Describe Si more clearly

[raz]

Digging up a 2 week old thread, I know, but I felt this was most appropriate to continue such a discussion.

I was thinking about Si again today. I'm thinking this only applies to IxxJs. In Gifts Differing, Isabel uses an analogy to illustrate introverts and extraverts. Basically, the dominant/auxiliary processes are like a general and his aide at a tent. The general is the dominant and the aid is the auxiliary. For introverts, the aide is outside the tent and acts as the extraverted process. The general is inside the tent and deals with important matters away from the world.

It made me think about it because she explains how most people really only see the introvert'ss extraverted process, the "second best." Si, for ISxJs, is the process we're supposed to rely on the most, and is the most developed. Our dominant happens to be a perceiving process which we attend to internally, away from outside influence. So, our internal behavior is based mostly on processing tangible perceptions. So, then an INxJ's internal behavior is the processing of perceptions gained by insight from their intuition. Common sense, right?

It's making me just think that these perceptions for dominant Si users are more of....impressions, as they're concrete. They're limited to the data we can take in from our five senses. Wouldn't you say a Si user tends to take in the information they see, hear, feel, etc and evaluate it at face value, without going further? I mean, that's what I tend to do a lot. That's pretty much what a Sensor is, though.

That would just make an ISxJ's default mode observation, even more so for an ISTJ, I think? Would an ISFJ spend more, less or the same time observing with Si than an ISTJ?

That wasn't quite what I looking to say, but oh well. I think I'm just thinking out loud....except...not so. I think I'm just starting to understand the difference between each introvert.

 

[spirilis]

Digging up a 2 week old thread, I know, but I felt this was most appropriate to continue such a discussion.

I was thinking about Si again today. I'm thinking this only applies to IxxJs. In Gifts Differing, Isabel uses an analogy to illustrate introverts and extraverts. Basically, the dominant/auxiliary processes are like a general and his aide at a tent. The general is the dominant and the aid is the auxiliary. For introverts, the aide is outside the tent and acts as the extraverted process. The general is inside the tent and deals with important matters away from the world.

It made me think about it because she explains how most people really only see the introvert'ss extraverted process, the "second best." Si, for ISxJs, is the process we're supposed to rely on the most, and is the most developed. Our dominant happens to be a perceiving process which we attend to internally, away from outside influence. So, our internal behavior is based mostly on processing tangible perceptions. So, then an INxJ's internal behavior is the processing of perceptions gained by insight from their intuition. Common sense, right?

It's making me just think that these perceptions for dominant Si users are more of....impressions, as they're concrete. They're limited to the data we can take in from our five senses. Wouldn't you say a Si user tends to take in the information they see, hear, feel, etc and evaluate it at face value, without going further? I mean, that's what I tend to do a lot. That's pretty much what a Sensor is, though.

That would just make an ISxJ's default mode observation, even more so for an ISTJ, I think? Would an ISFJ spend more, less or the same time observing with Si than an ISTJ?

That wasn't quite what I looking to say, but oh well. I think I'm just thinking out loud....except...not so. I think I'm just starting to understand the difference between each introvert.

That's a pretty good point of discussion though. My question would be, what do you do with those impressions--when you record them in your mind, then later on evaluate them against a new impression (say you're walking into a bar that's quite different from any place you've been before--we'll use that as an example for discussion), what kind of thoughts go on inside?

 

[raz]

That's a pretty good point of discussion though. My question would be, what do you do with those impressions--when you record them in your mind, then later on evaluate them against a new impression (say you're walking into a bar that's quite different from any place you've been before--we'll use that as an example for discussion), what kind of thoughts go on inside?

It's weird, really. I thought about it Saturday night at the bar. After being there for a half hour, I felt this overwhelming sense of familiarity. It was so weird. I only saw everyone for a little bit, but I already felt like I had seen them all before at another time before the night.

I'd have to say I take the impressions, process them to understand what they mean, and then compare them to a past impression if possible. That'd explain why something completely new is something that takes a lot of time to really understand. We don't have the insight that an intuitive would have, so we just have to continue evaluating until it can mesh with our paradigm. Does that make sense?

