Personality Cafe banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Let me explain the title, because pseudo conspiracy theory is not the right set of words, but I am having trouble thinking of another more descriptive set of words right now.

By pseudo conspiracy theory I mean when you see something that is eerily similar to a thing in the past, and because of its intense relation to that previous object and the similarities in internal sensation produced, you wrongly assume that they have the same essence. You may cherry pick data that proves your point and disregard data that does not as simply insignificant or anomolies. I'll give an example since I know this is all abstract speech.

You meet John. John is eerily similar to your dad. The introverted sensation produced is so similar that you devalue John and feel like you are talking to your dad instead. You may test a couple answers to make sure, and the answers were the same so it feels like, in essence, you are talking to your dad. Things that John does that are the same as your dad simply strengthen this view, while John's doing of things that are different than your dad are disregarded as insignificant or such a minute difference that they don't matter.

To finish this post off I'd like to ask, is introverted sensation actually the internal sensation or is it the subjective experience of external sensation. Introverted sensation in the former refers to the giddiness produced from a new movie coming out that you want to see or the internal effect produced by the movie when watching it(sadness). Introverted sensation in the latter is similarities based on the experience of the object(spotting an area on a cactus that reminds you of a cactus your mother used to have on a windowsill).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,183 Posts
Answering only for myself... others may have different experiences.

I really don't ever have "he/she/this reminds me of" experiences... in fact I often scratch my head when that sort of thing is attributed to Si.

Rather than randomly finding similarities, my Si is much more attuned to detecting differences when similarity is logically expected. Similarities usually pass unnoticed. Differences jarringly jump out and grab my attention like a hammer hitting my thumb.

Relative to your closing question... I'm not sure I can relate directly to either scenario. To me, introverted sensation has always been about forming archetypes from my experiences. These archetypes set expectations of what certain things are or should be... when they or something similar are encountered again the Si comparator subconsciously goes into action. I'm not consciously aware of the process, but when differences are found, what I call a "Si-alarm" goes off, which is much like a "fight-or-flight" adrenaline rush. Contrary to some stereotypes, this does NOT mean that anything I encounter that's different or changed from my archetype is necessarily "wrong"... it merely alerts me of the difference so I know where to focus my attention to better understand the object.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Answering only for myself... others may have different experiences.

I really don't ever have "he/she/this reminds me of" experiences... in fact I often scratch my head when that sort of thing is attributed to Si.

Rather than randomly finding similarities, my Si is much more attuned to detecting differences when similarity is logically expected. Similarities usually pass unnoticed. Differences jarringly jump out and grab my attention like a hammer hitting my thumb.

Relative to your closing question... I'm not sure I can relate directly to either scenario. To me, introverted sensation has always been about forming archetypes from my experiences. These archetypes set expectations of what certain things are or should be... when they or something similar are encountered again the Si comparator subconsciously goes into action. I'm not consciously aware of the process, but when differences are found, what I call a "Si-alarm" goes off, which is much like a "fight-or-flight" adrenaline rush. Contrary to some stereotypes, this does NOT mean that anything I encounter that's different or changed from my archetype is necessarily "wrong"... it merely alerts me of the difference so I know where to focus my attention to better understand the object.
Do you have trouble relating to Jung's original introverted sensing descripion then?

You can find that here in case you have never read it before: http://personalitycafe.com/istj-articles/76890-introverted-sensation-type-si-dom-described-jung.html

I feel as though jung's original descriptions are really accurate since...well mbti is based on Jung. Jung describes how an objects subjective unconscious image can be so analogous to the object that the individual behaves in accordance with the unconscious image instead. This is what led me to the original post. The unconscious image should be something experienced before I assumed. If you are creating archetypes from your experiences are you saying that the archetype goes beyond the experience? If it is just the experience that you had is that not the same as what I was suggesting was the unconscious image(the prior experience). Also if you don't relate to the OP does that mean it is an individualized basis, i.e. you spot differences between a person at time x and y but you don't compare person x to person z.

I do think that similarities being logically expected is something I relate to. I have trouble with Fi doms because of this actually, as Fi doms seem to think you have put them into a box by saying they behave this way and it is wrong to respond with distress or questioning when they do something different. However, from an outside perspective...you can't understand someone from any angle other than what they have done in the past and what you can imagine their personality might do in the future. It is logical to assume that what they have done in the past is also how they will behave in the future because their is no data available that would lead us to expect something new that is different from their past. It's not pigeonholing them...it's fundamentally how you understand and expect phenomena to occur. It should be the Fi doms responsibility to make it clear who they are as a person in their entirety if they want others to be unsurprised.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
I relate to what @jcal said. In practice, the conscious awareness of Si's output is very much difference-orientated. The similarities are knowns and they can, relatively speaking, be trusted (and left alone). It's the new stuff I need to focus on because it's unfamiliar and while ever that is the case, it needs processing so I actually feel like I know what this new thing is.

