world with the same physics laws where the ideas are TESTED. That's why if you take 10 Te users, put them in a room and encourage them to engage in an activity that stimulates their Te, they will all get similar or even identical results. They won't follow common accepted methods of doing things just to follow the crowd, Te can be very independent and even rebellious, it just tests them in the outer world. Generally, Ti is much more “f*ck the system, I go my way”, dismissing such things as instruction manuals, classic methods, etc. Although Ti users can find them useful a lot of times, they will almost never follow them 100%, they will most likely try to take a little bit from everything and adapt them to their own personal “instruction manual/method” which is a combination of other external ones and just what makes sense to them (Ti is not rebellious just to be rebellious. Ti only says "f*ck the instruction manual" if it genuinely thinks the instruction manual is faulty and illogical. If Ti evaluates the method and goes, "Yup, this checks out, this seems solid" then it will follow the method (but most likely with slight additions or refinements). Ti will not just reject it to be contrary and unique.).

Another important thing to note, is, as I’ve pointed out in the disclaimer at the beginning of this article, behavior is likely to be a product of other various phenomena. I said testing things in real life is Te but real-life proof may also be a product of Extraverted Sensing (Se). Following the traditional method of doing things can also be Introverted Sensing (Si) (the conventional, old school, convenient method). Having unconventional methods other than Ti can also be Extraverted iNtuition (Ne).

When Te users develop the best versions of themselves they are like walking tanks of sustainable systems.

When Ti users develop the best versions of themselves they are the innovators of new paradigms, literally altering how we understand and see reality.

 Personalities with Te as their first JUDGING function are xxTJ (ESTJ/TeS, ISTJ/SiT, ENTJ/TeN, INTJ/NiT) while personalities with Ti as their first JUDGING function are xxTP (ESTP/SeT, ISTP/TiS, ENTP/NeT, INTP/TiN).

;

FEELING: is the function studying all about how certain “entities” interact with each other, in energy exchange. While Ti and Te are more preoccupied with what the actual entities are (so all they can do is classify information as either valid/invalid or true/false etc.) Fi and Fe are focusing on the energy exhibited by one entity to another, which can be either positive (good, agreeable, like, love) or negative (evil, unacceptable, dislike, hate).

“Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ('like' or 'dislike'); but it can also appear, as it were, isolated in the form of 'mood', quite apart from the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations.”

-Chapter XI:Definitions of Psychological Types by Carl G. Jung, 1921.

If thinking is defining entities (step 1) and putting them to use (step 2)

Then I define feeling as decide whether the energy exhibited is positive or negative (step 1) and do something about it to turn it into positive (step 2).

Feeling is the function occupied with recognition of mood (Feelings, emotions), empathy, human interaction, communication, the humanitarian subjects (studying of humans) and last but not least, morality (good/evil): values/ethics/morals. Below I will try to describe them in each “area”.

Slight Overview:

Introverted Feeling (Fi) is the function which impacts its energy exchange by itself, isolated by external stimuli, Jung once said it “feels itself”. In regards of moods, it affects it, as said, independent from external stimuli: Fi is associated with having an opinion of yourself (be it love or hate); Chester Bennington (RIP) described it perfectly when he talked about having a constant fight with yourself and living with more voices inside of your head: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZC_-zeWYMYo

Using Fi you ask identity questions and have a stable (if it’s strong Fi) sense of self: “Who are you truly? What makes you YOU?”. Regulating psychological distance and having power over someone because you can distance or approach the person to your will is also the realm of Fi “I need to be more formal and respectful with teachers, but I permit myself to swear more and joke with friends”, and this goes on to the area of non-living objects, Fi also processes information related to the psychological distance of objects “This teddy bear was given to me by my dead grandpa, thus it means a lot to me” and of situations “At work I need to be serious, the situation at home is different so I permit myself to be more relaxed or swear more, etc.”

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) is the function where everything in regards of the exchange of energy is dependent of external stimuli, be it other people or non-living beings. Fe doesn’t tell you if you love/hate yourself, but if others love/hate you: your position in society; with other people. Your sense of self is 100% dependent (well, no one uses 100% only Fe or only Fi, but I’m talking about Fe isolated here) of the relationship between you and the external world and NOT of you and yourself, which is Fi. As a dominant function, Fe leads you to believe that “life is with people”, and Fe processes information in regards to the social role you play in your group.

Getting neurotic (ill), whereas introverted feeling is “king/queen of everything”, “the world revolves around me”, when it is claiming power and authority in relation to outer objects (individuality takes over community), extraverted feeling is like a (metaphorical or even literal) prostitute, selling itself for validation (be it posing indecently for likes on facebook) when the passionate factor of the individuality is lost and it becomes null, for example agreeing with others just to avoid conflict (selling itself, no identity, chameleon). Keep in mind it is not always living beings who Fe sells itself to, but it is always an external, objective factor.

Fi vs. Fe on human interaction:

Because introversion works based on a subjective criteria it looks after what is different from everyone, so:

Fi looks at relationships, not Fe. Not all people get along the same right? Subjective criteria. Studies relationships between people. Then psychological distance: How formal/informal you're with someone (you don’t act the same around every person, it’s subjective). Regulating the psychological distance to the appropriate perfect spot.

Fi measures the "closeness" between two people and tries to adjust that to the perfect amount while Fe doesn't even look at psychological distance, it's just like "MORE PEOPLE MORE STIMULATION MORE SOCIALIZING MORE MORE MORE" (tries to treat everyone somewhat equally).

Fe makes sense of the world by viewing it in terms of where you stand with other people: interpreting signs that indicate the category of your relationship. Where you stand in the group, what’s your role there? As an ethical perspective, Fe leads you to believe that “life is with people” “You live in a society and you must respect the moral rules of it!!!”: to understand one’s value and meaning in terms of your standing in the community–in terms of the people whom you influence and their feelings about you.

When we use Fe, it facilitates a complex social vocabulary, by which we express and recognize the values we hold in common with others.

Fi however, is the attitude that everything that is manifest (apparent, observable, described) is the expression of a soul or life force; Everything that happens is the result of a soul expressing its unique nature.

From this function, each living thing is completely unique, and has unique needs. Every living thing needs to express itself and grow in its unique way. None of this can be put into categories or measurements, at least not without blotting out that utter uniqueness of each living thing.

That said, Fi focuses on the aspects of an individual that are unique/special from everyone else in a community while Fe focuses on those aspects of the individual which they have in common with other people.

While Fe is saying “How are we?” (As a group, society, community, etc.) Fi is saying “How are the individuals in that group/society interacting?”.

Extraverted Feeling (Fe) has a broader, more universal scope. Whereas Te sets out to describe the universal laws of the physical world, Fe focuses on general laws of human behavior. One example of a Fe science is personality typology, it does not focus on the less predictable, more individualized elements or deviations in human behavior (Fi), but on generalities that emerge across broader populations. (Traits that are common between two or more individuals) At the population level, individual differences are lost and similarities come to the fore. This resembles the process of zooming out. As one moves farther away from something, details and differences are lost or blurred. This is what Fe does. It steps back from the Fi individual in favor of seeing broader trends and needs across individuals.

This process of viewing human beings systematically can be off-putting to Fi, who sees it as a threat to individuality (e.g., “Don’t try to put me in a box or pigeonhole me.”).

As it is all about communication, when Fe gets neurotic it becomes manipulative, histrionic. When Fi gets neurotic, as it thinks that each individual has unique rights and motives “everyone is unique in its own way (including myself)”, it becomes a “special snowflake”.

Fi vs Fe on communication: Fe focuses on those aspects of communication that are transporting a message with a meaning behind it that is not identical with the actual message. A perfect example of that is language, which is all the domain of Fe. Different words have all sorts of meanings in different languages which are specific from culture to culture. When we say “go make me a sandwich” we mean that we want the person to make us a sandwich, BUT things get tricky when “Go make me a sandwich!” could mean asserting your superiority to someone or being rude on purpose because you didn’t say thanks.

Alternatively, manners in conformity to society or the certain group you participate in are Fe. “Go make me a sandwich, please” can be interpreted as a form of respect, also “thank you”, even though it does not improve the quality of the food in any way, but it communicates a message, with a meaning. But since Fe is 100% the product of your environment, who you hang out with can have a ton of impact on you, Fe doesn’t post-process each value or behavior so they just adapt to the group “do what everyone else does”, so if everyone is shitty in a community, a Fe dominant will be shitty too.

Like I said, Fe meanings translate into something different based on the context. That’s why in certain cultures, different gestures (doesn’t always have to be spoken language, can even be body language e.g. middle finger means showing disrespect or shaking your head can mean yes/no, raising your thumbs up means “OK”/you agree, etc.) mean something different. A certain gesture like making an “ok sign” with your fingers in certain countries means “ok” while in other cultures it is offensive and communicates a triggering message. That said, Fe users value making clear the meaning of certain words/gestures beforehand communication. A good example is coded language to share secrets when in a public environment in a language that is understood only between the two individuals and is on purpose NOT understood by the other individuals that should not get the message. So that’s why you call Jake “shadow bird” with your friends when you’re in your group of friends so that they don’t know you’re gossiping him, or when agents are going on a mission as spies or whatever they’re doing.

There is no good single word for Fi users in our language. While Fe seeks to express (communicate) their feelings through things like language or other gestures Fi recognizes that no gesture or word in any language can capture the rich emotional world of an individual. Part of this is due to Fi's view of the world: the condition Fi seeks is to maintain the appropriate distance with these objects; i.e. proximity to those which one feels an affinity with and distance from those which one feels an aversion to (regarding love/hate, like/dislike, good/evil, etc.). That’s because introversion naturally measures the intensity of objects and seeks to regulate distance from it to find that exact sweet spot (quality) while extraversion seeks to increase the stimulation (quantity). The object evaluated may be a person, a behavior, a place, a group, or anything which inspires an emotional reaction. Fi is a deep pool of nuanced self-awareness, and it’s truly impossible to communicate all the variety within themselves to another person.

From this we can see how Fi and Fe can conflict: Fe is inherently unifying (by its communication of internal states), while Fi is inherently distinguishing. This results in conflict with Fe, when one has to choose between communicating a state and suppressing it.

While Fi would say “I hate this” (I=subject; this=object) Fe would say “This is horrible” (this=object and no mentioning of the subject).

While Fi would say “I hate how you make me feel” (I/me=subject you=object); Fe would say “You’re a horrible person” (you=object and no mentioning of the subject).

While Fi would say “I hate you!” (I=subject; you=object) Fe would say “Fuck you!” (no mentioning of the subject) etc. you get the idea

Fi vs. Fe on moods:

Fe is naturally an external process, it is recognizing the mood of the user in the present moment, objectively, which is a chemical reaction in the brain to outward stimuli (always external). Dopamine, serotonin or whatever chemical is activated, the user feels it, that’s Fe.

Fi however, is a long-term process. It deals with issues of identity, trust, intent;

I love to say how Fe= emotion and Fi=feelings.

I know that those sets of two words are pretty interchangeable in the English language, but still: I would say while Fi ignores their emotions to listen to feelings, Fe ignores feelings to listen to emotions.

I would define emotion as a certain mood that is only in the present which is the result of a chemical reaction in the brain (dopamine, serotonin, adrenaline, etc.). Feelings then I define as a deep connection an individual has with another entity “What does it mean to me?” (or what does it mean to it when referring to someone else) built in time regardless of the emotions of the individual.

