Personality Cafe banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,276 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I've been reading Psychological Types to educate myself on Jung's cognitive functions (as I prefer to always start at the source), and had a question regarding Si that I hoped someone could clear up for me.

In Understanding Yourself and Others: An Introduction to the Personality Type Code, Linda Berens and Dario Nardi described Si thusly:

Introverted Sensing (Si)

Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference--for example, noticing that some food doesn't taste the same or is saltier than it usually is. Introverted Sensing is also operating when we see someone who reminds us of someone else. Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself. Then the image can be so strong, our body responds as if reliving the experience. The process also involves reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience. With introverted Sensing, there is often great attention to detail and getting a clear picture of goals and objectives and what is to happen. There can be a oneness with ageless customs that help sustain civilization and culture and protect what is known and long-lasting, even while what is reliable changes.
This is how I've seen Si described here, and it's how it's described in Nardi's cognitive function test. Yet reading Personality Types, I don't see how any of the above was derived from what Jung actually wrote.

INTROVERTED SENSATION TYPE: Like all introverts, the introverted sensation type stands aloof from external objects, immersing himself in his own psychic sensations. He considers the world to be banal and uninteresting in comparison with his inner sensations. He has difficulty expressing himself except through art, but what he produces tends to be devoid of any significance. To others he may appear to be calm, passive, and self-controlled, when actually he is not very interesting because he is deficient in thought and feeling.
(Calvin S. Hall and Vernon J. Nordby, A Primer of Jungian Psychology [New York: Taplinger, 1973], p. 103)
So my question is, can someone direct me to any of Jung's writings in which he talked about Si which matches the description provided by Berens and Nardi, or is their description something they came up with that Jung himself didn't actually say? When looking at my own cognitive function test results to see how it applies to myself, I get:

Cognitive Process Level of Development (Preference, Skill and Frequency of Use)
extraverted Sensing (Se) ******************************** (23.4)
limited use
introverted Sensing (Si) *************************** (28.5)
average use
extraverted Intuiting (Ne) ************************* (22.6)
limited use
introverted Intuiting (Ni) ***************************************** (40.4)
excellent use
extraverted Thinking (Te) ******************************* (33.6)
good use
introverted Thinking (Ti) *********************************** (39.6)
excellent use
extraverted Feeling (Fe) *************** (19.3)
limited use
introverted Feeling (Fi) ******************************* (32.4)
good use

However, the ranking for Si depends on what exactly Si is. If the first description is Si, then I can see how it's approximate ranking would be where it is. However, if going by Jung's description, then that ranking would be incorrect, and it should be last, where it would be expected to be with it being INTJ's shadow inferior function. So I'd also like to know what Si is for my own self-edification as well. Thanks in advance to whomever could shed some light on this.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
Yea the Nardi/Berens definitions are much more MBTI than Jung. This is actually the case with all the functions. MBTI redefined the functions to fit their ideas and the Sensation and Intuition functions in MBTI are really different than Jung's ideas

Essentially Jung proposes Introverted Sensation as just subjective perception via the five senses. Where how you see something takes precedent over the actual qualities of the object. That's it. A Se-type takes the object at face value, the Si-type also perceives the object via his five senses, but mines something out of that experience that only he/she can know and relies on that rather than the surface qualities of the object. So the example I always use is Van Gogh as a Si-type, clearly seeing things his own way (Jung is the one who speaks of Van Gogh as a Si-type) and Ansel Adams who is interested in capturing the world as it exists without projecting anything from within onto it as a Se-type.

MBTI on the other hand began to associate all kinds of stuff with Si like axioms, traditionalism, conservatism, and the like, that really doesn't have much to do with Si (but remember they are trying to quantify behavior not psychology).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
MBTI on the other hand began to associate all kinds of stuff with Si like axioms, traditionalism, conservatism, and the like, that really doesn't have much to do with Si (but remember they are trying to quantify behavior not psychology).
My roommate is an ISTJ, and he was always confused by these descriptions as well, he didn't identify with them very much. He did score high on Si though, so does that indicate the test actually measures some of what Si really is, instead of 'identifying with ageless customs'?
 
  • Like
Reactions: MilkyWay132

·
Registered
Joined
·
585 Posts
An introverted sensor subjectively perceives through the five senses. And given that most of his makeup comes through the senses, then by definition the subjective slant on his present sensations must have come from his past sensations.