I find Jung relatable for the most part, and, if I get the chance, I'll return to this thread and post more on my interpretation of Jung, but I always think most of what he says about Introverted Sensation is largely ignored by online communities. Or maybe it's just interpreted vastly differently to how I interpret it, I'm not sure.

In summary, Si starts from a viewpoint that the world is over-intense and this must be compensated. This is achieved in a few ways according to Jung - by detaching the self from the object and focusing on the impact on the self instead. The perception then becomes about the impact rather than the object. In addition to that, it reduces the impact to a less intense level and balances/stabilises it somewhat. And further, this 'balancing' process works to reduce the present 'in the moment' intensity by viewing the object as a product of its past which extrapolates into it's future (i.e. the expectation). Jung also mentions that Si takes in all the different aspects of detail of the 'impact'.

Going back to your original post, the pseudo effect you talk about isn't something I've experienced - unless I have and I'm completely unaware of it. My attention to detail is such, it is an incredibly incredibly rare event that I see two things as being similar. It irritates the hell out of others because it comes across as picky because I can't accept that a mandarin and a clementine (for want of a better example) are roughly the same and interchangeable. Hell, ok. It is picky. But it still irritates me that supermarkets sell them both, under the same packaging, as 'easy peelers'.

People in particular are just different from each other; there's always something. And there's a lot of acceptance with Si, it just perceives and says 'well, that's how it is'. There isn't really a concluding part to it until you start using Te (or Fe) to take it further. It just sort of observes and decides what it means to/for you.

I think the last question in your original post is difficult to define. As Jung pointed out, knowing what will make that impact has no way of prediction, and I think he's correct. And I think the impact is almost limitless in what it could be. My perception of something is how it makes me feel, and I don't use feel in the Jungian sense here. It's just the effect it has on me. I would say, for the most part it seems to be about data from the senses from the external world. But if the feeling is one of nostalgia because something reminds you of something as you suggest, well isn't that just a different version of the same thing? It's an impact on the self, that feeling. But I also think the expectation aspect does play it's part here. If something is unexpected the impact is more intense than something expected because it requires further processing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I relate to what @jcal said. In practice, the conscious awareness of Si's output is very much difference-orientated. The similarities are knowns and they can, relatively speaking, be trusted (and left alone). It's the new stuff I need to focus on because it's unfamiliar and while ever that is the case, it needs processing so I actually feel like I know what this new thing is.

I find Jung relatable for the most part, and, if I get the chance, I'll return to this thread and post more on my interpretation of Jung, but I always think most of what he says about Introverted Sensation is largely ignored by online communities. Or maybe it's just interpreted vastly differently to how I interpret it, I'm not sure.

In summary, Si starts from a viewpoint that the world is over-intense and this must be compensated. This is achieved in a few ways according to Jung - by detaching the self from the object and focusing on the impact on the self instead. The perception then becomes about the impact rather than the object. In addition to that, it reduces the impact to a less intense level and balances/stabilises it somewhat. And further, this 'balancing' process works to reduce the present 'in the moment' intensity by viewing the object as a product of its past which extrapolates into it's future (i.e. the expectation). Jung also mentions that Si takes in all the different aspects of detail of the 'impact'.

Going back to your original post, the pseudo effect you talk about isn't something I've experienced - unless I have and I'm completely unaware of it. My attention to detail is such, it is an incredibly incredibly rare event that I see two things as being similar. It irritates the hell out of others because it comes across as picky because I can't accept that a mandarin and a clementine (for want of a better example) are roughly the same and interchangeable. Hell, ok. It is picky. But it still irritates me that supermarkets sell them both, under the same packaging, as 'easy peelers'.

People in particular are just different from each other; there's always something. And there's a lot of acceptance with Si, it just perceives and says 'well, that's how it is'. There isn't really a concluding part to it until you start using Te (or Fe) to take it further. It just sort of observes and decides what it means to/for you.