With that same example we could also say that most of what is associated with limerence or passionate love (the feeling of attraction, the chemicals) is Fe while what is associated as “true love”, a long psychological process that isn’t just a bunch of chemicals, is Fi. That doesn’t mean that Fi is in any way superior, it has its flaws too. Again, limerence is a mood of attraction, “chemicals” in your head (emotion, Fe) while what elders describe as “true love” is a complex, deep psychological process based on trust and a bunch of other things(feelings, Fi).

Let’s say you are presented with a situation in that your emotions don’t match up with your feelings. Your Fi would ignore emotions to listen to feelings while Fe would ignore feelings to listen to emotions.

When Fi is asked “Do you love your mother?”, it ignores the users emotions altogether (We see that in dominant Fi) (emotion=chemical reaction in the brain), or tries to somehow manipulate or fake the user into believing their emotions are matching up with the feelings (we see that in auxiliary Fi): The user feels obligated to love their mother because of her actions, “she raised you so you MUST love her!”

In that same scenario Fe ignores feelings to listen to emotions (we see that in dominant Fe) or tries to somehow mislead the user into believing their feelings match up with their emotions (we see that in auxiliary Fe). As said, Fe just points out how they are “feeling” in the certain moment, a chemical reaction in the brain, so what Fe tells us when asked “Do you love your mother?” is whether you’re in the mood to visit her or not. (Note: Fe would still very rarely say that out loud, they would just feel it. Paradoxically, Fi is actually much more likely to say such ”taboo” things in public, I explain it in more detail in the “Fi vs Fe on values” part.)

As all individuals have access to both functions, most people often had this conflict within them where they were forced to choose between listening to emotions and listening to feelings. In some individuals however, the battle is ended faster. People are different.

NOTE: Because Fi and Fe are reversed functions and not opposite functions, they can be used at the same time but would still cause cognitive dissonance and overall disharmony. You can still listen to both feelings and emotions at the same time (when not compatible), because Fi doesn’t CHANGE emotions to match feelings and Fe doesn’t CHANGE feelings to match emotions, in the worst case it is misleading the user into believing that the two are matching up.

We see that with the pairs of opposite functions (Ti/Fi Te/Fe Si/Ni Se/Ne) the other one is actually changing the others’ domain when the two are not matching up, therefore you can’t actually use both at the same time.

Fi also when noticing emotional state (of either the user or others) always compares it to past or possible future states of the entity while Fe just points it out objectively. Fi measures the ratio of the energy of states. Like the ratio of my emotional state with yours. Then it can use it to fine-tune the wavelength and adjust psychological distance (eg. Politeness) Or the ratio between how I feel now to how I felt in the past, where Fe tests just the energy of the state; and can influence it using their own emotions. That's why socionics calls Fe emotion and Fi relations. Fi is hyper aware of its emotional state because it has so many other states to contrast with: Fi would probably view its moods as a “spectrum”, it defines how you feel comparing to all the other moods felt in the past, making some sort of database of emotions/moods.

When you use favor Fe, you repress Fi so you won't be able to know your internal state because you're not comparing your own with anyone, you're dynamically comparing the ones out there, which is why it's theatrical and is the best communicator (give people what they want).

So basically Fe is a process judging information as positive or negative (e.g. like/dislike, good/evil) reacting to stimuli in the moment while Fi does the same but with the products of a process developing over time. For example when you show someone a song and you ask them if they like it or not, they most probably have to use Fe (Responds to stimuli in the present) while if you ask someone what their taste of music is in general they most probably have to use Fi (tastes develop over time). Of course, if you show someone a song they can just compare it to their internal library/system (of course developed over time) of likes/dislikes, values, etc. and see if it fits their personality, their tastes and how they are as a person so in that scenario they can use Fi too, so I’m not saying that you are forced to use Fe if you show someone a song in the moment (or Fi if you ask them about their tastes), it’s just that you most probably expect a Fi or Fe response.

That is also the reason why Fi is so focused on identity. “Who am I truly as a person?” Identity is basically the product of likes/dislikes or values/ethics/morals (how one decides whether something is good or evil) over time = Fi. Fi also focuses on how you are different from everyone else instead of how you are similar which is also identity.

Fe then is the ideal communicator, types with strong Fe are the best communicators, teachers, etc. because Fe is basically judging things (like/dislike, good/evil) as they come to you.

I could say Fi is "how does it (1) feel about it (2)?" (two different entities) while Fe is just "how does it feel?" (a certain entity without any other entity to compare to).

Fe usually has a more “dynamic” approach to emotions while Fi is more “Static” in its feelings. Analogy: Imagine Fe as an waveform in constant fluctuation. Your mood changes exactly like the waveforms vary in audacity (audio editor) (Fe key word: constant fluctuation). Fi is more like a table with a number of bulbs, at any moment in time a number of bulbs are on and the others are off and which bulb is on and which is off varies from moment to moment. They can’t softly fluctuate from on and off, but the bulbs are discrete states that change abruptly. Of course that doesn’t mean that Fi is simple “on and off”, that’s why it has a large number of bulbs (it’s not one single bulb), some are on and some are off at any given time. Fi=two states, more bulbs. Fe=one single waveform, infinite states (there are as many states as there are numbers between 0 and 1, to make a math analogy).

“There are many crystals in my mind. Each crystal holds a value. I feel each crystal fully. When an external experience enters my mind, it is like a ray of light.” – a quote from an ISFP (Fi dominant)

I will currently debunk the partial misconception that Fe = group harmony. First off harmony is Si, a better word to use for Fe alone is “group atmosphere”, whereas “group harmony” is Fe + Si. Second off the word “group” is too specific, Fe observes “moods” in constant fluctuation, the “Atmosphere” you’re in. OBSERVATION: FEELING (FI/FE) DOESN’T FORM ATTATCHMENTS ONLY TO PEOPLE, IT CAN BE OBJECTS AS WELL. In the case of Fe the “mood”, “group atmosphere” can be you in a group of friends, you alone in the room (your own emotions if you’re not interacting with anyone) or the “Atmosphere” of the room, for example the mood can be spoiled by the weather. Fi similarly isn’t only relations to people, it can be to objects as well “this teddy bear means a lot to me” “this song means a lot to me”.

Fe is generally associated with the ability to recognize and convey (i.e. make others experience) passions, moods, and emotional states, generate excitement, liveliness, and feelings, get emotionally involved in activities and emotionally involve others, recognize and describe emotional interaction between people and groups, and build a sense of community and emotional unity. Types that value Fe like creating a visible atmosphere of camaraderie with other people.

Fi is generally associated with the ability to gain an implicit sense of the subjective 'distance' between two individuals, and make judgments based off of said thing.

Fe just points out the emotional state objectively while Fi is like the Ti of feeling, it asks why instead of how: “Fi: Why do i feel this way? My sister is playing music and its making me feel angry. But why? Because its too loud and the lyrics are stupid. Why? Its hurting my ears and reminds me of idiots at school. Why dont i like them? Theyre assholes. Why? They dont treat people with respect. Why? They probably weren't treated with respect. Why? Because those people weren't treated with respect, and the cycle continues.”(Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6qispv/my_fi_in_detail/?st=j5s2a0pr&sh=76b9f03d)

FE =I WILL UNDERSTAND MYSELF THROUGH UNDERSTANDING OTHERS

FI = I WILL UNDERSTAND OTHERS THROUGH UNDERSTANDING MYSELF

Fi vs. Fe on values/valuing:

Fi could be described as having an inner flame of values and ethics. It shapes its own values, and even if those might be borrowed from external sources, they are genuine at core because Fi choses which ones to respect or not. Fi post processes everything internally, the same way Ti takes a bit from every external system and adapts it to their own personal one, the same thing Fi does with morality. It is naturally much more likely to stand up for themselves or others in defending of individual rights (e.g. feminism) even when the subject is considered “taboo”.

Because of its strong “community” and “cooperation” focus, Fe is naturally a function which tunes to the environment and basically says “do what everyone else is doing”. Fe is the function that leads us to conform to social norms, which doesn’t mean that using Fe = can’t think for yourself = blind sheep following the crowd. A Fe dominant might realize that a very big amount of the values of society are stupid, but will still choose to respect them to avoid conflict, the same way Te recognizes that a system might not be accurate or consistent but will still choose to use it because it’s useful. “Hey at least it worked”. That way, Fi might see Fe as inauthentic, and “fake”.

Fi is interested in the integrity of the self and its values. If Fi comes across a value that violates that individual framework, it lashes back. Fe is interested in values as the relate to collective dynamics - practical uses, what are our values and how do they connect us so that we can, as a we, engage in action together. For Fe, coming across a new value option raises the question of its practical use for the "we." For Fi, it's a matter of does the value conflict with its existing framework of individual values.

So basically Fe is interested in the practical application of the values/ethics while Fi is interested in the ethics for themselves alone.

(There was too a similar pattern with Ti vs Te: When Te comes across a new fact, it is interested in if and how the fact can be used. When Ti comes across a new fact, it's concerned with if and how that fact relates to its connected framework. So Ti would have initial resistance to anything that doesn't fit into its framework, while Te would appreciate the new fact as a piece of information.)

Like Te, Fe is a pretty results based function. Te might look at a Ti model and question its practical usefulness, or try applying it, see it break once, and reject it. Fe similarly tends to question the applicability of universal Fi models. If an Fe user follows some feeling-based procedure or moral principle and it appears to them not to have the desired effect on others and/or themselves, they're prone to reject it, preferring instead to adapt their feeling behavior to the given situation's Fe evidence unless the procedure demonstrates repeated practical reliability. Again, this earns high Fe-users a reputation of being fake or non-genuine. Fe generally shapes the values by the situation they are in, for example: If well developed and healthy Fe would be placed in a situation where its views are in conflict with the views of other people, it would shut up or pretend to agree to not disrupt group harmony (keep in mind this really depends on the place (cognitive role) Fe takes in your stack. In this situation I’m mostly talking about Fe in the dominant or auxiliary role).

By contrast, many Fi dominant/auxiliary users I seem compelled on principle to voice certain of their political views whenever the topic comes up. It's part of their internal moral model to do so, because they feel so strongly about it (Fi), that is why most SJWs are Fi users (not saying most Fi users are SJWs). At the same time, though, there have been a number of occasions when from the second they open their mouth, Fe users would instantly realize that everyone in the group would be going home unhappy and more biased in their views than ever - Fi users oversimplified the details of the case, and didn't realize that the situation was outside what their model was meant to deal with.

Fe generally is about others valuing you while Fi is you valuing others.

Fe generally wants others to have good motives, that’s why we can say that Fe seeks “protection”. Even the most protected and cared Fe valuer in the world might feel a slight doubt about the intentions of other people. “Just don’t be an asshole” “I wish people were just friendly to each other” “Why can’t everyone just get along?”.

Since Fi is a function about the user validating others, it cares less about believing others have a good motive, and cares about its own motives being questioned. That way, Fi is naturally almost obsessed over the idea of trust, “How could you even think I could do something like that?”. “I don’t need to call her friends to ask where she has been last night because I trust her enough to believe that she’s not cheating on me”.

Fe is far less interested in validation and are more interested in protection. Fe dominants don’t need you to agree with them, they need to know you’re not going to hurt them, even if the fear of hurt is deeply unconscious.

Paranoid Fi users believe everyone thinks that they want to hurt people. Paranoid Fe users believe everyone is out to hurt them.

That also explains why Fe seeks to be understood while Fi seeks to be validated. Fi valuers face feeling misunderstood because no one could possibly ever know them as well as they know themselves.

