[MBTI General] Ask An ISTJ About Si!

[PeaceBaby]

^ that's very interesting [MENTION=14915]Owfin[/MENTION]; my husband (an ESTJ), in response to trying to imagine a future possibility (for example, a new job) will say, "How do I know I will like this? I don't know what this will be like. I might really hate it." Sometimes that means he takes no action to find out rather than actually trying to it find out if it is right for him.

 

[Uytuun]

Ni seems to create a future concept of how they want things to be and look into it with the same conviction I would to a concept that is existing. They seem to say "Oh, I want a treehouse" and then once they have an idea of a treehouse, they can start waxing on the feeling of being in a treehouse. It seems a bit strange to me. They see what they are working towards as the "big picture". It doesn't seem to be bigger or smaller than my own picture, but where I consider understanding my own current information to be crucial, they consider it essential to understand their prediction of the future. To me it seems like a bit of a waste of effort, because the future is unreliable. Below I put my idea of a argument between very disagreeable versions of them (I apologize if I make it seem like Ni is worse or has worse arguments- it's just that I can create reasonable Si arguments much more easily than Ni ones because I am familiar with a Si line of reasoning):

Si: "How do you know what a treehouse is like?"
Ni: "I know what my treehouse is going to be like."
Si: "But how? You've never been in a treehouse."
Ni: "Well my idea of a treehouse has me feeling like X"
Si: "That doesn't make it true."
Ni: "Is your motto 'prove it' or something?"
Si: "No, I'm not saying that, I'm saying that you can't make observations about events that haven't happened."
Ni: "You can predict."
Si: "But you are talking about the future like it actually exists right now!"
Ni: "You are so stuck in the past!"
Si: "You think that the future is going to be one way just because you think it is!"
Ni:
Si:

Hahah (I wouldn't say the Ni responses are spot on, but they give a good enough impression of what bothers you about them)...so, when I was reading this, one word that popped up into my mind in connection with Ni was imagination (which in my experience tends to be very true).

Perhaps the big picture thing is related more to generality and abstraction: our general and abstract grasp of general and abstract images and the connections between them that we tend to "base" our predictions of the future on. But then, are Si users more concerned with concrete data?

 

[Owfin]

But then, are Si users more concerned with concrete data?

Eh, not really. I think Si and Ni types have a different idea of the abstract, though. For Si, an abstract thing can be very specific, such as the word "open" (as in a open floorplan). You can't define the point where a room becomes open.

 

[SubtleFighter]

Eh, not really. I think Si and Ni types have a different idea of the abstract, though. For Si, an abstract thing can be very specific, such as the word "open" (as in a open floorplan). You can't define the point where a room becomes open.

Wow, I would never consider 'open' to be abstract. To me, it falls into the more general concrete category (as opposed to 'floorplan,' which would be more specific concrete). It has to do with visuals. To me, abstract is more like the word 'justice,' which has no connection to anything tangible.

I'm not saying either definition is incorrect; I'm just showing that you're right in that we have different definitions of it.

I asked my ISFP mother about this to get another sensor's input. She actually said the same as I was thinking, that she considers 'open' to be concrete since it has to do with something you see. So it could be that Si vs Se is a factor as well in determining how you consider something abstract. Just speculating . . .

 

[skylights]

But then, are Si users more concerned with concrete data?

Eh, not really. I think Si and Ni types have a different idea of the abstract, though. For Si, an abstract thing can be very specific, such as the word "open" (as in a open floorplan). You can't define the point where a room becomes open.

excellent to know.

more and more i am getting the sense that the biggest difference between Si and Ni is the time focus. Si operates in present reality while Ni operates in the future space.

Wow, I would never consider 'open' to be abstract. To me, it falls into the more general concrete category (as opposed to 'floorplan,' which would be more specific concrete). It has to do with visuals. To me, abstract is more like the word 'justice,' which has no connection to anything tangible.

I'm not saying either definition is incorrect; I'm just showing that you're right in that we have different definitions of it.

I asked my ISFP mother about this to get another sensor's input. She actually said the same as I was thinking, that she considers 'open' to be concrete since it has to do with something you see. So it could be that Si vs Se is a factor as well in determining how you consider something abstract. Just speculating . . .

indeed. i find "open" a very abstract concept. it can mean anything ranging from literally showing a gap between two places to being a sense of vastness of space to something that has much permeability... and so on... even when restricted to the "open" of "open floorplan", there is still little concrete about it in my mind...