I think the last question in your original post is difficult to define. As Jung pointed out, knowing what will make that impact has no way of prediction, and I think he's correct. And I think the impact is almost limitless in what it could be. My perception of something is how it makes me feel, and I don't use feel in the Jungian sense here. It's just the effect it has on me. I would say, for the most part it seems to be about data from the senses from the external world. But if the feeling is one of nostalgia because something reminds you of something as you suggest, well isn't that just a different version of the same thing? It's an impact on the self, that feeling. But I also think the expectation aspect does play it's part here. If something is unexpected the impact is more intense than something expected because it requires further processing.
I guess I'm confused as to what "the impact" even is. He references it at the extremes when he talk about the object being analogous with the unconscious image. The following is the paragraph in question to help me understand what exactly it is that Si is doing.

Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist. Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality. When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality alienating subjectivity of this type. But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula-all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
I guess I'm confused as to what "the impact" even is. He references it at the extremes when he talk about the object being analogous with the unconscious image.
From what I recall of Jung without going back over it, I don't think he really goes into it too much. Though it's understandable to me because I don't think there's an easy way to summarise it because it varies so much. It's just simply the feature/detail of the object that makes the most impact on you. And the greatest impact is typically the thing which you haven't previously experienced.

As an example, the impact of a food could be the level of spiciness, for example. What you need to remember though, is that for a Si dom with a lot of experience of spiciness, they have a lot of awareness of what 'very hot' means compared to 'mildly hot' etc. Provided the hot/spicy element is expected, the main "impact" is as likely to be something different, like the number of vegetables in the dish - so, it's a "oh, there's a lot more green beans in this dish than previous similar dishes of same levels of hot/spiciness". So the immediate perception of the dish is that it's full of green beans (as this is unusual) with the Si dom at the opposite side of the table having a perception of "this is really hot compared to all hot dishes I've previously tasted" (because that's what's unusual for them). Again, it's a cross-check rather than a 'this reminds me of this'. I've seen it described as being like quality control and I like that analogy.

I don't know if that answers the question or whether that helps. But I'll review the extract you posted with comments - though I agree this is one of the weirder bits.

Seen from the outside, it looks as though the effect of the object did not penetrate into the subject at all. This impression is correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious and intercept the effect of the object. The intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to be shielding himself directly from all objective influences. In more serious cases, such a protective defence actually does exist.
Ok, he jumps about a bit here. So he touches on how ISJs don't typically provide a lot of outward reaction. I think this partly comes from the 'dampening' process he goes on to talk about later. Is he not saying here that it's simply that the kind of properties of the object itself (that Se thrives on) are almost ignored because they are considered unimportant, or rather, too overwhelming? The over-whelming/over intense nature of the object itself is too much and Si therefore detaches and focuses on the subjective element. A detachment/withdrawal in a self-preservatory sense? But because the subjective element is internalised, you lose the externalised reaction?

Even with only a slight increase in the power of the unconscious, the subjective component of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the influence of the object. If the object is a person, he feels completely devalued, while the subject has an illusory conception of reality, which in pathological cases goes so far that he is no longer able to distinguish between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction reaches the vanishing point only in near-psychotic states, yet long before that the subjective perception can influence thought, feeling, and action to an excessive degree despite the fact that the object is clearly seen in all its reality.
He notes here that the full effect is only apparent in near-psychotic states, so the full level of detachment I think is difficult to interpret. I can only interpret this particular example, relating to the person, as being that it becomes not about the human on the other end, but rather about some pre-conceived impression that is held by the Si dominant individual. Likewise, I'm not entirely sure what he's trying to get at so much here but in a non-psychotic state, I imagine it to be a stubbornness where you loose sight of what the object is actually doing in that moment, and focus on what you previously conceived the object to be. So with a person, you might have had a negative experience with them previously, and they become that negative experience. You latch onto it and can't shake it off, irrespective of whatever they are doing right now, even though you can observe what they're doing right now (which may be a positive experience).

When its influence does succeed in penetrating into the subject because of its special intensity or because of its complete analogy with the unconscious image even the normal type will be compelled to act in accordance with the unconscious model. Such action has an illusory character unrelated to objective reality and is extremely disconcerting. It instantly reveals the reality alienating subjectivity of this type.
It's difficult for me to interpret Jung's perception here as the disconcerting nature is something that would effect the non-Si dom. Sometimes if I'm upset about something, I will try and justify things to myself in the manner that, 'well, I know this to be true as it's how it effects me' as if that's the only explanation necessary. There is a constant inner belief that my perception is what it is, and no one can argue with that, so I can be defensive if this isn't accepted. I don't expect anyone to agree or perceive in the same way though. But I consider it a real property of what is personal to the self. You see it a lot in ISTJs that we like to make decisions independently, without influence from others, and we tend to like to work out what something means to us before we listen to others' views on something.

