[Si] Exactly what is Si-dom like?

[Giggly]

Awwwwwwwww…
<3

ISFJ's are sweet little lambs that I love spending time with…
So many rich memories to explore…

 

[Avocado]

I think I understand Si now:

It is nostalgia, a yearning for what was...

 

[Evo]

I think I understand Si now:

It is nostalgia, a yearning for what was...

For an ENFP, yes. That's exactly how I see it manifest in my ENFP friends.

And collecting! My one friend will keep everything. All of her possessions have meaning. She has lots of mementos. And she is also always yearning for what was.

For an Si dom, there is a lot of referencing the past, for all situations that they encounter. For example, if their favorite food is mac n cheese, they will remember the first time they had it....And every time they ever again have it, they'll remember their first. It's a continuum of cross referencing of all contexts.

 

[LadyLazarus]

From what I've noticed with my ISTJ sister; a bit fixated on tradition, although not resistant to new ways of doing things if proven more efficient than what she's used to and maintaining consistency with the past. She seems to like it when things stay the same best, hates unpredictability and references things she's done before in order to figure out how to do new things, like intertwining past experience into present context. Has a hard time letting go of things, can hold grudges like no other. She also has an exponentially better long term memory than I do, whereas I have an exponentially better short-term memory than she does, but I'm not sure if that is due to being a Si-dom per say.

 

[Avocado]

From what I've noticed with my ISTJ sister; a bit fixated on tradition, although not resistant to new ways of doing things if proven more efficient than what she's used to and maintaining consistency with the past. She seems to like it when things stay the same best, hates unpredictability and references things she's done before in order to figure out how to do new things, like interviewing past experience into present context. Has a hard time letting go of things, can hold grudges like no other. She also has an exponentially better long term memory than I do, whereas I have an exponentially better short-term memory than she does, but I'm not sure if that is due to being a Si-dom per say.

I have an abysmal short-term memory, but a decent long-term memory (though I botch some of the details sometimes and I have to intend to store a memory to long term since I don't store automatically.)

 

[Noon]

This is a long post but I wrote a "pictorial guide" here.

You know how Ne will take a look at the world and see a stream of conceptual meanings in addition to 3-D objects? I feel that Si is like that too, except the meanings are not as free-flowing. More like a pond than a stream. And it is all completely personal, not built upon verifiable abstract qualities as it is with Ne. It is directly connected to whatever went on in you internally while that experience was being experienced.

And from another post:

In my mind, the difference is like this: Si associations are a chain of falling dominoes, though not always in a single line, while Ne associations are the billiard balls shooting off [after the white ball hits].

The worst thing about having prominent Si is feeling like I am in a constant battle against time's natural [and inevitable] erosion of my world. So sometimes I find it's like... outside can feel surreal while I know that inside is what I can trust. Inside does not change so much as it expands.

In a single line I'd say Si is just abstracting the concrete; having a static abstract attitude in the context of the material world.

 

[RDF]

Much has been said in this thread about the Si-Dom's ability to store and retrieve facts, and that's undoubtedly a key part of what they do. But less has been said about what exactly they do with those facts: They generate rules.

To compare Si to Se:

Se operates on an ad-hoc basis, coming up with real-time interactive tools for real-time problems. Si, on the other hand, takes problems down into an internal laboratory and works out tools for a given specific problem as well as a number of related problems, i.e., it works out a personal *rule-based system* for handling a broad array of similar problems. In that respect, Si works out a kind of internal "delta" of Se. That is, it tracks lots of Se possibilities and works out an internal, personalized Si system for handling them.

Or in more practical terms:

Si intercepts, stores, and categorizes lots of data. Then it compares the data to each other to determine "best practices" for doing things, determine progress in things (change over time), etc. From that, Si can then generate rules and "automate" lots of daily routines for the sake of increased productivity: Where is the best place to buy furniture, what is the quickest way to put on make-up in the morning, what is the best way to balance their checkbook, etc. (I was married to an ISTJ for 10 years, and she was one of the most productive people I've ever known.)