Alternatively, I guess the subjective slant could derive at least partly from one of the other three functions. But the above explanation is the logic behind the definition you posted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
773 Posts
this is how i view Si(or some of the major themes of it):
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/48755-about-si.html

one thing you need to remember is that the 8 function model is not 100%compatible with jungs work. jungs idea of introversion and extraversion of functions and how they work together is totally different and involves 4 functions, S T N F and the orientation of the function is about whether you trust the subjective or objective perspective more, thus using it as a starting point, ending point and the determining point. so if you are Si type, you use S and find the subjective point(introverted) of view more trusted, thus you use Si, not Se. also the thing with introverted functions(which doesent exist in 8 function model), is that they are able to perceive external world, for example S is a perception via senses, both Si and Se are, but introverted attitude is abstracting one, meaning that it removes irrelevant things from perception, thus creating subjective view of it. functions in extraverted attitude on the other hand try to find things to add that are in line with the external world, thus have an objective attitude(but you need to keep in mind that even this is by some definitions an subjective process, as it relies on the persons perceptions, reasoning etc, its just that jung defined objectivity with being in line with the external world).

in order for you to get 8 function model to work, you need to redefine the basics of functions(on the surface they still seem similar) and in my opinion, this leads to crappy system, which doesent offer as much of insight into human psyche as jungs system does. imo MBTI and other models derived from jungs work are just typology for dummies, easier to get, but doesent give you as much as jungs system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,402 Posts
Si understands reality as what it perceives. What it perceives can be very different from the commonly accepted point of view; Van Gogh drew what he saw, but the majority of us don't see billions of non-black in the night sky. To Si, that doesn't matter. If they perceive the sky as being all these colors but black, that's the best evidence anyone could have. No, better; it's reality. A previous attempt of mine at rationalizing this:

If I am aware of something, it exists.
If I am not aware of something, it doesn't factor into my perception of reality until I am aware since I, well, can't see any of its effects because that would make me aware.
If I can't be aware of something, it doesn't exist. If it affected me at all I would be aware of it (even if not by name). Claims of things outside the senses or "mortal comprehension" are therefore bullshit and irrelevant
If there isn't anything else that you can perceive nor can affect anything you see (like a black hole's effect on gravity, or footprints of an invisible person), it doesn't exist in the reality that you can touch and feel and live in and be affected by. And other than weird intellectual playing around, is there really anything you can do with a "reality" outside of that?
Yes, there may be something completely out of my perception. But I can have no idea what, which means that it's just a motivation for learning. Darkness itself does not have any properties other than the absence of light. You can feel around in the darkness and discover objects, but there is no properties of the darkness itself than can tell you anything about its contents, assuming total darkness here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
386 Posts
A previous attempt of mine at rationalizing this:
If there isn't anything else that you can perceive nor can affect anything you see (like a black hole's effect on gravity, or footprints of an invisible person), it doesn't exist in the reality that you can touch and feel and live in and be affected by. And other than weird intellectual playing around, is there really anything you can do with a "reality" outside of that?
Yes, there may be something completely out of my perception. But I can have no idea what, which means that it's just a motivation for learning. Darkness itself does not have any properties other than the absence of light. You can feel around in the darkness and discover objects, but there is no properties of the darkness itself than can tell you anything about its contents, assuming total darkness here.
I've been chewing on these two for a while, and was suddenly curious if you would be able to give me an example of how Se will handle these situations differently than Si will. The invisible man looks like a particularly interesting situation to compare Si and Se.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Owfin

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I've been chewing on these two for a while, and was suddenly curious if you would be able to give me an example of how Se will handle these situations differently than Si will. The invisible man looks like a particularly interesting situation to compare Si and Se.
A Se-type would deal with these issues through Ni.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
MBTI on the other hand began to associate all kinds of stuff with Si like axioms, traditionalism, conservatism, and the like, that really doesn't have much to do with Si (but remember they are trying to quantify behavior not psychology).
I suspect they were probably misunderstanding this statement about Si types from Psychological Types:

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness.
In a twisted and misconstrued reading, one might get the idea that inferior Ne could lead to an attachment to tradition. It's really a stretch though.
 

·
MOTM Jan 2012
Joined
·
6,514 Posts
I really think that Si being misconstrued as traditionalism did not originally come from Briggs Myers, but came from the mixing of MBTI with Keirsey's temperament theory. In Gifts Differing, tradition is not mentioned once in the Si-types section. In Please Understand Me II, the Guardian temperament is the epitome of traditionalism. I think that's where the stereotype comes from, and the temperament theory keeps getting thrown in to the point where MBTI descriptions say the same thing now.
 

·
MOTM August 2012
Joined
·
3,467 Posts
I suspect they were probably misunderstanding this statement about Si types from Psychological Types:

In a twisted and misconstrued reading, one might get the idea that inferior Ne could lead to an attachment to tradition. It's really a stretch though.
Well no this is exactly right. That if a Si-type liked to stick to what they knew, it would likely come from their Inferior Ne generally throwing out a littany of negative possibilities. Most of us non Si-doms would probably stick to what we knew too in such a circumstance. The problem is rather than looking at the sum-total of the person typologically (Si+Inferior Ne) Myers simply says "this is Si" (but surely not every instance of Si results in this. ENFPs and ENTPs traditionalists?)
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top