[Si] Exactly what is Si-dom like?

[Avocado]

As an Ne-dom, I picture Si-dom being very conservative, serious, traditional, austere, lawful, and uncomfortable with change. Am I correct?

 

[Infinite Bubble]

That's kind of a boring description of it, and unfortunately a common one due to the consequence of it being the least romanticised function. In fact, the closest function to it is Ni; the most romanticised one of them all. Si is subjective sensory impressions, so it is probably, in Jungian terms, the archetypal painter/artist function. Impressionist paintings are a nicer way to represent the function than the usual descriptions of them being boring, sheep-like dullards.

The reason why they can be sensitive to change and sometimes be traditionalists/conservatives is because they accumulate all this past data and they come to rely on it. If it is new, it isn't stored yet, so it can't be trusted. But that doesn't mean in any way that the outcome of that has to be the crappy boring stereotypes we've all heard of. They can have interesting and nontraditonal views too, just like anyone else - that is more dependant on other factors, such as their personality, the exact data that has actually been accumulated (which may very well be "esoteric"), and the environment.

 

[tinker683]

As an Ne-dom, I picture Si-dom being very conservative, serious, traditional, austere, lawful, and uncomfortable with change. Am I correct?

I can be all of those things all at once...but usually only a few at a time and only with select things.

I'm usually pretty conservative in how I go about my daily life, very serious at work (except with some of my employees, then I can get goofy), I'm only traditional in the sense that I try to adhere to whatever philosophical/political/spiritual ideas I hold as 'traditionally' as I can. Austere and Lawful I would say I am usually all the time and with change it entirely depends: I don't like changing routines at work, but I QUICKLY embrace change with technology because I love gadgets and things that go 'beep!' :>

But..no, to try and answer your question, I would say picture going through your lie like a with everything being a set of routines that you've established (with some wiggle room for the inevitably chaotic nature of life) and making sure you feel very safe before trying something drastic (like moving to a new place or something).

 

[Avocado]

That's kind of a boring description of it, and unfortunately a common one due to the consequence of it being the least romanticised function. In fact, the closest function to it is Ni; the most romanticised one of them all. Si is subjective sensory impressions, so it is probably, in Jungian terms, the archetypal painter/artist function. Impressionist paintings are a nicer way to represent the function than the usual descriptions of them being boring, sheep-like dullards.

The reason why they can be sensitive to change and sometimes be traditionalists/conservatives is because they accumulate all this past data and they come to rely on it. If it is new, it isn't stored yet, so it can't be trusted. But that doesn't mean in any way that the outcome of that has to be the crappy boring stereotypes we've all heard of. They can have interesting and nontraditonal views too, just like anyone else - that is more dependant on other factors, such as their personality, the exact data that has actually been accumulated (which may very well be "esoteric"), and the environment.

Right before my art class, I have a study-hall period. Since things get kind of boring once I'm done with everything, I find people to talk to. I was speaking to an ISFJ in person recently, and originally mistyped them as ENFP. I was intrigued, and then introduced them to MBTI. At first, the questions I used to confirm ENFP worked: (Do you do things based on how you feel about them? Do you enjoy art?)

That's when things started looking very different...

I mentioned that when I took the mandatory careers test, it said I would function best as a theme park designer. I got excited talking about how I would be designing whole new worlds and would constantly be traveling the world because travel is required to keep steady work. She asked why I would want to travel the world instead of sticking in my small rural hometown where things are familiar. I told her that being able to see all kinds of different cultures would be a blessing to me, and on top of that, to give them a land of pure joy...it would be priceless. He response was "Sounds scary..."

At this point, I brought MBTI back up, since I had only discussed it briefly before going to a new topic. I asked her to read ENFP, but she didn't relate. I then showed her ISTJ, and she said that is was close. I finally showed her ISFJ, and she said it was exactly her...

I must just have a bad eye for typology...but she was a creative SJ...

