I'm an Ne dom with an Ni dom and Se dom kid... this was MASSIVELY helpful in understanding why they're explaining things/ needing to understand the way they do, and why that is so opposite of how I would explain/ need to understand these things. Thanks!
I think Se-Ni is great at taking examples and stringing them together, but bc Ni is convergent, the pattern among those examples becomes summarized and contracted. Ni is great at conclusions. If you give an Ne-Si user examples, I think the Si will only pick up on what they recognize from experience/their internal world (thus missing sensory detail) and use Ne to give those things ‘new’ meanings/connections. Ne is great at abstractions.
@@jungbuck I guess masc intuition makes sense. I don't really think I'm on the Se-Ni axis anymore, but I do seem to be decent at picking patterns up from random examples. One issue I have with Se doms is that I go on Ne rants and I might not communicate the most clearly. They'll end up grabbing onto some random catchphrase I say and ignore everything else I say. Even when I correct them and tell them what I actually meant, they completely ignore me and fixate on that one thing I say.
I think Ne will do the same thing, but is more likely to choose a single example that takes longer to describe. We like a good allegory or metaphor to illustrate an idea. We are hoping that when people listen to us, they're holding both the real-world Si thing and the Ne metaphor in their minds at the same time, noting the similarities. I'm speaking for NP types here. Not sure about SJ's. I think they can follow this sort of talk once they've learned where it's going, but they may find it annoying.
Great vid! I just want to speak up for the Ne/Si that it's not about that we don't get it - it's more like we missed each other in the N and it feels like Ne was expecting sth more out there, even more unexpected and the slight disappointment by the end we know what you actually meant... and yes Chat gpt is Ne/Si - I don't think it would work otherwise - Si is the smallest granular module after all
GOATed explanation. And yes, (my) Ne-Si still doesn't understand a singular pattern based on seemingly random examples or can generate genuinely new examples of what you're talking about. Unless you've spelled out exactly what you mean and I've connected it with some experience(s) that actually matter to me, I zone out and assume your examples could be arbitrary or could be explained by anything
@@user-ji5bd6pc6k I don't think Ni cares about how sensible or useful the concept is, that's more Te. Ni is just trying to build a worldview around a singular concept/boil everything down to as simple a theme as possible, and doesn't necessarily judge usefulness/value/sensibleness. on it's own.
OK... But then what is Ne/Si? Cause I get what Jung Buck said. I REALLY get that! (Though whether that's because that's my own personality or because it's that of my favorite philosophers - Plato, Aquinas, etc, I do not know!) But what's the alternative?
As an Ne dom, with family using the Ni-Se axis, I'll contrast the two. I see exactly what he is explaining in my family. It is, frankly, a little frustrating to Ne, because Ne is really adept at connecting the abstract to the abstract without having to gather more concrete examples from the external world, so all of the examples aren't needed, and it can be hard to see why we're spending so much time on them. I get the concept really fast, and I just don't need the Se picture to be painted to get the abstract idea, BUT my understanding of the specific concept and is individual meaning can be much more shallow than the typical Ni user (unless im applying Ti, and even then it's usually applied to the connection between similar events rather than understanding where a given concept fits within the context). I'm looking for the abstract idea itself, and the Se is a distraction from that because it keeps pulling us back to the present concrete. I'll take that abstract concept and relate it to a single Si data point from memory, or take a memory point and abstract it, then create more and more ABSTRACT connections, often WITHOUT examples, because they're coming from the one example of the one thing, they simply don't need the variety of concrete points. I think about it like this- NiSe users are collecting puzzle pieces (Se data) in the world and putting together a picture of what is happening and what that means on a deeper level (what do the details tell me about the kind of beach that this is; what does it mean that someone made a puzzle of the beach). NeSi users are looking at a puzzle box (the concept itself) and relating the idea of this puzzle to other puzzles it has seen before or concepts related to puzzles or hasn't seen before (this beach puzzle reminds me of that mountain cliff puzzle i did when i was a kid or of our vacation last year, i wonder where we should go this year; what would it be like to live on the beach, or to be a two dimensional character in a puzzle, waiting for someone to put the picture together so you could feel alive, how is this related to life and what can i learn from this; this beach puzzle has 1000 pieces [single data point of established knowledge] , i wonder why we are a species that constantly looks for more challenge and complexity [abstraction of that concept], and what would it mean for us to abandon this desire, what would make that happen [how is this related to its opposite], is that even possible?) Se users are looking to figure out what IS in the concrete world, more or less, Ni users are looking to figure out the abstract meaning of/ behind what IS in the concrete world. An Ni user who wants you to understand his abstract conclusion might paint you a picture of all the Se he used to get there, so your Ni will form the same conclusion: you two can now see the same things. You can see something similar with Ti and logic - it will describe its entire framework so you can see how it got to its conclusion and understand it for yourself using your own Ti. Ne doesn't get the reason he's giving so much Se, bc it doesn't need the Se to get the concept, and that single concept within this particular context is not the point for Ne. The way that single concept connects to other, disparate concepts is the point for Ne, so painting all the details of the Se to deeply understand one single Ni conclusion wastes time we could be using to shallowly understand this one thing so we can move on to other things and then examine the way these things relate or the potential they offer. (It should be obvious how each axis is actually understanding important elements of reality, but different parts of reality.) But this causes Ne users in particular, who are not using a large amount of Se examples AND are not explaining how the Si experience relates to this other concept they've connected the first thing to, to seem to be jumping from topic to topic randomly, and without any apparent connection began one thing and another (imagine, from the puzzle example, the Ne user looks at the box quietly, while everyone else is turning over puzzle pieces, and says, "i wonder where we should go on vacation this year?" Or "I wonder what it would take to make a whole society of people give up the drive for complexity?" It would seem to come from nowhere, when there are a series of concepts that connect the two, but all of those things are abstract connections that are hard to explain if the other person is not making the same abstract connections, even though the Ne user can follow the trail to the conclusion and trace it back. Contrast this with the difficulty Ni doms tend to encounter when they are seeing a picture from the puzzle pieces, often way before they have collected all of the pieces, and other people are asking "how do you know that's what this puzzle is a picture of?" But they can't really explain it because they just look at the pieces they do have and SEE it, so they could point to the pieces, but if you can't envision what is in between them without the pieces filling in spaces, you just can't track with them). NeSi wants to connect ideas to established knowledge or experiences bc those experiences might offer new abstractions that could be connected. But it really doesn't need many Si points, because it is focused on connecting the new abstract ideas that grow from the single point, while Ni needs the sensory Se points to SEE the abstract meaning from the whole picture of a single concept and understand it on a detailed, deeper level, which allows for accuracy of future predictions. (See comment for the rest)
So, in short, NiSe is connecting concrete things for an abstract conclusion, while NeSi is connecting abstract things for the purpose of possibilities that are usable in the concrete world that will become Si established knowledge. If you're looking for a concrete example here, consider this post in contrast to this video. JungBuck gives 20 examples and one conclusion, which we now understand very well. I gave you a bunch of ideas (1.NeSi is doing this thing 2. The idea of doing a puzzle and possible ways you could interact with that puzzle distantly 3. Connect those two concepts 4. Now think about the possible struggles of the doesn't functions) related to the idea in this video, all of my examples were made up, not remembered from real life, but loosely based on a lot of general shared experiences most people have had, we stayed in the realm of theory the whole post, but I gave a lot of concepts, the same way he gave a lot of examples. So maybe if NiSe is trying to see a picture from puzzle pieces, NeSi is trying to see new possibilities based on established data that connects abstractly, like building with magnetic tiles. Yet again, we have another concept based on Si experience, but not once i actually remember having, and not one i an going to connect to another example. Instead I connected the idea of connecting abstract concepts to one another to the idea of a building toys, which could be related to drawing a map, the way planet's and stars relate to form new galaxies in a universe, the internet, social media, archeology, city planning, i could go on, because I'm drawing together the Si established experiences to give you illustrations of this concept by taking the single abstract concept and applying it in a hundred ways. But I'd also move the other direction, taking the concept of connecting concepts and say it's like an ocean or the fabric of space time, or a highway system, which relate things to one another, so then what is possible because of that: what new ideas can