If you peel back the layers, however, it’s not that Fi has a challenge in being fully misunderstood. If anyone else ever actually ‘fully’ understood them that would actually be a bad sign – it would mean that the Fi user had lost some of their individuality or that they’re dangerously close to being too similar to other people. I don't think that all Fi types are generally okay with being the outcast however - no one likes rejection, rejection hurts no matter who you are - it's just that Fi users are somewhat more likely to choose to live however they please and consequently get rejected versus sacrificing any of themselves to fit in.

There may be some pride around being inscrutable. At the very least it’s a sign that they’ve not lost their uniqueness.

So, if it’s not full understanding Fi wants, what is it that they’re seeking? VALIDATION.

Like I said, since Fi is about the user valuing others, oftentimes when a Fi dominant gets sensitive or defensive it’s because they think their intent is being called into question.

As in, if you’re insistent on making this choice but you can’t fully explain to me ‘why’, then you must be being selfish or have other bad motive. That's what they get from other people.

When our Fi feels “misunderstood,” it could be more accurately stated that we feel marginalized, discounted and believe others are questioning our motives.

The antidote to this isn’t ‘understanding’ them better. Most Fi dominants would say no one could ever truly understand them, anyway. The real antidote is validating their process of making decisions.

As in: “I don’t have to agree with you. I don’t have to know why you believe or feel the way you do. When I tell you that you have every right to feel the way you do, and make decisions based on those feelings, I trust that you have positive intent.”

Since Fe is also about communicating your feelings (As pointed out in the “Fi vs, Fe on communication” part), Fe users seek to actually be understood.

For Fe it would be a miracle if you could just read their minds to finally found out what they're struggling to explain. For Fi it would be a disaster.

BUT WAIT, didn’t I say that introversion focuses on how the subject is affected by the object while extraversion focuses on how the object is affected by the subject?? Then how the hell is Fi about valuing others and Fe about others valuing you? Shouldn’t it be reversed? No. Introversion is how something impacts the subject so since Fi represents the object's sentimental relationship to the subject, the one who values here is the subject, since the object is given lesser preference. Therefore, Fi is the individual valuing others. Extraversion is how objects impact each other. The subject is given lesser preference. Everything is external. Since Fe represents the sentimental relationships between the objects (sentient beings), the subject is devalued and a sense of like/dislike comes from external sources. A sense of identity is varyingly external since there is no subjective metric (the way we think of ourselves is all based on Fi's position in our cognitive role stack) so this sense of identity is based on what others think and how they value the individual based on how he influences emotions or how he comes off as. (Fe=caring about what other people think based on its position in our cognitive role stack).

(Fi vs. Fe on empathy):

We would say Fi “mirrors” people’s emotions; Fi users are masters at understanding the emotions themselves. The nuance of their ability to mirror another person’s emotional experience can feel like absorbing since it’s so spot on. But, remember – this isn’t another person’s emotion in the Fi user's heart. This is years and years of the Fi mapping emotions within themselves and finding the closest proximity to what the other person is experiencing. If you’re at a funeral and you didn’t know the person but you’re crying just because everyone else does it you’re most probably a Fe user.

Fe is more like “your pain in my heart”; It “absorbs” others’ emotions.

Also, their relationship with TIME is a little different, because introversion is naturally “in-time” and extraversion = in the present.

To absorb another’s emotion, both the Fe user and the other person (who is emoting) have to be together in real time. This isn’t post-processing emotional experience, it’s an emotion hitting the user due to energetic proximity. Fe is ABOSRBING the other person's emotions.

For a Fi user it’s about finding the emotion the other person is – was – or will be experiencing within themselves. The emotion can be bound through time via works of art, literature, journals and any/every other way we as people express our emotions. That's why Fi users are masters at theatre, Fi is more like "What exactly would I be feeling if I were you?".

Developed Fi naturally leads people to favor mercy or forgiveness for people who have done heinous acts–anything from theft to murder to genocide–acts. From a Fi perspective, the criminal is still a living soul, still unique and precious despite whatever he may have done. If we walked in his moccasins for a while, maybe we could see it his way. Without condoning his crimes, maybe we could see how we ourselves could have done the same things under similar circumstances. This use of empathy as one’s ultimate anchor of orientation leads to a resolute non-judgmental-ness. First empathize–find something in your own heart that lets you see how someone could feel and act the way he did–and then you will probably find that you no longer feel hatred or a desire for retribution.

However Fe would make a judgment based on the criminal’s role in society and the emotional impact it has on the rest of the world. The main question here is “Does it hurt anybody?”. If it is a threat to other people, Fe seeks to protect other members of the group (in case of criminals and prison, 7.5 billion people of planet earth) and would have no mercy to the criminal as it is a danger to others.

I would associate Fi with guilt while Fe with shame.

One last thing, Fe often acts as the “mediator” between conflicts, and that is well known in the typology community, but Fi has its own role in resolving conflicts too: “A person using Fi does not appear as a judge or "resolver" of conflicting opposites, like Fe, but as their conciliator. He can calm people down, relieve emotional tension. Personal commitment in this case, of course, does not disappear, but is carefully hidden.”

(This last paragraph I learnt/took/borrowed/stole from Gulenko’s website, this page: https://socioniks.net/article/?id=124 (use google translate))

Personalities with Fi as their first RATIONAL/JUDGING function are xxFPs: FiN/INFPj, NeF/ENFPp, FiS/ISFPj, SeF/ESFPp.

Personalities with Fe as their first RATIONAL/JUDGING function are xxFJs: FeN/ENFJj, NiF/INFJp, FeS/ESFJj, SiF/ISFJp.

Ti vs. Fi:

DISCLAIMER: Unlike my descriptions of Ti vs Te and Fi vs Fe alone, which were flawless, Ti vs Fi will be only a bit bad. Take it only as speculation or half-finished theories.

First distinction between the two is objective truth vs. meaning: They are both SUBJECTIVE functions, they have their own ways of doing things (Ti) or being/existing (Fi), the difference is that Fi searches for subjective truth (What it means to ME) while Ti is searching for objective truth (What it IS!). The thing is that both of them are subjective and unconventional on how to get there. They both have the same path but opposite destination points. Ti is reaching objective truth in a subjective way while Fi is searching for meaning/subjective truth, still, in a subjective way. That's the reason why Fi users tend to be more artistic and Ti users more scientific. That doesn't mean Ti users can't be artistic or emotional and Fi users are dumb...

Fi seeks for an idealized image of the self, Ti seeks truth: For example, when you start talking about some qualities they tell you to stop being so arrogant even though you might just lay out the facts but if you start talking about your flaws they'd be like stop being so modest or etc. etc. trying to get balance without realizing that people simply have both qualities and flaws by default and that there's no reason in trying to shape our image of them (which Ti will realize). Ti would be all like "wtf stop calling me arrogant when I'm just laying out the facts I have good qualities and stop calling me modest or insecure when I say my flaws because well no shit people have flaws too!"

Impartiality is foreign to Fi. They are going to assume an ulterior motive in your communication because that's how they communicate. When you say something like that they are going to ask themselves why and "because you want to make a statement about your personal worth and value" is what they will usually assume for an answer. Very young xxFPs won't even be aware that communicating something for the sake of truth is a motivation humans can possibly have. When a Fi dominant makes a statement it's to claim belonging in a certain group or project a certain image about their identity (similarly very young xxTPs will be unaware that apparent statements of truth can be in fact claims to power, like trying to make yourself appear superior to others)

After that we have justice vs. mercy: Ti, justice, wants to have a clear “blind” accurate, detached and 100% impersonal analysis, evaluating straight to the agreed rules (lady justice, blindfolded, etc. = Ti) (skim through this article to know that Ti is the most impersonal, Fe the most personal and Fi/Te in-between out of all judging/rational functions: http://ojjt.org/2016/12/from-object-and-subject-to-functions/) while Fi suggests bending the rules out of compassion (or similarly, being more harsh than the letter of the law indicates in some cases).

To give you a more practical example, imagine a couple wants to sign a prenuptial agreement (prenup) : One is a Ti dominant while one is a Fi dominant. If the Ti dominant where to come to the Fi dominant, the IxFP would get really triggered. “It’s like planning a divorce, do you literally think our marriage will fall? If you actually trusted me you would be convinced enough that we won’t divorce anyway, so your problem here is that you actually doubt our marriage!!

Signing a prenup is stupid, and you are stupid too!”.

If the Fi-dom truly believed in the marriage, they wouldn't insist on a prenup.

If the Fi-dom had doubts, they wouldn't consider marriage from the first place.

On the other hand, the Ti dominant might appreciate the value of trust in relationships, but it will also think reversely: “There isn’t any reason why I wouldn’t sign a prenupt, I’m not losing anything so the true question here is why not?”. What Ti truly does is impersonally estimate the ratio between the effort/time put into doing the certain act and the result got. The equation here is “effort/result”. If the ratio is below 1 then it is worth it, (for the prenup you only sign some papers, no big deal right? It’s not like you’re going to the end of the world to “plan a divorce”) if the ratio is above 1 then it’s unfair.

Ti still trustfully devalues situations where you would stalk your partner or do really big efforts to get a certain result to “check” the trust of relationships. The key question to Ti is “Why not?” and if there’s a good reason as to “not” doing it (like going to the ‘depths of hell’ to check out what your partner is doing) then Ti might find it bad. But if the user is only wasting like 5 seconds of its time to check on his partner then it won’t find any problem in doing so.

This example, like all opposite functions, shows how they cancel each other out: You can’t use both Ti and Fi at the same time.

Keep in mind there are many cases where Fi doms could agree with a prenupt and Ti doms would disagree, there can be a lot of other environmental factors and other 6 functions involved, but I’m giving you the most basic, isolated, archetypical example here.

This also explains while both Ji functions tend to get very attached and defensive about their opinions, the difference though being that Ti literally wants to find the exact objective truth (so it might disregard views that it deems as false, “no, I know I am right and you are wrong” while outwardly Fi would look the same, but it is manipulating the objective truth to fit an ideal truth (Ti=how things are, Fi=how things should be), like how when on a typology forum someone questions an INTPs type they’ll lash out aggressively and call everyone an idiot because the truth is obviously that they’re INTP (or whatever they typed as, Ti can also be wrong, it’s just seeking to be true) while an INFP would basically act in the same way, but just because they are attached to the type they typed themselves as (in this case probably not INFP) to act as an ideal identity.

(similar to how Fi values mercy/pity: measuring the distance between subjects on a given case, to apply a softer (or harder) punishment while Ti = 100% impersonal detached “blind” analysis -> justice)

Te vs. Fe:

As I insisted when describing Te, while it can often mimic Fe because its systems are often in conformity with society, it doesn’t just do it because everyone else does. Te systems are usually universal and objective because they were all tested in the same universe, with the same laws, while Fe seeks to conform just for the sake of conforming: “Just do what everyone else does”. They both are extroverted (objective) judging functions. The main difference between the two is that while Te is about objective truths that can be expressed at any time and place, “facts” at the most accurate sense of that word while Fe is about the relationship between 2 or more entities at specific space and time. I would have said that Fe is more subjective than Te but they’re both extroverted functions and I find “subjective” a very ambiguous term because after all the energy exchange between the object and the subject are the same so both are as equally objective. A better term to use is that Fe is more contextual, it is used in a specific context while Te is much more universal. (same thing with intuition and sensing, intuition is much more universal while sensing is context based, this is called the “abstract/involved” dichotomy, N and T are abstract, S and F are involved).

Basically laws of physics and reality (such as gravity etc.) are Te laws while actual laws (e.g. murder will be punished with x years in prison) or even public morals (always give your seat to an old person, etc.) are Fe laws. You can break Fe laws, you’re just not allowed to. However with Te, you CAN’T.

