Personality Cafe banner

1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Since I have learned about MBTI, there has always been one thing I could not quite figure out. I have been able to wrap my head around all the other functions save Si. It may be due to lack of understanding of Si by majority of people or just poorly worded explanations. Whenever I do research on Si, I generally find descriptions riddled with bias and lack of understanding.

As a dom Si user, its slightly annoying not having a grasp on my primary function. If anyone could help in this, I would be very appreciative.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,849 Posts
I think that the only people who can give any sort of good description of what Si is like are the Si users themselves. The rest of us probably don't have a good idea what it is like being inside your mind hence the descriptions you encounter :p .... we can list some general behavior traits but have little sense of the thought process behind it, how does it go? what does it feel like? Only person who can do that is you and other Si dom/aux people.
 

·
The Doer King
Joined
·
13,681 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: silmarillion

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,636 Posts
It's to constantly add data (sensory experiences) to define and redefine a whole.

Imagine that you are to create a map. To do so you need data of what the world looks like (sensory experiences) to fill the blank paper and so as you find data you add it to the map. In the end you have a complete map, every little scratch is important to make up the whole.
This map is very useful to you and you pick it up everytime you find yourself in new territory.

Si users make internal maps like these. They are the base from which we operate upon.

An example would be knowing every corner, item in a computer game. In the end we know the best moves to make in each and every situation because of all the data and statistics of the past. That's why I HATE patches because they screw me over. I have to relearn everything and try everything out again from scratch.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
I too am somewhat confused on how not only Si works, but Fi as well. Jung provides a very esoteric definition that leaves one baffled. Although I am a great fan of Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi’s work, I agree with you that Si is a function attitude that is either under stated or over exaggerated. However this is how Berens/Nardi says the function works in real life:
They have a profound know about how things have always been, and from that they get their own sense of certainty about to do things. They are aware of what doesn’t change, tapping into what is lasting to weather the storms of life. When presented with new information, details from past experiences are triggered. These details come quickly and they notice how what new matches what is expected; then is either rejected or more detail is sought to clarify expectations. Often they recall with accurate detail how something was before and point out discrepancies from how things have always been compared to now. Reviewing the past to draw on the lessons of history, hindsight, and experience, they compare data against a storehouse of what is known to find what is reliable. They gather lots of information over time to confirm a set standard. They trust common experience and feel energized by participating in traditions or other customer activities. They like to follow the work ideas, and examples of others who have come before so they can pass these on and build on them. They find comfort in performing the same regular work or activity every day at an even, steady pace.
As I said this is Berens/Nardi’s definition which I take with a grain of salt since it seems to be written with Keirsey’s temperament of SJ in mind instead of what Si is. First I see some serious conflicts between what the description above says compared to Jung’s definition of any introverting function attitude. Si and Ni do not collect information outside of the self, so any reference to making comparisons entails experiencing an object.

Secondly this whole notion of considering how things have always been seems too obsolete in my opinion. If Si types do this, I would have to say Ni types do it equally which is possibly why many SJ and NJ types are conservatives. Nevertheless Jung paints a different picture of what Si is. Although hard to interpret at times, here are some excerpts:
The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not.
If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object.
Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance.
Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.
In other words, Si and Ni must have good use of their Fe or Te to overcome what is referenced above, which is what makes both the INJ and ISJ have what everyone seems to only see in the SJ type. In fact in his recap of the introverting perceiving type, Jung makes no distinction between Si and Ni:
The two types just depicted are almost inaccessible to external judgment. Because they are introverted and have in consequence a somewhat meagre capacity or willingness for expression, they offer but a frail handle for a telling criticism. Since their main activity is directed within, nothing is outwardly visible but reserve, secretiveness, lack of sympathy, or uncertainty, and an apparently groundless perplexity. When anything does come to the surface, it usually consists in indirect manifestations of inferior and relatively unconscious functions. Manifestations of such a nature naturally excite a certain environmental prejudice against these types. Accordingly they are mostly underestimated, or at least misunderstood. To the same degree as they fail to understand themselves -- because they very largely lack judgment -- they are also powerless to understand why they are so constantly undervalued by public opinion. They cannot see that their outward-going expression is, as a matter of fact, also of an inferior character. Their vision is enchanted by the abundance of subjective events. What happens there is so captivating, and of such inexhaustible attraction, that they do not appreciate the fact that their habitual communications to their circle express very, little of that real experience in which they themselves are, as it were, caught up. The fragmentary and, as a rule, quite episodic character of their communications make too great a demand upon the understanding and good will of their circle; furthermore, their mode of expression lacks that flowing warmth to the object which alone can have convincing force. On the contrary, these types show very often a brusque, repelling demeanour towards the outer world, although of this they are quite unaware, and have not the least intention of showing it. We shall form a [p. 512] fairer judgment of such men and grant them a greater indulgence, when we begin to realize how hard it is to translate into intelligible language what is perceived within. Yet this indulgence must not be so liberal as to exempt them altogether from the necessity of such expression. This could be only detrimental for such types. Fate itself prepares for them, perhaps even more than for other men, overwhelming external difficulties, which have a very sobering effect upon the intoxication of the inner vision. But frequently only an intense personal need can wring from them a human expression….
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
I too am somewhat confused on how not only Si works, but Fi as well. Jung provides a very esoteric definition that leaves one baffled. Although I am a great fan of Linda V. Berens and Dario Nardi’s work, I agree with you that Si is a function attitude that is either under stated or over exaggerated. However this is how Berens/Nardi says the function works in real life:As I said this is Berens/Nardi’s definition which I take with a grain of salt since it seems to be written with Keirsey’s temperament of SJ in mind instead of what Si is. First I see some serious conflicts between what the description above says compared to Jung’s definition of any introverting function attitude. Si and Ni do not collect information outside of the self, so any reference to making comparisons entails experiencing an object.

