Personality Cafe banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
I've recently been trying to grip my understanding of the functions under a tighter notch or belt. They were so lose before. They're still loose, but I think I may have nailed the difference between Si and Se. I hereby give you: The Barbie Dream House Analogy.

If Si saw it's beautiful dream house as a child in a Barbie catalog, that's Si's house. Si only wants to live in this beautiful Barbie Dream House in all it's 2 story, 6 roomed, pink furnished glory. Fuck other houses. Si sits in the back of it's mothers' car, staring out the window whilst viewing all these other houses. Sooo boring. "I hate all these houses," Si says. "I want a Barbie Dream House". All Si can see, whilst observing other houses, is Barbie Dream House. Eventually, day after day, week after week, month after month, Si sees these houses and actually starts enjoying their exterior designs. Maybe there's room for something other than just "Barbie Dream House". Who knows, eventually Barbie Dream House might just end up bland and tasteless in comparison.

Compare to Se. Se is flips through a catalog, circles the Barbie Dream House, and begs it's parents for it. Under the Christmas tree, in silver, tinsel-y wrapping paper, torn to shreds and dismantled, the beautiful Barbie Dream House is showcased. Se is thrilled. Se plays with it's Barbie Dream House endlessly, day after day, exploring every nook and cranny of Barbie Dream House, playing every concrete scenario it can scheme up with each Barbie, until Se has done everything it can with it's Barbie Dream House. Se is bored now, and stores Barbie Dream House in the closet as it collects dust while Se begs for the latest, greatest hottest, newest doll house they saw on TV.

So as you can see, Se is quicker to note or hotly lust after a new detail. Si is more mixed, ambivalent, combobulated in it's approach to new details. Si takes in what it knows, and when it's crossed a new bridge, it's apprehensive because it hasn't been evaluated. Absolutely no prior sensory experiences can compare to this very bridge, which sends Si through a loop. Once properly evaluated, Si stores that bridge into it's database and finally crosses it. Se just crosses the damn bridge. No, scratch that. Hyperbole. Se isn't stupid, and uses Ti or Fi to judge their decision, but as you can see, there's less hesitancy towards the brand new, never before seen object in comparison to Si.

It is a myth that Si is antagonistic towards change and trying new things. Well, maybe only a half myth. Si likes new things, but is much murkier in the process of enjoying them in comparison to the Se, who obsesses over the latest and greatest until it's become stale and moves on to the next thing (this is partly why Se and Ne get confused. Both are about possibilities; the difference is concrete versus abstract). Si eventually opens it's route to new houses, possibly disregarding the original house that started it all once that well has opened up, whereas Se abandons it's house after all of it's tangibility is captured in order to find a new house to play with. Both similar in their focus on the sensory, but reversed and flipped in their essence and motivations.

I would appreciate any feedback or corrections of any errors or of anything I may have captured, depicted or interpreted wrong (aside from grammatical or spelling errors; I suck as a proof reader) . Thank you.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
This is good. It seems to clearly show the differences in a way thats easy to understand.

I wonder if someone could expand on this to include how Si or Se would be if they weren't the dominate function.
That's a good question. I would if my knowledge was more complex and less narrow, though your point begs another question.

Would auxiliary or tert Se or Si be any different from my descriptions (if they're accurate)? Just less heightened? This definitely makes me want to take on the challenge eventually though, when I'm well equipped to do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pressed Flowers

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
It is a myth that Si is antagonistic towards change and trying new things. Well, maybe only a half myth. Si likes new things, but is much murkier in the process of enjoying them in comparison to the Se, who obsesses over the latest and greatest until it's become stale and moves on to the next thing.
Speaking as Si-aux:

One of the reasons Si users can be reluctant to adjust their model even when new information becomes available is that it means giving up the feelings associated with the old model. It means letting go of a particular feeling associated with a certain object/act/etc. and accepting it more as a memory than an experience.

It would be like discovering a new type of chocolate while on the road trip of your life with your best friends. You find it on the back aisle shelf of a gas station market in the middle of a rural, drive through town. It has a funny name, and you can't quite tell if it's past its expiration date. But you haven't eaten in hours and you're feeling adventurous.

