Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 294 Posts

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Due to strong need for this thread, I have decided to make it.

No longer shall we be forced to ask our non-relationship questions in the relationship question thread!



Here is my first question:

Michael Pierce recently made a video about the differences between Se and Si. As always, his sources include (but are not limited to) Jung's Psychological Types.

Here is the video:


Do you, ISTJs, identify with the Si described in the video? I have my own opinions, but I don't want to post them yet because I don't want to bias or taint yours.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
I never have agreed that Si is somehow us viewing ourselves and objects as if we were an outside source. I know positionally I am at the center looking to the outside world.

When I look at an object, there isn't a mosiac of memories that comes to mind. Instead, I focus on a single aspect of the object (let's say stretchiness of a balloon) and it will remind me of a memory. Focus is important here, and I will only focus on ONE aspect of the object and it's associated memory. It is impossible to focus on different aspects of the objects, I would have to let go of that focus and grab onto another aspect of the object.

When something is new and we have not experienced it before, there is actually no focus in my mind. It's blank. I have to actively create and imagine it and it's very foggy, which is in contrast to very concrete things in my mind. This is what takes us so long when we experience new ideas or things. We are just recreating a new tangible aspect of that object or idea in our mind to have as a memory.
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 · (Edited)
I never have agreed that Si is somehow us viewing ourselves and objects as if we were an outside source. I know positionally I am at the center looking to the outside world.

When I look at an object, there isn't a mosiac of memories that comes to mind. Instead, I focus on a single aspect of the object (let's say stretchiness of a balloon) and it will remind me of a memory. Focus is important here, and I will only focus on ONE aspect of the object and it's associated memory. It is impossible to focus on different aspects of the objects, I would have to let go of that focus and grab onto another aspect of the object.

When something is new and we have not experienced it before, there is actually no focus in my mind. It's blank. I have to actively create and imagine it and it's very foggy, which is in contrast to very concrete things in my mind. This is what takes us so long when we experience new ideas or things. We are just recreating a new tangible aspect of that object or idea in our mind to have as a memory.
So it sounds like to me that with new concepts, because the entire thing is brand new, there is nothing to focus on yet--you have to lay down the building blocks first, which can no doubt take some time, before you can start chugging along?

I don't like the way the video describes Si, either, because I don't understand what he's talking about. Details of an object remind you of other objects you've seen with the same or similar details?

So like if you saw an orange, you might compare its size to a tennis ball or something? This physical data about the orange is similar to the physical data of a tennis ball and you easily make this connection when you see the orange?

Or am I misunderstanding?

So it sounds like to me you pay a TON of attention to physical detail. I tried doing this to a bag that is on my desk. . . it's just a brown paper bag with brown text on it.

I tried to relate it to other things I've seen before. and like how does one even relate a paper bag to something? It's a paper bag. So at first it was a struggle, but then I noticed the bag was brown and decided to relate that to other browns I've seen. And I decided the brown was probably pretty similar to graham crackers in color. And then once I made that connection, I couldn't stop seeing the bag as a giant graham cracker. Everytime I look at that bag now, I'm going to see a graham cracker.

How annoying is that?

Do you ever experience that?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
So it sounds like to me that with new concepts, because the entire thing is brand new, there is nothing to focus on yet--you have to lay down the building blocks first, which can no doubt take some time, before you can start chugging along?
Yes it takes time because all future thoughts about it will be very wrong. Which is why it has to set straight the first time.

I don't like the way the video describes Si, either, because I don't understand what he's talking about. Details of an object remind you of other objects you've seen with the same or similar details?
It depends on the object. Some objects do not have any memories associated with it. In your examples, an apple to me doesn't have any memories attached to it, BUT there is a perfect representation of what an apple is in my mind. All of the details of the apple in my mind are very exact, meaning it has to be a certain shade of red, a certain size, certain crispness when you bite into it, the skin of the apple has a certain tug to it, etc.

Now if an object has a memory associated with it, my mind will immediately jump to that memory. So for example, jasmine flowers remind me of my mom because she planted them.