Think about the difference between maths and language. Mathematics is a Te concept, it can be used at any context, any space and time and it will always stay true. Language is just a form of communication between humans, it is in no way “general truth”, it’s about the relationship between two or more entities. When we say 1+1=2 it is information that both Te and Fe would work with. What is Fe is the words/symbols used in the language I wrote that, the numbers “1” and “2” and the mathematical signs “=” and “+” are all Fe concepts while the actual meaning behind the phrase “1+1=2” is a Te concept. When we say “1+1=2” it is both an objective truth (Te) and a context based communication approach (Fe). It is objective in the assumption that we look at the meaning behind those symbols and subjective/nongeneraltruth in the way that we just look at what is front of us, symbols like “1”, “2”, “+” and “=”.

As a last thing, I often associated both functions with being good at explaining: the difference is that Te is good at explaining in the sense of knowing what words to use, verbalization skills and always being able to express your thoughts properly (the opposite of “Ahh I have a theory but I struggle to explain it in words it’s complicated). Fe is amazing at explaining in the sense of actually making the person/people you are communicating with understand what you are trying to say.

VERY IMPORTANT NOTE ABOUT THINKING VS FEELING: Keep in mind that like Ti and Te, feeling functions are very analytical at nature too. While thinking is about universal truths, feeling is about the connection between the truths. Fx is all about how entities communicate with each other while Tx defines what those entities actually are. Because thinking functions are all about what the entities are, the only way to classify information for the thinkers is valid/invalid (or true/false). Feeling functions also formed systems according to how the entities influenced each other, coming to the conclusion that you can either influence someone in a good or a bad way (positive or negative energy), thus, coming up with some values/morals/ethics, so it classifies information on whether it has a positive (Good) or a negative (bad) impact, thus, the relationship between entities is either good/evil.

INTUITION:

Disclaimer: My understanding of intuition, both in the introverted an extraverted attitude is bad. Very bad, at least compared to the other 6 functions. Given that, you will see more cited walls of texts from external sources than my actual writings (I’ll still add some stuff here and there).

"iNtuition is a way of understanding the relation between a sign and its meaning in which the meaning is the totality of the reality that gave rise to it.

From an iNtuitive standpoint, whenever you come across a sign, you perceive much more than you perceive directly "reading between the lines". What distinguishes N from all the other functions is the way that it premises immediate access to vastly more than the sign or what can be systematically inferred from the sign by means of any systematic way of interpreting. What the sign means is everything that resulted in that sign being emitted, and through Intuition you tap into that "everything"--or at least suppose you do." - Lenore Thomson

""Intuition as the function of unconscious perception... In consciousness, the intuitive function is represented by a certain attitude of expectation, a perceptive and penetrative vision, wherein only the subsequent result can prove, in every case, how much was 'perceived-into', and how much actually lay in the object." (Jung 1971)"

"In contrast to Sensing, Intuition is concerned with the accumulation and retrieval of abstract information about the world.  It processes information related to meaning and conception. This includes simple labels and ideas, such as 'mother', 'war', 'art', and 'education'. It also includes connections between objects, ideas, events, or processes - for example, Intuition allows us to understand the metaphors that information can flow like a stream, or that a popular idea can reach a "tipping point"." - peppermint-kiss

"Intuition is therefore the capacity for intuiting that which is not yet visible, future possibilities or potentialities in the background of a situation." (von Franz 1971)

In a nutshell, sensing tells us what is while intuition tells us what COULD BE.

!!!IMPORTANT!!!: There is a key trait that differentiates iNtuition from the other 3 basic functions: no matter of the cognitive role it is into (position in a type’s stack) iNtuition is always half-unconscious: The reason for that is to keep us sane.

To give the most basic example: let’s say you look at a tree, you use sensing, sensing tells you “oh look there’s a tree”. Nothing bad. Now with intuition, you look at a tree, but there is an (almost?) infinite amount of ways the tree could impact the future, an infinite amount of ways the tree could be manifested into and an infinite amount of ways it couldn’t. If intuition was as conscious as sensing is (or the rational functions are) we would first realize that the tree might fall onto us right now resulting in our death, panic and THEN realize that the chance of it happening is slim. To avoid going insane in such scenarios, the possibilities are kept in the unconscious mind and come to our conscious mind right after they were first evaluated by the rational/judging functions. So, if we have a strong intuition, we might still get a million ideas as to how the tree could impact the future (which would lead to a scatterbrained, disorganized thinking, we see that in Ne dominants for example, but not dangerous like in the first example) but we would never panic as to how we might die right now because those ideas are already post-processed into telling us the chance is slim.

Overview:

Extraverted iNtuition (Ne): How Ne intuits ideas is objective. Because extraversion is how one can affect the external world metaphysically Ne is studying the potential of objects (how one thing might affect the future = potential) (one to many). It is the perception of distinct possibilities that are unchanging over time: real-time interaction with the world around itself. "What if I touched this button, what would happen then? What if I pulled this toggle switch? What if I said this thing to that person, how would they respond?" –trial and error- you maintain a flexible understanding of what a sign means, which varies as more and more of that "everything" emerges. You view each interpretation of a sign as nothing more or less than a guess. You may well decide to bet a lot on that guess, or you may evaluate them through a rational function (Ti, etc.) but Ne alone is just a guess. As more information becomes available, you change your guess. Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind like weaving themes and threads together.

We don't know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts, thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand.

Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking.

That way, Extraverted iNtuition may have a very childlike quality to it, curiosity: To summarize , Ne is an explosion of ideas that sees every possibility, given a specific object associated with that object.

Introverted iNtuition (Ni): Ni is subjective rather than objective. Because introversion is how the external world affects just one thing (the subject) Ni studies how something is affected over time (evolution of objects over time) (many to one). It intuits possibilities evolving over time. Types with strong Ni are aware of how objects evolve over time and therefore are good at foreseeing events or calculating the time needed to finish a task, thus being punctual. As an introverted function (in-time), Ni perceives based on past data that was gathered by the user. Where Ne can simply see through an object to its systems and symbols, Ni literally recreates them based on information that is known. In this way, Ni very much studies the subject at hand much like a student would study a subject for school. When studying, the professor or teacher will choose a textbook, not all of the information in the textbook is relevant to the subject at hand. In that way, the student will not read through the entire book since the course may simply cover certain chapters. Ni is much the same way, and the Ni user’s past experiences and learned material (facts, feelings, etc.) can be thought of as the textbook in this situation.

This function allows a person to gain a sense of the future through patterns, connections, trends, signs and hidden meanings, often "looking at what's behind the curtain", which usually takes understanding to a whole new level. Ni finds relationships between many ideas, and find ideas similar to the initial ideas in order to look for a main idea that is made up of these smaller ideas. All of the accumulated smaller ideas come into one main idea turning out to be true, often giving an "Aha!" moment, or leading us to have a "Everything is interconnected, the universe is one big one." ideology. (ps: that could also be the Ti+ of ENTPp and ISTPj)

To summarize Ni, where Ne is an explosion of ideas from one thing, Ni is a contraction to one idea from many things.

The main distinction I could give between Ni and Ne is that Ni contracts while Ne expands: As I said, both of these functions are preoccupied with what COULD BE: Ne sees an object, a thing, A SINGLE PIECE OF INFORMATION, and has a sort of "Explosion of ideas" of what it could expand to in the future. Ne sees a million ways a thing can develop in the future. Ni is the opposite, Ni gathers a million pieces of information, Ni is preoccupied always with the "big picture" only to see a single way that it could develop in the future. Ne is expanding while Ni is contracting. Ne starts with one and expands it to more while Ni gathers more and expands it to one. Ni is convergent, Ne is divergent.

Two practical examples of Ni vs Ne:

Ne: ” Suppose you hear that a toaster company has declared bankruptcy. What does that tell you about the management of the toaster company? What does that tell you about the toaster company's market? Perhaps this happened because the management was awful. Or corrupt. Or because the market changed in ways that management was unable to keep up with.  (ideas, ideas, ideas) Nothing is certain here, except that there is something interesting there waiting to be found out. The declaration of bankruptcy tells you that there is something to be learned by looking into it further: it suggests all sorts of possibilities for the total process that caused this meager sign to appear.

Later, you discover that the toaster company declared bankruptcy because it was actually a money-laundering organization. to bail The "management" suspected that it was about to get caught and decided out. From the standpoint of Ne, the tiny news story that you read about the bankruptcy, which gave no details, always meant the money-laundering process and its collision with the law-enforcement process. You didn't know that when you read the story, but the story meant those processes even then.

Ni: “For example, if you read the news blurb about the toaster company going bankrupt, you would refuse to see that as evidence of any interpretation whatsoever. Instead, you would mentally explore conceptual alternatives for what could have produced that news story. Maybe the reporter was lying: maybe he made the whole thing up in order to meet a deadline. Maybe the toaster company declared bankruptcy not because they were in financial trouble but just as a way to get into the news and thereby attract publicity.

Such possible interpretations can never be refuted by empirical evidence--at least not by surface-level interpretations of empirical evidence. If you asked the reporter if he was lying, of course he'd say no. But that doesn't prove anything. Suppose you ask the reporter who he talked to. He tells you, and when you try to track down this person, you discover that he's left the country. Ah, how convenient.” (Lenore Thomson)

!!How to make the distinction in real life (practical description?)!!: Because Ne is focused on breadth (expansion of ideas; one to many) and Ni is focused on depth (contraction of ideas; many to one), using Ne will make you be much more “Expansive”, having a very wide area of hobbies and activities, starting many projects without finishing any, and generally being much more “random” (spamming people with memes, shitposting, saying weird things out of nowhere) and having a very scattered/disorganized mind (explosion of ideas -> struggling to say all at once all the things you want to say which leads to word vomit, etc.).

On the other hand, using Ni makes you often be focused on 1/2/3 subjects all of your life and be a perfectionist on them while high Ne makes you start 20 projects/month and finish none. While Ni dominants are known to reel off relatively cohesive and streamlined monologues, Ne dominants tend to bounce around from one subject to the next, “making a ton of parentheses”, etc. While Ne generates myriad options and possibilities (very good for brainstorming!), Ni is more convergent, often producing a single coherent answer or solution.

Ni is insightful while Ne is creative!: If you gave a Ne dominant a paperclip, a string, a bottle of water and some tissues you never know what kind of thing they could come up with. You’re definitely going to need to pick at least one xNxP on those “choose who to get stranded on an island with” questions.

Ni dominants are known for their insight. Carl Jung commented on Ni dominants saying that “Had this type not existed, there would have been no prophets in Israel.”. You should take with a grain of salt “insight” from a high Ne user, while they are often capable of making very groundbreaking discoveries, they are prone to changing their mind very quickly (extraversion=quantity>quality). You ask an ENTP to teach you typology, you have a 3 hour conversation with them, and after a week of finally understanding all that word vomit they come to you to say to forget all of that which was wrong, take the new theory. Then they come again 4 days later telling you that they were right in the first place (never settling down on one answer). Finally 2 weeks after the last meeting they come AGAIN saying that they were wrong in all 3 cases and that you should listen to their new so called “insights”. Ni is the opposite, Ni often knows the final answer before Ne could even start thinking about it “I knew it all along” (this, in reference to the Ni = premonitions of the future stereotype)

I would say Ni dominants are more likely to be called mysterious while Ne dominants are more likely to be called interesting.

