I have a very good memory with a very broad scope, but it's also pretty selective. Only, the selection criteria are mostly not evident or logical to others and seldom get expressed directly. But when prompted to, I find it always a thrill to express my criteria behind a specific selection.
I only remember things that have got tagged "NB - Important!" because it connects with other things I'm interested in (Ne) or is associated with a strong feeling of being valuable (Fi). I will remember odd quotes, but not who said or wrote it.
I will remember lumps of knowledge, figures, images for years from all kinds of fields not my own - material history, mathematics, medicine, psychology, economics, biology, astrophysics, sociology, linguistics, geology, art etc.
So what might be disturbing to others, and can make me seem forgetful or scatterbrained, is that I will not remember it according to the accepted context within each field. I will not show much interest in mastering the criteria of their specific branch of knowledge just for its own sake unless I have to for external reasons (exams, debates etc).
It's remembered for something else's sake. Some private seach for meaning through intuition and value. Such lumps of knowledge, quotes, facts, images or models will be remembered in detail for a long time but quite dissociated from their original discipline and its specific internal context and selectivity.
For example:
"I don't paint things, I paint relations between things. And relations are love."
Now, I'll already have to search my weak Si for the name of the painter who said that (think it was Matisse) and I really don't remember when and in what context he said it, how it's been interpretated by Art History or even where I picked it up.
Instead such lumps of words, facts or models get associated with some of the trillion other odd lumps that I have collected over the years, forming a treasured part of another kind of system, insight and interest. My kind.
For example: Matisse's words have been with me for some 10 years, while I've learned only recently about MBTI. When I'm contemplating the functional descriptions of dominant Ne and auxiliary Fi, then Matisse's words light up in my memory. I strongly intuit that what he does in painting is exactly what I do in cognition: I don't understand things, I understand relations between things (Ne). And understanding these relations is making me happy, feeling some kind of valuable, 'loving' connection with how the world itself makes sense (Fi).
See?