But when the influence of the object does not break through completely, it is met with well-intentioned neutrality, disclosing little sympathy yet constantly striving to soothe and adjust. The too low is raised a little, the too high is lowered, enthusiasm is damped down, extravagance restrained, and anything out of the ordinary reduced to the right formula-all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds.
So when something isn't high intensity, it's pretty neutral and seeks balance and dampening. This specifically is the act which keeps the high intensity at bay, which I mentioned in my earlier post. In practice, one of the things I find I do in terms of situations is that I look for what needs doing that isn't being done. And I become the person doing the job no one else is. Not because I want to do the job, but because I recognise an imbalance in the situation that has the potential to become over-intense. The job itself (i.e. the reality) is less important than the sensation of needing balance.

In this way the type becomes a menace to his environment because his total innocuousness is not altogether above suspicion. In that case he easily becomes a victim of the aggressiveness and domineeringness of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused and then take their revenge on the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled obtuseness and stubbornness.
I think this is Jung's way of saying ISJs are boring/bland! And that people don't trust us for that reason. I'm not sure about allowing themselves to be abused but I have a pretty low tolerance for aggressiveness and 'domineeringness' and I prefer to avoid it. Stubborn as hell if you try it with me though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
@AllyKat thanks I enjoyed reading your response, especially about the green beans and the hot food. A follow up question which I think that the green bean example touched on is as follows: what is the background processes that Si seems to notice. Jung talks a bit about how Si may not be perceiving the actual previous experience but the subjective background information of that experience. What tends to be the subjective background information? When it comes to your mind in the moment as a response to an object what do you tend to do with that information? Do you simply observe it or does it tend to lead to decisive action? What would you say is the largest benefit that you attain from your Si?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
@AllyKat thanks I enjoyed reading your response, especially about the green beans and the hot food. A follow up question which I think that the green bean example touched on is as follows: what is the background processes that Si seems to notice. Jung talks a bit about how Si may not be perceiving the actual previous experience but the subjective background information of that experience. What tends to be the subjective background information? When it comes to your mind in the moment as a response to an object what do you tend to do with that information? Do you simply observe it or does it tend to lead to decisive action? What would you say is the largest benefit that you attain from your Si?
Thank you, sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not sure what you mean in terms of background processes but I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Si perception I'd say focuses on the present experience. The perception I don't think is specifically the past experience - that element is simply the tool which provides a starting point, an anchor point to give grounding to the (chaotic) present. Any perception that comes from Si is just simply an observation with added meaning. It isn't judged or considered as an opinion. It is something that has been observed.

So, in the food example, if the Si user says verbally "There are a lot of green beans in this", they don't consider that they are saying this is good/bad - that judgement has not been made. It is just simply - I observe there are more green beans here than all previously known events of this dish. This can be one of the difficulties of being a Si dom because most people hear this as a judgement rather than an observation. The Si user doesn't inherently see what they are perceiving as 'personal' or subjective. It just feels like a 'fact'. My Te allows me to acknowledge that Te (objective, logical, externalised) facts are quite different to Si (consequence of prior experience) facts; though it's often consciously difficult to separate these (and treat them differently). Facts are facts, even if Si facts can be more personal and in some ways less concrete than those of Te.

The Si perception doesn't lead to action. I believe action comes from Te. Si would probably be quite content just analysing every last detail of something - Te's balance of kicking it into action and actively doing something with it is invaluable. Personally, I feel like there's a conflict here. People mostly describe ISTJs as "decisive" but I've always felt somewhat indecisive. My impression is that the way Si works is more about collating information to allow a decision to be made, but never quite having enough data to proceed. And Te is the impatient bugger sitting on your shoulder screaming "get on with it, give me the data so I can make the decision!".

Largest benefit? You do ask difficult questions! ;) I guess like any perception it provides a means for understanding what you see, though I don't think it's any more beneficial than any other perceptive function. I'm fond of my attention to detail and thoroughness/meticulousness of my Si. And it lets me navigate the unknown more readily once it's done it's analysis. I think it can be a bit slow sometimes though, but I guess that's inevitable with processing so much data (details).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
593 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
Thank you, sorry for the delay in responding. I'm not sure what you mean in terms of background processes but I'll try to answer some of your questions.

Si perception I'd say focuses on the present experience. The perception I don't think is specifically the past experience - that element is simply the tool which provides a starting point, an anchor point to give grounding to the (chaotic) present. Any perception that comes from Si is just simply an observation with added meaning. It isn't judged or considered as an opinion. It is something that has been observed.