 

[Avocado]

I can be all of those things all at once...but usually only a few at a time and only with select things.

I'm usually pretty conservative in how I go about my daily life, very serious at work (except with some of my employees, then I can get goofy), I'm only traditional in the sense that I try to adhere to whatever philosophical/political/spiritual ideas I hold as 'traditionally' as I can. Austere and Lawful I would say I am usually all the time and with change it entirely depends: I don't like changing routines at work, but I QUICKLY embrace change with technology because I love gadgets and things that go 'beep!' :>

But..no, to try and answer your question, I would say picture going through your lie like a with everything being a set of routines that you've established (with some wiggle room for the inevitably chaotic nature of life) and making sure you feel very safe before trying something drastic (like moving to a new place or something).

[MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION]
I think some of this is being an Sp-middle. I guess in my head, I was taking Si to the extreme. I still believe I am ENxP, but I can at least partially relate to a lot of this, especially the philosophy part. It could be how I was raised, though. I was trained to carefully examine the roots of things, and not accept things if the origin is bad. Going into young adulthood, I am relaxing a little, however...

 

[Azure Flame]

I'd associate Si more with being old fashioned than anything. The only thing I can appreciate as an Se dom is the fact that they love to live in nature and become one with the environment.

I really like ISFJ's. They don't seem to provide any Se or Ni pleasure at all, but other than that they are rock solid, hard to piss off, easy going as hell, secretly badass, very active, and can be very attractive.

 

[FemMecha]

At my last piano teacher meeting I looked around the room and it dawned on me that almost everyone in the room was either an ISTJ or ISFJ. I do not have a personally strong use of Si, but based on my understanding and my experience being around a lot of people who use Si, it seems like it focuses on finding the "best" way. It has a tendency to internalize all the concrete data, but to organize it around a central point, rather than going with the flow externally like Se does. There seems to be a tendency to find the best technique, the best sound, the best brand, the best way to fold a towel, the best sauce, and then to focus on that approach. I believe that Frazier and Niles Crane have been given as examples of strong Si users. I can see people with Si being drawn to tradition, the classic, the ideal and best based on experience and perception. There would be less tendency to be experimental because that involves a lot more failures and approaches that are difficult to evaluate. The tried and true have proven integrity, perfection, and ideal in their approach which is the concept behind traditionalism. Because of this I perceive Si as establishing and perfecting standards while Se explores and inadvertently challenges those standards. Both processes are needed.

 

[RDF]

Comparing Se and Si:
--Se takes data from the outside world and riffs on it to determine a “best practice” to define values and drive personal behavior.
--Si internally isolates a limited set of related data and hones it to divine an “essence” or a comparison that explains all the elements.

Example:
--Se notices someone walking down the street and riffs on their posture, gait, looks, etc. IOW Se likes to work with variety and quantity drawn directly from the world around it.
--Si sees a friend or family member and immediately notices that he has lost a couple pounds since the last visit, or Si sees a room and can tell you pretty accurately whether a piece of remembered furniture will fit in it. IOW Si compares the present picture to an internal stored picture of the same thing or of a related thing.

In other words:
--Se is about tinkering: racing through lots of ideas but not necessarily coming to a single conclusion or decision on a given matter. That’s because it’s an extroverted function and you’re looking at it directly, unfiltered by a judging function. (The judging function is introverted and out of sight to the rest of the world.)
--Si-Dom is about honing things down to their most perfect expression: it likes to get things solidified before speaking up, and then it presents its conclusions as a rule for life, a done deal. That’s partly because it’s an introverted function, and you’re only seeing Si after it has been filtered by a extroverted judging function. The extroverted judging function is what converts Si ruminations into a rule.

 

[tinker683]

[MENTION=8485]tinker683[/MENTION]
I think some of this is being an Sp-middle. I guess in my head, I was taking Si to the extreme. I still believe I am ENxP, but I can at least partially relate to a lot of this, especially the philosophy part. It could be how I was raised, though. I was trained to carefully examine the roots of things, and not accept things if the origin is bad. Going into young adulthood, I am relaxing a little, however...