Secondly this whole notion of considering how things have always been seems too obsolete in my opinion. If Si types do this, I would have to say Ni types do it equally which is possibly why many SJ and NJ types are conservatives. Nevertheless Jung paints a different picture of what Si is. Although hard to interpret at times, here are some excerpts: In other words, Si and Ni must have good use of their Fe or Te to overcome what is referenced above, which is what makes both the INJ and ISJ have what everyone seems to only see in the SJ type. In fact in his recap of the introverting perceiving type, Jung makes no distinction between Si and Ni:
Thank you for this, it was quite helpful and very sobering. Its funny, cause Jung sounds like my INFP buddy describing me. Its almost morbid, Jung's describing of Si. I understood him very well, though I must admit, a slightly more difficult read.

I definitely agree with the how it is hard to get what is on the inside, outside. Si is like having a full screen HD movie with surround sound in your mind, and when you try to communicate this to others, it comes out as a 8-bit audio file. I would not begin to know how I would be able to better communicate my inner perceptions. I do not know what reaction I am giving or what facial expression I have, cause I can not perceive myself, only whats going on around me. I thought my awkward nature was simply a result of lack of social interaction all of my life. Now, its more evident that it is my norm. I will always be trapped in my mind.

Oh well, not a horrible lot, and I should not complain. Jung himself seems to lack a substantial grasp on Si. Maybe one day I will learn how to articulate all that lays behind my eyes, and in a way that does not freak people out. Until then, Si will remain a sobering and humbling reminder.

I think that the only people who can give any sort of good description of what Si is like are the Si users themselves. The rest of us probably don't have a good idea what it is like being inside your mind hence the descriptions you encounter :p .... we can list some general behavior traits but have little sense of the thought process behind it, how does it go? what does it feel like? Only person who can do that is you and other Si dom/aux people.
Finding a dom Si user who could in detail articulate his inner thoughts or perceptions and how he comes about these, in which that the entire accumulations of just the simple matter of processes that leads to these did not fill an entire library, is quite a daunting task.

Honestly simulatedworld's post on the functions is near perfect and he has a lot of info on ISFJs since he is dating one.
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...ons-each-function-attitude-11.html#post487870
I did not find smulatedworld's description of Si horrible, its just seems quite stretched, and slightly subjective. No offense to him at all, it is just not what I am looking for.

It's to constantly add data (sensory experiences) to define and redefine a whole.

Imagine that you are to create a map. To do so you need data of what the world looks like (sensory experiences) to fill the blank paper and so as you find data you add it to the map. In the end you have a complete map, every little scratch is important to make up the whole.
This map is very useful to you and you pick it up everytime you find yourself in new territory.

Si users make internal maps like these. They are the base from which we operate upon.

An example would be knowing every corner, item in a computer game. In the end we know the best moves to make in each and every situation because of all the data and statistics of the past. That's why I HATE patches because they screw me over. I have to relearn everything and try everything out again from scratch.
Yeah, I am definitely like that. I can easily start predicting early on how matches or whatever are going to go, with a great level a accuracy. My friend says I think like a chess player.
 

·
MOTM June 2010
Joined
·
2,507 Posts
Thank you for this, it was quite helpful and very sobering. Its funny, cause Jung sounds like my INFP buddy describing me. Its almost morbid, Jung's describing of Si. I understood him very well, though I must admit, a slightly more difficult read.
Don't worry, all of his descriptions are very sobering, in particularly those describing the intuitive types. In fact the Ni description seemed quite harsh where Jung refers to them as cranks.
 

·
MOTM Nov 2010
Joined
·
10,402 Posts
I know according to MBTI, I am not an Si dom. But I do use it all the time.

I am a voice teacher. Teaching voice is different than teaching other instruments. There are no outside "keys" to press and I am training involuntary muscles. It gets tricky. The only way to teach is by getting a student to focus on how it "feels" in the body when they do it right. This is where Si is very handy for me. I use all Si when I teach voice. Every sound I hear and every pitch I hear coming from my student I relate it to my own experiences in my body. I actually feel sympathetic physical sensations in my body when I hear anyone sing. But obviously, what is really happening is that I'm relating the current sound to previous experiences in my body. This is how I make a diagnosis and can correct. My body reacts to a sensory experience, but it is subjective because it's actually feedback from the past. My past. I know it is right, what I teach. But that is why it's always good to study voice with a person who "has a good ear" aka take current sensory experience and translate them into a past standard. And then be able to correct them based on the past standard by relating it to how I got myself out of doing it the wrong way.