So, in the food example, if the Si user says verbally "There are a lot of green beans in this", they don't consider that they are saying this is good/bad - that judgement has not been made. It is just simply - I observe there are more green beans here than all previously known events of this dish. This can be one of the difficulties of being a Si dom because most people hear this as a judgement rather than an observation. The Si user doesn't inherently see what they are perceiving as 'personal' or subjective. It just feels like a 'fact'. My Te allows me to acknowledge that Te (objective, logical, externalised) facts are quite different to Si (consequence of prior experience) facts; though it's often consciously difficult to separate these (and treat them differently). Facts are facts, even if Si facts can be more personal and in some ways less concrete than those of Te.

The Si perception doesn't lead to action. I believe action comes from Te. Si would probably be quite content just analysing every last detail of something - Te's balance of kicking it into action and actively doing something with it is invaluable. Personally, I feel like there's a conflict here. People mostly describe ISTJs as "decisive" but I've always felt somewhat indecisive. My impression is that the way Si works is more about collating information to allow a decision to be made, but never quite having enough data to proceed. And Te is the impatient bugger sitting on your shoulder screaming "get on with it, give me the data so I can make the decision!".

Largest benefit? You do ask difficult questions! ;) I guess like any perception it provides a means for understanding what you see, though I don't think it's any more beneficial than any other perceptive function. I'm fond of my attention to detail and thoroughness/meticulousness of my Si. And it lets me navigate the unknown more readily once it's done it's analysis. I think it can be a bit slow sometimes though, but I guess that's inevitable with processing so much data (details).
This is written so well. I feel like I'm really developing an understanding of Si and can see what it would look like. It'll be much easier to spot in the future. You explain it in a fantastic way(prolly cause it's natural for you haha). So what exactly are you "seeing"(for lack of a better word) in Si. I understand that your previous experience allows you to perceive a subjective fact of "this dish has more carrots than usual" because you form a rough estimate for the range based on prior experiences and perceptions of the dish and how it is served, but do you "see" those previous dishes? Or are you simply seeing the present moment like normal and then you have a kind of rough feeling that there is a difference in this moment than what you would expect.

I can TOTALLY see how it would be perceived as a judgement and I think it is something my grandmother used to criticize me for when I was just making a statement, not a judgement. I assume you have taken time to kind of rephrase those perceptions in a way that doesn't sound like a judgement? Or mabye just keep them internal?

I assume a life problem for you is that in cases you are not familiar with you have to really balance constantly gathering data and needing to make a decision for Te's sake. You keep gathering data because inferior Ne makes you think something will go wrong and things will be bad, so Si gathers more data again.

I could see Si users being incredibly talented at something like accounting over time. They would develope so many cases of how it should look that they would be interested in differences/new developements inside a set rule paradigm(the law). They would see what went wrong. They would also be very good at inspecting and spotting a talented work.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
This is written so well. I feel like I'm really developing an understanding of Si and can see what it would look like. It'll be much easier to spot in the future. You explain it in a fantastic way(prolly cause it's natural for you haha). So what exactly are you "seeing"(for lack of a better word) in Si.
I try. I spent a lot of time reflecting on how Si actually works and manifests itself, simply because I used to have a lot of trouble actually seeing it in myself. I could see some of the behaviours and particularly those that would fit with ISTJ, but actually saying "That's Si" was difficult because it's so instantaneous and constant for me. I should probably stress I'm not sure to what extent this transfers to other Si doms, and I've found ISFJs tend to explain things quite differently so you might get some variation. This is all based off my own interpretation, which like anything, may or may not be accurate!

I understand that your previous experience allows you to perceive a subjective fact of "this dish has more carrots than usual" because you form a rough estimate for the range based on prior experiences and perceptions of the dish and how it is served, but do you "see" those previous dishes? Or are you simply seeing the present moment like normal and then you have a kind of rough feeling that there is a difference in this moment than what you would expect.
I think "rough estimate" doesn't do it justice. It's more precise than that. It isn't rough, it's solid. I saw an ESFJ on reddit describe Si as being like tracing paper, and I like that analogy. Let me give you an example from my childhood. I'd have been about 12, maybe 13. Anyway, my dad had been doing some DIY in the bathroom and borrowed a pencil from my room to make a mark or something. I wasn't aware of this (the pencil part, I was aware of the DIY). But I walked into my room later, noticed the pencil had moved, and consequently worked out why. I only remember it because I got a bit uptight about the fact he hadn't asked me if he could borrow it! There's some conscious judgement here in working out how it'd moved, but that's not the point. He swore blind that he'd put the pencil back exactly where he'd borrowed it from and couldn't work out how I could know that the pencil had moved like a millimetre. I said, "but it was in a different place" because it was. No rough estimate about it, I forget now because it wasn't important, but I could have told you the exact position it'd been in previously at the time.