Well, to be fair, ENTPs are ISFJs in reverse so I imagine we can relate a lot to each other.

And you're very likely right about the Sp thing, I imagine a lot of ISFJs are SO doms/auxs so I imagine I'm in the minority.

I'd associate Si more with being old fashioned than anything. The only thing I can appreciate as an Se dom is the fact that they love to live in nature and become one with the environment.

If by "become one" you mean we try to adapt to our environments rather than forcibly change them, then I can agree to that

I really like ISFJ's. They don't seem to provide any Se or Ni pleasure at all, but other than that they are rock solid, hard to piss off, easy going as hell, secretly badass, very active, and can be very attractive.

Thank you!!! ISFJs tend to get along swimmingly with ESTPs from what I understand. My dance partner is an ESTP and we get along *very* well. Her personality plays very well off of mine.

At my last piano teacher meeting I looked around the room and it dawned on me that almost everyone in the room was either an ISTJ or ISFJ. I do not have a personally strong use of Si, but based on my understanding and my experience being around a lot of people who use Si, it seems like it focuses on finding the "best" way. It has a tendency to internalize all the concrete data, but to organize it around a central point, rather than going with the flow externally like Se does. There seems to be a tendency to find the best technique, the best sound, the best brand, the best way to fold a towel, the best sauce, and then to focus on that approach. I believe that Frazier and Niles Crane have been given as examples of strong Si users. I can see people with Si being drawn to tradition, the classic, the ideal and best based on experience and perception. There would be less tendency to be experimental because that involves a lot more failures and approaches that are difficult to evaluate. The tried and true have proven integrity, perfection, and ideal in their approach which is the concept behind traditionalism. Because of this I perceive Si as establishing and perfecting standards while Se explores and inadvertently challenges those standards. Both processes are needed.

Interesting, I hadn't looked at it that way but yeah...that makes sense, but then that maybe because of my 1 wing

Comparing Se and Si:
--Se takes data from the outside world and riffs on it to determine a “best practice” to define values and drive personal behavior.
--Si internally isolates a limited set of related data and hones it to divine an “essence” or a comparison that explains all the elements.

Example:
--Se notices someone walking down the street and riffs on their posture, gait, looks, etc. IOW Se likes to work with variety and quantity drawn directly from the world around it.
--Si sees a friend or family member and immediately notices that he has lost a couple pounds since the last visit, or Si sees a room and can tell you pretty accurately whether a piece of remembered furniture will fit in it. IOW Si compares the present picture to an internal stored picture of the same thing or of a related thing.

In other words:
--Se is about tinkering: racing through lots of ideas but not necessarily coming to a single conclusion or decision on a given matter. That’s because it’s an extroverted function and you’re looking at it directly, unfiltered by a judging function. (The judging function is introverted and out of sight to the rest of the world.)
--Si-Dom is about honing things down to their most perfect expression: it likes to get things solidified before speaking up, and then it presents its conclusions as a rule for life, a done deal. That’s partly because it’s an introverted function, and you’re only seeing Si after it has been filtered by a extroverted judging function. The extroverted judging function is what converts Si ruminations into a rule.

I can't comment on the Se parts but the Si parts sound very insightful and true, for me at least

 

[RDF]

I can't comment on the Se parts but the Si parts sound very insightful and true, for me at least

Thanks for the feedback.

I tend to view Sensing as a contrast between Si and Se as a result of spending time with my ISTP father (Se-Aux) and ESTJ step-mother (Si-Aux). I see the contrast in their different versions of Sensing, and I see how my parents complement each other (and sometimes get on each other's nerves) by handling details and comparisons in different ways.