For instance, I hear a student "close their throat" or slam their vocal chords together when they sing. This is very very bad. When I hear it, I instantly feel what they are doing in my body because I was taught to recognize in my body how it felt to slam together my own vocal chords. It feels awful and my vocal chords will do it sympathetically when I teach. I will even have knee jerk reactions and face grimaces in concerts when someone is singing wrong. I feel the pain in my body. It seems almost "mystical" but it is really just body memories. But I rely on those body memories to teach. This is because they are extremely accurate. They have to be, or I wouldn't teach.

However, I can use Si completely inaccurately. For instance, I go on trail runs in the mountain. I have had the habit of getting lost because I am busy attaching my current environment to past experiences. So you see how it's really not accurate?
A trail will remind me of a previous experience on a trail. Everything smells the same, looks the same, and feels the same. So my mind thinks it is the same as a previous location. My introverted sense perceptions have mistakingly told me I was somewhere that I recognize from my history. The reality is that I'm not. And I have gotten myself lost big time this way.

My ESFJ ex had a very hard time not receiving sensory cues or "triggers" from his past. We all do this to some extent. This is because we do have all the functions. Anyway, in regards to my ESFJ ex, when I in anyway did a motion or something similar to what his ex did, it immediately put him in the mind set of his past. He felt like he was with his ex again. He acted accordingly. It was very difficult for us.

I believe Si is about attaching sensory perceptions to the past. Sometimes it's not good to do this, sometimes it's very good. I believe a Si dom user will be more accurate at relating to the positive aspects to it. They will use it to avoid many pitfalls and really pick up on the cues they've learned (subjectively). Never the less even if they are subjective, that doesn't mean that they don't know from their own experience, that X and X, usually lead to XX.

I can attach things to my past to my detriment. Sometimes a restaurant and it's smells and the sounds and the entire atmosphere will make me feel like I'm with an "ex" because that is what where we always went. I will avoid it for a long time because I've "attached" the place and the environment to my history. But is that really a reality? My current environment really has nothing to do with my past. And attaching that way is a big "no no" according to my therapist. I need to live more in the present and accept new sensory information on a more objective basis-here and now.

Otherwise, it's not very accurate. It's not "reality". It's very subjective with filtering the present with my past history. I hope this helps. I think all functions have positive sides to them. I can see that clearly. But even telling you that is on a subjective basis.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Discussion Starter #9
See, this is one of the problems with the definition of Si, it seems too closely resembled to memory or memorization. Thats not what it is though. We see what others do not. The connections between objects and how they relate. I often call it "seeing percentages". We do not actually know these percentages, they just naturally occur in ourselves.

When I play a collectible card came(Magic, Yugioh, Pokemon, etc) I have always been able to build really solid decks for people, even if I was still newer to the game. I just have an innate understanding of how things work together, and then I would use my Ti to seek the most efficient execution. This gets me dubbed as a minimalist sometimes.

I believe Si can be used subjectively, just as Te can be used subjectively by denying new information. However, I believe the function is also capable of being objective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,966 Posts
Much of this makes sense to me. Trying to explain it is a little like you say trigun - the full screen HD to a small file - but also a little hazy. I have the sense of it; different bits, but as a whole...


It's sort of a sensory intuition, a little like Pink was saying - with art if I tap into this I make good pieces - Also like Tucken was saying the map; many small details, needing to have them all, sequentially, perfectly fitted together to finally find links, become aquainted with it and so aquainted you master the...journey, perhaps even telling it as a story and being able to know all parts, reference, link. Also sensual, emotive, sensory memory...again as Pink says.

I'm not sure this is related to Si, but I wonder if, in comparison with INFJs, who're keen people readers, there might be a chance it is to an extent - not being able to recognises significance, or intuitively know how to read signs - identifying attraction in a world of signs that might be it, but never knowing hwo to identify which actually is; not knowing what a person wants until they tell or ask you - get specific. I could be helping derig equipment, and one of the builders seems to ask me to do something; waits for me to do it, but I'm lost; not being able to make intuitive jumps without knowing where I'm meant to be going - the future step; the correct step is a massive question mark.

Sort of like when a child makes a mistake for the first time, they're not aquainted with the system, and so don't know it's a mistake; it's just one action in a sea of actions.

Sort of like a lack of common sense.