In terms of the "seeing" part, my belief is that most of the "seeing" just happens in the subconscious and you just get the result of something being different. It's easy to give the subconscious a 'nudge' so that you get the 'source' archetype or image or whatever, but I don't usually consciously think about it. There's a sense that I know I know it, so I don't need to focus on it. Maybe it's a background image in that sense? So the instantaneous thought is "this is not the same", and you focus on the difference and it crystalises what the difference actually is. But this all happens consciously in seconds.

You read a lot about vivid images and Si and I think that's in there somewhere. If I'm honest I don't spend a lot of time really focusing on them consciously so this weird image you get of ISJs sitting around all day thinking about the past is ridiculous. I'm confident they are there though. I think the way it works is simply that you take in so much detail in the present moment that you build a heavily detailed picture of an event. So if you need to actively or consciously recall it, it's almost like reliving the event. I've recalled events before where I've closed my eyes to focus on the recall and then been jarred as I opened my eyes by the realisation that I'm in a different place (i.e. not the recalled place). My memories of events tend to be quite atmospheric though. I remember stuff like the temperature and brightness of the place, the positioning of everything around me, that sort of thing.

I can TOTALLY see how it would be perceived as a judgement and I think it is something my grandmother used to criticize me for when I was just making a statement, not a judgement. I assume you have taken time to kind of rephrase those perceptions in a way that doesn't sound like a judgement? Or mabye just keep them internal?
Bit of both. I've been criticised for "stating the obvious", so I tend to keep my mouth shut to some extent if it's observational. Problem is, I can't really distinguish between what others think is obvious and what is some unnoticed detail. It's all the same to me. I just seem to see more of it than most. Te as well often sounds judgmental. You temper it somehow. Making something like "That's different" sound curious rather than blunt can be useful, but I still find myself correcting myself and saying things like "not in a bad way" to make it clear.

I assume a life problem for you is that in cases you are not familiar with you have to really balance constantly gathering data and needing to make a decision for Te's sake. You keep gathering data because inferior Ne makes you think something will go wrong and things will be bad, so Si gathers more data again.
I think it could become a life problem. I'm fortunate I've enough inner self-confidence that I don't worry so much about taking time over these things. Maybe I've just learned from the mistakes of succumbing to the pressure of trying to make a decision too quickly. I think learning to put something down and let the subconscious work it out for a while while you're doing something else is a good tool for any type. Clinging onto something that isn't working right now doesn't do anyone any good. Most things can wait 5 minutes.

I could see Si users being incredibly talented at something like accounting over time. They would develope so many cases of how it should look that they would be interested in differences/new developements inside a set rule paradigm(the law). They would see what went wrong. They would also be very good at inspecting and spotting a talented work.
There's a reason they call ISTJs "Inspectors". We're pretty good at fault checking and things like that.
 

·
MOTM June 2015
Joined
·
4,384 Posts
So, in the food example, if the Si user says verbally "There are a lot of green beans in this", they don't consider that they are saying this is good/bad - that judgement has not been made. It is just simply - I observe there are more green beans here than all previously known events of this dish. This can be one of the difficulties of being a Si dom because most people hear this as a judgement rather than an observation. The Si user doesn't inherently see what they are perceiving as 'personal' or subjective. It just feels like a 'fact'. My Te allows me to acknowledge that Te (objective, logical, externalised) facts are quite different to Si (consequence of prior experience) facts; though it's often consciously difficult to separate these (and treat them differently). Facts are facts, even if Si facts can be more personal and in some ways less concrete than those of Te.
I wanted to comment earlier, but I'm not very proficient on my phone. I thought this post was excellent. In fact I showed it to my husband because this type of scenario happens to us way too often. Even though we've been married almost 33 years he still makes assumptions and leaps to conclusion based upon those assumptions from time to time. Happened this past weekend resulting in hurt feelings. Eventually we worked it out and he realized he was making assumptions about things I never said.

Initially he felt that I was judging his decisions when in fact I was merely making an observation. We went someplace that I thought we had been before. When we arrived it did not match my mental picture and I voiced that fact leading him to believe I was accusing him of getting it wrong. When really I was merely commenting because it did not match what I remembered. You'd think after 33 years I would learn to figure out how he might take things, and he would learn that I meant only what I said and nothing more. Oh well, wouldn't want things to get too boring. :laughing: We ended up discussing how we should assume the best of each other and not the worse.