 

[skylights]

As an ENFP, this is my understanding -

Si is: Conservative, yes, in the sense of desiring to conserve what is good and useful. Serious, somewhat, in the sense of information being deeply meaningful. Traditional, in the same sense as conservative, preferring to retain established things rather than throwing them out if there is anything good about them. Established things at least have the evidence of functionality in that they are still here for some reason, while a new idea has no backing whatsoever. Austere, no. That is more an element of J. There is sometimes a serenity, simplicity, and purity that accompanies Si. But strictness is more J. Lawful, somewhat, again in the way that functional standards are seen as valuable.

But, IMO, Si is less blindly lawful and more simply pragmatic: consider traffic signals. Sometimes they are hard to see, poorly coordinated light-to-light, poorly timed for the intersection, and so on. Maybe they are not ideal. But have you ever been to an intersection when one is out? It's miserable. There's no sense in throwing the traffic light idea away because the baseline functionality is good. Additionally, Si will be cataloging ideally visible lights, well-coordinated lights, well-timed lights, and their worse-off counterparts, developing a cognitive database of an "ideal light". I sort of see Si as the "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" function, but that is more of its aftereffect. Its primary operation is figuring out the best conditions for emptying the bath without disrupting the baby, based on prior experience with babies, water, baths, and emptying, or for designing an ideal traffic light on the basis of all the traffic lights it has experienced before.

As for uncomfortable with change - somewhat. There is documented evidence that major life change, regardless of it is good or bad, is stressful, so the truth is that all of us are somewhat uncomfortable with change, and Si may well be the function most in tune with that - it is, after all, the most in tune with internal physical experience. But given the Si doms that I know, they are often very ready to embrace change that they see as ideal.

From what I understand of my ISFJ's processing, Si is like gathering huge collections of data and using those to determine the best next move. Contrary to stereotype, he loves travelling and is open to trying new things. He's not really conservative, he's fairly silly, he's not particularly traditional, he's definitely not austere, he is lawful, and he's pretty average about change, I think. Though, if something doesn't work out once, he is unlikely to do it that way again unless he is externally prodded to do so. To me it seems like he's quick to rely on a single experience, but he also has a sort of Ne framework underneath all that Si data corroborating the evidence, tying it together, so it's more like a vast network of interconnected experiential knowledge. It's very, very rare that he is wrong about his predictions.

I mentioned that when I took the mandatory careers test, it said I would function best as a theme park designer. I got excited talking about how I would be designing whole new worlds and would constantly be traveling the world because travel is required to keep steady work. She asked why I would want to travel the world instead of sticking in my small rural hometown where things are familiar. I told her that being able to see all kinds of different cultures would be a blessing to me, and on top of that, to give them a land of pure joy...it would be priceless. He response was "Sounds scary..."

This is interesting to me. I assumed that my e6 was a major reason I didn't like the idea of career travel, but you're a fellow 6 and travelling would be ideal to you. I would love to see lots of different cultures, but I want to do that as part of a big months-long adventure and/or as periodic vacations away from steady regular life - for which I would rather have a steady job in a familiar hometown (preferably a big city with lots of cultural activity). My ISFJ and I have both agreed that recreational travel is what we would like to spend our extra money on. The prospect of always travelling doesn't sound scary to me, but it does sound tiresome, and I would really miss my family, friends, and favorite places. Though, at the same time, it is valuable to me that my work have decent transferability. I assume this is more of a w7 thing, but I don't want to be stuck if I feel like leaving somewhere.

I also think it is interesting to note - I lived in my hometown for 18 years before leaving for college, and then came back for a year after that. My ISFJ moved here 7 years ago and spent 5 of those on campus. You'd think that I'd be the one showing him around town, but a lot of times he's the one showing me. Si really gets to know the interior of a thing, its ins and outs and quirks and how it came to be.

 

[WALMART]

It's like gettin' funky with the universe, 24/7.

