If Fi is similar to any perceiving function, it's Si.
i.e. "that's the way...I like it...uh huh uh...that's the way...I like it."
And others not in the know may be mystified of the strength of you preferring it that way.
agreed. a subjective set of fervent yet vague standards that makes anyone who doesn't have it think "wtf?"
I think Si works pretty much the same as Ni.
To spell it out, here’s how I described Ni in an earlier post:
Well, my understanding of Ni is that it works like a matrix or a spiderweb. The Ni-user collects factoids and data in their Ni matrix, sees how they all connect together, and then churns the matrix and rearranges the factoids and data into new combinations. He compares the new combination against the old, churns again for more combinations, and thus cranks out plans and back-up plans and more back-up plans, until a solution is worked out.
As I see it Si works the same in that it gathers data and factoids into groups and categories, juggles them around to check out their similarities and dissimilarities, and then extracts the best features or qualities or rules from that group or set. And then proceeds to the next group or category, or creates new sets and groups from older ones.
So it’s kind of like the churning of Ni, IOW, like putting a bunch of dice in a cup, shaking them up, and then spilling them out on a table to see what combination comes out. Except that where Ni is about matrices and juxtapositioning, Si is about aggregations and comparisons for similarities and dissimilarities.
In general I see Si as the use of various mnemonic/analytical/storage devices. A simple real-world example would be the Dewey Decimal System (the filing system used in libraries and bookstores), where books are first analyzed according to their qualities and features (their subject matter) and aggregated into categories and sub-categories accordingly; and only afterwards are they organized by alphabet within the categories. Storage of computer files often works this way on PCs: Use of folders and sub-folders to store material by subject category, and then by alphabet within the folder itself.
Scientists categorize plants and animals by analyzing their features and qualities and then aggregating them in taxonomies on that basis.
Another example: When I was translating, I often wouldn’t use the big universal dictionaries that students use. My best tools were glossaries on specific subjects, where terms could be defined in a tight context and compared with other terms in that same context. Again, the essense of a glossary is the aggregation of a subset of terms for a laser-like focus on that one particular category of terms.
As for my personal experience of Si: I haven’t done a lot of reading on Si, so I’m not sure how much this corresponds with typology canon. But it’s my tertiary function, i.e., one of my stronger ones.
Over time I have developed various mnemonic devices for comparing features of data in order in order to aggregate them for storage or memory; they allow me to keep track of large volumes of data and information and retrieve it quickly. Playing with these things seems to be something I’m naturally good at. When I explain those devices to others, they tell me I’m using my Ti or Te to develop an organizational structure. But Ti is my eighth and weakest function, and my Te doesn’t work on this kind of detailed level; with these Si-based mnemonic/analytical/storage devices, I get kind of an anal-retentive thrill that’s different from the Te organizational thrill.
I’ll also add that I *don’t* believe Si has much to do with simple memory (which every type has, of course) or with free association (like a taste or smell unexpectedly evoking a scene from childhood, and which happens to every type as well).
To sum up: I think Si is like Ni (more of a structured data-crunching and churning faculty) as opposed to being a simple mechanism like memory or free association.