come from it? What if it weren't that way? What if things didn't relate or we didn't see relationships? What if we restructured the connections along different lines or manipulated the nature of the connecting lines? What if we altered the ability of the brain to see relationships, would we be able to perceive meaning? Would we tell stories or predict future events or understand causality? Why? What if the universe was not like a smooth fabric stretched out, but instead like a chaotic ocean? How would that change gravity or our planet's lifespan or cycles of day and night? How does that concept relate to education? You see, Ne is trying to expand the one idea into a lot of new ideas, Ni is trying to deeply understand the idea it is focused on and how it relates to the larger picture or is seeing so it isn't missing something about it; it's trying to squeeze all of the juice out of one lemon to make a glass of lemonade, while Ne is looking for various applications for a bag of lemons, but in the process it is missing a lot of the juice it could be getting from each individual lemon, because it's application is not concentrated. Another example that just presented itself to me is this: in reading a book with an Ni user close to me, I came across a portion of the story where the story pulls in a cast of misshapen, deformed characters living in an isolated community together. I thought about three other books where I've seen this same idea presented and wondered about the philosphical significance of this pattern in these types of books and its meaning. I thought of concentration camps and the idea of deformity - the distinction of jewishness may have been portrayed as a kind of deformity, but now we see the moral character of those who would commit genocide as a deformity. Is our perception deformed while we are deeply involved in a given situation? What if we were physically or morally deformed and living in an isolated culture of people with various deformities - would we separate along other lines, would we recognize our deformity, would we know what the abstract 'perfect' man looked like? How does this relate to our moral deformities, and how do culture and education converge to normalize them? My Ni user thought of this information in the context of the present story. How is it related with the other pieces of information we have been given, and what does that tell us about what is happening and what the outcome of this story will be? How does this new information fill in the picture of the story more, so that i know what the characters will do and how the story will unfold? The Ni user is much better than i an at accurately predicting the story, though I'm much better than most of the sensor types i know. I'm not certain that I've answered the question you actually asked, and I'm not sure that I'm still on topic, but hopefully, you find something interesting anyway!
It’s not that we don’t get it, we’re (Si) thinking of examples that don’t fit, then trying to (Ne) come up with why, then Ti reworking the theory to incorporate the new why, then Fe trying to figure out how to respond in a way that will be received with a sufficient amount of understanding, humor, respect….and I’m blast last so….plus step two is never ending… I dunno if that’s true but now I want to test it.
Why thank you later? Right now seems about perfect. Damn. That definition of what observers are trying to do ... I can't believe I've been into typology for over four years now and this is the first time these functions make sense. 🤦
I get the Se Ni axis. But I don't get Ne Si axis. I know Ne is targeting multiple concepts/ struture of the single data point where Ni and Se are looking for the most fundamental and important common. It would be helpful to see dumb and useful version of Ne Si examples.
Se talk doesn't sound like rambling unless you are actually rambling or the audience just doesn't get it. Too many people chalk things up to rambling imo. Just because you haven't made sense of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. 👍
Check out habibs channel for more personality insights
youtube.com/@personalityhabits
That was nice and all, but could you give me some more examples? 🧐
😂
I'm an Ne dom with an Ni dom and Se dom kid... this was MASSIVELY helpful in understanding why they're explaining things/ needing to understand the way they do, and why that is so opposite of how I would explain/ need to understand these things. Thanks!
I like how this video is organized.
Really appreciate all of the examples you gathered.
Every sound fundamental Ni idea has an unending list of facts to prove the point.
Ok I see it. These videos keep getting better. This is definitely going to help with typing.
I think Se-Ni is great at taking examples and stringing them together, but bc Ni is convergent, the pattern among those examples becomes summarized and contracted. Ni is great at conclusions.
If you give an Ne-Si user examples, I think the Si will only pick up on what they recognize from experience/their internal world (thus missing sensory detail) and use Ne to give those things ‘new’ meanings/connections. Ne is great at abstractions.
Is this why I try to explain concepts with examples, but sometimes people end up getting stuck on a specific example rather than getting my point?