 

[Capsaicin]

I'd like to add that I experience Si in a way that's very atmospheric. I soak up all the sensory data, but I do so in a way that's not very present, is personalized, and goes beyond noting that something is red and the concrete is hard. I bring in a lot of light, sound, smell, vibe, and motion, and it's useful for bringing scenes to life in my totally-not-indicative-of-being-an-INFJ fiction.

 

[Avocado]

As an ENFP, this is my understanding -

Si is: Conservative, yes, in the sense of desiring to conserve what is good and useful. Serious, somewhat, in the sense of information being deeply meaningful. Traditional, in the same sense as conservative, preferring to retain established things rather than throwing them out if there is anything good about them. Established things at least have the evidence of functionality in that they are still here for some reason, while a new idea has no backing whatsoever. Austere, no. That is more an element of J. There is sometimes a serenity, simplicity, and purity that accompanies Si. But strictness is more J. Lawful, somewhat, again in the way that functional standards are seen as valuable.

But, IMO, Si is less blindly lawful and more simply pragmatic: consider traffic signals. Sometimes they are hard to see, poorly coordinated light-to-light, poorly timed for the intersection, and so on. Maybe they are not ideal. But have you ever been to an intersection when one is out? It's miserable. There's no sense in throwing the traffic light idea away because the baseline functionality is good. Additionally, Si will be cataloging ideally visible lights, well-coordinated lights, well-timed lights, and their worse-off counterparts, developing a cognitive database of an "ideal light". I sort of see Si as the "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" function, but that is more of its aftereffect. Its primary operation is figuring out the best conditions for emptying the bath without disrupting the baby, based on prior experience with babies, water, baths, and emptying, or for designing an ideal traffic light on the basis of all the traffic lights it has experienced before.

As for uncomfortable with change - somewhat. There is documented evidence that major life change, regardless of it is good or bad, is stressful, so the truth is that all of us are somewhat uncomfortable with change, and Si may well be the function most in tune with that - it is, after all, the most in tune with internal physical experience. But given the Si doms that I know, they are often very ready to embrace change that they see as ideal.

From what I understand of my ISFJ's processing, Si is like gathering huge collections of data and using those to determine the best next move. Contrary to stereotype, he loves travelling and is open to trying new things. He's not really conservative, he's fairly silly, he's not particularly traditional, he's definitely not austere, he is lawful, and he's pretty average about change, I think. Though, if something doesn't work out once, he is unlikely to do it that way again unless he is externally prodded to do so. To me it seems like he's quick to rely on a single experience, but he also has a sort of Ne framework underneath all that Si data corroborating the evidence, tying it together, so it's more like a vast network of interconnected experiential knowledge. It's very, very rare that he is wrong about his predictions.



This is interesting to me. I assumed that my e6 was a major reason I didn't like the idea of career travel, but you're a fellow 6 and travelling would be ideal to you. I would love to see lots of different cultures, but I want to do that as part of a big months-long adventure and/or as periodic vacations away from steady regular life - for which I would rather have a steady job in a familiar hometown (preferably a big city with lots of cultural activity). My ISFJ and I have both agreed that recreational travel is what we would like to spend our extra money on. The prospect of always travelling doesn't sound scary to me, but it does sound tiresome, and I would really miss my family, friends, and favorite places. Though, at the same time, it is valuable to me that my work have decent transferability. I assume this is more of a w7 thing, but I don't want to be stuck if I feel like leaving somewhere.

I also think it is interesting to note - I lived in my hometown for 18 years before leaving for college, and then came back for a year after that. My ISFJ moved here 7 years ago and spent 5 of those on campus. You'd think that I'd be the one showing him around town, but a lot of times he's the one showing me. Si really gets to know the interior of a thing, its ins and outs and quirks and how it came to be.

The part about culture is key, I believe...

Not much happens where I live. Until there was a huge "resource play" discovered 5 years ago, we had an agrarian economy. Now, we have a resource drilling economy.

 

[skylights]

The part about culture is key, I believe...