Ni is indecisive while Ne is ambivalent!: The one true decisive perceiving function is Se. Both Ni and Ne are commonly accused of being indecisive however it’s not that Ne struggles to arrive at a conclusion or make a decision but it arrives at too many conclusions. Ni however continuously perceives events to no end arriving at no conclusion, constantly needing time to think and reshape their vision of the future while Ne is brainstorming ideas in all this time. Ne is ambivalent, not indecisive.

“Ni leads you to be both skeptical and idealistic. You doubt any obvious interpretation because you believe that there is much more to the total reality than any one interpretation can capture. You are idealistic because exploring those possibilities beyond what observation suggests shows you other ways that things can be--ways that cannot be found in the world. The myth of Plato's Cave describes the self-understood idealism of Introverted Intuition: one sees a sunlight that no one else sees, which cannot be found by any amount of looking at shadows. But once found, the world of the Sun is vastly preferable to the world inside the cave.” – Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001232652/http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Intuition

The agenda of Ni is to narrow one's focus on abstract information; it directs one's affairs toward a singular purpose. This is necessarily something which is abstract/metaphysical. It can direct present activities towards a vision for the future, but also towards continuing of a tradition from the past. The negative side is a state of aimlessness and lack of purpose.

“For Ne, the information it registers from a literal object will not be exhaustive or detailed, but be a caricature of it. The type of Exploration Ne does is one where possibilities are generated based on a leniency toward how information can fit together. What this creates is an array of unrealistic scenarios where only the iconic qualities of objects are utilized to fit together alternate situations or scenarios --- perhaps in the direction of novelty, amusement or playfulness.

This receptiveness toward this seeking of the unrealistic is what gives Ne's hypothetical speculations a child-like quality. The association with childishness arises from how a child, due to an absence of life experience, has yet to learn the precise reasons why certain things are impractical or implausible... and as we grow, we gain a more accurate perspective of the causality of the world.” Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6cwxdb/ne_and_distortion_of_reality/

“What distinguishes Ne from other attitudes, then, is the principle that all interpretations leave out some of the whole reality--and therefore every sign is opening up new information to you, showing you new paths by which to discover more about the context of that sign, and giving you new hypotheses to entertain. Every interpretation of a sign is provisional. Each interpretation reflects what you (think you) know right now, but the whole reality that the sign really reflects may be quite different from that. Nor does this process ever end. When you get new information, that suggests new possibilities; nothing is ever definitive. Nor should it be: if you ever tried to state anything definitively, you would be closing yourself off to new and interesting possibilities.

Einstein summarized the Ne standpoint best when he said, "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result." (Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20101001232652/http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Intuition)

So basically, Ne is the advocate of change, the new, experimenting with possibilities. I heard ‘a wise man’ describe it once as “A Hunger For Hunger” where the user is in a hunt for a treasure and after all the work put into finding it, the moment it’s found all its value is lost, Ne looking to hunt OTHER treasures, ad infinitum, always leaving unsatisfied.

Ni is generally associated with the ability to recognize the unfolding of processes over time (how one event leads to another), have visions of the past and future, develop mental imagery, and see intangible hints of relationships between processes or objects. Types that value Ni always like to have in mind a specific plan for how their life will develop in the future.

Ne is generally associated with the ability to recognize possibilities, create new opportunities and new beginnings, reconcile differing perspectives and viewpoints, rapidly generate ideas, and be led by one's intellectual curiosity and stimulate curiosity in others. Ne valuers are true explorers, they enjoy discussing unusual insights into the nature of the world and crazy out-there ideas, like space elevators. Typical Ne humor juxtaposes seemingly unrelated phenomena.

Ni is used to calculate the time needed to finish a task. Strong Ni makes you be punctual without rushing.

Ni is sometimes ironically called "Black magic", but I want to make clear that it can't blindly predict the future like witches, what it does is noticing patterns of how things evolved through time in the past and applying it to the future.

(Example): I had an INFJ/NiF (Ni dominant) tell me that when they were 4 years old they found confusing how children had to be explained to not touch the hot stove, the Ni user saw that in the past it went from a little red to much more and more red-ish as seconds passed so when they saw that it got a little red they got reminded instantly of the pattern and realized that in the future it will get hotter and hotter so they don't have to touch it. Now this is very basic 4 year old Ni, anyone with a little brain can do this at a reasonable age, but a 4 year old that is not a Ni user should be alarmed about these things. Now the ultimate question: Can Ni see in the future? Basically yes, this kid saw in the future what will happen with the hot stove so basically it can, but not in the superstitious way everyone thinks it does, it is not black magic! Also, most of these “visions” of the future come more or less as gut feelings to the user, the actual recognition of the patterns is unconscious.

Also, Ni is comparing every individual element to how it relates to others. Think about math. Or physics. Generally to get a full result you need an unit of measure. Ni doesn’t work in an unit of measure. Do you know the famous meme “banana for scale” thing? Well Ni never has a “scale”, that scale is added by a(n extroverted) judging function (trying to bring Ni to reality usefulness). Ni is only comparing objects. It has its own scales but not relating to the real world. Let’s think about the universe for a little. If Ni had the whole universe in its system, it can use any object in the universe as scale, but when working in the REAL universe, it has to be post-processes by Te or Fe to be accurate. Internal frame of the world =/= actual world for Ni.

Ni monologue: “How does this piece of information compare to everything I’ve ever experienced, felt, thought and imagined in my life?”

Ne looks for novel outcomes and imagines how the things around you could be changed into other, more interesting things. Ne sees new information as part of a larger, emerging, as of yet unseen pattern that extends far beyond the self, and whose meaning will continue to change as the context grows and we discover more of the all-encompassing pattern. Rather than directly confront an issue, Ne will often broaden the context until the issue seems insignificant by comparison to the much bigger and more expansive ideas it imagines. Rather than imagine different ways we could change the outside world, Ni acknowledges many different ways we could change the subjective meaning of things to ourselves by looking at them from different angles.

Rather than directly confront an issue, Ni will often solve problems by simply looking at them from a different angle. Doing a bunch of community service sucks? Just think of it as an opportunity to get lots of exercise! Note that Ni doesn't think about how to change the outer world the way Ne does; it only thinks about how to change *the way we interpret* the outer world. Ni leads you to try and see "through the smoke and mirrors" to what is REALLY going on below the surface, that other people are not perceptive enough to pick up on...so in its unhealthy form, it turns into conspiracy theories…

“More specifically it wonders how a perceived theme fits with all the other perceived themes, or how all these different sequences of interactions fit together. To contrast it with Ne; Ne wonders about specific sequences of interactions, it focuses on the idea itself and where it leads. Ni doesn't care all that much about where any specific idea leads; it cares about how it interacts with all the other ideas. The "trajectory" you get from Ni is because the way different sequences of interactions interact with one another is a process of elimination, you're left with less and less probable options the more themes you throw into the picture, a "best drawn line" is naturally created.”(Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/65hr6k/sini/?st=j2oe5yu2&sh=7e879881)

“Ni similarly isn't "essences of objects", everything you have any comprehension of is an essence, an abstraction. Are Ni doms generally interested in what makes an apple an apple? Of course not, who cares what specifically goes into the categorization of an apple, it's an apple, the specifics of what makes it an apple is of no relevance or interest. Now if an Ni dom on the other hand had thought a lot about culture, they might wonder what the apple symbolically represents within said culture and why, what is it about it that gives it that symbolic representation? What does it have in common or what separates it from other symbolic representations of similar objects? They might also wonder about how the concept of categorization relates to information processing, what does it say about our information processing? Or neither of those might be interesting thoughts because they're obsessed about something completely different and couldn't care less about culture or information processing.

Ni only cares about essences in the context of "how does this relate to my overall perspective?", how does it relate to everything else I've seen, experienced and imagined? What connects a fish, a donkey and horse poop is probably not a very interesting question and a Ni dom isn't going to try to find the essence connecting those 3, because it has no relevance to them.”(Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/65b1og/the_power_of_words_abstraction_and_seni/?st=j2oe8en0&sh=d5ffbefd)

“Imagine you're in a banquet hall. There is a lengthy table before you and food is about to be served.

You're a Ni dom. You see that, suddenly, lots of food is being laid before you. You may sample some of it. You may see some dishes that look great and delicious, and you may see some awful dishes as well. You analyze how the dishes are made, and often, you can even predict how the dish tastes before you even try it. You can figure out how the flavour profiles are related to each other, and as the dinner goes on, you grow confident at your ability to "group" the dishes together. At some point, you have had enough of sampling. You may feel like you're getting full, or you may be oversensitized, or you may just not want to eat anymore. You pass the time by observing the Ne dom eat. The amount they can eat is a bit bewildering! How can they keep going like that? Then, you wait patiently for the dish you originally ordered to be served. The spooky part is, you may not even remember ordering a dish, but you wait patiently until "your dish" shows up at the table, anyway.

You're a Ne dom. When all the food is laid before you, you meticulously try a little bit of each dish as they come. Even as you begin to recognize the patterns and flavour profiles of each dish, you ensure you try each one "just in case". You are fascinated by how the dishes differ in the slightest. As the dinner goes on, you begin to pick out which flavour profiles you prefer, and you begin to sample just the ones that you recognize as your "preferred" flavour. You follow this chain of evolutionary tastes but still periodically sample the others, because they make your tongue tingle in a good way, and a bit of variation never hurt anyone. It's hard for you to pick your "favourite" flavour but you have a few great contenders! It boggles your mind that the Ni dom has stopped eating, because why would they stop when there's so many dishes to try? It never occurs to you that you've ordered any of these dishes, but you're not complaining - free food!” (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6wg6d1/ne_and_ni_a_metaphor/?st=j756ayyj&sh=04a31bfd)

(PATTERNS): First, I want to make the clear that the patterns are searched and formed unconsciously, the user won’t actively seek patterns, they probably don’t even know that all of their crazy ideas are from PATTERNS. (unless they know about cognitive functions). Now I said that the way Ni has their path into the future is through seeing patterns of how events happened through time, but how do you think Ne knows all these different ways a situation can go? They do that too! While Ni sees patterns in the internal world of an idea, focused on how a single idea evolved through time, Ne sees patterns in the external world around them, finding the hidden meaning behind and in-between things, “Reading through the lines”. They see interconnections in the external world of an idea, how the idea relates to other ideas and how everything is connected and how it could go in the future. Ni instead sees how other external ideas and factors influenced the idea through time and how it got to this present point.

(PATHS): Also, I would like to talk a little about paths and time. Ni is described as having a set path that it must follow with a clear, but, unknown destination. They have this gut feeling that this is the way it goes, like there’s some sort of “light at the end of the road” without knowing what the light gives them. They have a clear set destination that is unknown. Ne, as always, is reversed. Ne sees the end goals very clearly and has no clear “path”, they have a million paths that they can follow and they want to get to know and experience all of them. Ni has the destination as the end result and the path there is the starting point. Ne has the destinations as a starting point and the path is the end result.

(Puzzle Analogy): Imagine a puzzle, Ni is having most of the puzzle done, especially the corners (that's what it needs) and fills what is missing. Ne has the center pieces (that's what it needs) and slowly goes in all the ways to fill the puzzle.

Ni is very good to see what is missing while Ne is good to see what could be improved.

(Example): In a haunted house, Ni will tell the user “I have a gut feeling like there might be something behind the door” while Ne would tell the user “Imagine how random would be for someone to pop out the door right now hahah, but what are the chances?”.