People mostly describe ISTJs as "decisive" but I've always felt somewhat indecisive. My impression is that the way Si works is more about collating information to allow a decision to be made, but never quite having enough data to proceed. And Te is the impatient bugger sitting on your shoulder screaming "get on with it, give me the data so I can make the decision!".
I've described myself as indecisive many times. Boy can I relate to the bolded part.
I try. I spent a lot of time reflecting on how Si actually works and manifests itself, simply because I used to have a lot of trouble actually seeing it in myself. I could see some of the behaviours and particularly those that would fit with ISTJ, but actually saying "That's Si" was difficult because it's so instantaneous and constant for me.
I think you offered some very good explanations. I know your comments helped me gain some understanding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,183 Posts
@Bhathaway ... my apologies... I haven't been ignoring you or this thread intentionally... it's just been a crazy busy time and all I've had time to do is quickly scan this thread occasionally.

As often has been the case, what my PerC "sister" @AllyKat has posted could just as easily have come from me (well, except the part about relating to Jung) and if I get the time in the next few days I will probably make some additional comments.

@jcal

What does your Si typically find pleasurable? What do you enjoy perceiving?
I don't think I've ever seen anything that is Si-driven as pleasurable. Overall, it feels more like a guardian or sentry that monitors my environment for me (so that I don't have to pay a lot of conscious attention to it)... I've likened it many times here to a very basal survival instinct that can actually be quite jarring/unpleasurable at times (which, hopefully, I can find the time in the next few days to expound on a bit).

One thing that I do (and have always done) that I attribute to being a Si "urge" is that I've always had a strong desire to thoroughly examine and "store away" details - just about any and all of them, however minute - about anything and everything new I come across. This occurs even with objects I don't have any immediate need for or interest in. For most of my life I've never really had a good understanding of why this instinctive need/desire was always present, but knowing what I know now I tend to think this curiosity is Si-driven, as it wants to build as many archetypes as it can, to be prepared whenever and wherever it may be needed in the future. Encountering something new in a non-critical situation can provide a very fulfilling (if not exactly 'pleasurable') experience, whereas encountering something new "in the heat of battle" can be very disorienting to a Si-dom. The more "experience" we have built up in our database, the less likely we will be disoriented by hitting upon too many new things at any given time.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
Agree with others here about Si noticing inconsistencies and making sense of them, more than just suddenly remembering something similar. I think the former is actually something unique Si users possess as a natural preference. Sure, everybody notices inconsistencies but not necessarily dislikes it. I find Si users actually do not prefer inconsistencies. I'm not talking about simple things such as trying a new dish on a menu, or switching up outfits. That's too simplistic. I'm talking about inconsistencies in the context of expectations, which others have talked about in this thread as well. To clarify, Si users won't necessarily find the inconsistency repulsive either...but rather more...skeptical and alarming I would say. An example would be...Si users do not care for hypocrisy. This is why they hold themselves and others to such high standards. To not do so would be a great hypocritical offense. They want people to do their fair share of the work, as they also expect of themselves. It comes back to expectations once again.
 

·
Registered
ISTJ
Joined
·
1,560 Posts
This occurs even with objects I don't have any immediate need for or interest in. For most of my life I've never really had a good understanding of why this instinctive need/desire was always present, but knowing what I know now I tend to think this curiosity is Si-driven, as it wants to build as many archetypes as it can, to be prepared whenever and wherever it may be needed in the future. Encountering something new in a non-critical situation can provide a very fulfilling (if not exactly 'pleasurable') experience, whereas encountering something new "in the heat of battle" can be very disorienting to a Si-dom. The more "experience" we have built up in our database, the less likely we will be disoriented by hitting upon too many new things at any given time.
Very true for me as well. Being in the heat of battle without being prepared to counter at every angle is extremely disorientating and frustrating. I also think this is why Si users store away seemingly pointless information and in this context, we are actually future-thinking because we are always cautious as to what we can do to avoid a plan (or lack of plan) gone miserably wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
789 Posts
@jamaix I'm glad you took some understanding from what I wrote. And it's good to see you back on the forum again :) I did have some further thoughts I wanted to add.

People mostly describe ISTJs as "decisive" but I've always felt somewhat indecisive. My impression is that the way Si works is more about collating information to allow a decision to be made, but never quite having enough data to proceed. And Te is the impatient bugger sitting on your shoulder screaming "get on with it, give me the data so I can make the decision!".
I've described myself as indecisive many times. Boy can I relate to the bolded part.
I didn't go into some of the subtleties that I think apply here because I wanted to focus on Si itself rather than variations in type, but I think how Si manifests itself in slightly different ways from one ISTJ to the next is really interesting.