 

[spirilis]

It's weird, really. I thought about it Saturday night at the bar. After being there for a half hour, I felt this overwhelming sense of familiarity. It was so weird. I only saw everyone for a little bit, but I already felt like I had seen them all before at another time before the night.

I'd have to say I take the impressions, process them to understand what they mean, and then compare them to a past impression if possible. That'd explain why something completely new is something that takes a lot of time to really understand. We don't have the insight that an intuitive would have, so we just have to continue evaluating until it can mesh with our paradigm. Does that make sense?

It does, kind've. While it almost sounds like a hinderance with what you mentioned--"We don't have the insight that an intuitive would have"--on the other side of the coin, it makes you extremely astute to identifying a place that does *not* mesh with your paradigm, and I'm guessing (confirm or correct me if I'm wrong) it predisposes you to analyzing the new place in very great detail, as you simply *have to* take in everything if you're ever going to feel fulfilled by it. Does this sound about right?

 

[raz]

It does, kind've. While it almost sounds like a hinderance with what you mentioned--"We don't have the insight that an intuitive would have"--on the other side of the coin, it makes you extremely astute to identifying a place that does *not* mesh with your paradigm, and I'm guessing (confirm or correct me if I'm wrong) it predisposes you to analyzing the new place in very great detail, as you simply *have to* take in everything if you're ever going to feel fulfilled by it. Does this sound about right?

I think you're on to something!

 

[spirilis]

I think you're on to something!

Hehe What I was going to say in conclusion, was that I understand now how Si creates the "guardian" experience--having a very quick and astute method of identifying what's "not within their paradigm" based on sensory and language cues has very important utility that's almost too obvious to mention. The propensity to analyzing greater detail offers you access to information that a purportedly "Ne-type" might miss--information that may or may not become important, even CRITICALLY important, for making the best decisions. As an Ne-using type myself, I know that I continually skim over details to such an extent that it sometimes shoots me straight in the foot (with a double-barrel shotgun followed by a grenade), and that's the situation where I can't help but praise Si-types for their carefulness. It seems I just never find the patience for it but you guys have to employ it by your very nature. (again, correct anything that doesn't sound right )

 

[The Ü™]

To put it simply, Se is living the moment, Si is seizing the moment.

Per Jung, the difference between Se and Si is the difference between a hedonist and an aesthete.

As a rule, both Se and Si are governed by sensory pursuits, but a hedonist actively pursues sensory experience, an aesthete passively takes in sensory experience.

There is a frequent misconception that Si is concerned with comparing data with other data -- this is, in fact, more of a rational/intellectual pursuit, more related to rational functions (T and F): Te and Ti relate incoming sensory or intuitive data to systematic standards -- either by cold facts discovered by Te or by internal logic of Ti. Much in the same way, Fe and Fi relate incoming sensory or intuitive data to collective social values set by Fe or personal values set by Fi.

 

[Kaizer]

Digging up a 2 week old thread, I know, but I felt this was most appropriate to continue such a discussion.

I was thinking about Si again today. I'm thinking this only applies to IxxJs. In Gifts Differing, Isabel uses an analogy to illustrate introverts and extraverts. Basically, the dominant/auxiliary processes are like a general and his aide at a tent. The general is the dominant and the aid is the auxiliary. For introverts, the aide is outside the tent and acts as the extraverted process. The general is inside the tent and deals with important matters away from the world.

It made me think about it because she explains how most people really only see the introvert'ss extraverted process, the "second best." Si, for ISxJs, is the process we're supposed to rely on the most, and is the most developed. Our dominant happens to be a perceiving process which we attend to internally, away from outside influence. So, our internal behavior is based mostly on processing tangible perceptions. So, then an INxJ's internal behavior is the processing of perceptions gained by insight from their intuition. Common sense, right?

It's making me just think that these perceptions for dominant Si users are more of....impressions, as they're concrete. They're limited to the data we can take in from our five senses. Wouldn't you say a Si user tends to take in the information they see, hear, feel, etc and evaluate it at face value, without going further? I mean, that's what I tend to do a lot. That's pretty much what a Sensor is, though.

