[Playful Proxy]

Alrighty, you guys seem to have my interest somehow lately. Anyhow, I thought I would ask those with the most powerful Si of them all, how do you go about strengthening it? Currently, I am trying to gain quite a few computer certifications, but the massive amounts of learning is leaving me super tired, sleepy, distracted, and getting through things is proving to be a pain.

Any tips to get my Si up, how to keep sane while shoving myself full of data? Ti is only useful after it has data to work with, sadly. :/

 

[niss]

Your perception of the cognitive functions is incorrect. They are not skill sets which you pick up an use as needed. They are how you process the information revealed to you by your 5 senses.

 

[Owfin]

You'll never get Si as strong as an ISTJs unless you feel like completely changing the way you understand the world.

Learning a bunch of new external information is hard on ALL introverts. Can't help ya there.

 

[Flipit]

In fact, I tend to get easily distracted as well - if the information I'm reading doesn't interest me. If I can't spot the actual relevance of the stuff I'm reading, it always takes effort to stick to it.

The primary factor for me is motivation. If I'm truly motivated, I'm a machine, whereas I'm slacking if unmotivated.

 

[Stephen]

Your perception of the cognitive functions is incorrect. They are not skill sets which you pick up an use as needed. They are how you process the information revealed to you by your 5 senses.

Quoted to earn thanks by agreeing with a great post.

 

[cassious]

I'm not sure we would be the best on telling you how to strengthen it. From what little I've read and understand on it, your Dominate is usually something that your naturally strong with. I don't remember ever doing anything on purpose to make it stronger. It might be better to find someone who doesn't have a high one, but works on it. Probably would be in the Cognitive Functions area.

 

[dagnytaggart]

ahahaha...I once tried asking this here myself. Turns out they're born this way, baby...

You may not be as Si hopeless as I am though. It's a demonic function for me (going by Bebe's theory), but as your tertiary, you probably use it more than you think.

 

[niss]

ahahaha...I once tried asking this here myself. Turns out they're born this way, baby...

You may not be as Si hopeless as I am though. It's a demonic function for me (going by Bebe's theory), but as your tertiary, you probably use it more than you think.

You are possibly the only person I know that has labeled themselves as all of the 16 types, at one point or another. :wink:

 

[dagnytaggart]

You are possibly the only person I know that has labeled themselves as all of the 16 types, at one point or another. :wink:

Smartass...lol. Now that's just like an ISTJ to actually keep track! :tongue:

 

[niss]

Smartass...lol. Now that's just like an ISTJ to actually keep track! :tongue:

Oh, it was nothing really. Just a little spreadsheet I've kept ...

/stalker

 

[Rethink]

Your perception of the cognitive functions is incorrect. They are not skill sets which you pick up an use as needed. They are how you process the information revealed to you by your 5 senses.

Process can - per definition - always be improved. A process is a serie of activities, directed toward a specific end. All of these activities can be improved as long as they are properly identified.

 

[niss]

Process can - per definition - always be improved. A process is a serie of activities, directed toward a specific end. All of these activities can be improved as long as they are properly identified.

We are using different definitions: You are using "process" as a noun, where I am using it as a verb. While the ability to understand a particular set of stimuli can be improved through knowledge or data, the processing function itself remains unchanged. Hence my statement that it is impossible to strengthen or improve Si in any meaningful way. At best, the OP could only hope to ignore their other functions to a degree that forced them to rely on Si more heavily - a short term and likely frustrating exercise.

On a tangent, I find the thought behind improving processes to be rather backwards. We examine a process as an entity unto itself, ignoring that the process is not the objective. Therefore, we waste our energies, focusing them on the process instead of making the goal paramount, with the result of a finely tuned process that gets us to our objective in a crippled fashion.

I prefer to think of improving a process as the simple act of removing impediments to the goal. Once the impediments to obtaining the goal have been removed, then the best and simplest process will become apparent.

 

[Rethink]

We are using different definitions: You are using "process" as a noun, where I am using it as a verb. While the ability to understand a particular set of stimuli can be improved through knowledge or data, the processing function itself remains unchanged. Hence my statement that it is impossible to strengthen or improve Si in any meaningful way. At best, the OP could only hope to ignore their other functions to a degree that forced them to rely on Si more heavily - a short term and likely frustrating exercise.