Yet aesthetically I haven't had such problems - my writing style was more advanced than others in my english class a few years ago; language was one of those systems I cared enough about, and resonated with enough to have gotten to know - to have a sensual, intuitive, heart body and soul relationship with. I knew what sounded good together without ever being taught. I half started to get this with maths. It's almost impossible to describe. I guess I inserted feeling and sensation into my understanding and map space of each small particle, equations would be...more than equations. Getting to know the system so well it becomes intuitive to you, and more than a system.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
378 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Much of this makes sense to me. Trying to explain it is a little like you say trigun - the full screen HD to a small file - but also a little hazy. I have the sense of it; different bits, but as a whole...
Yeah, I agree.


I'm not sure this is related to Si, but I wonder if, in comparison with INFJs, who're keen people readers, there might be a chance it is to an extent - not being able to recognises significance, or intuitively know how to read signs - identifying attraction in a world of signs that might be it, but never knowing hwo to identify which actually is; not knowing what a person wants until they tell or ask you - get specific. I could be helping derig equipment, and one of the builders seems to ask me to do something; waits for me to do it, but I'm lost; not being able to make intuitive jumps without knowing where I'm meant to be going - the future step; the correct step is a massive question mark.
Well, I think that ISFJ's are great people readers as well, they just go a different route then INFJ's. If someone asked me to read a person on the spot, I would not be able to. I might be able to get a few things right, but for the most part, I would be grasping at straws. However, if I am given time to observe people, I can sometimes disturb some by what I know about them. I do not actively even need to be studying them(I am not a creeper), it just comes very naturally to observe and identify. I, also, have had a lot of practice at this, so and ISFJ who does not have the same experience as I, might not be able to people read as well. I think for the most part ISFJ's are good people readers.

I think that Si is very much a kin to a diesel engine, and N's to a gas engine. When you turn on a gas engine, it is ready to go and perform. A diesel engine, on the other hand, needs time to start up, but once it gets going, it can perform for ridiculously well. Much like an Si user, if you let a diesel engine sit to long(especially in the cold) it will solidify. My best example of this is when I was playing a first person shooter for the first time in almost a year. I seem to be the worst at the game when we first started, but as the game progressed, I started to get reacquainted with it. My friends became thoroughly frustrated as it seemed I had suddenly became amazing at the game. Another example is when I use to play collectible card games. My friends would have to periodically change around there decks because even though I had weaker cards compared to them, I eventually learned their deck and their playing style and would be able to eventually beat them with my weaker cards. They would try to do the same with me, but I would realize it, and use that as my strength. Pretending to make the same old moves or bad moves, and just luring them in(Fe kind of rocks for that ^_^), they would eventually give up trying to do the same to me, because it was detrimental to their game play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,277 Posts
However, I can use Si completely inaccurately. For instance, I go on trail runs in the mountain. I have had the habit of getting lost because I am busy attaching my current environment to past experiences. So you see how it's really not accurate?
A trail will remind me of a previous experience on a trail. Everything smells the same, looks the same, and feels the same. So my mind thinks it is the same as a previous location. My introverted sense perceptions have mistakingly told me I was somewhere that I recognize from my history. The reality is that I'm not. And I have gotten myself lost big time this way.
I'm the opposite to you with this, I recognize spots/locations very reliably. It's somewhat context dependent, that is, I need to know -only very roughly, like, which city or which hill- where I am generally on the map to have the identification work perfectly. I can do some really awesome things with this skill when navigating. I've said before that I just navigate a map all the time. :proud: That map may be sensory or may be logical or both. So I would be reluctant to call it just Si, it's more like S+T stuff. It can be I/subjective in the sense that I'm not sure others would have the exact same map, though certain points in it should be pretty objective.


My ESFJ ex had a very hard time not receiving sensory cues or "triggers" from his past. We all do this to some extent. This is because we do have all the functions. Anyway, in regards to my ESFJ ex, when I in anyway did a motion or something similar to what his ex did, it immediately put him in the mind set of his past. He felt like he was with his ex again. He acted accordingly. It was very difficult for us.
Sounds like some sort of trauma for your ex, not Si.

Btw if I do this with sensory cues, it must be unconscious or I did not notice consciously. Yes I know I said above how I recognize locations but I do not consciously dwell on some past memory when I do so. At best it must be subconscious working fast. I could make myself easily make a memory for it conscious but I see no need to.


I believe Si is about attaching sensory perceptions to the past. Sometimes it's not good to do this, sometimes it's very good. I believe a Si dom user will be more accurate at relating to the positive aspects to it. They will use it to avoid many pitfalls and really pick up on the cues they've learned (subjectively). Never the less even if they are subjective, that doesn't mean that they don't know from their own experience, that X and X, usually lead to XX.
Every human relies on past knowledge so I do not see myself as different in this sense.

OK, as I said above, my sensory perceptions of some place etc are not consciously attached to past knowledge. What I'm consciously aware of is just a detached sensory perception of everything and it has an inherent structure. Inside that I may orient myself and see objects and move around. When I say detached I mean it's really unemotional and only half visceral (sometimes my experience with objects is more visceral, by default it is not really), though I definitely have the sense of being right there and then in the tangible environment, not disconnected, not far off in idea-land in my head.


