Let's Learn About Introverted Sensing!

[Dreamer]

So Si is essentially linking past prospects and Ne is linking future prospects?

Personally, I see many similarities between Si and Fi at their core. Both offer a sort of internal barometer for the user of how their internal state is at any given time. Why are Si people sometimes stuck in their ways and routine? Because they know what feels right for them and why differ from that positive, physical experience? Fi as you know, is a constant meter of someone's emotional state and does much the same. With both functions, you're using your external functions to alter the external environment to ensure that inner state is of equilibrium.

Ne, to me, actually has little to do with future prospects. At its core, it's making connections between things beneath the surface and finding relationships without any regard to established knowledge of what is, and what isn't. In [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]'s example above in her dialogue, what isa blanket to the ENFP is anything that provides the same function or use as what is typically associated with "blanket". The word applied to what we know of to be a blanket is the superficial. What it does, what it IS, is that underlying essence, that underlying relationship.
[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] feel free to step in and offer your own comparo of Si and Ne

 

[Yama]

Si Requiring Certainty

Imagine that you have a formula. You've been told that every time you have a problem, you use this formula to solve it, and that you will always get the correct answer every single time as long as you follow this formula. You live your life holding to this formula as an absolute truth that will always give you the answer.

One day, a problem comes along. You try to solve it with the formula. But... the formula doesn't work.

But it's the formula! How is that possible? The formula can't be wrong!! The formula always gives the right answer! ...Right?

All confidence is thrown out the window. A large shadow of doubt covers you. Everything you thought you knew was wrong. The formula isn't an absolute truth. The formula can be wrong. Now, on top of being completely lost and unable to solve the problem (because the formula doesn't work! It's supposed to work! If it doesn't, what do I do??), you now no longer feel confident about the problems you solved with this formula previously, either.

Si expects things to be static. The formula is its "archetype." Si observes what it perceives to be a pattern and attributes it to an archetype, and expects this archetype to never change. So if something comes along and challenges the Si user's perception of that archetype, Si is unsure how to respond. It feels like its lost its footing. It doesn't know what to do.

This is where the "close minded fuckheads" stereotype comes from, because people automatically like to water this down to "Si hates everything that's new and that it doesn't understand and will reject it!!" which is absurd.

Si has a hard time processing things when it doesn't have that archetype to compare it to. Most of its archetypes are formed when the Si user is young; "This is a basketball game and I know this because all basketball games have the orange ball, a court, hoops, and people running around on two teams wearing uniforms." Now let's say someone decided to start a game with different attributes that didn't match this archetype and call it "basketball"--Si goes, "What?? But that can't be basketball. That doesn't match up correctly with what I know basketball games are supposed to be." It challenges the archetype.

Si does not like the idea of revising an archetype because it views these as static and unchanging. This doesn't mean that it's impossible to do so or that Si users are close-minded and conservative by default (of course there will be some out there who actually are, but then again, there are of other types as well, even ones that don't value Si at all).

To Si, the whole point of an archetype is that it does not change--it's the very pillar of its foundation. You don't put the tablecloth on the table after you set out the plates and silverware. It just doesn't work that way. Once it's all set out, it's done, it's set in stone, that's the way it is. To completely deconstruct and rebuild an archetype means to lose all confidence that the Si user ever had regarding knowing what it thought it knew about that archetype to be true. Archetypes just are not supposed to change! So Si panics.

I hope this has been insightful.

 

[averagejosh]

Yes, it's a pretty unconscious process for me. I'm never actively trying to make these connections, they just happen. It gives Si this sense of sentimentality that I have too much of tbh lol! The way Michael Pierce describes Si in his ISFJ video (using the spider web example) is fantastic.

I'm a sitcom junkie.

Often, when something in my real life reminds me of on an instance from one of my favorite shows, I'll relate it back to that. I'll go, "Kinda like that time ____ happened on ____, where _____ said ______."

I'm sure it gets old to everyone else, so when I realize I'm doing it too often, I'll actively try to refrain. :/

 

[highlander]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

Do you think a person who favors Si would generally tend to agree with these statements?