You and your friend pay for it in dimes (because that's all you have on you), and then proceed to peel off the wrapping and break it apart. Maybe it's delicious, or maybe you're just so hungry it tastes delicious. But it's the best strange chocolate you've had and you laugh with your friends about whether or not it'll kill you in a couple of hours.

Your road trip comes to an end. You part ways and go back to the real world. A year passes.

Then one day your coworker offers you some chocolate. It's the same kind of chocolate you had on that night a year ago. All the old feelings from the trip and from that moment flood back to you looking at that chocolate. Wouldn't it be great to eat a piece and just relive that moment again?

But your coworker knows it's uncommon chocolate. And he knows you probably don't know much about it. And he decides he's going to be super smart and tell you everything about where it's made, how he found it, and where you can buy it in specialty shops around the city.

Oh no. No no no. You don't want to hear a single helpful word he has to say. Once you learn how commonplace this chocolate actually is, some of the adventure from your road trip experience will sucked away. Gone. Replaced by a bunch of additional, cold facts that have no meaning and only serve to make your experience feel less special, less enjoyable.

So you politely take the chocolate, and then ignore your coworker as he proceeds to brag about his wonderful knowledge. You don't care. You don't want to know. Ignorance is bliss because you want to retain that beautiful experience (and all the feelings associated with it).

So you ignore your coworker until he leaves, and then dig in.



Not saying that's how it always works, but I think it's a good example of how Si can function. It's also an example of why Si is sometimes reluctant to just "move on" and take in new information about something.

EDIT: Sorry I couldn't tie it into the Barbie Analogy. I couldn't relate to the example well enough to think of it in terms of how I use Si. :p
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Speaking as Si-aux:

One of the reasons Si users can be reluctant to adjust their model even when new information becomes available is that it means giving up the feelings associated with the old model. It means letting go of a particular feeling associated with a certain object/act/etc. and accepting it more as a memory than an experience.

It would be like discovering a new type of chocolate while on the road trip of your life with your best friends. You find it on the back aisle shelf of a gas station market in the middle of a rural, drive through town. It has a funny name, and you can't quite tell if it's past its expiration date. But you haven't eaten in hours and you're feeling adventurous.

You and your friend pay for it in dimes (because that's all you have on you), and then proceed to peel off the wrapping and break it apart. Maybe it's delicious, or maybe you're just so hungry it tastes delicious. But it's the best strange chocolate you've had and you laugh with your friends about whether or not it'll kill you in a couple of hours.

Your road trip comes to an end. You part ways and go back to the real world. A year passes.

Then one day your coworker offers you some chocolate. It's the same kind of chocolate you had on that night a year ago. All the old feelings from the trip and from that moment flood back to you looking at that chocolate. Wouldn't it be great to eat a piece and just relive that moment again?

But your coworker knows it's uncommon chocolate. And he knows you probably don't know much about it. And he decides he's going to be super smart and tell you everything about where it's made, how he found it, and where you can buy it in specialty shops around the city.

Oh no. No no no. You don't want to hear a single helpful word he has to say. Once you learn how commonplace this chocolate actually is, some of the adventure from your road trip experience will sucked away. Gone. Replaced by a bunch of additional, cold facts that have no meaning and only serve to make your experience feel less special, less enjoyable.

So you politely take the chocolate, and then ignore your coworker as he proceeds to brag about his wonderful knowledge. You don't care. You don't want to know. Ignorance is bliss because you want to retain that beautiful experience (and all the feelings associated with it).

So you ignore your coworker until he leaves, and then dig in.



Not saying that's how it always works, but I think it's a good example of how Si can function. It's also an example of why Si is sometimes reluctant to just "move on" and take in new information about something.

EDIT: Sorry I couldn't tie it into the Barbie Analogy. I couldn't relate to the example well enough to think of it in terms of how I use Si. :p
That's not really how I relate to my Si. It's more like I just make an association within my environment to something else. When there's nothing there and it's a new experience I cannot tie any association or idea to at all, or I'm unsure of any safety factor and it's not something I can just do on a whim and have no consequence to suffer through (and I actually care about the consequence in the first place), I'm trying to assess it logically, but if I cannot do that, I'm nervous because I don't know what "that" thing is, because I don't assess an environment as an objective fact, but something known before. I like knowing what's going to happen next in certain events so I won't fuck up or make an error or mistake. It's not even about reliving an experience, emotion (unless childhood nostalgia counts... I don't think it does) or the memories for me. It's just a way of picking up on my environment. Assessment. I'm rarely even aware of it.

