I had a quick question about Si and Se because I am someone who, fairly often, find myself saying "it kinda is like this other thing" or "it reminds me of this." Now my question is whether or not this is only Si or if this is done by both Si and Se. Does Si only compare the internal sensations produced by the object, or does it compare the external object to other external objects that are similar in quality and thus visually remind them of a past object/time/scenario. Or perhaps Se is the latter and Si is only the former.
Si vs Se on similarities in sensation?
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
I would like to know the same..
when I encounter objects or people that look like something I've seen before I make that connection out of nowhere
but it's very external, I don't remember details or whole situations..
my guess is Si is when you see something and it brings back an entire scene and situation with details and Se is seeing something and it brings back something much less detailed..
for instance the band Radiohead reminds me of college.. but it stops at college. I cant remember the times of me listening to Radiohead in college and specific times listening to it, I just know that listening to Radiohead had a big impact on my life in college. I am not sure if this is Si or Se or Ni..
when I encounter objects or people that look like something I've seen before I make that connection out of nowhere
but it's very external, I don't remember details or whole situations..
my guess is Si is when you see something and it brings back an entire scene and situation with details and Se is seeing something and it brings back something much less detailed..
for instance the band Radiohead reminds me of college.. but it stops at college. I cant remember the times of me listening to Radiohead in college and specific times listening to it, I just know that listening to Radiohead had a big impact on my life in college. I am not sure if this is Si or Se or Ni..
I'm an ISFP so use Se but following from what spaceynyc said about music, I can listen to a song and can remember when I used to listen to it and where I was sat, what I was feeling, what I was looking at etc which is supposedly Si. But in my case I think it's the interaction of Fi with Se. Weirdly, the scenario I thought of when I read the original post was of me sitting in the car listening to Creep by Radiohead. It was weird to see the next post and see someone else had mentioned Radiohead!! But I can remember listening on my silver ipod nano, what was going on in my life at that time, what I really wanted, what we drove past in the car...sometimes I wonder if I am actually an Se user because I think I seem so Si-like at times.
Not to make things more complicated for you but supposedly your 6th function is supposed to be very strong and a function that others see you use a lot but you are unaware how much you use it.. this could be the case for you but I’m not sure.. and that’s an awesome coincidence about Radiohead haha
Joined
·
2,312 Posts
Overall, I seem to have a lot of trouble visualizing what Si looks like. I'm currently on the idea that Si builds a complete image of the situation, while Se focuses on the interactions and only remembers the fragmented images of what it has observed. (of course our minds tend to lie to us a lot and tell us that our fragmented image was complete all along. There's actually a lot of research on how imperfect our memory actually is. Kind of scary when you think about it).
As to what it actually looks like... I can only give examples, mostly of situations where I interact with my ISFJ girlfriend. For example: when we moved in together, both of us had an idea of how we wanted to fill the cabinets.
My idea was to start with some broad categories and put the items in the broad categories, then after putting the obvious things at the correct place, go a level deeper and specify the categories even more. In that way everything was philosofically in the right place.
My girlfriend had a different idea. She sorted things based on how often they were needed and their practical purpose. Then she would put the things that were needed often in an accessible place and the things that were needed less in a harder to reach spot.
In the end we used the best of both worlds, but the most important part is that we had such a different perspective on the whole situation. I was abstract and analytical, while she was pragmatic and practical. It seems to be the recurring theme in all of our interactions (and it's actually a great experience for both of us).
My point is: the difference between Si and Se might be invisible until you start solving actual physical problems. Once you provide a perspective on a concrete example, it can be obvious how much you don't understand each other.
I actually kind of dislike how Si descriptions focus on "how the experience/memory makes you feel". That's not Si, that is often Si+Fe or Si+Fi.
That said, all descriptions are going to be coloured by the one that wrote it. It's next to impossible for an Se-user to accurately write down the Si thought process. You can theorize about it, but without actually living it, you have no idea what it is acutally like.
As to what it actually looks like... I can only give examples, mostly of situations where I interact with my ISFJ girlfriend. For example: when we moved in together, both of us had an idea of how we wanted to fill the cabinets.
My idea was to start with some broad categories and put the items in the broad categories, then after putting the obvious things at the correct place, go a level deeper and specify the categories even more. In that way everything was philosofically in the right place.
My girlfriend had a different idea. She sorted things based on how often they were needed and their practical purpose. Then she would put the things that were needed often in an accessible place and the things that were needed less in a harder to reach spot.
In the end we used the best of both worlds, but the most important part is that we had such a different perspective on the whole situation. I was abstract and analytical, while she was pragmatic and practical. It seems to be the recurring theme in all of our interactions (and it's actually a great experience for both of us).
My point is: the difference between Si and Se might be invisible until you start solving actual physical problems. Once you provide a perspective on a concrete example, it can be obvious how much you don't understand each other.