I trust what's familiar
I have a good memory and I compare and contrast situations in the present with what happened in the past
I try to understand the rules or laws that apply in a situation
I link past knowledge with current experiences
It's important to understand the details and what they mean
I have precise recollections of what's happened in the past
I often think, "What does this remind me of?"
I rely on processes that consistently work
There are always comparisons to be made and if it's familiar, I tend to trust it
There are good reasons for traditions

 

[highlander]

Personally, I see many similarities between Si and Fi at their core. Both offer a sort of internal barometer for the user of how their internal state is at any given time. Why are Si people sometimes stuck in their ways and routine? Because they know what feels right for them and why differ from that positive, physical experience? Fi as you know, is a constant meter of someone's emotional state and does much the same. With both functions, you're using your external functions to alter the external environment to ensure that inner state is of equilibrium.

Ne, to me, actually has little to do with future prospects. At its core, it's making connections between things beneath the surface and finding relationships without any regard to established knowledge of what is, and what isn't. In [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]'s example above in her dialogue, what isa blanket to the ENFP is anything that provides the same function or use as what is typically associated with "blanket". The word applied to what we know of to be a blanket is the superficial. What it does, what it IS, is that underlying essence, that underlying relationship.
[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] and [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION] feel free to step in and offer your own comparo of Si and Ne

To me, Si feels more like Ni to me as they are both introverted perceiving functions whereas Fi is a judging function. Si might feel judgy but it's really not.

 

[fetus]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

Do you think a person who favors Si would generally tend to agree with these statements?

I trust what's familiar
I have a good memory and I compare and contrast situations in the present with what happened in the past
I try to understand the rules or laws that apply in a situation
I link past knowledge with current experiences
It's important to understand the details and what they mean
I have precise recollections of what's happened in the past
I often think, "What does this remind me of?"
I rely on processes that consistently work
There are always comparisons to be made and if it's familiar, I tend to trust it
There are good reasons for traditions

I would say so.

 

[EJCC]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] [MENTION=4945]EJCC[/MENTION]

Do you think a person who favors Si would generally tend to agree with these statements?

I trust what's familiar
I have a good memory and I compare and contrast situations in the present with what happened in the past
I try to understand the rules or laws that apply in a situation
I link past knowledge with current experiences
It's important to understand the details and what they mean
I have precise recollections of what's happened in the past
I often think, "What does this remind me of?"
I rely on processes that consistently work
There are always comparisons to be made and if it's familiar, I tend to trust it
There are good reasons for traditions

Si =/= memory. SJs can have a strong sense of what is "correct" or "normal" without having an exact memory of where they got that information in the first place.

That being said, I think most SJs would generally agree with your statements, and I also think that Si is about 10x as easy to access and explain as Ni -- which may be why the "memory" comparison is so common.

 

[OrangeAppled]

Personally, I see many similarities between Si and Fi at their core. Both offer a sort of internal barometer for the user of how their internal state is at any given time. Why are Si people sometimes stuck in their ways and routine? Because they know what feels right for them and why differ from that positive, physical experience? Fi as you know, is a constant meter of someone's emotional state and does much the same. With both functions, you're using your external functions to alter the external environment to ensure that inner state is of equilibrium.

I don't feel they are that similar; not any more than the similarities between all introverted functions. I think Jung's dividing of the introverted types as rational/irrational is insightful for that reason. Fi does not equal a meter for one's emotional state, rather that is part of the process, and it is not a matter of what feels right, but of what accords with an internal construct of value that has been carefully created and refined. The focus of Fi is building this understanding.

As with all introverted types, there is a comparison of some inner construct and aspects of reality. The main differences can be in the focus of the comparison (thinking --> compare to find what is logical or aligns with one's inner construct of logic; sensing ---> compare to find what IS, aka, what is a consistent aspect of reality across time; feeling ---> compare to find what is meaningful/valuable to the human experience, using the self as a prototype for human; intuition ----> compare to consider what WILL be, aka how reality will likely develop, by ignoring the surface in favor of hidden trends/meanings/symbols that occur consistently across time).