Yes! You might also feel that way if, you have masc intuition, and you're speaking to someone with masc sensory, or fem thinking vs masc thinking
@@jungbuck I guess masc intuition makes sense. I don't really think I'm on the Se-Ni axis anymore, but I do seem to be decent at picking patterns up from random examples.
One issue I have with Se doms is that I go on Ne rants and I might not communicate the most clearly. They'll end up grabbing onto some random catchphrase I say and ignore everything else I say. Even when I correct them and tell them what I actually meant, they completely ignore me and fixate on that one thing I say.
I think Ne will do the same thing, but is more likely to choose a single example that takes longer to describe. We like a good allegory or metaphor to illustrate an idea. We are hoping that when people listen to us, they're holding both the real-world Si thing and the Ne metaphor in their minds at the same time, noting the similarities. I'm speaking for NP types here. Not sure about SJ's. I think they can follow this sort of talk once they've learned where it's going, but they may find it annoying.
Great vid!
I just want to speak up for the Ne/Si that it's not about that we don't get it - it's more like we missed each other in the N and it feels like Ne was expecting sth more out there, even more unexpected and the slight disappointment by the end we know what you actually meant...
and yes Chat gpt is Ne/Si - I don't think it would work otherwise - Si is the smallest granular module after all
I feel you, I’m like that with Ti and Si respectively.
Nicely done video. 🤗
GOATed explanation.
And yes, (my) Ne-Si still doesn't understand a singular pattern based on seemingly random examples or can generate genuinely new examples of what you're talking about. Unless you've spelled out exactly what you mean and I've connected it with some experience(s) that actually matter to me, I zone out and assume your examples could be arbitrary or could be explained by anything
Yep, same with me.
Ne Si axis next please😇
Nobody understands what those people are doing or what the point is
@@NicStride 😂am probably one of them but yeah me too🤣
@@NicStrideNi targets the most sensible, useful concepts. But Ne entertains all of the angles and concepts of a single data point.
@@user-ji5bd6pc6k I don't think Ni cares about how sensible or useful the concept is, that's more Te.
Ni is just trying to build a worldview around a singular concept/boil everything down to as simple a theme as possible, and doesn't necessarily judge usefulness/value/sensibleness. on it's own.
@@NicStrideby sensible I mean to say core point. Whats the deal about. Later it strives to minimize it as it is Oi.
Thank you for showing why Se is the best. 😎
OK... But then what is Ne/Si? Cause I get what Jung Buck said. I REALLY get that! (Though whether that's because that's my own personality or because it's that of my favorite philosophers - Plato, Aquinas, etc, I do not know!) But what's the alternative?
As an Ne dom, with family using the Ni-Se axis, I'll contrast the two. I see exactly what he is explaining in my family. It is, frankly, a little frustrating to Ne, because Ne is really adept at connecting the abstract to the abstract without having to gather more concrete examples from the external world, so all of the examples aren't needed, and it can be hard to see why we're spending so much time on them. I get the concept really fast, and I just don't need the Se picture to be painted to get the abstract idea, BUT my understanding of the specific concept and is individual meaning can be much more shallow than the typical Ni user (unless im applying Ti, and even then it's usually applied to the connection between similar events rather than understanding where a given concept fits within the context). I'm looking for the abstract idea itself, and the Se is a distraction from that because it keeps pulling us back to the present concrete. I'll take that abstract concept and relate it to a single Si data point from memory, or take a memory point and abstract it, then create more and more ABSTRACT connections, often WITHOUT examples, because they're coming from the one example of the one thing, they simply don't need the variety of concrete points.
I think about it like this- NiSe users are collecting puzzle pieces (Se data) in the world and putting together a picture of what is happening and what that means on a deeper level (what do the details tell me about the kind of beach that this is; what does it mean that someone made a puzzle of the beach). NeSi users are looking at a puzzle box (the concept itself) and relating the idea of this puzzle to other puzzles it has seen before or concepts related to puzzles or hasn't seen before (this beach puzzle reminds me of that mountain cliff puzzle i did when i was a kid or of our vacation last year, i wonder where we should go this year; what would it be like to live on the beach, or to be a two dimensional character in a puzzle, waiting for someone to put the picture together so you could feel alive, how is this related to life and what can i learn from this; this beach puzzle has 1000 pieces [single data point of established knowledge] , i wonder why we are a species that constantly looks for more challenge and complexity [abstraction of that concept], and what would it mean for us to abandon this desire, what would make that happen [how is this related to its opposite], is that even possible?)