I think Se with dominant Fi can act a lot like Si is described often. The thing is, as an Fi-dominant you're always primarily processing what everything means to you. This means that everything you experience through your Se is seen through this Fi lens.
I actually kind of dislike how Si descriptions focus on "how the experience/memory makes you feel". That's not Si, that is often Si+Fe or Si+Fi.
That said, all descriptions are going to be coloured by the one that wrote it. It's next to impossible for an Se-user to accurately write down the Si thought process. You can theorize about it, but without actually living it, you have no idea what it is acutally like.
Joined
·
1,087 Posts
Visual fragments and reminiscing is how I describe Si, simply. Maybe because it's my tertiary or inferior (not sure about my type yet, but I think INTP due to the likelihood of Se being my PoLR), but the sensation of seeing, touching, smelling, feeling (physical), the overall tones in atmosphere is what I recall. Normally these visuals are an overall mess due to Ne, and I tend to connect the fragments with Ne or Fe: for instance: I recall reading an equation from my Digital Signal Processing book, from Uni. I recall the page, the colors of the visual figures, the lighting in the library, when I sat down and studied that page. Si tends to outline the contour of a moment in time - like an impressionistic fragmented picture.
As for Se, I am riddled with Biases. The way I see it, is very expansive in real time, and can at times have a figurative muscle flex. A sense of real time strength, competency and actuality (especially when coupled with Te). Either you own an awesome Mercedez or you don't. Either something is right or it's wrong. This is where Ni is used for introspecting these observations. Depending on whether your dom/aux Ni or dom/aux Se, the order is reversed.
They are not invisible, believe me. Se is expected of people - and failing to comply feels like it causes alienation. I can only compensate with my quirky Ne. Se Tert/Inf is a massive advantage, compared to not having it at all (assuming that Socionics' dimensionality understanding holds true).
I agree. One of the bigger nuisances of typology. Biases.
OP, you are likely using your Si. You see something that rings a bell from a specific occurrence and your stronger functions probably take that and do what they will with that information.
Si, Ni, Fi, Ti are all subjective functions. These operate on what has happened to you, what is important to you, etc. They are more of an impression. Se, Ne, Fe, Te are objective functions. These are very much about things happening outside. These organize and build.
(And when I say subjective and objective, I'm not talking about subjects and objects. If that isn't clear, look at a dictionary.)
Si connects present to past. Traditions? They've always been done, so we do them. The more it happens in the past, the firmer the comparison. Si doms are quick to identify the way things should be if they aren't. Hindsight is literally 20/20. It's not making a connection out of nowhere; it is a connection to the past. New situations? Si will take note of these things and keep them for later use or not. It is very detailed. It has to be detailed to be able to make all these tiny comparisons.
I don't necessarily feel comfortable saying a lot on Se since it is not in my functional stack and I don't have personal revelations on it. Take what I do say with a grain of salt. Se, too, focuses on details like Si does. But if anything, Se is the clearest example of perception and sensing because one's own recollections of the past do not muddle the experience. It is. KillinIt's post is very valuable. Look at how much detail she can recall and how much detail she feels is important to write down! It's life in high-definition. Things are what they are, and the judging function will work out what to do with the information.
Si, the past and the personal are in the same room as the present experience. Se, the experience is the experience, in all its glory, and the judging function will take care of the rest.
Si, Ni, Fi, Ti are all subjective functions. These operate on what has happened to you, what is important to you, etc. They are more of an impression. Se, Ne, Fe, Te are objective functions. These are very much about things happening outside. These organize and build.
(And when I say subjective and objective, I'm not talking about subjects and objects. If that isn't clear, look at a dictionary.)
Si connects present to past. Traditions? They've always been done, so we do them. The more it happens in the past, the firmer the comparison. Si doms are quick to identify the way things should be if they aren't. Hindsight is literally 20/20. It's not making a connection out of nowhere; it is a connection to the past. New situations? Si will take note of these things and keep them for later use or not. It is very detailed. It has to be detailed to be able to make all these tiny comparisons.
I don't necessarily feel comfortable saying a lot on Se since it is not in my functional stack and I don't have personal revelations on it. Take what I do say with a grain of salt. Se, too, focuses on details like Si does. But if anything, Se is the clearest example of perception and sensing because one's own recollections of the past do not muddle the experience. It is. KillinIt's post is very valuable. Look at how much detail she can recall and how much detail she feels is important to write down! It's life in high-definition. Things are what they are, and the judging function will work out what to do with the information.
Si, the past and the personal are in the same room as the present experience. Se, the experience is the experience, in all its glory, and the judging function will take care of the rest.