I was worried the barbie dream house example would be too gender differentiated, but that's the analogy that came up, and I just let it flow out, as trying to hinder with my beautiful mess would destroy it until the point was utterly lost. However it's merely an analogy, not a literal example. It's not the Barbie Dream House that stands as the test of time or as the symbol of my point. It can be chocolate. Cars. Music. You can take any object you wanted and adjust it accordingly to fit the scenario, and the point still stands.
 

·
decorum worshiper
Joined
·
8,993 Posts
EDIT: Sorry I couldn't tie it into the Barbie Analogy. I couldn't relate to the example well enough to think of it in terms of how I use Si. :p
Your example is very relatable to me, and I'm pretty sure I use Si, but I'm definitely not an Si-dom.

I'm wondering if what you described is an example of Si but not what an Si-dom would experience.

Which is why @hoopla didn't relate. Just speculating here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
Speaking as Si-aux:

One of the reasons Si users can be reluctant to adjust their model even when new information becomes available is that it means giving up the feelings associated with the old model. It means letting go of a particular feeling associated with a certain object/act/etc. and accepting it more as a memory than an experience.
Is that feeling actually created by Fi? So you make a judgement toward a certain object with Fi, and then the sensory experience as well as your Fi judgement are packaged together and stored by Si. Or you Fi-judgeing your Si information? :rolleyes: I don't even know what I am talking about... just that a Se/Fi-user would make Fi judgement on their Se information.

And that may be why OP don't relate to your experience, because she doesn't have Fi. An ISTJ might be able to relate.
But Sporadic Aura can relate, too, so I don't know...
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thalassa and Coburn

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Is that feeling actually created by Fi? So you make a judgement toward a certain object with Fi, and then the sensory experience as well as your Fi judgement are packaged together and stored by Si. Or you Fi-judgeing your Si information? :rolleyes: I don't even know what I am talking about... just that a Se/Fi-user would make Fi judgement on their Se information.

And that may be why OP don't relate to your experience, because she doesn't have Fi. An ISTJ might be able to relate.
But Sporadic Aura can relate, too, so I don't know...
I don't believe it's Fi related because there's no actual judgement involved. Si, for me, is largely an involuntary process. I have no role in choosing what my Si holds onto; I usually only find out after the fact when some new experience triggers memories of the old one.

It's when the triggering happens that my Fi comes in and morally re-evaluates the memory. Not so much on whether it was "good or bad" but on whether it was "right or wrong" and if the moral judgement lines up with the emotional one produced by Si.

It's when the two conflict that problems arise.

I hope that makes sense?
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncertain

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,837 Posts
I don't believe it's Fi related because there's no actual judgement involved. Si, for me, is largely an involuntary process. I have no role in choosing what my Si holds onto; I usually only find out after the fact when some new experience triggers memories of the old one.

It's when the triggering happens that my Fi comes in and morally re-evaluates the memory. Not so much on whether it was "good or bad" but on whether it was "right or wrong" and if the moral judgement lines up with the emotional one produced by Si.

It's when the two conflict that problems arise.


I hope that makes sense?
Kind of... I guess I understand for the most part of what you are saying, the bold doesn't really make sense to me, though.

When I was reading your chocolate example, I interpreted it as that you liked the chocolate, and that whole experience with your friend. That feeling seemed to be judgement to me, or Fi not Fe due to you being an ESTJ. And then when you recalled that memory, you liked that experience. When you say "All the old feelings from the trip and from that moment flood back to you looking at that chocolate. Wouldn't it be great to eat a piece and just relive that moment again?" It seems to me that you were also recalling that feeling/judgment toward the experience. Like everything came to you together like a whole package.

Sorry I just have a hard time truly understanding any functions that I don't use, especially Si. Even when I seem to understand, I actually don't, simply because I don't have that kind of experience. The closest I can imagine is nostalgia, but even then it's not something that I experience often.

It's hard for me to imagine that there's no judgement involved in that process. It kind of makes me realize how I might have been making judgement more often than I thought. I like what you say about Si being involuntary and sort of unconscious until something new happen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thalassa

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
@hoopla

Being Se user I kinda acted like that but for different toys, (since I was a boy and not feminine).