That would just make an ISxJ's default mode observation, even more so for an ISTJ, I think? Would an ISFJ spend more, less or the same time observing with Si than an ISTJ?

That wasn't quite what I looking to say, but oh well. I think I'm just thinking out loud....except...not so. I think I'm just starting to understand the difference between each introvert.

My experience in the NT world has been with the TiNe (INTP) versus the NiTe (INTJ) interaction etc. a leading introverted thinker (as opposed to an introverted feeler) with a leading introverted-intuitive (as opposed to sensor).

the propensity to not really consider an option till a paradigm exists or is built up, is something the Ni seems to almost force upon the INTJ. Its this that makes me think that INTJs as rationals would be more like or likely to be like philosophers cause a philosophy needs a paradigm... a greater propensity to believe in say religions or systems or basically frameworks upon which systems are based. And that the axillary Te helps them fill this framework with substance. Since for an INTJ the supportive is a thinking process they tend to not be true 'thinkers' since they don't lead with thinking.

When Si is the tertiary, its the relief role function and that is where I can see how it can, in relative terms, take a lot of time, even when its the leading process, to form constructs.

I'm just not sure if the subjectivity of Si makes for it to be objective enough to base something long term off of. (this might sound too Ne oriented)

Naturally though, I am disposed towards seeing Si as a function that explains things in hindsight & thats fundamentally what My exposure to Si has been.

 

[Cimarron]

I'm just not sure if the subjectivity of Si makes for it to be objective enough to base something long term off of.

And I figure this is the main gripe most Ns have with SJs.

 

[Kaizer]

And I figure this is the main gripe most Ns have with SJs.

Not a gripe per se. Awareness of the weaker side & enhancing the awareness and lack of it is hopefully more like it cause balance and maturity should be the aim.

also, I did try to make the quoted statement wholesome with the N bit at the end

I'm just not sure if the subjectivity of Si makes for it to be objective enough to base something long term off of. (this might sound too Ne oriented)

 

[raz]

What do you mean by subjectivity of Si? Do you mean how ISTJs are more affected by their surroundings than INTJs because they're sensors? So many times I wish I could be as distant as an INTJ. It's harder than it seems for an ISTJ.

 

[Kaizer]

What do you mean by subjectivity of Si? Do you mean how ISTJs are more affected by their surroundings than INTJs because they're sensors? So many times I wish I could be as distant as an INTJ. It's harder than it seems for an ISTJ.

I meant more that both Si ISTJ/ISFJ or Ti (INTP/ISTP) (INTJ on the other hand has a supportive Te & not a leading Ti) seem to have the propensity to be subjective especially when the function heavily leads & predominates. The difference I was pointing out was that with Ti its thinking for thinking's sake whereas with Si its about getting the concrete structure right and filing it with what the supportive function seemingly dictates. Since Si leads to concrete dependable structures based on 'what is' invoking 'what was', when its a leading function with an introverted attitude, its subjectivity might be more apparent since it seeks to get 'concrete' form dependably right.

Do you mean how ISTJs are more affected by their surroundings than INTJs because they're sensors? So many times I wish I could be as distant as an INTJ. It's harder than it seems for an ISTJ.

A few paragraphs here and I'm not sure of their level of relevance, but since its the S versus the N you're trying to measure off or compare and not a leading Si versus versus Ti, I'm not sure if these will help

"The Sensing reality structure is built with the physical component. For this reason, the Sensor is drawn to the concrete and pragmatic matters of life. He is in touch with the immediate sensory experience and has little interest in idea or theory. The Sensor is obviously aware of the motion component, but within the reality structure, this takes the form of fact, rather than process"

"Introverted Sensing will focus on the details and integrate the perceived information into highly specific and localized areas within the reality structure. "
"Extraverted Sensing, on the other hand, will focus on overall, surface properties, and integrate information onto a wide matrix area."

"the Sensing matrix is built with static objects and their physical properties. Intuition, on the other hand, is aware of motion and process. Sensing and Intuition act in some respects as two opposing forces - the former seeking stability; the latter, change. "
wip btw