While I do experience this particular conflict and experience it internally frequently, I don't think I experience this to a level of the analysis paralysis that you've touched on before. I think how we react to the internal Si-Te conflict (and other aspects of Si) is heavily influenced by our Enneagram types (and specifically from there, our greatest fears/strengths/weaknesses).

For myself (ISTJ E1), I'm driven by the reformer aspect of Ones. I have a strong inclination towards progress and reform - to make every day better than the last. In some ways I think this pulls me out of Si's deliberations and towards Te's decisiveness, because the ISTJ trait of 'getting stuff done' and progressing is emphasised through the type One fears and weaknesses (fear of failure, being less than perfect etc etc).

From an ISTJ E6 perspective, which focuses on security, the security links with Si's need for detail and balance as this is what creates the 'anchor points' and allows us to feel internally stable and able to navigate/understand the world around us. I expect there's more motivation therefore towards Si's position in the process than Te's position in the process.

For a further example, an ISTJ E5 might crave the knowledge that increased detail from Si provides. However, the desire for understanding and competency in addition to the acquiring of knowledge might push them more towards Te again. (@jcal can shout at me if he doesn't relate to this!)

I'm hypothesising somewhat here, but I am inclined to believe that our basic fears, as reflected by our Enneatype, force us to focus on certain aspects of Si more than others, and this leads to our variations in behaviour or how we make use of our perceptions from Si.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,183 Posts
@jamaix I'm glad you took some understanding from what I wrote. And it's good to see you back on the forum again :) I did have some further thoughts I wanted to add.



I didn't go into some of the subtleties that I think apply here because I wanted to focus on Si itself rather than variations in type, but I think how Si manifests itself in slightly different ways from one ISTJ to the next is really interesting.

While I do experience this particular conflict and experience it internally frequently, I don't think I experience this to a level of the analysis paralysis that you've touched on before. I think how we react to the internal Si-Te conflict (and other aspects of Si) is heavily influenced by our Enneagram types (and specifically from there, our greatest fears/strengths/weaknesses).

For myself (ISTJ E1), I'm driven by the reformer aspect of Ones. I have a strong inclination towards progress and reform - to make every day better than the last. In some ways I think this pulls me out of Si's deliberations and towards Te's decisiveness, because the ISTJ trait of 'getting stuff done' and progressing is emphasised through the type One fears and weaknesses (fear of failure, being less than perfect etc etc).

From an ISTJ E6 perspective, which focuses on security, the security links with Si's need for detail and balance as this is what creates the 'anchor points' and allows us to feel internally stable and able to navigate/understand the world around us. I expect there's more motivation therefore towards Si's position in the process than Te's position in the process.

For a further example, an ISTJ E5 might crave the knowledge that increased detail from Si provides. However, the desire for understanding and competency in addition to the acquiring of knowledge might push them more towards Te again. (@jcal can shout at me if he doesn't relate to this!)

I'm hypothesising somewhat here, but I am inclined to believe that our basic fears, as reflected by our Enneatype, force us to focus on certain aspects of Si more than others, and this leads to our variations in behaviour or how we make use of our perceptions from Si.
It took me a while to sort out whether I was a 5w6 or a 6w5, because there are strong elements of both an E6's need for security and an E5's drive to acquire knowledge. I eventually settled on 5w6 sp (513 Tritype). With absolute certainty I can say that the E5 & E6 drives are significantly stronger than the E1 drive to "get shit done"... I'm not typically THAT flavor of ISTJ. It's always preferable to me to make sure I've gleaned all the knowledge I can and to make a correct/safe decision than it is to check off an item on some list (which, btw, I rarely ever make and even more rarely ever look at after I've made one).

More directly addressing your supposition about E5 ISTJs... Yes, I have a very strong "instinct" to accumulate knowledge/details about anything and everything in my environment, stashing it away in Si's reference database for whenever it may be needed... but it's always and ultimately at the service of Te. As an example of just one way this works for me... I have this thing when I get a new car where I might take several hours examining it... inside, outside, underneath. I'm not really even thinking about what I'm looking at at that time, but there's a ton of Si "images" stored away in the process. Sometime, maybe years later, a problem may crop up... a strange noise, strange behavior, anything really... and my Te can access all of those snapshots that Si took and use them to accurately localize the problem and make a logical determination of what the problem may be. Your comment about competency really hits home because when I am faced with a problem for Te to solve where I haven't already created all of those Si images, incompetent is exactly the way I feel.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top