(Astronomy Analogy): Ne vs. Ni is also like supernova vs. nebula: An appropriate visual representation of Ne would be that of a supernova. What starts as a star explodes into all of its properties removed from the object itself and completely deconstructed. Ne does a similar thing. It completely deconstructs an object according to the ideas, symbols, systems, what have you associated with that object. Ni is much like a nebula. A nebula, if you don’t already know, is a cloud of particulate and other forms of matter in space that slowly forms into a star system. Over time, what looks like an amorphous blob begins to collapse in on itself until a star is formed and possibly planets as well. These solar systems that are formed are there for the long term. Ni is much the same way. The systems and models that Ni forms are often very much long-term models and systems that will stand the test of time and hold up well under scrutiny. This is why Ni is often described as the long-term system building function. The more relevant information an Ni user possesses, the stronger the system that is being built. The less information a Ni user possesses, the weaker the system that is being built or the system may simply never coalesce.

One thing that is heard often about Ne is that it is all about making connections. That is indeed true, but Ne needs to have a correct base to jump off of in order to make the correct connections. It is my belief that Ne on its own can make connections based on all of the possibilities it intuits, but those connections will have little relevance to the outside world. The resulting structure would look more like a giant ball of tangled Christmas lights a la Christmas Vacation rather than a structured and organized web. (Source for astronomy analogy and the other paragraph: http://personalitycafe.com/articles/84275-cognitive-function-ne-vs-ni.html )

“Ne is like an excited young bird that can’t fly looking at the sky and the world of possibilities. Ni is like an eagle flying very high looking at the world down, like those video games where you have “bird’s eye view” or something like that.”

Recent discovery: Feeling is evaluating the emotional state (mood) of an entity (emotions, happy, sad, angry, frustrated, etc.). Sensing is recognizing the physical state of an entity (comfort, will, force, pressure, laziness, energy or lack of all the above).

Then iNtuition would be awareness of and entity’s mental/psyhic state. That includes: ability to concentrate, sleepiness, feeling melancholic (not in the feeling/emotion sense, just that "Deep thinking" state where you wanna think about life and stuff), etc. (or lack of all the above).

As I explain a million times already, Ni contracts while Ne expands: I think the difference between each function’s desired “state” is pretty clear: Using Ne makes one have a random, scatterbrained (also memes!) state of mind while using Ni makes one have a deep, concentrated, “lost in time”, “penetrating”, maybe melancholic (not as in depressed/sad, but more like a deep thinking state).

Ni is better at metaphors while Ne is better at analogies.

Ni and images, symbols, etc.: Lastly, because Ni is an introverted irrational function (Pi), like Si, it is using certain images, symbols, etc. for associative memory as information stocking/memory. I describe the difference between Ni and Si later in the article (if you’re viewing this on reddit, then in another post) but basically, as I said, Ni (and also Ne) are half-unconscious (to keep us sane): The connections made through seeking patterns by Ni are sent to consciousness as certain images, symbols etc: (That’s why xNxJs are drawn to symbolism) so for example let’s say our unconscious finds a connection between money and power (because for the user, money is power (for example) but keep in mind the user won’t be always aware of how and when the connections are made) then whenever someone brings up the subject of money, our Ni will remind us of power. Or vice-versa, the user might picture an image of cash when someone brings up the subject of power, etc.

Personality types with Ni as their dominant/auxiliary function are xNxJs: INTJ/NiT, ENTJ/TeN, INFJ/NiF, ENFJ/FeN. Personality types with Ne as their dominant/auxiliary function are xNxPs: ENTP/NeT, INTP/TiN, ENFP/NeF, INFP/FiN.

SENSING is the perception with the 5 senses. Primarily, therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs (eyes, skin, ears, tongue, nose + the nervous system) and 'bodily senses' (sight, touch, smell, hearing, etc.)

To make the difference clear between the introverted and the extroverted side of sensing we have to remind ourselves the main differences between I/E:

1. I focuses on the subjective side of the function (the one that’s different from individual to individual) while E focuses on the objective side
2. I focuses on how the subject is affected by the object while E is the other way around
3. How they relate to time. (I=in time, E=present in the moment)

(Slight overview): Your Se dominant is your usual danger-seeking person: Listening to music as loud as possible, dressing all in rocker boots and accessories, street smart, the way I describe Se is “danger” and xSxPs as “hardcore”: While strength/force (the socionics definition) is a good term for Se (it works with information about will, strength, pressure applied, force, dominance, ability to influence, power, impact, territory, etc.) it is not only strength/power/force, it also has the “YOLO” “live everyday like it’s your last day” and “do extreme stunts with your motorcycle without caring about your physical safety” lifestyle, the only way I could describe it is hardcore.

Si on the other hand is reversed: It is preoccupied with reliability, safety and comfort, it’s the function that makes you try to be prepared for everything and have a stable financial income, “settling down”, maybe be a little conservative sometimes, although that is not always the case, and when it is it’s just for the sole purposes of safety. The function that tries to make you live normally, while, paradoxically, being so concerned about the safety of others to the point of eccentricity. Like bringing a lot of tissues, water and a medical kit just for a walk outside, you can see how it conflicts with our danger seeking Se daredevil.

(Se vs Si on subjective vs objective sensation): Because extraverted sensing focuses on sensations that are objective (should be perceived the same by everyone) Se is more preoccupied with the primary 5 senses (sight, sound, touch, smell, and maybe taste). For example if you put more people to look at a tree (sight) they should all see the same thing. Same with sound, and some forms of smell, touch and taste. Se users are very adept in these areas of sensation and, for example, were likely better suited for hunting tasks because of their ability to notice and respond to important details in the environment, or athleticism and any kind of extreme sport. Because Si is preoccupied with the subjective area of sensing, using Si would mean being more adept/master at sensations that differ for every individual: pain, comfort, hunger, thirst, numbness, tingling, muscle tension and some areas of taste, smell, touch, sense of balance, temperature (the last 5 include parts that are both Si and Se). For example: If five people fall out of the same tree with the same force at the same distance in the same place (pain) they will each feel different amounts of pain (so pain and all the other sensations I mentioned are subjective).

I mentioned that Se is more preoccupied with objective sensations while Si is more preoccupied with subjective sensations BUT what is also true is that when Se deals with subjective sensations the user will try to “force them” be objective and Si would try to “force” objective sensations to be subjective. People using the process of Si (or Si doms) might act like they are “seeing” (or any other objective sensation other than sight) something different from everyone else, “this is how I sense it”. Si, in a sense, sees the background of the physical world. The important thing isn’t the object, but its mirror-image in the psyche. Objects don’t only appear in their present instance (as Se sees them) but also with a vague sense of their past and future, “somewhat as a million-year-old-consciousness might see them”. As this article says: https://otterdot.tumblr.com/search/Si . “This subjective part of Si is most easily demonstrated in art; even a still-life scene will be painted differently from artist to artist (if they are all using Si), in terms of their treatment of color, form, and mood. The Si type pours his personal, subjective attitude into his perception of the concrete world”. In a nutshell, Si would go to the end of the world to find the exact subjective parts of sensation (to every little possible detail) in areas that would be considered objective by most people while Se would go to the end of the world to ignore the subjective details in the objective perception.

So for short, while Si is adept at subjective sensations, Si will also pour its subjective perception over objective sensations. Same with Se, extraverted sensing will dismiss and simplify (ignore) any subjective details.

"The best analogy I can make is that Se is like Apple's motion coprocessor: always operating in the background and uses very low power. This allows Se users to have an instantaneous, unconscious reaction to unexpected things - while other people must take up computational resources in order to react. This manifests itself in several ways:

-awareness of objective sensory data. Se users notice things a long time before anyone else. They can speed like a crazed man on steroids and still don't have an accident. Notice things before others, whether it's money on the ground, or new paint, or a person very far away.

-automatic spatial reasoning. The constant "stimulus->reaction" loop make the Se user very directionally aware. Questions like "where are we", "how do we get somewhere", or "which way is east" should be directed at Se users.

-comfort with risk. Risk not necessarily (and usually not) physical. Se users feel more alive when there is actionable uncertainty: that is, risk you can mold to your liking. Se users will actively seek out this kind of risk. A lot of the wall-street types are Se users. SeT in particular, make excellent traders. (Trading is not investing. Investing is a game where the less you play, the more you win. xSTJs make the best investors by a long shot). You can see how that fits with the "hardcore" theme of xSxPs. A distinction I must make is that this is "actionable uncertainty" very different from "the unknown". When risk presents itself in a way such that there is no path to take, the Se user is forced to default to Ni prediction. This results in stress." (Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6yuni4/026_the_8_cognitive_functions_indepth_explanation/dmqexo4/?st=j7dbwfwx&sh=9d96ef99)

“Si, just like Se, being sensation, therefore takes in impressions from the entire sense-world but in comparison to Se which emphasizes experiencing the sense-world as it is in its complete wholesomeness, Si therefore prefers to narrow down its focus to what is deemed to be the most interesting or particular, even peculiar, to the Si user. A simple example can be how an Si dominant ate rotten eggs which made the type sick. The Si user will then henceforth associate eggs with this feeling of sickness and will, whenever thinking about or conveying current experiences involving eggs, infuse the present moment with the associated feeling of sickness. In such a sense, Si isn’t just about the feeling of sickness in itself, but how the experience of sickness becomes infused with meaning and thereby associated with the eating of eggs. This is also why many MBTI descriptions tend to describe Si as using the past to navigate the present.

According to Jung, the primordial images of Si deal with the psyche lingering upon the unique sense-impressions stored within the Si type, which over time gets very refined and reduced into an idea of what a physical object is or should really be like. When Berens and Nardi write that Si compares the saltiness of a dish, this saltiness can only be a saltiness that is measured against an ideal of how salty the dish should be like based on past experiences of how salty the dish has been in the past and from this vantage point notice that the dish is more or less salty compared to how the dish used to be. Similarly then, Si works the same way Ni does by trying to reduce sense-content into subjective impressions that become archetypes.

Si will also, once such an impression is stored and imprinted within its memory, keep building upon this idea over time by constantly attempting to reproduce the sense-world to fit this particular imagery of how the sense-world should be like. If a dish is too salty the Si user next time cooking the dish, will reduce the level of salt in the dish until it perfectly matches the idea the Si has of how salty the dish should be like, which is based on the initial impression of how salty the dish was the first time the person tasted the dish. The Si type will also over time, get out of touch with the initial idea of saltiness as Si keeps reproducing the dish in this way, as it will move closer and closer to being a genuine archetype that in a sense, becomes representative of the ideal saltiness of all dishes of this type but does no longer represent the saltiness of any actual existing dish. Si is constantly regulating the amount of intensity of stimulus to keep a stable homeostasis, constantly adjusting the temperature of the water in shower, constantly adjusting the volume of the music etc., not too high, not too low, just perfect. Another example is a Si type meeting more people of the same ethnicity, remembering and comparing each face and storing all the similarities making an “archetype” of how a person of said ethnicity should look; which would make Si dominants adept at guessing someone’s ethnicity based on their face.

Another, perhaps less elusive way to describe Si, would therefore to compare Si to being interested in the creation of rituals, not in the religious sense, but in the sense of an action that has to be repeated several times in a set way. It can be actions such as getting up in the morning a particular time, having a particular food served a particular time or a particular way etc. because you are comparing your current action with a previously done one (repetition). This is why SJs are the best at sports that can be practiced such as martial arts, athletics, ..