If you want an exercise for Si, look for distinct physical differences between objects. So a McIntosh apple has these characteristics, while a Granny Smith has these. A Granny Smith is firm enough to withstand more cooking, it has a certain tartness, it's skin is the thickest of all apples, etc. Things that are vastly different from each other are very easy to distinguish, but the similar ones are more difficult. Similar things are what take the most time to figure out. You're constantly comparing and contrasting these things with other objects you've seen.

It goes beyond objects, but it's the easiest to explain.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
So it sounds like to me that with new concepts, because the entire thing is brand new, there is nothing to focus on yet--you have to lay down the building blocks first, which can no doubt take some time, before you can start chugging along?

I don't like the way the video describes Si, either, because I don't understand what he's talking about. Details of an object remind you of other objects you've seen with the same or similar details?

So like if you saw an orange, you might compare its size to a tennis ball or something? This physical data about the orange is similar to the physical data of a tennis ball and you easily make this connection when you see the orange?

Or am I misunderstanding?

So it sounds like to me you pay a TON of attention to physical detail. I tried doing this to a bag that is on my desk. . . it's just a brown paper bag with brown text on it.

I tried to relate it to other things I've seen before. and like how does one even relate a paper bag to something? It's a paper bag. So at first it was a struggle, but then I noticed the bag was brown and decided to relate that to other browns I've seen. And I decided the brown was probably pretty similar to graham crackers in color. And then once I made that connection, I couldn't stop seeing the bag as a giant graham cracker. Everytime I look at that bag now, I'm going to see a graham cracker.

How annoying is that?

Do you ever experience that?
I'm just gonna butt in here. Being a Si user I'd advise you read up on Plato's theory of form and the ideal of form. He basically says that every object exists in a perfect form in a separate dimension (the world of ideals) and that objects around us are lesser than their ideal form. Si (at least the way I find myself using it and understanding it) is something like this. When I see an orange I will compare the orange to other oranges I've seen (it happens almost subcon.) and decide what kind of orange I'm seeing. It works better/is more useful when instead of an orange we have an overall experience to compare. I think it's a matter of comparison if anything. Hope it helped.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
767 Posts
Question 2: what is your opinion on the "duty fulfiller" and "inspector" nicknames??
More difficult to answer. I agree with both of those nicknames. We do "inspect" things to learn about them, but "duty fulfiller" is harder to explain. It might be we want to maintain things according to standards, but I can't explain the pursuit of it. We could very well let things slide, but we don't.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
738 Posts
For the video description of Si: That sounds about right to me. Also I've been getting some Se development lately, and with the video description it makes sense some of the difficulties I've been having.

For the ISTJ title of duty fulfiller or inspector: Seems accurate to me, I fill in where needed in everyday life, and I can analyze rather well also.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Do you, ISTJs, identify with the Si described in the video? I have my own opinions, but I don't want to post them yet because I don't want to bias or taint yours.
Not that you have to or anything, but I think it'd be fun if you asked this question in the "Ask an ISFJ" thread as well. Or give me permission to ask it? I watched that video yesterday along with a couple of his other ones and I'd love to answer this question, but I don't want to step on anyone's toes by answering in this thread.


Aside from that, I have a question for ISTJs. I was looking somewhere on the forum a few days ago and a person (I don't remember who, sorry!) said that they assumed ISTJs would make great or more natural scientists, I think than INTJs or something to that effect, since you have the combination of Si and Te. Do you personally feel that you have an aptitude for science and if so, do you attribute it to your Si/Te combination?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Question 2: what is your opinion on the "duty fulfiller" and "inspector" nicknames??
I guess both names are accurate, but I think they can have slightly negative connotations unlike the other types. For example, "The Duty Fulfillers" can make it seem like we live just to fulfill the duties provided us by society, like robots in an assembly line. Actually, we don't fulfill our duties because our tunnel vision told us to. We can be just as selfish and lazy as any other type, with desires of our own. The difference is we choose, even when we don't want to and might lose out, to do our duty. We feel, if we don't, no one else will (then chaos). I believe we do it in an almost altruistic way, because it's right, responsible, or mature. Keeping our commitments for the greater good, so to speak. Maybe being called "The Dependables," "The Do-Gooders," or even "The Dutifuls" would sound less negative. Yes, we are dutiful overall, but there is a lot more to us. Other type names seem to encompass much more, like the Scientists, Artists, Nurturers, etc. Then again, soldiers could be seen as fulfilling their duty (risking their lives for the greater good), and that is generally looked at as honorable. Someone's gotta do it.