Si types could be called "idealists" as well. They often have a sense of what reality should be like, if it were to be very consistent across all contexts, and these realities suggest particular meanings. A certain action consistently means a particular thing (at least for that individual). Although they also seem to know this sense was built off of their relatively narrow experience (which can be scary for them - to always know there is so much unknown), and this can be what can drive them towards new experience and to revise previously held notions of reality. Sometimes they seem very interested in the experience of others, shown through their tendency to engage in story-telling.

However, the "should" for a Fi is not concerned with consistent realities, but instead aims for there to be particular meanings attached to experience, meanings that they have yet to ever truly see/feel in reality; and so these manifestations of meaning as experience can vary widely. The same thing can have a very different meaning given the context. It is almost the exact opposite of Si in some ways, if you think about it.

I know the word "irrational" is not too flattering, but perceiving suggests not reasoning, but rather "seeing" something as just "being". It is more like "gathering" and "experiencing". Pi types seem to explore and review impressions and sometimes things pop up as insights (?). Introverted Rationals (prefer the word rational to judging - connotations are more accurate) are basically always constructing, even if that process for a Fi type is more exploratory & less dry/technical, akin to a process like sculpting or sketching. There is a deliberate effort there, even if it seems very open-ended. But Jung notes that the inner worlds of Pi types are spontaneous and how their impressions seem to arise on their own (they may not connect them with themselves), in contrast with how their exterior can appear (more deliberate and cautious).

Personally, as I've gotten older, I recognize how much of a problem having relatively inferior Si has been for me. People often overrate Si in INPs, no realizing as much of our issues can stem from poor Si. Because of silly ideas of what sensing is, people see artistic creativity, fact/info gathering via research, or enjoyment of "sensory activities" in INPs and think this is Si - nope.

 

[Dreamer]

I don't feel they are that similar; not any more than the similarities between all introverted functions. I think Jung's dividing of the introverted types as rational/irrational is insightful for that reason. Fi does not equal a meter for one's emotional state, rather that is part of the process, and it is not a matter of what feels right, but of what accords with an internal construct of value that has been carefully created and refined. The focus of Fi is building this understanding.

As with all introverted types, there is a comparison of some inner construct and aspects of reality. The main differences can be in the focus of the comparison (thinking --> compare to find what is logical or aligns with one's inner construct of logic; sensing ---> compare to find what IS, aka, what is a consistent aspect of reality across time; feeling ---> compare to find what is meaningful/valuable to the human experience, using the self as a prototype for human; intuition ----> compare to consider what WILL be, aka how reality will likely develop, by ignoring the surface in favor of hidden trends/meanings/symbols that occur consistently across time).

Si types could be called "idealists" as well. They often have a sense of what reality should be like, if it were to be very consistent across all contexts, and these realities suggest particular meanings. A certain action consistently means a particular thing (at least for that individual). Although they also seem to know this sense was built off of their relatively narrow experience (which can be scary for them - to always know there is so much unknown), and this can be what can drive them towards new experience and to revise previously held notions of reality. Sometimes they seem very interested in the experience of others, shown through their tendency to engage in story-telling.

However, the "should" for a Fi is not concerned with consistent realities, but instead aims for there to be particular meanings attached to experience, meanings that they have yet to ever truly see/feel in reality; and so these manifestations of meaning as experience can vary widely. The same thing can have a very different meaning given the context. It is almost the exact opposite of Si in some ways, if you think about it.

I know the word "irrational" is not too flattering, but perceiving suggests not reasoning, but rather "seeing" something as just "being". It is more like "gathering" and "experiencing". Pi types seem to explore and review impressions and sometimes things pop up as insights (?). Introverted Rationals (prefer the word rational to judging - connotations are more accurate) are basically always constructing, even if that process for a Fi type is more exploratory & less dry/technical, akin to a process like sculpting or sketching. There is a deliberate effort there, even if it seems very open-ended. But Jung notes that the inner worlds of Pi types are spontaneous and how their impressions seem to arise on their own (they may not connect them with themselves), in contrast with how their exterior can appear (more deliberate and cautious).

