[shameless]

Correction "You're"

Can you please explain Si process in progress a bit more.

When you use your dom or aux Si are you using your reference of experience to predict outcomes? From your observation do you ever think other users typed as Ni doms describe a process similar to yours? Because you have come to terms with your Si and are by observation often the most scrutinized type in some aspects among mbti community but you're willing to accept this label I think possibly you may be able to explain distinction you see from acknowledging your Si vs What you perceive Ni use.

 

[AllyKat]

Can you please explain Si process in progress a bit more.

I posted some of my thoughts on the process recently over here (there's a few separate posts on my part).

When you use your dom or aux Si are you using your reference of experience to predict outcomes?

I would say so, yes, but I don't think it works in the same way as Ni does in this respect. As noted in the above thread, there's a lot of expectation wrapped up in using experiential reference points. I think Si is a lot more present orientated than the way Ni is described in terms of predicting outcomes, Ni being directed towards more long-term future concepts/essences compared to a prediction of specifics of 'what is about to happen' based off the present moment (which is what Si is doing).

From your observation do you ever think other users typed as Ni doms describe a process similar to yours?

I'm not sure I understand Ni particularly well, but I think in principle, the mechanism by which Si and Ni work is similar although what is focused on is different. Both functions detach from what they're perceiving (i.e. pure reality) and provide meaning from elsewhere giving an alternative subjective interpretation of the perceived object - adding personal/individual depth if you like. Where Si works to 'tangibile-ise' by referencing personal experiential data, Ni works to conceptualise by referencing whatever they reference (known data, but of a different flavour to that of Si - I suspect this data is more conceptual than detailed, but is probably still experiential).

 

[Coburn]

Si is personalized (subjective) interpretation of physical data. It's not at all similar to Ni other than the fact that it also processes information in a subjective, personalized way.

Si is, to me, heightened experience. Si is grounded in the concrete world, but the subjective lens it gets interpreted through heightens and separates it from reality.

The final result is something based in reality but realized outside of it.

Wicked Queen posted a great example of the differences using crayons. Have to see if I can find it.

 

[Kaioken]

I relate more to inferior Se than inferior Si tbh, so I couldn't really help you there. I guess Si in a subjective interpretation of sensory stimuli, it's what you already experienced, it's based on internal rules.

 

[Turi]

Si is almost how we perceive inferior Se to be.
Si is not as aware of what is currently happening, it is an introverted process - it is focused on the self and it's own subjective impression of what is happening.

This is where Si ties in with the whole "memory" thing - because Si is focused on it's own personal experience of sensing, rather than actually interacting with the outer world itself - it makes sense, therefore, that other similar personal experiences would spring to mind for the Si user (whatup Ne?).

This is where the foundations of the whole "traditional" stereotype stem from - due to the Si users preference for focusing inward on it's own subjective impressions of a situation - and the similar situations that manifest in the Si users brain that resemble the current subjective impressions - it makes sense the Si user would find the most comfort in, and enjoy, doing things that aren't a far cry from what they have already enjoyed.

This kind of nostalgia is what has people rattling off about Si users being stuck in the past, narrow-minded, short-sighted.

The truth is, that this isn't actually the case - they aren't immediately opposed to anything and everything new (it's not a judging function) - they simply prefer some kind of grounding, some kind of familiarity.
If they can find something to connect how they are experiencing a new situation, to a subjective impression from the past they have enjoyed - they will be perfectly fine, they'll have found the common ground. The missing link.


Therefore the Si dominant is excellent at adapting to new situations, implementing new systems, "going with the flow" etc (fuckin' bang, there goes the Si stereotypes) - as long as they have that connection - because their subjective impressions of previous experiences will guide them with regards to how things "should" be.

I believe Si is equally as abstract as Ni, they're essentially guided by their own subjective impressions of things.
How is this not abstract.


To compare to Se, in the shittiest way possible - Se is concerned with what is currently happening outside of the person.
Se is energised not by what is within the person, but the outer world - it wants to engage with it's surroundings and experience the present moment, the literal, physical experience itself is what the Se dominant is after.
Se is therefore seeking to enjoy what is happening. Satisfaction.

If this is someones preferred function, it would make sense that they would develop a reliance on the outer world - a reliance on their 5 senses - they are concerned with what they can see, hear, taste, smell and touch.
That is reality to them. That's what is real. Anything that doesn't fit inside the scope of those 5 senses would, I imagine, be unreliable, unverifiable.. unreal.

This is probably why my ESTP friend wants to literally see me play the Sweet Child o' Mine solo - he won't believe I can do it until he sees it, hears it, experiences it himself. Then it will be real (and satisfy his Se cravings).
He's also been told by other people that I can do it - others have seen it - he still thinks it's bullshit and needs to see it himself.


Anyway, that's kinda my understanding of Si, it's a combination of a various points of view and my own.
Not really on-topic.
I have tertiary Si (or is it Se? Where's the proof the tertiary function is the same direction as the dominant function?).. so, maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

I think it's easy to see how Si perfectly matches peoples understandings of Ni.
I mean psychic voodoo shit like deja vu can easily slip into Si.
Same with premonitions and foresights - you can just see how Si could be behind all that kind of thing.
Makes sense to me.