It was a really good example of Si and Se so bravo
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
This has nothing to do with Barbie Dream Houses, or toys themselves. Barbie Dream House was clearly my feminine conditioning clearly shining through. I had an idea for a songs on the radio analogy, but that felt trite and obvious. Perhaps that would have worked better on a universal level.

Se and Si are purely sensory. Take any sensory experience your mind can possibly conjure and project in onto this example, and the point still stands. I particularly wanted to show an example of Si's idealization and devaluation towards the sensory, a point not highlighted enough. This is what made me understand the grip of my Si much more than "lol si is a memory function and Si likes tradition". No. My memory sucks and I defy tradition. That's not what Si means.
 

·
Registered
INTJ 5w4 Sx/Sp
Joined
·
2,387 Posts
@hoopla

From your analogy I can definitely picture the 4-year old me having Se-cravings for new Lego sets to build.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
363 Posts
I have a question though because I do try to pull strings into the Si function. Does the impression connected to the object stand in face of time test? Is it a long lasting impression or does it tend to change over time with the creative bending of the individual? (For example, could you change the ideal Barbie Doll house or would a new "ideal" remind you of the previous prototype?)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,568 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I have a question though because I do try to pull strings into the Si function. Does the impression connected to the object stand in face of time test? Is it a long lasting impression or does it tend to change over time with the creative bending of the individual? (For example, could you change the ideal Barbie Doll house or would a new "ideal" remind you of the previous prototype?)
Yes, I tried to demonstrate that. I could love Barbie Dream House and hate all the Victorian Mansions I cross until Victorian mansions have been exposed to the point of accepting their beauty. I might keep Barbie Dream House inside my sensory database with pleasant connotations, or find Barbie Dream House disgusting and ugly in comparison to Victorian Mansions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdInfinitum

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
Kind of... I guess I understand for the most part of what you are saying, the bold doesn't really make sense to me, though.

When I was reading your chocolate example, I interpreted it as that you liked the chocolate, and that whole experience with your friend. That feeling seemed to be judgement to me, or Fi not Fe due to you being an ESTJ. And then when you recalled that memory, you liked that experience. When you say "All the old feelings from the trip and from that moment flood back to you looking at that chocolate. Wouldn't it be great to eat a piece and just relive that moment again?" It seems to me that you were also recalling that feeling/judgment toward the experience. Like everything came to you together like a whole package.
I can see what you're getting at.

Let me see if I can clarify a bit:

Si recalls past feelings associated with a particular experience. Fi interprets them and gives them value.

So when I see that strange chocolate in my coworker's hand, I don't initially know how I'll react to it. There's no way for me to know how strongly a past experience is stored in my mental archives until it's actually recalled. Sure, I probably won't have a psychotic breakdown at the sight of it. But I don't know if it'll simply be "oh hey, that's cool. I had that once a year ago in this small store back in Iowa" or "wow, i never thought I would see that again! man, that brings back old feelings."

I basically have no idea how strongly a past experience is embedded into me until Si pulls it out again.

Because of this, I can't make any judgement until AFTER the experience has been recalled and "relived" to some extent. Only after it's been brought up can Fi go in and re-examine it along a moral yardstick.

To explain with the current example:

Say I see that chocolate and suddenly the warm feelings rush back into my chest. But then I remember that one of the "dimes" we used to buy the chocolate was a special coin my friend kept in his van as a good luck memento. And it somehow accidentally got mixed in with the general change without us realizing. And by the time we found out we'd given it to the store clerk we were 12 hours out with no way to turn back and get it.

So suddenly those warms feelings aren't so warm. Sure, there's still good memories there. But now they've been measured against the moral yardstick and found not to be so pleasant after all.

The thing is that Si isn't about representing the past with everything given equal weight. It's about drawing out the parts of the experience that were most vivid, and then letting the rest seep in afterwards.

So sometimes it's possible to experience one feeling with Si, only to have Fi come in and lay waste to that feeling once more detail has been provided.

Note, it's not always a positive to negative scenario. It also works the other way, too.


Sorry I just have a hard time truly understanding any functions that I don't use, especially Si. Even when I seem to understand, I actually don't, simply because I don't have that kind of experience. The closest I can imagine is nostalgia, but even then it's not something that I experience often.
Yeah, no worries. I can't understand jack about Ni and Ti, so it's all good.