Personally, as I've gotten older, I recognize how much of a problem having relatively inferior Si has been for me. People often overrate Si in INPs, no realizing as much of our issues can stem from poor Si. Because of silly ideas of what sensing is, people see artistic creativity, fact/info gathering via research, or enjoyment of "sensory activities" in INPs and think this is Si - nope.

But where does those personal "values" come from? How can you construct them without knowing your internal state and gauging how things make you feel? I know you agreed that this is part of the Fi experience, but I am having trouble finding the nascent nature of those values if not derived from personal feeling and experience alone.

When comparing Si and Fi, I was examining them both under a rather abstract scope I admit, so without further explaining my suspicion, I see why people would be confused at the comparison. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go deeper into this.

 

[OrangeAppled]

But where does those personal "values" come from? How can you construct them without knowing your internal state and gauging how things make you feel? I know you agreed that this is part of the Fi experience, but I am having trouble finding the nascent nature of those values if not derived from personal feeling and experience alone.

When comparing Si and Fi, I was examining them both under a rather abstract scope I admit, so without further explaining my suspicion, I see why people would be confused at the comparison. Unfortunately I don't have the time right now to go deeper into this.

It is an extroverted attitude that something must "come" from something outside oneself, that it must have origins in the external, shared reality.

Jung:
"It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision.

The primordial images are, of course, just as much ideas as feelings. Fundamental ideas, ideas like God, freedom, and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas."

It comes from inside - perhaps the collective unconscious (sort of a shared, internal reality, which we have difficulty seeing we share because we may all describe it quite differently). How it is comes to consciousness or what shape it is given is more about the emotional responses, experiences, etc.

The same can be said of all introverts.

 

[Dreamer]

It is an extroverted attitude that something must "come" from something outside oneself, that it must have origins in the external, shared reality.

Jung:
"It is continually seeking an image which has no existence in reality, but which it has seen in a kind of vision.

The primordial images are, of course, just as much ideas as feelings. Fundamental ideas, ideas like God, freedom, and immortality, are just as much feeling-values as they are significant ideas."

It comes from inside - perhaps the collective unconscious (sort of a shared, internal reality, which we have difficulty seeing we share because we may all describe it quite differently). How it is comes to consciousness or what shape it is given is more about the emotional responses, experiences, etc.

The same can be said of all introverts.

I wasn't implying that one's own values must come from external sources, but I am interested in diving deep into our subconscious and seeing if we can find any answers down there. I can't claim to know exactly where all my feelings and emotions come from, some are a complete enigma, but to me, being more in tune with yourself and diving as far as you can into your being, is where those values stem from. It is hard to say of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those values are at least shaped by our external world. What we all share in common, is as you say, are reflections of this internal reality. What we know to be reality, is what we experience externally on the faces of others and what we assume to be "sadness" or this emotion or that. Therefore, I feel it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek answers of the internal world, from the external world, even if just for a brief moment. I'm not debating your views, but seeing if we can play with this concept a bit more than what one can read of other's work.

 

[OrangeAppled]

I wasn't implying that one's own values must come from external sources, but I am interested in diving deep into our subconscious and seeing if we can find any answers down there. I can't claim to know exactly where all my feelings and emotions come from, some are a complete enigma, but to me, being more in tune with yourself and diving as far as you can into your being, is where those values stem from. It is hard to say of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of those values are at least shaped by our external world. What we all share in common, is as you say, are reflections of this internal reality. What we know to be reality, is what we experience externally on the faces of others and what we assume to be "sadness" or this emotion or that. Therefore, I feel it wouldn't be too farfetched to seek answers of the internal world, from the external world, even if just for a brief moment. I'm not debating your views, but seeing if we can play with this concept a bit more than what one can read of other's work.

Okay, I thought of a really simple way to illustrate this (see hunger illustration below)... because it all sounds like mystical voodoo crap otherwise.

First, yes, of course we are influenced by the external world. I am speaking more of introverted feeling as a pure form, in isolation, but we are whole individuals.

