[Si] Can you describe your experience with introverted sensing?

[Agent Washington]

Thanks for the response and interesting perspective. Do you think Si users are fully aware of the complexity of the function? How do you think one would go about world building and expanding upon their Si? Thanks again for the response.

I don't think most people are fully aware of how anything works, especially if it goes on in their own brains. I find most explanations of Pi inadequate most of the time. And when it's said to be more complex as a dominant function as opposed to being a tert (etc) function, then their difference is never really explained except in the most simplest of ways. The problem with explaining these things in simple ways is that literally everybody's brains can be reduced to such simple function; there is nobody who doesn't rely on a subjective intake of information from the concrete world. (To give an example, our German instructor gave us a task: To draw a flower. EVERYONE in the class, except for one, drew the same kind of flower - in the same iconography. This is because all of us, when we were growing up, has literally been shown the same sort of diagrams so that we associate it with the same sort of words - and this is from a very transcultural perspective, since all of us were from different cultures.)

I think the expansion of Si can only be done in a very rigorous way, by taking in hard information, sorting them out, from as wide a variety and sources as is possible to maintain the best possible understanding.

As for world-building, once some things (eg: Theories, languages, the way languages function) are internalised, the same theories can be used to build something entirely new (eg: construction of a new language). That's why I brought Tolkien in as an example - to show how complex everything can be with Si as a dominant function, and, with the help of other functions, achieve vastly complex and even abstract tasks. Si is so often reduced to such a banal idea that it might as well not exist as a "function".

 

[Generalist]

I don't think most people are fully aware of how anything works, especially if it goes on in their own brains. I find most explanations of Pi inadequate most of the time. And when it's said to be more complex as a dominant function as opposed to being a tert (etc) function, then their difference is never really explained except in the most simplest of ways. The problem with explaining these things in simple ways is that literally everybody's brains can be reduced to such simple function; there is nobody who doesn't rely on a subjective intake of information from the concrete world. (To give an example, our German instructor gave us a task: To draw a flower. EVERYONE in the class, except for one, drew the same kind of flower - in the same iconography. This is because all of us, when we were growing up, has literally been shown the same sort of diagrams so that we associate it with the same sort of words - and this is from a very transcultural perspective, since all of us were from different cultures.)

I think the expansion of Si can only be done in a very rigorous way, by taking in hard information, sorting them out, from as wide a variety and sources as is possible to maintain the best possible understanding.

As for world-building, once some things (eg: Theories, languages, the way languages function) are internalised, the same theories can be used to build something entirely new (eg: construction of a new language). That's why I brought Tolkien in as an example - to show how complex everything can be with Si as a dominant function, and, with the help of other functions, achieve vastly complex and even abstract tasks. Si is so often reduced to such a banal idea that it might as well not exist as a "function".

Thanks for the responses and the insights!