Se users are looking to figure out what IS in the concrete world, more or less, Ni users are looking to figure out the abstract meaning of/ behind what IS in the concrete world. An Ni user who wants you to understand his abstract conclusion might paint you a picture of all the Se he used to get there, so your Ni will form the same conclusion: you two can now see the same things. You can see something similar with Ti and logic - it will describe its entire framework so you can see how it got to its conclusion and understand it for yourself using your own Ti.
Ne doesn't get the reason he's giving so much Se, bc it doesn't need the Se to get the concept, and that single concept within this particular context is not the point for Ne. The way that single concept connects to other, disparate concepts is the point for Ne, so painting all the details of the Se to deeply understand one single Ni conclusion wastes time we could be using to shallowly understand this one thing so we can move on to other things and then examine the way these things relate or the potential they offer. (It should be obvious how each axis is actually understanding important elements of reality, but different parts of reality.) But this causes Ne users in particular, who are not using a large amount of Se examples AND are not explaining how the Si experience relates to this other concept they've connected the first thing to, to seem to be jumping from topic to topic randomly, and without any apparent connection began one thing and another (imagine, from the puzzle example, the Ne user looks at the box quietly, while everyone else is turning over puzzle pieces, and says, "i wonder where we should go on vacation this year?" Or "I wonder what it would take to make a whole society of people give up the drive for complexity?" It would seem to come from nowhere, when there are a series of concepts that connect the two, but all of those things are abstract connections that are hard to explain if the other person is not making the same abstract connections, even though the Ne user can follow the trail to the conclusion and trace it back. Contrast this with the difficulty Ni doms tend to encounter when they are seeing a picture from the puzzle pieces, often way before they have collected all of the pieces, and other people are asking "how do you know that's what this puzzle is a picture of?" But they can't really explain it because they just look at the pieces they do have and SEE it, so they could point to the pieces, but if you can't envision what is in between them without the pieces filling in spaces, you just can't track with them).
NeSi wants to connect ideas to established knowledge or experiences bc those experiences might offer new abstractions that could be connected. But it really doesn't need many Si points, because it is focused on connecting the new abstract ideas that grow from the single point, while Ni needs the sensory Se points to SEE the abstract meaning from the whole picture of a single concept and understand it on a detailed, deeper level, which allows for accuracy of future predictions. (See comment for the rest)
So, in short, NiSe is connecting concrete things for an abstract conclusion, while NeSi is connecting abstract things for the purpose of possibilities that are usable in the concrete world that will become Si established knowledge.
If you're looking for a concrete example here, consider this post in contrast to this video. JungBuck gives 20 examples and one conclusion, which we now understand very well. I gave you a bunch of ideas (1.NeSi is doing this thing 2. The idea of doing a puzzle and possible ways you could interact with that puzzle distantly 3. Connect those two concepts 4. Now think about the possible struggles of the doesn't functions) related to the idea in this video, all of my examples were made up, not remembered from real life, but loosely based on a lot of general shared experiences most people have had, we stayed in the realm of theory the whole post, but I gave a lot of concepts, the same way he gave a lot of examples. So maybe if NiSe is trying to see a picture from puzzle pieces, NeSi is trying to see new possibilities based on established data that connects abstractly, like building with magnetic tiles. Yet again, we have another concept based on Si experience, but not once i actually remember having, and not one i an going to connect to another example. Instead I connected the idea of connecting abstract concepts to one another to the idea of a building toys, which could be related to drawing a map, the way planet's and stars relate to form new galaxies in a universe, the internet, social media, archeology, city planning, i could go on, because I'm drawing together the Si established experiences to give you illustrations of this concept by taking the single abstract concept and applying it in a hundred ways. But I'd also move the other direction, taking the concept of connecting concepts and say it's like an ocean or the fabric of space time, or a highway system, which relate things to one another, so then what is possible because of that: what new ideas can come from it? What if it weren't that way? What if things didn't relate or we didn't see relationships? What if we restructured the connections along different lines or manipulated the nature of the connecting lines? What if we altered the ability of the brain to see relationships, would we be able to perceive meaning? Would we tell stories or predict future events or understand causality? Why? What if the universe was not like a smooth fabric stretched out, but instead like a chaotic ocean? How would that change gravity or our planet's lifespan or cycles of day and night? How does that concept relate to education?