On a tangent, I find the thought behind improving processes to be rather backwards. We examine a process as an entity unto itself, ignoring that the process is not the objective. Therefore, we waste our energies, focusing them on the process instead of making the goal paramount, with the result of a finely tuned process that gets us to our objective in a crippled fashion.

I prefer to think of improving a process as the simple act of removing impediments to the goal. Once the impediments to obtaining the goal have been removed, then the best and simplest process will become apparent.

Grammatical inflection does not affect the underlying nature of the concept. But I do agree with your further arguments.

 

[niss]

Grammatical inflection does not affect the underlying nature of the concept. But I do agree with your further arguments.

The change in usage denotes a difference in the meaning of the word, therefore the concepts being discussed are naturally dissimilar.

 

[Sela]

Now that's just like an ISTJ to actually keep track! :tongue:

Oh, it was nothing really. Just a little spreadsheet I've kept ...

As a matter of fact ... yes it is.

 

[Rethink]

The change in usage denotes a difference in the meaning of the word, therefore the concepts being discussed are naturally dissimilar.

What you state may be, at least in your individual interpretation of reality. But a cognitive process is existing in nature, separated from our cultural construct. It's human conception, and in extention it's linguistic expression (i.e. a "word", i.e. the word "process"), is a method of communicating interpretation. Different curvatures of humanly expressed interpretation does not, can not, change the essence of a naturally existing substance.

Thus, you can per it's natural structure identify steps within all processes, as long as you are capable of identifying them in nature. As the development of strong Si does exist naturally, it is possible to identify the steps resulting in it.

However, this would indeed be economically ineffective for the OP. On that side of the token you are spot on and intelligent.

But this is highly off topic, and I will not discuss it anymore. I merely poked you to express an elaboration on your first post, since I felt that the OP deserved more than you gave first.

 

[Qadosh]

I merely poked you to express an elaboration on your first post

Typical ENTP behavior. I don't know where @niss finds the patience.

 

[niss]

What you state may be, at least in your individual interpretation of reality. But a cognitive process is existing in nature, separated from our cultural construct. It's human conception, and in extention it's linguistic expression (i.e. a "word", i.e. the word "process"), is a method of communicating interpretation. Different curvatures of humanly expressed interpretation does not, can not, change the essence of a naturally existing substance.

Which is a roundabout way of saying that "a rose by any other name smells just as sweet." Really that means nothing to this discussion since we are using two different working definitions of the word "process" because we are discussing two different concepts.

Thus, you can per it's natural structure identify steps within all processes, as long as you are capable of identifying them in nature. As the development of strong Si does exist naturally, it is possible to identify the steps resulting in it.

The conscious development of strong Si does not exist naturally - that is where we differ. Si can appear to be strengthened temporarily by repressing other functions - not by increasing Si. No function stands alone, but they all are fluid and require other functions in their operation.

However, this would indeed be economically ineffective for the OP. On that side of the token you are spot on and intelligent.

Which means that the attempt at increasing Si would not be a worthwhile endeavor for the OP - hence my original response to the OP's question.

Oh, and thanks for the vote of confidence concerning the intelligence of my response. I was in a quandary as to whether or not my reply was intelligent. I feel so relieved. /sarcasm

But this is highly off topic, and I will not discuss it anymore. I merely poked you to express an elaboration on your first post, since I felt that the OP deserved more than you gave first.

Then your replies to this thread are disingenuous and amount to little more than pot-stirring. If, as you claim, you believe the OP deserved a better response than I gave, it would have been better for you to address the OP directly and share your views with them, rather than trying to manipulate me into giving the response you would like the OP to receive.

I believe that @Qadosh is correct in this instance; my patience is wearing thin.

 

[WamphyriThrall]

I believe that @Qadosh is correct in this instance; my patience is wearing thin.

*headdesk*

You were doing fine until this!

 

[niss]

*headdesk*

You were doing fine until this!

Yeah, I thought that as I typed it. But, truth is truth - I really, really dislike manipulative tactics.

*shrugs*

However, I sincerely do appreciate your posting this criticism. No sarcasm, srsly.