I posted some of my thoughts on the process recently over here (there's a few separate posts on my part).Can you please explain Si process in progress a bit more.
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).When you use your dom or aux Si are you using your reference of experience to predict outcomes?
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).From your observation do you ever think other users typed as Ni doms describe a process similar to yours?