I can attach things to my past to my detriment. Sometimes a restaurant and it's smells and the sounds and the entire atmosphere will make me feel like I'm with an "ex" because that is what where we always went. I will avoid it for a long time because I've "attached" the place and the environment to my history. But is that really a reality? My current environment really has nothing to do with my past. And attaching that way is a big "no no" according to my therapist. I need to live more in the present and accept new sensory information on a more objective basis-here and now.
This is foreign to me as I'm not emotional/personal by default. So I don't attach stuff to emotional memories in the past. Smells and sounds never make me recall anything. Pyhsical locations do, if I turn my mind to that. Not by default but if I ask myself to remember, I will instantly start recalling a seemingly endless amount of memories of what I did in that location before, what happened there before, etc. Very easy to do this. Hmm, also objects and situations, if I need to handle them in a specific way because of some schedule or other structure in my head, this interrupt for the right action will be triggered each time at the moment I detect and am about to handle the object etc, so I remember it pretty reliably.


Otherwise, it's not very accurate. It's not "reality". It's very subjective with filtering the present with my past history. I hope this helps. I think all functions have positive sides to them. I can see that clearly. But even telling you that is on a subjective basis.
OK this is the part I can't relate to, again. This just seems weird. Doesn't seem very sensory either.


It's to constantly add data (sensory experiences) to define and redefine a whole.

Imagine that you are to create a map. To do so you need data of what the world looks like (sensory experiences) to fill the blank paper and so as you find data you add it to the map. In the end you have a complete map, every little scratch is important to make up the whole.
This map is very useful to you and you pick it up everytime you find yourself in new territory.

Si users make internal maps like these. They are the base from which we operate upon.

An example would be knowing every corner, item in a computer game. In the end we know the best moves to make in each and every situation because of all the data and statistics of the past. That's why I HATE patches because they screw me over. I have to relearn everything and try everything out again from scratch.
Oh, I like your description. I can relate to this, but not really any other descriptions of Si. This however, doesn't seem necessarily Irrational perception either. It would be Irrational if the points in the map are there by irrational selection. Not because it's logical, or anything. Well, I'd like to believe that my maps are more logical than that.

Would you say these maps have structure? Mine do and I like manipulating that sometimes. Also, I do subconsciously utilize such when I move or act in a certain context/situation. I never notice it fully consciously as I just live inside it anyway but recently I did, when a fast food restaurant I would go to sometimes closed up and a new one moved there that was somewhat similar to the old restaurant. So when I first went in there and wanted to go and order food, my brain wanted to call up the structure it used for the previous restaurant... well that was confusing as hell. :confused: I had to let go of it consciously and let myself discover the place from scratch. Oh yeah, I noticed that that discovery process goes in a pretty organized fashion too. I can't just randomly "run around". Anyway, I quickly reoriented myself and it was all fine again. Funny stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,277 Posts
Much of this makes sense to me. Trying to explain it is a little like you say trigun - the full screen HD to a small file - but also a little hazy. I have the sense of it; different bits, but as a whole...
Oh again something I don't relate to or I don't understand what this is about exactly.


It's sort of a sensory intuition, a little like Pink was saying - with art if I tap into this I make good pieces - Also like Tucken was saying the map; many small details, needing to have them all, sequentially, perfectly fitted together to finally find links, become aquainted with it and so aquainted you master the...journey, perhaps even telling it as a story and being able to know all parts, reference, link. Also sensual, emotive, sensory memory...again as Pink says.
Don't relate to the emotive part at all. It's more detached than sensual-emotional. From sensation only the objective perceptual aspect is what is pulled in, it's not very visceral by default, only becomes visceral if I become active and explicitly engaged with things physically.

Does not really have to be sequential either, hm, think it's easily more broad than that on the whole when I'm in a physical situation. Otherwise, yes can be sequential taking in details. But that on its own just isn't enough, I have to have the overview too.

Not gonna tell it as a story, unless you mean a logical story.


I'm not sure this is related to Si, but I wonder if, in comparison with INFJs, who're keen people readers, there might be a chance it is to an extent - not being able to recognises significance, or intuitively know how to read signs - identifying attraction in a world of signs that might be it, but never knowing hwo to identify which actually is; not knowing what a person wants until they tell or ask you - get specific. I could be helping derig equipment, and one of the builders seems to ask me to do something; waits for me to do it, but I'm lost; not being able to make intuitive jumps without knowing where I'm meant to be going - the future step; the correct step is a massive question mark.
Well I won't make intuitive jumps but I'm not this lost in the physical world, I can't relate to this description.


Sort of like when a child makes a mistake for the first time, they're not aquainted with the system, and so don't know it's a mistake; it's just one action in a sea of actions.

Sort of like a lack of common sense.
Sounds like low on both S and T.