It's this rule-making function that makes Si-Doms and Si-Auxes good at such jobs as the military, police, etc.: They love the standardization and automation of procedures for greater productivity, resulting in a natural affinity for environments that favor rules.

I posted a similar analysis about Ne vs. Ni in this thread: http://www.typologycentral.com/foru...9182&page=60&p=2265546&viewfull=1#post2265546

With regard to Ne vs. Ni, I said, "Ne is ad hoc and operates out in the world; whereas Ni takes things down into an internal laboratory and tries to extract the *principles* that motivate or connect together related issues or events in the outer world."

Similarly, Se is ad hoc and operates out in the world; whereas Si takes things down into an internal laboratory and tries to extract the *rules* that motivate or connect together related issues or events in the outer world.

By the same token, Si-Inferior (shared by ENFPs and ENTPs) isn't just obliviousness to details; it's also a lack of trust in rule-based systems, automation, and repetitiveness. Hence, Ne-Doms (who share Si-Inferior) tend to want to do everything ad-hoc and fresh every time, as opposed to automating things; they hate routine because routine is repetitive and demands the generation of rule-based systems for proper mastery.

 

[digesthisickness]

MBy the same token, Si-Inferior (shared by ENFPs and ENTPs) isn't just obliviousness to details; it's also a lack of trust in rule-based systems, automation, and repetitiveness. Hence, Ne-Doms (who share Si-Inferior) tend to want to do everything ad-hoc and fresh every time, as opposed to automating things; they hate routine because routine is repetitive and demands the generation of rule-based systems for proper mastery.

Confirmed.

 

[Tellenbach]

From PimpinMcBoltage's post of Jung's description, this bit caught my eye:

Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not.

I remember the taste of a yogurt drink (I didn't know what it was at the time.) that I liked when I was four. I remember the feel of softness of the fur from my 3rd grade teacher's pet dog. I remember the expression of a friend's face in 5th grade when she got a paper cut. There are many such small experiences that have seared into my memory from decades back. I have no idea what will stick in my mind, but it's usually things I like.

 

[Avocado]

From PimpinMcBoltage's post of Jung's description, this bit caught my eye:



I remember the taste of a yogurt drink (I didn't know what it was at the time.) that I liked when I was four. I remember the feel of softness of the fur from my 3rd grade teacher's pet dog. I remember the expression of a friend's face in 5th grade when she got a paper cut. There are many such small experiences that have seared into my memory from decades back. I have no idea what will stick in my mind, but it's usually things I like.

For comparison to inferior-Si, I remember burning my finger in a candle, then the scene jumps to me being held upside down and spanked by someone, then I remember trying to tell my mom about a card with the face up and all I could say is “up,” and she thought that meant “shut up,” so she slapped me. Most of my memories are pretty vague, unless something reminds me of something else and a vivid recollection flashes up.

However, I have nearly encyclopedic knowledge of abstract phenomena I read about years ago if I need it to awnser a question.

 

[WALMART]

"Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind."

Like dat.

 

[Avocado]

"Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness. So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind."

Like dat.

So imagining things that will never be?

 

[WALMART]

So imagining things that will never be?

If Ne serves to exploit reality, Si serves to stabilize it.

As such, Si does not seek possibility for the intent of good or benefit, it seeks to root out nefarious intent - the best word I've come across to describe an Si type is vigil.

 

[Noon]

If Ne serves to exploit reality, Si serves to stabilize it.

As such, Si does not seek possibility for the intent of good or benefit, it seeks to root out nefarious intent - the best word I've come across to describe an Si type is vigil.

This is perfect.

 

[Avocado]

If Ne serves to exploit reality, Si serves to stabilize it.

As such, Si does not seek possibility for the intent of good or benefit, it seeks to root out nefarious intent - the best word I've come across to describe an Si type is vigil.

Gotcha.