Si is kind of like doing a "system restore" to a point in the past. Only instead of returning to the past, the past gets pulled into the future and the moments sort of...mingle.

Haha, this probably sounds really mystical. I'm not sure how else to describe it though.

It's hard for me to imagine that there's no judgement involved in that process. It kind of makes me realize how I might have been making judgement more often than I thought. I like what you say about Si being involuntary and sort of unconscious until something new happen.
I think oftentimes judgement doesn't come until much later.

Take the coin scenario. Maybe when it happened, I was having such a good time on the road trip that I simply slapped my buddy on the back, said "sorry about that," and promptly forgot about the whole thing. At the time it didn't really seem like an end of the world screw up.

But a year later, my Fi now sees that whole scenario as not only a failure to be careful about my friend's stuff, but as a failure to be more concerned with my friend's feelings about the incident. How I felt about it originally is not how I feel about it now.

So what was originally a small blip in a great adventure is suddenly a mountain of moral trip ups in a trivial chocolate bar incident.


I'm not sure if that gives clarification. I think Si and Fi often work together so well and so fast that it can be hard to pinpoint which function is responsible for which part of the process. That said, I'm trying to describe it in a way that makes sense.
 
  • Like
Reactions: uncertain

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,856 Posts
I have a question though because I do try to pull strings into the Si function. Does the impression connected to the object stand in face of time test? Is it a long lasting impression or does it tend to change over time with the creative bending of the individual? (For example, could you change the ideal Barbie Doll house or would a new "ideal" remind you of the previous prototype?)
I think it can be either. It depends on how willing a person is to let in new information.

People who are more comfortable giving up stored Si impressions will probably lose sight of the Barbie doll house much faster than those who aren't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AdInfinitum

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
I like this. And it's my distinct impression of my high school friends always wanting to live in Preston, or my ISFJ sister saying she'd be the queen of a double wide trailer even if she was a millionaire.

Se types still have preferences, obviously, due to things like Fi or whatever. Wanting constantly new combination is actually more likely Ne. I actually got annoyed with a historic hotel tonight, a really high end money place, because the decorator of the new wing thought it would be cute to intentionally mish mash shit from different decades. Not like left over actual hodgepodge, but a calculated mess of each decade. It actually made me feel nauseas. I think that's Ne. "Wouldn't it be cute if we intentionally made old new and new old, and pretended with wealth and money the kind of natural accumulation of the poor/middle class, or antique ways of life." It made me want to spit in that rich bitches eye.

Interior decorating can make me MAD. Said the SFP while other people laughed. It's not what it is, it's what it means. And what it is looks empty, asshole. No soul on this one. I feel that way about ENTP a lot. That's probably evil.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
Yes, I tried to demonstrate that. I could love Barbie Dream House and hate all the Victorian Mansions I cross until Victorian mansions have been exposed to the point of accepting their beauty. I might keep Barbie Dream House inside my sensory database with pleasant connotations, or find Barbie Dream House disgusting and ugly in comparison to Victorian Mansions.
I personally love Victorian Mansions. They have soul. They show detail, craftsmanship and will last through wear and tear. Those seem like Artisans values rather than Se per se.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
14,801 Posts
This has nothing to do with Barbie Dream Houses, or toys themselves. Barbie Dream House was clearly my feminine conditioning clearly shining through. I had an idea for a songs on the radio analogy, but that felt trite and obvious. Perhaps that would have worked better on a universal level.

Se and Si are purely sensory. Take any sensory experience your mind can possibly conjure and project in onto this example, and the point still stands. I particularly wanted to show an example of Si's idealization and devaluation towards the sensory, a point not highlighted enough. This is what made me understand the grip of my Si much more than "lol si is a memory function and Si likes tradition". No. My memory sucks and I defy tradition. That's not what Si means.
Si and Fi both value personal memory with emotional meaning. In one example I saw, Fi actually has more emotional charge towards personal memory than Si. For Si it's actually REALITY. It's so deeply emotional that it's not even emotional anymore, it's just "common sense." Si serves a much more practical purpose in the SJ, it serves a template for perception, so they can contemplate and judge. I think people with Se and Si have more detailed memory than N types, and it affects their art, music and writing.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top