Yet aesthetically I haven't had such problems - my writing style was more advanced than others in my english class a few years ago; language was one of those systems I cared enough about, and resonated with enough to have gotten to know - to have a sensual, intuitive, heart body and soul relationship with. I knew what sounded good together without ever being taught. I half started to get this with maths. It's almost impossible to describe. I guess I inserted feeling and sensation into my understanding and map space of each small particle, equations would be...more than equations. Getting to know the system so well it becomes intuitive to you, and more than a system.
Oh, language, if I want to be fast there, I have to approach it from logic. Mathematics is definitely logical, nothing to do with sensory whatever, lol.


Well, I think that ISFJ's are great people readers as well, they just go a different route then INFJ's. If someone asked me to read a person on the spot, I would not be able to. I might be able to get a few things right, but for the most part, I would be grasping at straws. However, if I am given time to observe people, I can sometimes disturb some by what I know about them. I do not actively even need to be studying them(I am not a creeper), it just comes very naturally to observe and identify. I, also, have had a lot of practice at this, so and ISFJ who does not have the same experience as I, might not be able to people read as well. I think for the most part ISFJ's are good people readers.
Hmm I relate to your description here more. I'm like this with technical topics, not people as much, unless a technical approach suffices (e.g. in detecting if someone's lying).


I think that Si is very much a kin to a diesel engine, and N's to a gas engine. When you turn on a gas engine, it is ready to go and perform. A diesel engine, on the other hand, needs time to start up, but once it gets going, it can perform for ridiculously well. Much like an Si user, if you let a diesel engine sit to long(especially in the cold) it will solidify. My best example of this is when I was playing a first person shooter for the first time in almost a year. I seem to be the worst at the game when we first started, but as the game progressed, I started to get reacquainted with it. My friends became thoroughly frustrated as it seemed I had suddenly became amazing at the game. Another example is when I use to play collectible card games. My friends would have to periodically change around there decks because even though I had weaker cards compared to them, I eventually learned their deck and their playing style and would be able to eventually beat them with my weaker cards. They would try to do the same with me, but I would realize it, and use that as my strength. Pretending to make the same old moves or bad moves, and just luring them in(Fe kind of rocks for that ^_^), they would eventually give up trying to do the same to me, because it was detrimental to their game play.
Haha, games, when I picked up a game after more than a decade... as I was playing it, making the moves, all the logic came back to me. I'm very kinesthetic I guess. I looked clueless at the start, by the end of the game I beat everyone else. :proud: I relate to the rest you are saying here too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Trigun64

·
Registered
Joined
·
273 Posts
Si and Ni do not collect information outside of the self, so any reference to making comparisons entails experiencing an object.

Secondly this whole notion of considering how things have always been seems too obsolete in my opinion. If Si types do this, I would have to say Ni types do it equally which is possibly why many SJ and NJ types are conservatives. Nevertheless Jung paints a different picture of what Si is. Although hard to interpret at times, here are some excerpts: In other words, Si and Ni must have good use of their Fe or Te to overcome what is referenced above, which is what makes both the INJ and ISJ have what everyone seems to only see in the SJ type. In fact in his recap of the introverting perceiving type, Jung makes no distinction between Si and Ni:

I would say that only similarities between Introverted Sensing and Introverted intuition is that that they're both introverted perceiving functions.

Introverted Intuition

Introverted Intuition deals strictly with the intuitive realm, meaning that it isn't depended on sensation, but rather only the concepts that it sees or creates by looking beyond what something is—to create a symbolic nature of a person or thing. I would argue that because Ni doesn't use sensation as its guiding point, that rather it create archetypes that builds over time—being able to conceptually project or understand the core of what something could be based on patterns.

It is not until an INJ uses their extroverted functions (Te/Se or Fe/Se) that Ni can become materialized. Although, it's not the object itself, but the archetype created for that object—the conceptual impression that makes them interested in what that object contains. This is why you'll find that Ni doms think in imagery, words, and concepts, because it's their extroverted functions that can apply the archetype to something in the sensation realm—to make it objective and validated.

In other words, the memory of an Ni dom is not based on the sensing impression of something (or even its experience at times), but rather on the archetype that is has created from what it has observed (Ni/Te/Se or Ni/Fe/Se). In short, it's creating a big picture view of how the world works, and anything that doesn't fall into a particular archetype is dismissed as not important. This is where you get many arguments of Ni doms from Ne types—Their not willing to look at different perspectives or seek alternatives. Unlike Ne, Ni is not concerned with building upon a concept, but understanding the core of what that concept is—to look at what's being missed or not understood.

Introverted Sensing

Si does use sensing in order to understand its relation to an object—although this relation is abstract and connected to the object based on its impression of what is. Many argue that Si is about understanding and knowing the fine details of what something is, but rather I would make the argument that their attachment to the object (meaning the thing outside of them) is connected by the internal sensation or impression that has made that object important.

For example:

Why is my impression of this object different than last time? I have a feeling something is off here.

This is what provides the concept of Si doms being detailed oriented and observant of the differences between the relation of objects, something that Ni is not observant of the slightest, which is why I believe Ni doms are more comfortable with the idea of things being different, revised or changed—to seem ahead of their time.