To relate this more to Introverted Sensing... Well, we often may understand how people see the same thing differently using a crime scene witness illustration. Two witnesses report different things, because they SEE different things, generally because they had different angles. But Jung takes it further... he uses an illustration of impressionistic painters. Two painters look at the same scenery, at the same moment, from the same angle, etc, yet they paint different things (often subtly different). Skill can be a factor, but what makes them see things differently? The individual perspective of the Si type is "innate". They didn't just happen to have a different experience, but they actually saw it with different "eyes".

Similarly, what could be said to be different about each Fi type is the way they interpret their own emotions, not necessarily the experiences or emotions themselves. There is a premise at core they are operating from, and often, this is almost what they are seeking to uncover.

But of course, with all these arbitrary aspects, we still see so many similarities in people, especially among types, because yes, there are still ultimately shared elements of the inner world.

So that said...what are the basic premises the Fi type is trying to uncover? What things mean (their value) in relation to the human condition. Emotion is a signal for a need, much as hunger signals our need to eat. The signal is for an innate, human need. Even without a signal (say, someone has no hunger signal), the need still exists. The signal doesn't create the need. So in this way, values are all internally sourced as part of our very existence; they are not created by emotional experience, rather, that educates us about our fundamental needs. These signals stem from our condition of being human, which we are born as, and not a specific context.

Back to Si - they are trying to uncover what is consistent about reality across time and context (all introverted functions seek to operate outside the current context, and they will resist it for that reason; Si seems to resist Se much as Fi can do with Fe or Ti with Te, etc). What causes the Si individual to hone in on some aspects of reality as striking and not other aspects? Well, I don't know. I'm still trying to grasp that about Si also. Jung even kind of shrugs his shoulders there & suggests it is arbitrary, but he did that for all the types in some respect. Perhaps this arbitrariness within them is some insight about reality in itself - a paradox of expecting inconsistency to consistently exist in reality.

 

[Dreamer]

Okay, I thought of a really simple way to illustrate this (see hunger illustration below)... because it all sounds like mystical voodoo crap otherwise.

First, yes, of course we are influenced by the external world. I am speaking more of introverted feeling as a pure form, in isolation, but we are whole individuals. I have no doubt my

To relate this more to Introverted Sensing... Well, we often may understand how people see the same thing differently using a crime scene witness illustration. Two witnesses report different things, because they report different things, generally because they had different angles. But Jung takes it further... he uses an illustration of impressionistic painters. Two painters look at the same scenery, at the same moment, from the same angle, etc, yet they paint different things (often subtly different). Skill can be a factor, but makes them see things differently? The individual perspective of the Si type is "innate". They didn't just happen to have a different experience, but they actually saw it with different "eyes".

Similarly, what could be said to be different about each Fi type is the way they interpret their own emotions, not necessarily the experiences or emotions themselves. There is a premise at core they are operating from, and often, this is almost what they are seeking to uncover.

But of course, with all these arbitrary aspects, we still see so many similarities in people, especially among types, because yes, there are still ultimately shared elements of the inner world.

So that said...what are the basic premises the Fi type is trying to uncover? What things mean (their value) in relation to the human condition. Emotion is a signal for a need, much as hunger signals our need to eat. The signal is for an innate, human need. Even without a signal (say, someone has no hunger signal), the need still exists. The signal doesn't create the need. So in this way, values are all internally sourced as part of our very existence; they are not created by emotional experience, rather, that educates us about our fundamental needs. These signals stem from our condition of being human, which we are born as, and not a specific context.

Back to Si - they are trying to uncover what is consistent about reality across time and context (all introverted functions seek to operate outside the current context, and they will resist it for that reason; Si seems to resist Se much as Fi can do with Fe or Ti with Te, etc). What causes the Si individual to hone in on some aspects of reality as striking and not other aspects? Well, I don't know. I'm still trying to grasp that about Si also. Jung even kind of shrugs his shoulders there & suggests it is arbitrary, but he did that for all the types in some respect. Perhaps this arbitrariness within them is some insight about reality in itself - a paradox of expecting inconsistency to consistently exist in reality.