Inspector also sounds like someone who looks down his nose and meticulously judges other's work. It can have a negative connotation, like "Oh no, the inspector's coming! Everybody in your places!" Maybe a name with a better connotation would be nice, like "Those with an Eye for Detail" or "The Observers."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
136 Posts
Here is my first question:

Michael Pierce recently made a video about the differences between Se and Si. As always, his sources include (but are not limited to) Jung's Psychological Types.

Do you, ISTJs, identify with the Si described in the video?
Sort of, but I don't always get the out of body thing. (Although it does happen in a hyper-aware state I'll describe below).

A long-winded Si description.

When something is new and we have not experienced it before, there is actually no focus in my mind. It's blank. I have to actively create and imagine it and it's very foggy, which is in contrast to very concrete things in my mind. This is what takes us so long when we experience new ideas or things. We are just recreating a new tangible aspect of that object or idea in our mind to have as a memory.
This has been my experience with completely new things, too. I have to consciously, slowly create some kind of image in my mind, since there is nothing previous to draw on. We need our facts and past experience to make up for a lack of intuition. Without them, we're lost and have to slowly work our way out.

In the reverse situation, however, we can have an advantage. Give us something we've had experience with, and we will recall the information much faster because it's unconscious. For example, if shown the red balloon and asked where they have seen it before, people without Si might have to consciously retrieve the memory. For me, the balloon is the memory. I almost literally cannot see it without related memories and associations as a reference point. They immediately spring to mind. This is probably why Si (at least ISTJs) love facts and have great memories. That is our sight and speed. I see and understand the world by referencing things I see to other things (the more things you know, the better). It's like recognizing you're happy because you've been sad. Some N types seem to miraculously know that they are "happy" without having ever felt "sad" to give comparison.

"That is like that, that isn't like that, etc." I try to make rules for the way things should be sometimes, which is not always good. "I did it this way last time" doesn't always work, which I'm noticing in physics class. When first learning to solve a type of problem, you can't just use memories of how you solved similar problems, because certain things would have been arbitrary in the previous problems and not related to the current one. Memories can lead you astray. You have to understand the concept as something independent first, and that is slower for me. Once I've gotten the concept, though, I can use the understanding to better assess which memories I should look back to and which aren't so good.

I watch Jeopardy a lot. Sometimes I only need the first three words of a fifteen word clue to know the answer. It's not the question I'm listening for. As soon as I hear a certain buzz word, everything I associate with it springs to mind, and one of those associations is usually the answer. I don't have to go digging for facts/memories a lot of the time. They are a packaged deal with every object I can possibly think of. It can actually feel like sensory overload. Sometimes, I become hyper-aware of my surroundings and can't even walk down a hall without noticing unnecessary things like, "I'm walking down a hall. The ceiling here is wood instead of plaster, and it's paneled sort of like the deck at home." Sometimes, I wish I could just walk down a hall and think, "Gotta get to class." I'm not always that hyper-aware thankfully. It's usually more like a whisper. I'll see a wood paneled ceiling and get a whispery, association kind of feeling related to decks--an unconscious relation.

Generally, I feel like Se might walk into a kitchen and say, "It's bright in here." Si would say, "It's bright(er than our kitchen at home) in here." The part in parentheses is not said aloud. It's sort of unconscious, but the relation is what allowed us to notice the brightness in the first place. I don't just see brightness at face value. Maybe some sort of N would say, "Oh, here's the kitchen. What's there to eat?"