I believe the reason why Si appears past oriented (even sometimes nostalgic), is because much like how Ni builds concepts, Si builds impressions of what that object means, therefore wanting to retain and protect that impression in order to keep its relation to the object. In other words, I don't think it directly has anything to do with memory, but rather purely on their perceptual importance of an object—it is simply connected to sensation, not its conceptual understanding.
 

·
Registered
5w6 sp/sx | 9w1 sp/sx | 3w4 sp/sx | INTJ | ILI
Joined
·
227 Posts
Mental gymnastics time!

So, let's break it down:

  • Being introverted perception, it serves a connection to one's inner subjective world, as opposed to the outer objective world. It is perception unique to the individual.

  • Being sensing, it serves to ground perception by establishing a "literalized" baseline, so one can tell what something "just is", free from association, allegory or "fuzzy" interpretation.

  • The perception of physicality and sensation, or just "what is", is therefore understood to be fundamentally subjective, something that helps to disconnect you from the outer world. I think this is what a lot of people have trouble grasping.

Compared to other functions:

  • Se understands sensation, physicality and literalization to be objective - these emerge from forging a connection to the world around you. Si, on the other hand, understands these things to be subjective - they emerge from a disconnection from the world around you. This is the difference between introverted & extroverted perception. Se creates a reactive, exciting and volatile character, whereas Si is grounded, modulated and reliable. Both are concerned with literalization and the grounding of perception.

  • Ni shares the same subjective quality, in that it connects you to a subjective, personalised "inner" world. The difference is that Ni is intuitive, meaning it perceives associations and abstractions, whereas what Si perceives is "literalized". They both share the same proactive, modulated and un-reactive stance, and both come across as somewhat inaccessible to others (although Ni does come across as even more inaccessible, due to its associative nature);

  • Ne is Si's functional opposite. Where Si seeks to ground perception in the subjective, inner world, Ne seeks to create associations and abstractions by forging a connection with the outer world. Ne shares Se's reactivity and excitable behaviour, although it comes across as more "dreamy" and "floaty" than Se. Si is its complete opposite, being grounded, reliable, literal and subjective.

What it isn't:

  • Si is not strictly about memory - just because you have a "good memory" does not necessarily mean you orient via Si. It could be a clue, but it isn't a rule.

  • It has nothing to do with what something means - that derives from the judging functions. It merely connects and perceives.

  • It is not really understood to be "abstract" or "interpretive", but it is impressionistic - this is the tricky part. Those that orient via Si understand interpretation, association, allegory etc. to be objective - they emerge from forging a connection with the world around you. Si, while being subjective, is still 100% concerned with literalization - with "what is". A chair is a chair. A car is a car. A horse is a horse. 1 + 1 = 2.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,277 Posts
Being sensing, it serves to ground perception by establishing a "literalized" baseline, so one can tell what something "just is", free from association, allegory or "fuzzy" interpretation.

The perception of physicality and sensation, or just "what is", is therefore understood to be fundamentally subjective, something that helps to disconnect you from the outer world. I think this is what a lot of people have trouble grasping.
OK, you got any thoughts on how it can be subjective? It's about just "is", no associations, yet not objective, how?
 

·
Registered
5w6 sp/sx | 9w1 sp/sx | 3w4 sp/sx | INTJ | ILI
Joined
·
227 Posts
OK, you got any thoughts on how it can be subjective? It's about just "is", no associations, yet not objective, how?
I'm using these words in the Jungian sense - "subjective" means "originating from the subject", as opposed to the object. It's about creating a perceptual connection with one's inner world.

And because it's sensing, what you perceive is "literal", or in other words "what is" - much like Extroverted Sensing. The difference is in its source. To orient via Si (as opposed to Se) is to understand that everyone has their own version of "what is". Did you ever have that conversation when you were a kid, when you said "what if my red differs from your red"?

It's certainly impressionistic and deeply subjective, but you don't venture beyond the detailed & literal form of those impressions. Associations, interpretation, symbolism, fuzzy perception, "leaps" of intuition, are all understood to be "objective" - emerging from forging a connection with the world around you (Ne, its functional opposite).

This is what gives those who orient via Si that weird combination of reliable, meticulous, detail-oriented, boring, insular and subjective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,277 Posts
I'm using these words in the Jungian sense - "subjective" means "originating from the subject", as opposed to the object. It's about creating a perceptual connection with one's inner world.

And because it's sensing, what you perceive is "literal", or in other words "what is" - much like Extroverted Sensing. The difference is in its source. To orient via Si (as opposed to Se) is to understand that everyone has their own version of "what is". Did you ever have that conversation when you were a kid, when you said "what if my red differs from your red"?
OK, just to show how I see things - I never had that conversation, no, and I see no point to it. You and the other person both point at the same things when seeing something as red so it's good enough to be objective. (I know there can indeed be certain slight -sometimes surprisingly big- differences in colour perception but that's beside the point now.)


