WeddingMood said:
If memory doesn't correspond to Si, then Si isn't about past experiences as mbti says
Yeah, you're right, but the thing is given these systems are more based on conceptual definition than on empirical testing, we have the freedom to define what we want how we want.
Obviously, we evaluate which definitions are interesting/not, but still, there's more freedom than in a procedure like finding the Big 5 dimensions of personality, where it's mostly empirical work cut out.
What I quoted was from Jung, which technically is different from MBTI. But, it's safe to say that I think we need to take the good ideas from each and discard the bad. I don't take the point of view that Jung, socionics, mbti are just stand-alone systems, because honestly they're clearly working with similar intuitions/organizing them in similar ways, so it seems more likely to me that they're in
competition in a lot of ways, not just defining totally independent systems.
Obviously here, I'm talking of MBTI as including the typical theory of functions and so on, not merely the literal indicator.
The reason it makes independent sense not to put memory~Si is simply that if you have 4 types of information, it would make sense that you can have memories focusing on any of them. Memory of sensory info is S-related. Memory of information you've processed about something's value = F -- you may then use this memory to build on top of it.
The fact is intelligent creatures need memories, else there's no concept of learning. And if each function corresponds to a category of learning that is irreducible to the other, then it makes sense that we'd have memories of each, not just put memory in Si.
The MBTI portrayal is not entirely wrong, though, because the sense of how it was like to experience something is indeed Si-ish. But building a matrix of facts to use for inference later isn't necessarily Si-ish at all -- easily could be Te or something.