Wow. Si is hard to explain, even as someone who has it. I hope that sort of made sense. Just my personal experience of Si.
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
 
Sort of, but I don't always get the out of body thing. (Although it does happen in a hyper-aware state I'll describe below).

A long-winded Si description.



This has been my experience with completely new things, too. I have to consciously, slowly create some kind of image in my mind, since there is nothing previous to draw on.

In the reverse situation, however, we can have an advantage. Give us something we've had some experience with, and we will recall the information much faster because it's unconscious. For example, if shown the red balloon and asked where they have seen it before, people without Si might have to consciously retrieve the memory. For me, the balloon is the memory. I almost literally cannot see it without related memories and associations as a reference point. They immediately spring to mind. I see and understand the world by referencing things I see to other things, like recognizing you're happy because you've been sad. Some N types seem to miraculously know that they are "happy" without having ever felt "sad" to give comparison.

"That is like that, that isn't like that, etc." I try to make rules for the way things should be sometimes, which is not always good. "I did this this is way last time" doesn't always work, which I'm noticing in physics class. When first learning to solve a type of problem, you can't just use memories of how you solved similar problems, because certain things would have been arbitrary in the previous problems and not related to the current one. Memories can lead you astray. You have to understand the concept as something independent first, and that is slower for me. Once I've gotten the concept, though, I can use the understanding to better assess which memories I should look back to and which aren't so good.

I watch Jeopardy a lot. Sometimes I only need the first three words of a fifteen word clue to know the answer. It's not the question I'm listening for. As soon as I hear a certain buzz word, everything I associate with it springs to mind, and one of those associations is usually the answer. I don't have to go digging for facts/memories a lot of the time. They are a packaged deal with every object I can possibly think of. It can actually feel like sensory overload. Sometimes, I become hyper-aware of my surroundings and can't even walk down a hall without noticing unnecessary things like, "I'm walking down a hall. The ceiling here is wood instead of plaster, and it's paneled sort of like the deck at home." Sometimes, I wish I could just walk down a hall and think, "Gotta get to class." I'm not always that hyper-aware thankfully. It's usually more like a whisper. I'll see a wood paneled ceiling and get a whispery, association kind of feeling related to decks--an unconscious relation.

Generally, I feel like Se might walk into a kitchen and say, "It's bright in here." Si would say, "It's bright(er than our kitchen at home) in here." The part in parentheses is not said aloud. It's sort of unconscious, but the relation is what allowed us to notice the brightness in the first place. I don't just see brightness at face value. Maybe some sort of N would say, "Oh, here's the kitchen. What's there to eat?"


Wow. Si is hard to explain, even as someone who has it. I hope that sort of made sense. Just my personal experience of Si.
That's really amazing. It makes me think you would be a really good chef.

When I see an orange I will compare the orange to other oranges I've seen (it happens almost subcon.) and decide what kind of orange I'm seeing. It works better/is more useful when instead of an orange we have an overall experience to compare. I think it's a matter of comparison if anything. Hope it helped.
do you find this benefits your life in any way?
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
I have another question :)




This girl is very much the analytical mastermind (ISTJ) than the intuitive mastermind (INTJ).

Her strong affinity for data, figures, statistical anaylses, studies is so much more indicative of Si/Te preference.

I'm sure she's a very bright young lady, but it is evident that her primary way of observing the world is not intuition.

Thoughts, @ ISTJs?

@Greyhart
You're totally allowed to tell me I'm wrong if you see convincing evidence.

Actually, everyone is allowed to tell me I'm wrong.

@westlose
I haven't tried to visual type her, but I do notice that her style is very similar to that of other STJ women on YouTube. I'm not in any way trying to say that that's relevant and must mean that she's an STJ, but it's just a pattern I noticed is all.
 