It's certainly impressionistic and deeply subjective, but you don't venture beyond the detailed & literal form of those impressions. Associations, interpretation, symbolism, fuzzy perception, "leaps" of intuition, are all understood to be "objective" - emerging from forging a connection with the world around you (Ne, its functional opposite).
OK while I can somewhat understand what is meant by subjective sensation, I don't get how intuition is objective. I've heard that many times before and I can even recognize Ne-doms but somehow the in-depth idea of intuition being objective continues to escape me. To me it's something only you can "see". Is it supposed to be objective because there is some sort of objective "measurement" for it, or a consensus, or...?

Well, I know Jung calls it objective because it's concerned with external situations but that to me is too vaguely defined as Ni can also be concerned with analysis of the outside world, just in its own subjective way, of course.

In addition to that, I do have a sense of Ni having an internal thread that is common to the associations and Ne does not seem to have this, making it more objective in some way, supposedly. Where I fail to see the objectivity is that Ne seems to be too mental, not quite directly "out there". So, see my problem?


This is what gives those who orient via Si that weird combination of reliable, meticulous, detail-oriented, boring, insular and subjective.
I would say "boring" is highly subjective and especially pejorative so I'd leave out this from the list of traits.

Also, I'm seeing a leap here. How does subjectivity of sensing make Si-dom reliable or meticulous? I can see insular and subjective, due to general introversion, I can see detail oriented because of the general Sensing preference but how do we arrive at reliable and meticulous?
 

·
Registered
5w6 sp/sx | 9w1 sp/sx | 3w4 sp/sx | INTJ | ILI
Joined
·
227 Posts
OK while I can somewhat understand what is meant by subjective sensation, I don't get how intuition is objective. I've heard that many times before and I can even recognize Ne-doms but somehow the in-depth idea of intuition being objective continues to escape me. To me it's something only you can "see". Is it supposed to be objective because there is some sort of objective "measurement" for it, or a consensus, or...?

Well, I know Jung calls it objective because it's concerned with external situations but that to me is too vaguely defined as Ni can also be concerned with analysis of the outside world, just in its own subjective way, of course.

In addition to that, I do have a sense of Ni having an internal thread that is common to the associations and Ne does not seem to have this, making it more objective in some way, supposedly. Where I fail to see the objectivity is that Ne seems to be too mental, not quite directly "out there". So, see my problem?
"Objective" in this sense means "emerging from the object", rather than "concerned with". To perceive objectively is to establish a connection with the world around you. It makes you reactive, excitable, adaptable and led by the nose. Perceiving subjectively has the opposite effect, making one proactive and seemingly unreceptive.

So "objective" intuition just means perceiving ideas, associations, possibilities etc. by establishing a reactive, excitable connection with the world outside of you. Ni does the opposite - you perceive these things by shutting yourself off from the world, diving within.

A strong clue to which one you're oriented toward is where you usually look for ideas - do you prefer to introduce them from within yourself by detaching, or are they just picked "out of the air" through interaction or conversation? Are they brewed internally, or are they discovered externally? Do you prefer to introduce them when they're "fully formed" to others, or do you get excited by involving others in the discovery process? You'd be surprised by how much some people differ in this regard.

I would say "boring" is highly subjective and especially pejorative so I'd leave out this from the list of traits. Also, I'm seeing a leap here. How does subjectivity of sensing make Si-dom reliable or meticulous? I can see insular and subjective, due to general introversion, I can see detail oriented because of the general Sensing preference but how do we arrive at reliable and meticulous?
These are certainly subjective, but they're very common - that's why I offered them. It's not hard to understand how someone who is grounded, detail-oriented and unreactive might be seen as boring, or meticulous. "Reliable" I suppose would apply more to SJ types, when you combine Si with an extroverted judging function.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,277 Posts
"Objective" in this sense means "emerging from the object", rather than "concerned with". To perceive objectively is to establish a connection with the world around you. It makes you reactive, excitable, adaptable and led by the nose. Perceiving subjectively has the opposite effect, making one proactive and seemingly unreceptive.
Proactive? Strictly in the context of Ne vs Ni?


So "objective" intuition just means perceiving ideas, associations, possibilities etc. by establishing a reactive, excitable connection with the world outside of you. Ni does the opposite - you perceive these things by shutting yourself off from the world, diving within.

A strong clue to which one you're oriented toward is where you usually look for ideas - do you prefer to introduce them from within yourself by detaching, or are they just picked "out of the air" through interaction or conversation? Are they brewed internally, or are they discovered externally? Do you prefer to introduce them when they're "fully formed" to others, or do you get excited by involving others in the discovery process? You'd be surprised by how much some people differ in this regard.
"Ideas" is a way too generic phrasing for this. Also... I know a few INTPs and they don't need to talk to others to generate ideas.


These are certainly subjective, but they're very common - that's why I offered them. It's not hard to understand how someone who is grounded, detail-oriented and unreactive might be seen as boring, or meticulous. "Reliable" I suppose would apply more to SJ types, when you combine Si with an extroverted judging function.
Then every introvert is boring due to being unreactive. Meticulous is still something else. Reliable, I would say is Rationality.
 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
Top