 

[SubtleFighter]

indeed. i find "open" a very abstract concept. it can mean anything ranging from literally showing a gap between two places to being a sense of vastness of space to something that has much permeability... and so on... even when restricted to the "open" of "open floorplan", there is still little concrete about it in my mind...

What's funny is that, right after I posted yesterday on this thread, my ISTP brother and his ISFP girlfriend came over, and I asked them about this too since it was on my mind to get more data points (luckily they're used to me saying odd things like this by now, lol). And they both said they felt 'open' was concrete based on the visual aspect of it. I thought, "Now this theory needs another Si/Ne user's vote on this!" And now I come back and see your post! *does cheer*

So it seems that Se-users define abstraction as something that's not related to the five senses, while Si-users define it as something that has a malleable definition (?)

 

[strychnine]

indeed. i find "open" a very abstract concept. it can mean anything ranging from literally showing a gap between two places to being a sense of vastness of space to something that has much permeability... and so on... even when restricted to the "open" of "open floorplan", there is still little concrete about it in my mind...

I find "open" abstract for the same reason. It doesn't seem definable. I mean, you could say what is not closed is open. But the only things that are definitively closed are those completely sealed off from the surroundings... which might exist in theory. If nothing is closed, everything is open... which to me indicates that open has no definition or infinite definitions. And I just talked about permeability to matter... there is also permeability to radiation, or to the unfamiliar ("open-minded"), etc.

Disclaimer: I don't know whether I'm Ne/Si or Se/Ni but I'll know soon, then this post can be interpreted in light of that lol.

I will also try to gather data points from people I know! This is a great thread.

 

[Owfin]

I find "open" abstract for the same reason. It doesn't seem definable. I mean, you could say what is not closed is open. But the only things that are definitively closed are those completely sealed off from the surroundings... which might exist in theory. If nothing is closed, everything is open... which to me indicates that open has no definition or infinite definitions. And I just talked about permeability to matter... there is also permeability to radiation, or to the unfamiliar ("open-minded"), etc.

With the word "open" though, it doesn't just mean a opened door. It can mean a open field. You seem to be trying to find an exact answer for why something could not be open, while I just stop at "It's undefinable. You can't define how open an area is."

Methinks that difference in how far we went was more of a Ti vs Te thing.

 

[strychnine]

With the word "open" though, it doesn't just mean a opened door. It can mean a open field. You seem to be trying to find an exact answer for why something could not be open, while I just stop at "It's undefinable. You can't define how open an area is."

Methinks that difference in how far we went was more of a Ti vs Te thing.

Actually my initial reaction was similar to yours: "It has no single definition." My post was just an attempt to explain the rationale behind my conclusion. But I had the conclusion instantly.

 

[skylights]

What's funny is that, right after I posted yesterday on this thread, my ISTP brother and his ISFP girlfriend came over, and I asked them about this too since it was on my mind to get more data points (luckily they're used to me saying odd things like this by now, lol). And they both said they felt 'open' was concrete based on the visual aspect of it. I thought, "Now this theory needs another Si/Ne user's vote on this!" And now I come back and see your post! *does cheer*

So it seems that Se-users define abstraction as something that's not related to the five senses, while Si-users define it as something that has a malleable definition (?)

that's really interesting. yeah, that's how i conceptualize "abstract". as something which has a definition that changes based upon context and/or intended meaning, essentially. "concrete" to me is something like "2 millimeters", which is unit (2) that is understood in math to have a particular definition, and a measurement (mm) that is understood in SI to have a particular, locked-in definition. i suppose looking at it from another angle, that's all abstract, because "2" is a manmade, non-tangible concept and "millimeters" are a manmade, non-tangible concept... but to me it still "feels" concrete.

 

[Owfin]

that's really interesting. yeah, that's how i conceptualize "abstract". as something which has a definition that changes based upon context and/or intended meaning, essentially. "concrete" to me is something like "2 millimeters", which is unit (2) that is understood in math to have a particular definition, and a measurement (mm) that is understood in SI to have a particular, locked-in definition. i suppose looking at it from another angle, that's all abstract, because "2" is a manmade, non-tangible concept and "millimeters" are a manmade, non-tangible concept... but to me it still "feels" concrete.

Yeah, 2 mm seems to be concrete to me too.