·
Registered
SLI, ISTJ, 1w9, 164
Joined
·
2,087 Posts
I have another question :)
This girl is definitely Te-Fi user in some order, nor necessarily IxTJ though.
TONS of statistics and facts, but practically no analysis on them or any sort of personal opinion.

She simply states INTJs are like this and that and whatnot, but I don't see any logical reasoning behind, especially taking into account that many so-called facts she provides are questionable at best. This seems weird standpoint from a logical dominant or auxiliary person.
 

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #16 ·
She simply states INTJs are like this and that and whatnot, but I don't see any logical reasoning behind, especially taking into account that many so-called facts she provides are questionable at best. This seems weird standpoint from a logical dominant or auxiliary person.
When she speaks, she is pulling from things she read, such as books (always listed in the description) or studies which she mentions in the video. She mentions the books in the video, too, sometimes.

You're right, she isn't really giving much opinion (if any) about the data she is pointing out. Moreso just spitting it out like a printer.
 

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
I never have agreed that Si is somehow us viewing ourselves and objects as if we were an outside source. I know positionally I am at the center looking to the outside world.

When I look at an object, there isn't a mosiac of memories that comes to mind. Instead, I focus on a single aspect of the object (let's say stretchiness of a balloon) and it will remind me of a memory. Focus is important here, and I will only focus on ONE aspect of the object and it's associated memory. It is impossible to focus on different aspects of the objects, I would have to let go of that focus and grab onto another aspect of the object.

When something is new and we have not experienced it before, there is actually no focus in my mind. It's blank. I have to actively create and imagine it and it's very foggy, which is in contrast to very concrete things in my mind. This is what takes us so long when we experience new ideas or things. We are just recreating a new tangible aspect of that object or idea in our mind to have as a memory.
WOW, this is an amazing explanation. Is it me or it sounds a lot like Ni but turned around from concepts-physical to physical-concepts? :shocked:
 
  • Like
Reactions: Morphyous

·
Registered
ILI
Joined
·
5,652 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
WOW, this is an amazing explanation. Is it me or it sounds a lot like Ni but turned around from concepts-physical to physical-concepts? :shocked:
Yes, in function it does seem very similar to Ni.

Actually Ni/Se seems identical to Si/Ne in function--with reversed foci.

That's my current understanding, anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
326 Posts
do you find this benefits your life in any way?
It has its pros and cons. First of all it's... too bad that everything has to fall under this comparison so I'm hardly ever able to take the thing as is. It's particularly problematic when bad impressions have been imprinted deep in the mind because every situation that resembles them gets triggered automatically. On the other hand, it goes well with my intuition and I believe it certainly helps when making art.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Greyhart

·
Registered
IEE
Joined
·
6,559 Posts
Sort of, but I don't always get the out of body thing. (Although it does happen in a hyper-aware state I'll describe below).

A long-winded Si description.

[snip]
That was amazing. I feel enlightened.


This girl is definitely Te-Fi user in some order, nor necessarily IxTJ though.
TONS of statistics and facts, but practically no analysis on them or any sort of personal opinion.

She simply states INTJs are like this and that and whatnot, but I don't see any logical reasoning behind, especially taking into account that many so-called facts she provides are questionable at best. This seems weird standpoint from a logical dominant or auxiliary person.
I was going to type exactly that. I'm not even sure why did she decide to frame her videos like that. Compare videos to this thread - regardless of what type she is, it doesn't really explain anything. Somehow I still get an impression that she is on a Ne-Si axis vs Ni-Se even if we are looking at IxFP possibility.

It has its pros and cons. First of all it's... too bad that everything has to fall under this comparison so I'm hardly ever able to take the thing as is. It's particularly problematic when bad impressions have been imprinted deep in the mind because every situation that resembles them gets triggered automatically. On the other hand, it goes well with my intuition and I believe it certainly helps when making art.
My ISFJ friend is a much better artist than I am in any field really. She wins on patience and attention to detail (as well as limb coordination tbh) while I flop on it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CosmicYeti
1 - 20 of 294 Posts
Top