That way Si pays attention to the inner states of things, the physical degradation that occurs, and it knows how to manipulate this degradation in order to create a comfortable environment because Si has stored information about how fast things degrade. Comfort can therefore be understood as an attempt to avoid or prolong unnecessary physical degradation or destruction. From this perspective, it is easier to see how Si is associated with health and other hygienic practices such as cooking and cleaning (household tasks), and how the ultimate focus is to create comfortable environments by paying attention to the inner physical states of objects including people. In contrast we can also see how xNxP types (inferior Si) can forget to eat, drink or wash themselves because of getting carried away by an idea (Ne).” Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/16x9types/comments/3avs7m/what_is_si_a_united_theoretical_perspective/?st=j9wjkluw&sh=53eb296f)

(Se vs Si on influencing vs being influenced): Because Si focuses on how the subject (the person using it) is affected by the object (external stimuli) it focuses more on comfort and stability. Si is very preoccupied with pain and damage done, or how you can protect yourself (walking around carefully) while with Se you see the exact opposite: Se is how the user can change their environment, aka making a change, with your bare hands, physical violence is all about Se (and verbal violence too as long as it is assertive/demanding/confrontational because just lashing out with anger could be [extroverted?] feeling); “I’LL TAKE A CHIP AND I’LL EAT IT!” is all about Se (*cough cough* Death Note reference). Se includes the ability to know how much power, force, or influence is latent or required. Types that value Se are much more comfortable with direct behavior aimed at making an immediate impact. Unlike Si, which is about one's subjective sensory experience (how intense or enjoyable it is), Se is about achieving an object of desire. It gives one the ability to influence, bend, and push situations and people in order to achieve such an object, rather than to enjoy the situation one is in. Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail (because introversion is focused on depth that’s why Si is in “full detail”). The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings (Si) is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.

While we can say Se is dominant/assertive, we can say that Si is defensive (in no way submissive, just trying to gain safety!)

Se = making a change in your environment. It is the “do” function. Don’t think about how you’re gonna do it, start doing it. Stop whining about your problems, go do something about them. (Don’t confuse it with extraverted thinking; Te = productivity, Se = activity) Types with strong Se are adept at standing up for yourself and others and have a strong will and perseverance, knowing how much force/pressure they should apply. Types that value Se like an environment where you have to keep mobilized to protect your territory and social status by “roasting” each other or other ways of proving your dominance (roasts are also done by Fe, but for different reasons), in contrast with types that value Si who prefer a relaxed and cozy environment. Social status is also in the domain of Se because it is a way of gaining influence and making an impact, however, Fi and Fe also play a role in social status. Also in case it is not clear "doing" something is the exact same thing as making a change. If you're not making a change you're not "doing" anything. Se tells you to "do something about it" instead of thinking how to do it or whatever. This instills an attitude of lust and combat, Se dominants are “street smart”, pursuing one’s ambitions in the real world and conquering threats to gain more territory.

Obs: Traditional hard/beating punishments only work on Se valuing types (SP/NJ), also you know those kids in school who would not listen to a word you say when a classmate tells them to do something like closing the window but would instantly do it if a teacher told them? SPs… and NJs, Se doms at least.

People engaging in the use of Si are often oriented by the intensity of their subjective perceptions, rather than the intensity of external stimuli. As a result, it’s impossible for an outsider to reliably predict what will excite or make an impression on them. This can also manifest as just finding that extremely comfortable spot on the couch that only you find comfortable “differs from person to person” or that sweet sweet spot you need to scratch. Si refines sensory experiences down to those that are most enjoyable, seeking to increase pleasure in the moment. This instills an attitude of aesthetic and comfort, adjusting oneself to the environment and making small changes to the environment so that it is most pleasing to the senses. People with high use of Se would think that everyone senses the exact same thing, so they are often surprised when you didn’t experience as much pleasure in that massage chair at the mall.

Because of the focus on precision of Si most of architecture, drawing at precision or just drawing straight lines without a ruler are the work of Si.

This also changes their lifestyle. Dominant Se users are more likely to want to have an intense life “life today like it’s your last day” “live life to the fullest” “never regret anything” “YOLO” while Si dominants are more likely to want to have a stable life “settle down and get a stable income and a house” “be prepared for anything” “don’t do dangerous things and DON’T GO WITH THE SKATEBOARD OFF THAT CLIFF YOU MIGHT HURT YOURSELF”. For short, Se lifestyle=intensity; Si lifestyle=stability and comfort.

There might be some confusion as to whether Si is looking for something to rely on or if it’s good at making others rely on them, the answer is both but not really: Si is good at finding and creating stable sources that you can rely on (trust) and have proper guidance. So an xNxP type (a type that is bad at creating Si and generally needs it from others, Si is in the “help me!” area) needs guidance in areas and something to rely on, but at the same time I described Si dominants the same way: In reality a NP needs a SJ to create or find certain reliable and stable resources.

"Se says that the world is filled with stimuli, and all you have to do is let yourself react to them. No need to think, just react. To react to stimuli you have to be aware of them in the first place, therefore, SPs will be always mobilized and prepared “no time to relax!”, The meaning of a sign is what your gut tells you you should do in response. If it's not here or not now, it's not real.

Si says that the world is so overwhelmingly filled with stimuli that you need something stable to focus on or you'll just be permanently overwhelmed and confused."(Source: https://web.archive.org/web/20101010000404/http://greenlightwiki.com/lenore-exegesis/Sensation)

Both functions can be associated with being “fit” or “in shape”. While Si is fit in the sense of being healthy, having a healthy weight and other health associated stuff Se is fit in the sense of being strong, muscle mass, etc. Si=healthy Se=strong

(Se vs Si on time): Se lives in the exact present moment while Si stores past information as data. Se is good at sports and present tasks focused on reflexes and fast responses; they are very focused on what is happening around them. Si on the other hand, is focused on the past and is very good at remembering specific sensory details of an event. For example, in a situation with crime involved, Se would be good at thinking fast and acting in the moment of the crime involved while Si would be amazing at reporting the crime to the police because they remembered the event in very good detail, they will explain how the criminal looked, what the color of the shirt was, the registration plate numbers of his car he ran away with, and more important the damage done and what the difference between the current state of the situation and the past situation is etc. Si is also good at sports that require practice over time and mastery such as athletics or martial arts, Se is good at team sports, etc. (responding to stimuli in the present moment)

(More): The belief that Si is JUST about physical comfort, inner bodily sensations and recall of the past is flawed however. Si is more concerned with the general impact between entities (not to be confused with energy exchange, that’s Fi/Fe) than what the entities are (Se) (not to be confused with their classification, that’s Ti and Te). Si is a perception of the physical world that is more concerned with the psychological reaction to objects than their objective qualities (Se). Si=how it affects me. While Se would point out what the current situation of the world is, Si would point out what the difference between the current situation and the past situation is. (Ni would point out what the impact will be in the future if you make a change now)

(Extra)[NSFW alert]: Si vs Se on physical affection: “Si tends to be receptive to particular sensations that leave a bigger impression on you compared to other sensations compared to their objective intensity, e.g. getting kissed on a certain spot on your neck even if the physical sensation isn't overly intense or unexpected. A certain touch or act that just does it for you every time.

Se tends to be more about objective intensity and details and unexpected immediate sensations. A good example would be having champagne poured over your naked body and your partner licking it off. The use of ticklers/whips/ice also seems very Se to me.

Se is: take-charge, physical manipulation, lots of pushing & pulling of body parts, pulling back of hair, elements of surprise, of light BDSM, blindfolds using clothes pulled over, pinning arms down, extremely graceful, almost choreographed transitions from position to position, forceful, taking things to the limit (of both pain and pleasure) and beyond.

Se in a nutshell = thrills and chills

Si is: passionate sensual foreplay, long, languorous kisses, perfect timing, not as dominant or forceful or graceful, sex is comfortable, loving, giving, patient,

Si in a nutshell: Mastery”

Source: (comments from) here: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6l6gz7/is_physical_love_se_or_si/?st=j5kzsyiy&sh=26913f96

Personality types with Se as their first PERCIEVING function are xSxP (ESTP/SeT, ISTP/TiS, ESFP/SeF, ISFP/FiS) while personalities types with Si as their first PERCIEVING function are xSxJ (ISFJ/SiF, ESFJ/FeS, ISTJ/SiT, ESTJ/TeS).

;

Ni vs.Si:

They are opposites functions, canceling each other out and that is pretty clear:

Si derives context from closeness, Ni from distance. Ni changes models to fit systems, Si changes systems to fit models. Si is from future to present to past, Ni is from past to present to future. Si tries to fixate meaning, Ni tries to emancipate it. (Si wants definitions to always have one clear meaning to avoid misunderstandings and misconceptions, Ni thinks that definitions can’t cover all the background of the universe and the depths of the unconscious so having clear fixed definitions would only limit its freedom.)

It is crystal clear you can’t do both of these things at the same time, therefore, like all opposite functions, Si and Ni repress each other.

Ni is looking at how things evolved through time in the past and applying it to the present/future. Si is looking at the present and comparing it to the past, remembering how things were back then and making a library of things stocked right in the moment they happened and using it as experience for the future. Ni is from past to future/present while Si is from future/present to past. Si has a library built from the past of sensory data, “visual memory” while Ni has a library from the past built of abstract data, how one event relates to another, symbolism and such. Si is literally like Wikipedia, a lot of exact and concrete facts while Ni is living in metaphors and symbolism, Ni tries to get the “Essence of the objects”, "the main idea" and have the overall idea of what the events were and how and why it happened. Si has exact and very detail-oriented memories of what things are while Ni is seeing how one event relates to the other and another one and so on and so forth, making some sort of “chain of events”. Remember that this last paragraph is unconscious for Ni, Ni users won’t be aware of how the interconnections were made (looking at the past and applying it to the future by seeing patterns), they will only be aware of the end result: the interconnections. Si users will be conscious of the whole process though.

(Example in music): For example, Mike Shinoda (rapper), writes most of his songs as stories. He is an ENFJ (FeN), which has Ni as their secondary/auxiliary function, which will make them write some stories a lot. Listen to songs like “Kenji” and “Red To Black” by him. The reason a Ni user would write lyrics in some sort of story-telling mode is because Ni remembers past information too, it’s not only future oriented! Let me explain it with a history book example.

(History example): If functions were history books, Si would be like most books are today. They would describe WHAT happened in detail, like most books do, with exact numbers for time of the event and place. Ni is not really about WHAT happened, it is about how the things that happen relate to each other. Since Ni is looking at patterns of how things evolved through time, a history book that would be Ni-like would not be very focused on WHAT happened, rather it would tell that this and this and this happened and because of all these 3 things, it lead that after it ‘caused this and because of that this also happened and because of that this also happened and that led to this and that and because of that… etc. Ni is about how the events in the past relate to each other, neglecting unimportant details. That’s why most of Mike Shinoda’s raps are very story-telling, it is seeing how an event leads to each other and so on and so forth.

Regarding impacts done, Si is more likely to really notice the differences and impacts that were from past “Look at what that thing did to our city! I notice the difference between how it was before and how it is now!” while Ni would be future-oriented “Don’t invest in that bank because this will happen!”.

However, Si is like an archivist and attempts to store its perceptions of reality as untouched as possible.

Ni wants to merge ideas using the unconscious for them to resurface later.

Si vs Ni on inter-connections: Sensing is a Concrete function wile Intuition is Abstract. Therefore Si understands context in physical terms. Si usually remembers events that are related in a physical, concrete way, that happened in the same place, that have the same shape or color, etc. anything involving the senses.The context of a walk in the park with your family is the events that happened in the park, the temperature that day, the argument you had with your father before leaving and the lingering feelings etc.