 

[SubtleFighter]

that's really interesting. yeah, that's how i conceptualize "abstract". as something which has a definition that changes based upon context and/or intended meaning, essentially. "concrete" to me is something like "2 millimeters", which is unit (2) that is understood in math to have a particular definition, and a measurement (mm) that is understood in SI to have a particular, locked-in definition. i suppose looking at it from another angle, that's all abstract, because "2" is a manmade, non-tangible concept and "millimeters" are a manmade, non-tangible concept... but to me it still "feels" concrete.

The bolded is making my head spin and wondering if anything's really concrete at all and if everything we see as reality is really just a construct in our heads, haha... (not the first time I've wondered this)


Edit: Sorry for kinda hijacking your thread, Owfin. This topic has something to do with Si, although I don't know if this is what you had in mind. Let the questioning about Si resume!

 

[Owfin]

Edit: Sorry for kinda hijacking your thread, Owfin. This topic has something to do with Si, although I don't know if this is what you had in mind. Let the questioning about Si resume!

We are still learning something though, are we not?

 

[SubtleFighter]

^ I was just afraid I was offending you by taking your thread off-course. I do think it's really interesting--I'm glad you do too

 

[Cimarron]

With the word "open" though, it doesn't just mean a opened door. It can mean a open field. You seem to be trying to find an exact answer for why something could not be open, while I just stop at "It's undefinable. You can't define how open an area is."

Methinks that difference in how far we went was more of a Ti vs Te thing.

You can (and must, as you show) define based on the context of why the question is being asked/what's being brought into question, and what people seem to consider "open" to normally mean. This involves knowing a lot of people's opinion about what makes something "very open", "rather open", "partially open", "rather closed", "essentially closed", and that set of opinions only works for one situation (such as an "open room")--it has to be reconstructed from the start for every other situation, in the same way.

What I'm saying is that this is how to make an answer applicable.

 

[mrcockburn]

How do I convince my ISTJ that my Si really does suck, and that I'm not constantly inspecting the house for little crumbs to pick up?

Yes, I live with him now.

 

[Owfin]

How do I convince my ISTJ that my Si really does suck, and that I'm not constantly inspecting the house for little crumbs to pick up?

Yes, I live with him now.

Wait, do you mean that he thinks you go around the house picking up crumbs, or that he thinks you should go around the house picking up crumbs?

Either way, it wouldn't be Si telling you to do it. Te and actually Ne are more of the naggers in ISTJs.

Si: "Oh, look over there, there's that pile of books that I keep forgetting to put away."
Te: "You moron, you spend like 10 minutes of the day trying to find books, cutting out of the time you read. This wouldn't happen if you were organized."
Ne: "You might trip over all the books, too!"
Si: "FINE."

The thing is that I can't really give good advice here because I don't know enough about your individual situation.

 

[mrcockburn]

Wait, do you mean that he thinks you go around the house picking up crumbs, or that he thinks you should go around the house picking up crumbs?

Either way, it wouldn't be Si telling you to do it. Te and actually Ne are more of the naggers in ISTJs.

Si: "Oh, look over there, there's that pile of books that I keep forgetting to put away."
Te: "You moron, you spend like 10 minutes of the day trying to find books, cutting out of the time you read. This wouldn't happen if you were organized."
Ne: "You might trip over all the books, too!"
Si: "FINE."

The thing is that I can't really give good advice here because I don't know enough about your individual situation.

He thinks I should. For example, when I'm done making english muffins for breakfast, I wipe up the counter and all, but if I miss a crumb...omg! I obviously "don't care"!

That's also the annoying part. I could see if he had a rodent problem or something, but he gets pissy because he thinks I "don't care", and that's it.

 

[Owfin]

He thinks I should. For example, when I'm done making english muffins for breakfast, I wipe up the counter and all, but if I miss a crumb...omg! I obviously "don't care"!

0.o I do not identify.

I am sort of picky and detail oriented, but I would apply really strict judgment to only my own job. No need to nag other people unless you were selling a house or something.

I haven't really seen anything from his own perspective here... but it might be fair to ask him why he gets so mad about it.

 

[Thinkist]

Somehow I happen to have a strong Si, and it's not normal for ISTPs to have such a strong Si. Often times it is used negatively, kinda like "I know this all too well (maybe because it's happened in the past), and I MUST get away from it!" That said, I often clash hard with SJs and to a lesser extent NPs that have a positive form of Si.

Anyway, I wonder what a dialogue between Si and Se would look like.