Interesting. I see where you're coming from now. That is true, the need always exists. The signal only suggests time, or when that need occurs in its most vibrant pulse. But the soul deep within, ALWAYS has these "needs". I agree

Thanks for the illustration!

 

[Jellyfish1234]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION]

In terms of Si comparing present to past, in what context does this apply? Is it purely sensory information, like saying this shade is different to before or this person has different hair now, or is it also in terms of general things? Like for example, the other day my friend said "walnut.", which reminded me of when they said it over and over again one time using a text-to-speech software when we were playing a certain video game, which reminded me we about when those friends upset me earlier that day by not inviting me to play that game again. And another time someone asked me a question about immortality which instantly made me think of an article I read about it in the past. Would this be a sign of Si, for example, or is this just basic cognition that everyone does?

As an Si dom are you constantly and actively, comparing present to past in terms of "oh this is like this thing in the past, this is like that thing in the past, this chair is like this thing in the past, that song is like that thing in the past" with everything and anything, or is it not like that at all?

 

[Yama]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION]

In terms of Si comparing present to past, in what context does this apply? Is it purely sensory information, like saying this shade is different to before or this person has different hair now, or is it also in terms of general things? Like for example, the other day my friend said "walnut.", which reminded me of when they said it over and over again one time using a text-to-speech software when we were playing a certain video game, which reminded me we about when those friends upset me earlier that day by not inviting me to play that game again. And another time someone asked me a question about immortality which instantly made me think of an article I read about it in the past. Would this be a sign of Si, for example, or is this just basic cognition that everyone does?

As an Si dom are you constantly and actively, comparing present to past in terms of "oh this is like this thing in the past, this is like that thing in the past, this chair is like this thing in the past, that song is like that thing in the past" with everything and anything, or is it not like that at all?

Everyone relates things to past experience to an extent. It not is not restricted to Si types, though Si has a habit of doing it more often, and unconsciously. I don't do it with everything, but it's critical for helping me learn. It is much, much easier for me to grasp new concepts if I am able to see how it is similar to something I already know. Let's say I'm trying to put something together and I'm struggling. If you can show me how it's similar to how I built or assembled something else, something "clicks" in me and I am able to summon forth all of that prior knowledge and utilize it to complete the current activity. I don't think it's only Si types that do this, but I think Si benefits from it more/has an easier time "clicking" with it.

 

[Jellyfish1234]

Everyone relates things to past experience to an extent. It not is not restricted to Si types, though Si has a habit of doing it more often, and unconsciously. I don't do it with everything, but it's critical for helping me learn. It is much, much easier for me to grasp new concepts if I am able to see how it is similar to something I already know. Let's say I'm trying to put something together and I'm struggling. If you can show me how it's similar to how I built or assembled something else, something "clicks" in me and I am able to summon forth all of that prior knowledge and utilize it to complete the current activity. I don't think it's only Si types that do this, but I think Si benefits from it more/has an easier time "clicking" with it.

Ahh okay, thank you!

 

[OrangeAppled]

I came across this great phrase applied to Si types recently: Personal Mythology.
It really embodies Si mentality to me. Much more than the often misappliedmemory metaphor or "drawing from past experiences".
The mentality really isnt shaped by the past or a memory of what actually is - it is more like a collection of stories which illustrate what are sure aspects of reality. Much as with Fi values, as subjective as Si is, there are common themes which occur within their personal mythology, but being the majority of people, they go around calling it common sense.

I have more thoughts on this, but I wanted to throw that out there until I get around to detangling the rest.

 

[Merced]

"What's inferior Si like?"
"I can't remember."

 

[Yara the Corpse]

Yup I have like zero Si. Though still more than my Se, at -100. Also what is with all the hallucinatory assumptions? o-o Usually implies iNtuition with a failing judging function

 

[Jellyfish1234]

[MENTION=23583]Yamato Nadeshiko[/MENTION] another question, I hope you don't mind - in terms of Si and noticing what has changed, is this strictly limited to sensory information such as taste or smell, or does it also apply to visual sensory information too, like noticing someone's hair being different, or a new painting is on someone's wall or something like that?