Not much happens where I live. Until there was a huge "resource play" discovered 5 years ago, we had an agrarian economy. Now, we have a resource drilling economy.

Ahh. I bet you're totally right. I lived for a summer in a town where everything shut down at 10 and I would regularly drive 45 minutes to the slightly-larger town with the 24-hour Walmart because I felt so trapped.

 

[Avocado]

Ahh. I bet you're totally right. I lived for a summer in a town where everything shut down at 10 and I would regularly drive 45 minutes to the slightly-larger town with the 24-hour Walmart because I felt so trapped.

I want to be a teacher primarily so I can be a family man in the future (I have aspired for years to be an ideal father...so kids are definitely in my future...), but the freedom that comes with summers off is icing on the cake...

 

[PimpinMcBoltage]

Here is Jung's original excerpt of the Introverted Sensation

type.7. The Introverted Sensation Type

The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather [p. 501] by what just happens. 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. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object. Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object [p. 502] did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject -- as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image -- even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the [p. 503] extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, every-day expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as [p. 504] though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.

His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character. 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. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion

This picture that he paints is generally more...bizarre than the typical descriptions of them, even the Ne dom description described them as having a "mystical character".

This attitude has immense dangers -- all too easily the intuitive may squander his life. He spends himself animating men and things, spreading around him an abundance of life -- a life, however, which others live, not he. Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest. In the end he goes empty away. But when the intuitive lets things reach such a pitch, he also has the unconscious against him. The unconscious of the intuitive has a certain similarity with that of the sensation-type. Thinking and feeling, being relatively repressed, produce infantile and archaic thoughts and feelings in the unconscious, which may be compared [p. 467] with those of the countertype. They likewise come to the surface in the form of intensive projections, and are just as absurd as those of the sensation-type, only to my mind they lack the other's mystical character; they are chiefly concerned with quasi-actual things, in the nature of sexual, financial, and other hazards, as, for instance, suspicions of approaching illness. This difference appears to be due to a repression of the sensations of actual things. These latter usually command attention in the shape of a sudden entanglement with a most unsuitable woman, or, in the case of a woman, with a thoroughly unsuitable man; and this is simply the result of their unwitting contact with the sphere of archaic sensations. But its consequence is an unconsciously compelling tie to an object of incontestable futility. Such an event is already a compulsive symptom, which is also thoroughly characteristic of this type. In common with the sensation-type, he claims a similar freedom and exemption from all restraint, since he suffers no submission of his decisions to rational judgment, relying entirely upon the perception of chance, possibilities. He rids himself of the restrictions of reason, only to fall a victim to unconscious neurotic compulsions in the form of oversubtle, negative reasoning, hair-splitting dialectics, and a compulsive tie to the sensation of the object. His conscious attitude, both to the sensation and the sensed object, is one of sovereign superiority and disregard. Not that he means to be inconsiderate or superior -- he simply does not see the object that everyone else sees; his oblivion is similar to that of the sensation-type -- only, with the latter, the soul of the object is missed. For this oblivion the object sooner or later takes revenge in the form of hypochondriacal, compulsive ideas, phobias, and every imaginable kind of absurd bodily sensation.

I might be missing some information though. I honestly mostly subscribe to Jung's version of Si because it seems to be more interesting to me than the conservative version of Si, and thus I romanticize it. Even though I have a pretty hard time spotting people that fit the description that Jung has made. Though all of these descriptions are of people who are mentally ill anyways apparently.

 

[WALMART]

People forreal butchered the meaning of Si, as they did with Ne.

 

[Giggly]

As an Ne-dom, I picture Si-dom being very conservative, serious, traditional, austere, lawful, and uncomfortable with change. Am I correct?

Yes I think its true.

I try not to be that way though. I'm not happy about Si.

 

[Avocado]

Yes I think its true.

I try not to be that way though. I'm not happy about Si.

Awwwwwwwww…
<3

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