You see, Ne is trying to expand the one idea into a lot of new ideas, Ni is trying to deeply understand the idea it is focused on and how it relates to the larger picture or is seeing so it isn't missing something about it; it's trying to squeeze all of the juice out of one lemon to make a glass of lemonade, while Ne is looking for various applications for a bag of lemons, but in the process it is missing a lot of the juice it could be getting from each individual lemon, because it's application is not concentrated.
Another example that just presented itself to me is this: in reading a book with an Ni user close to me, I came across a portion of the story where the story pulls in a cast of misshapen, deformed characters living in an isolated community together. I thought about three other books where I've seen this same idea presented and wondered about the philosphical significance of this pattern in these types of books and its meaning. I thought of concentration camps and the idea of deformity - the distinction of jewishness may have been portrayed as a kind of deformity, but now we see the moral character of those who would commit genocide as a deformity. Is our perception deformed while we are deeply involved in a given situation? What if we were physically or morally deformed and living in an isolated culture of people with various deformities - would we separate along other lines, would we recognize our deformity, would we know what the abstract 'perfect' man looked like? How does this relate to our moral deformities, and how do culture and education converge to normalize them? My Ni user thought of this information in the context of the present story. How is it related with the other pieces of information we have been given, and what does that tell us about what is happening and what the outcome of this story will be? How does this new information fill in the picture of the story more, so that i know what the characters will do and how the story will unfold? The Ni user is much better than i an at accurately predicting the story, though I'm much better than most of the sensor types i know.
I'm not certain that I've answered the question you actually asked, and I'm not sure that I'm still on topic, but hopefully, you find something interesting anyway!
🙈 😂
Im looking forward to the next one, thanks Uzair 😊
Such a fun, funny video! #teamNe
It’s not that we don’t get it, we’re (Si) thinking of examples that don’t fit, then trying to (Ne) come up with why, then Ti reworking the theory to incorporate the new why, then Fe trying to figure out how to respond in a way that will be received with a sufficient amount of understanding, humor, respect….and I’m blast last so….plus step two is never ending…
I dunno if that’s true but now I want to test it.
As MM ST (C) the longer a list gets the closer I am to falling right into a coma
Unless it's a list of what the ENTP will do to me in the bedroom
Yep I typed ChatGPT as Ti/Si. But when I ask it it tells me it’s Ni/Ti or Ti/Ni 🤔 Not very good at typing 😂
Why thank you later? Right now seems about perfect. Damn. That definition of what observers are trying to do ... I can't believe I've been into typology for over four years now and this is the first time these functions make sense. 🤦
Ok fine, ChatGPT may be Ne/Si, but he is also info dom to a fault 😅 Great vid!
Uhhh this is soooo good! Thanks!
I get the Se Ni axis. But I don't get Ne Si axis. I know Ne is targeting multiple concepts/ struture of the single data point where Ni and Se are looking for the most fundamental and important common. It would be helpful to see dumb and useful version of Ne Si examples.
It's coming soon....ish
Se talk doesn't sound like rambling unless you are actually rambling or the audience just doesn't get it.
Too many people chalk things up to rambling imo.
Just because you haven't made sense of it, doesn't mean that it doesn't make sense. 👍
100% i think if we can wrongly categorize things as rambling when we don't see the purpose (si or ni) of the function we don't have
عمدہ وضاحت
That's Te
That's dumb
Ne repeats phrases, that they heard from somebody else. Se does not do that. So they ramble, because they make their own stuff up in the real time
That's a really interesting insight I'm gonna look out for that. I've noticed Ne/sis love quoting movie references
Another great video dude! I'm still interested in collaborating so let me know your email and lets set something up!
@@justcallmejon22 hey man would love that, email me at jungbuckYT@gmail.com