Joined
·
21,040 Posts
Si does connect sensory perceptions by the subjective impressions they impart...deja vu might be an example of this
Se also connects sensory perceptions if they are objective impressions--ie, a common pattern of opportunity Se sees in different situations
"it kinda is like this other thing" can also be Ne when the perception is of an objective abstracted quality shared by "it" and "this other thing"
Se also connects sensory perceptions if they are objective impressions--ie, a common pattern of opportunity Se sees in different situations
"it kinda is like this other thing" can also be Ne when the perception is of an objective abstracted quality shared by "it" and "this other thing"
We always associate keen eye for details with Si when it actuality Se has the sharpest eye for detail by far. Si simply thinks details are important.
The thing with Se though is that their sensation is clear and vivid but also quickly fleeting, whereas Si soaks it up and attaches its own subjective view on it. Their sensation process basically follows them around wherever they go, no matter how long that data has been recorded.
The thing with Se though is that their sensation is clear and vivid but also quickly fleeting, whereas Si soaks it up and attaches its own subjective view on it. Their sensation process basically follows them around wherever they go, no matter how long that data has been recorded.
Se perceives the concrete here and now and might react to it, when or if necessary. Se is also not detail oriented. That's why high Se users are considered opportunists since they're quick to take advantage of opportunities.
Si is detail oriented and compares past experiential data or accepted paradigms, to the concrete present where the past/accepted paradigms are considered their internal authority. That's why high Si users are often perceived as rigid and are often traditionalists.
Si is detail oriented and compares past experiential data or accepted paradigms, to the concrete present where the past/accepted paradigms are considered their internal authority. That's why high Si users are often perceived as rigid and are often traditionalists.
Both are to do with experiencing the senses, both are concrete, neither are abstract. The difference is in how it is experienced.
Introverted Sensors consider this to be fundamentally subjective, and rooted in personal experience. My experience is separate from yours, and they are fundamentally unbridgeable. But it is not abstract, or imaginary - it's simply personal. This is why it is associated with things like tradition, comfort and familiarity. The result is an insular, but comfortable & grounded personality that sidesteps silly imaginary frivolities. Ne is the counterweight - receptive, imaginative, silly and ungrounded.
Extroverted Sensors have the opposite experience - instead of being personal, it is felt to be shared. It's seen to be "out there", in the world, outside of one's subjective awareness. Instead of disconnecting oneself from the world, it doubles-down on the connection. This is why Se types sometimes act like they're just chasing their tail all the time - they're so caught up in raw experience, what else is there? Ni is the counterweight - insular, abstract, peripheral and cryptic.
Introverted Sensors consider this to be fundamentally subjective, and rooted in personal experience. My experience is separate from yours, and they are fundamentally unbridgeable. But it is not abstract, or imaginary - it's simply personal. This is why it is associated with things like tradition, comfort and familiarity. The result is an insular, but comfortable & grounded personality that sidesteps silly imaginary frivolities. Ne is the counterweight - receptive, imaginative, silly and ungrounded.
Extroverted Sensors have the opposite experience - instead of being personal, it is felt to be shared. It's seen to be "out there", in the world, outside of one's subjective awareness. Instead of disconnecting oneself from the world, it doubles-down on the connection. This is why Se types sometimes act like they're just chasing their tail all the time - they're so caught up in raw experience, what else is there? Ni is the counterweight - insular, abstract, peripheral and cryptic.
Joined
·
4,142 Posts
Yea I notice Si is very specific with it's comparisons like "You look just like my brother's friend." And if you compare the two yes they look very similar even down to subtleties. And when Se compares two people it very general and broad like "You look like Emma Stone!", and if you look at the two, they look nothing alike except the fact that they both have red lipstick and red hair XD. And it's always a celebrity lol.
I want to hear more personal explanations from Si and Se doms. So far, most responses are derived from book type learning, but I am curious to see if Si/Se doms actually can confirm/debate it.
Don't forget that everyone has Se or Si in their stacking too.
This is true, but it's hard for me (and perhaps others) to understand the core similarities/differences between Si/Se when it is being presented as examples of auxiliary, tertiary or inferior usage. Since Si or Se doms would be the most natural at utilizing the functions, I'd think it would be most insightful to hear from them.
Joined
·
344 Posts
My Si dom husband remembers very specific details, and way more details than me. I just make vague statements like "I don't think it was like that" or "I think this is like that" or "That doesn't sound right" or "Something has changed..." Or whatever. I'm terrible at remembering details. I'm generally better at remembering the end result or vibe I got from a situation so later when I hit a similar situation.. I get a vibe about how it's going to go based off my subconscious memory of how the past similar thing went. (Sometimes I actually have moments where I remember why my instincts are pointing me toward a certain answer or end result and then I feel less crazy. XD) So my Si husband will avoid repeating bad situations at all costs cause he remember to strongly all the details of the experience. Me not so much. I just remember that it didn't cause the world to end so it couldn't have been that bad.. right? I mean, I'm still alive and have all my limbs right?
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Join the discussion
Join now to ask and comment!