Ni on the other hand understands context in terms of meaning. Two events are connected if they contributed to the same life-lesson, one of them made you understand the meaning of the other differently, the changes they produce on one another etc. The Ni-context of the walk in the park is freedom (for example) because you associate walks and nature with freedom so it's related to the time you rode on the back of a motorcycle. It's also pollution and corruption because your city you live in now doesn't have enough parks. It's loss and departure because you did that walk as a goodbye before leaving to college. (etc.)

Sensing is an External function wile Intuition is Internal. (Internal/External is a function dichotomy like introverted/extraverted or rational/irrational that is a little more advanced and we can’t discuss yet, but for short internal functions are “personal to the user” while external are a little more obvious and collective. Si Se Ti Te are external while Ni Ne Fi Fe are internal). This means that Si makes replicable connections. Anyone who receives a description of an Si correlation will see it as well. Anyone in your family knows what you're talking about when you describe the Si context of that walk mentioned earlier. You can also tell the story to a stranger and the meaning is preserved intact. "It was hot so we had to cut the walk short because we were getting sweaty." The stranger doesn't need to have been there to understand how those concepts relate. Ni on the other hand is personal. Even someone who has participated in the exact same experience won't draw the same Ni connections as you did. For your brother the park means romance not freedom because that's where he met his first love. For your dad it's the opposite of freedom because his wife forces him to take those walks while he'd rather be spending time in the garage. However the meanings are universal. A stranger can understand the feeling of freedom you felt not by thinking of parks but by connecting it to a different experience that made the feel the same way. With Si on the other hand each feeling is unique. There's never going to be another walk in a park with the exact same concrete context so that exact feeling will never be experienced again in this universe.

Basically Ni = unique experience, universal meaning;

Si = unique meaning, universal experience.

You can see the difference between how the two functions interpret meaning by how they treat definitions. For Si "definitions" are lists of words. Using typology Si would like it if we defined Ti as "logic, consistency, optimization, precision...." If we were then to use any of those words to describe something other than Ti, Si would get annoyed. Ni on the other hand would argue that no word can capture the internal reality of the psyche so the best we can do is approximate it through context. The definitions are actual propositions but the word choice is irrelevant compared to the holistic meaning of the phrase. A Ni dominant will often make a point out of reusing the same words in other contexts to permanently diverge meaning from its immediate anchors.

Basically we can say that when the user finds out that either Si or Ni were wrong, Si has faith in models and would change the system to fit the model. Ni is the other way around, changing the model to fit the system.

(System: A set of interacting or interdependent components forming an integrated whole

Model: A clear set of definitions, words, etc.)

“Because Ni puts so much faith in systems, if a system is proven wrong in even one aspect, the whole thing, says Ni, should be thrown out. Because Si puts so much faith in models, if a model is proven wrong in even one aspect, the whole thing, says Si, should be thrown out. It is like a broken foundation to Ni, Si's approach might seem stubborn and unyielding-why not get better models? To Si, Ni's approach seems almost like moving the goalposts.” (Source: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/myers-briggs-and-jungian-cognitive-functions/52749-si-vs-ni-aint-tradition.html)

Si vs Ni on information stocking (memory): Most people would usually say that Si has a good memory while Ni has a bad memory. In truth they simply have different kinds of memory. Si memory is concrete: what a person said on a specific day, what I did the first day of school etc. Ni memory is more abstract. They remember things that taught them a "lesson" or changed their mind about something. The memories themselves are not that different but the triggers for recall are different. If you ask Ni what you did the first day of school it won't know (unless maybe it was yesterday). But if you bring up Ni with a concept associated with that day you will suddenly be flooded with memories of that day in great detail. Let's say you had a change of heart regarding the whether people are worthy of trust because of an event that happened that day. Then "trusting people" will be a trigger for that memory but "16 September 1995" won't be. For Si it's the opposite. If I ask Si about trusting people it won't know what events lead the user to that conclusion. Si will know that 16 September 1995 was the user's first day of school however and what they did that day.

If intuition is preoccupied with what COULD be while sensing just points out what IS then how the hell can Si (an introverted function = in time = both past and future) be future-oriented like Ni if the future never happened and is only constructed of assumptions, speculations, ?: Si is predisposed towards seeing patterns while Ni towards trends. Given the sequence 1, 2, 3.... Si would guess 1, 2 for the next two numbers while Ni would say 4, 5. Si is good at predicting the future based on repetition and cyclical occurrences but it's also prone to overassigning patterns to events. "My wife always fights with me on Saturday" (real quote from a Si dominant). Ni makes prediction based on the assumption current events will continue to develop in a somewhat linear fashion. Another assumption both Si and Ni make is uniformity in the case of Si and continuity for Ni. Si mainly predicts concrete specific events while Ni predicts general patterns and possibilities.

That also would explain why Si dominants are so tradition-obsessed other than the fact that Si = stability. Si would blindly say “What has been in the past will also be in the future!”, a statement said by every Si dom ever, which would make them try to follow and continue tradition: “Why switch things up if we can just do what has been proven to work in the past?” -> makes Si be correlated with tradition, “the proper way to do things”, “the classic method”, etc.

Si = schedule

Ni = planning

"Everyone thinks of the past and utilizes it to understand the world, relating something to your past isn't Si. Si connection to the past is again more concrete, specific events and their relation to the self. Both a Ni dom and a Si dom can have theories as to how say being abused as a child shaped them, but a Ni dom is likely to get there via a bunch of themes in their lives and "oh, it's because I was abused as a child" is the obvious conclusion. The Si dom is likely to focus on being abused as a child specifically and focus on how that relates to the self, the relation can be however abstract but the event and the self have a direct connection. The output can at times look identical, the Si dom can get to the same themes in their life but they'll do so with the specific event as their anchor. The Ni dom on the other hand has the themes as their anchor and the specific events is just a detached conclusion."

---

This is why Si is far more linear, because the connection between the subject and the object is direct, despite how abstract/concrete it is. "Object" is used loosely here, it can be an event, an idea or an actual object. "It makes me uncomfortable to think about it" is something you're more likely to hear from an Si user.

The relation Si users draw is often "sensory", what it looks like to them or what it makes them feel like, the latter being why Si is generally more emotional, especially in a sentimental way, but also why Si has a very "bodily connection". The relation can also be entirely abstract though, "what makes an apple an apple to me?", you can use just about anything to relate to it, but the important thing is that there is a direct connection between the "subject" as in you and the "object" which is really anything that isn't the subject. The themes you derive are anchored to something.

Ni on the other hand doesn't care about what the connection between a car and them is, it's a car, there's a detachment from the "self" with Ni. Ni anchors to themes, which more accurately would be described as sequences of interactions between objects, imaginary or actual makes no difference. More specifically it wonders how a perceived theme fits with all the other perceived themes, or how all these different sequences of interactions fit together. To contrast it with Ne; Ne wonders about specific sequences of interactions, it focuses on the idea itself and where it leads. Ni doesn't care all that much about where any specific idea leads, it cares about how it interacts with all the other ideas. The "trajectory" you get from Ni is because the way different sequences of interactions interact with one another is a process of elimination, you're left with less and less probable options the more themes you throw into the picture, a "best drawn line" is naturally created.

So to sum it up; the functions are similar, the difference is in the nuances, in what the anchors of the perception is. With Si you get specific anchors between the self and "objects", a connection between the "self" and something. With Ni the anchor is sequences of interactions, it's an "object to object" relation in the subjective mind, the self is removed. "I was abused" is a conclusion derived from a bunch of themes for the Ni dom, whereas "I was abused" or an event of abuse is the anchor from which themes are derived for the Si dom. They will very often end up looking similar, and anyone is capable of using either anchor, but the Ni dom habitually does one and the Si dom the other.

Disclaimer: There are judging functions involved in any given example here, I don't believe isolated examples are possible or useful. The terminology is also a bunch of jargon.” (source: https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/65hr6k/sini/?st=j1ixirh8&sh=47896b87)

“Ni is an abstract map of possibilities which you explore literally with Se.

Si is a literal map which you explore abstractly with Ne.” – (source: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/113003-ni-vs-si-what-hell-difference.html)

Ne vs. Se: While Se is all about perceiving the most immediate reality in front of you (through the 5 but not really 5 senses cuz there are more than 5) Ne is about alternate realities, all the possible scenarios that could happen from the most realistic to the most fantastic.

There is a discrepancy between our current understandings of Se because it is seen as both lazy/procrastinating and goal-oriented/work hard/decisive and I will clear it up by contrasting it with its opposite function: Ne.

The agenda of Ne is exploration: Ne wants something to generate as many possibilities it could (to ‘be interesting’), it is known that Ne loves change and abandons old things, that is true but the old has to not generate any more possibilities. If doing the same thing again and again will generate a lot of possibilities Extraverted iNtuition will be extremely ok with it.

That’s said, it is also the only thing Ne can do; because that’s its definition: Exploring the metaphysical. Once the A Ne dominant type metaphysically experiences everything and only imagines/fantasizes about experiencing everything before dropping it altogether as soon as the Ne idea is starting to become tangible because then, the idea has transferred from the realm of possibility to the realm of physical concreteness where it has to be solidified and given a certain shape which is another dead end for new possibilities and that is why the Ne dominant is destined to search and search and think about doing things without actually doing them thoroughly.

We often find a lot of moments observing ENxPs/Ne dominants where something seems perfect in their minds, but, when trying to recreate it and transform it from idea to reality it's 10 times worse and more uninteresting than in their heads. (As an ENTP, do you know how frustrating it was to finish this article?)

Se is the opposite function of Ne: they must cancel each other out, you can’t use both at the same time. While Ne seeks to experience everything metaphysically, Se seeks to experience everything physically: While we could call Ne a hunger for hunger (https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6hn1lq/ne_romanticised_a_hunger_for_hunger/?st=j5uwl2f4&sh=eeea3754) Se is just a hunger.

We see the phenomenon of ambivalence in Ne: While Se isn’t especially the best at working productively (as Te is), it is indeed very decisive: one solution, one idea, one reality. While a Ne dominant would be indecisive in a shop as to what he should buy, a Se dominant would want to buy everything anyway, and, realizing quickly that he can’t, he will just pick.

That’s why Se = knowing what you want. Be careful when comparing it with Fi, Fi = knowing where you stand on an issue, Se = knowing what you want.

While it’s not the most productive and workaholic, Se is definitely the most active function: An ESxP that doesn’t constantly fidget around the room or go outside of the house daily is either sick, depressed or dead. Se might be lazy and unproductive because it’s an irrational/perceiving function, it doesn’t separate an object from its environment (like Te… or Ti, Fi and Fe), so it’s not good at “doing something” it’s good at “just doing”; which is the opposite of Ne, when Ne realizes something is real it drops it instantly, imagine a Ne dominant like searching for a treasure for a very long time, spending tons of hours and sweat into it and right in the moment you found the treasure or achieved the desired goal, it loses all its value, only to look after different treasures, never making itself satisfied. (A hunger for hunger; credit: reddit user “_reLight_”:: Source -> https://www.reddit.com/r/mbti/comments/6hn1lq/ne_romanticised_a_hunger_for_hunger/?st=j5uwl2f4&sh=eeea3754

Se = “OMG let’s do that, oh wait no let’s do that instead, oh damn no let’s do that thing over there, no let’s sit on this, oh wait let’s buy those, oh wait no no no let’s buy that thing over there, omg let’s do all of those stuff, let’s sit on that, no first let’s lick that, no wait first we have to do this, but then we’ll do all of those things!”

Ne = “OMG look at all the things we could do! I would do that then than, oh my God, imagine how great it would be to do that! Look at how many things we could do! *ends up doing nothing*”

;

End. Now go read my cognitive roles article, it’s important.