# Introverted Sensing, take two.



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

AllyKat said:


> I'm not sure how this makes Si a creative function per se. I mean, in the root beer example, I'd just simply be looking for something in the shop that I knew my husband enjoyed (based on my experience of him) or I'd see the root beer and think "Oh, he likes root beer, I'll get him some". Maybe it's just the scenario, I dunno. I'm not saying that Si doms can't be creative, but I'm not convinced that Si is inherently creative in itself. Although if the Si dom values creativity generally, they might choose to use it that way.


Si-Doms Are Creative

I would change that title to "Si-dom _can_ be creative", because I don't believe any function by itself blesses someone with sheer creativity powers. Still, it is a very good post.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

Hugging Wabbits said:


> Si-Doms Are Creative
> 
> I would change that title to "Si-dom _can_ be creative", because I don't believe any function by itself blesses someone with sheer creativity powers. Still, it is a very good post.


I guess I just didn't find the link to be particularly convincing in its arguments, nor did I feel it really illustrated any particular degree of creativity. I don't believe that Si is distinguished from other cognitive functions by its creativity. But each to their own.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

AllyKat said:


> I guess I just didn't find the link to be particularly convincing in its arguments, nor did I feel it really illustrated any particular degree of creativity. I don't believe that Si is distinguished from other cognitive functions by its creativity. But each to their own.


That is alright. My purpose was not to convince you, or anyone, but to present a different view, a different approach to the matter. I am a Si-dom myself, who happens to be a writer, and content creator, and I know I am creative — not to mention I have experienced the works of other Si-doms and to not call their works creative would be a disservice to them. 

Of course, they all use other three functions, and the shadow functions, some would say, but I don't subscribe to the idea that we really use those often enough — yet, I wouldn't imagine someone creating such magnificent works without the constant aid of their dominant function. 

In fact, is that even possible? 

Not to mention, their works are very heavy on Si, once you realize so much of their works come from their personal impressions of things they experienced and grew to love (or at least, care about).


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

brightflashes said:


> I always enjoy your analysis, Turi, but something you said really struck me and I'm exploring its implications: the idea that Si (or any function, really) is an defense mechanism perks up my brain. This makes me wonder the following things:
> 
> - If there is a defense mechanism function for each person, at which slot would it be in (for example, could my defense mechanism be Fi, my third function?).
> 
> ...


Great questions that need some exploring, IMO.

As I see it, this might be a little difficult to explain, but I'll try.

With Si - as it's so focused in basically 'one thing at a time' - and the reason for this being to prevent the Si type from receiving an overwhelming amount of subjective sensory impressions - I believe that what it would therefore be opposing, is the 5th function - Se.

So it would be the dominant position blocking out the same facet, opposing direction function.

This would look like this, I guess - totally off the top of my head here:

Si blocking out receiving too much sensory information, defence against the broader Se - seen as overwhelming amount of sensory impressions.
Se blocking out focus on subjective sensory impressions, defence against the narrow Si - seen as attaching meanings, and wasting time, on things that don't require it.

Ni blocking out receiving too many ideas, defence against the broader Ne - seen as overwhelming amount of possibilities.
Ne blocking out focus on singular conspiracy theory, defence against the narrow Ni - seen as too restricting and lacking in creativity.

That's clean off the top of my head like I said, needs refining, but I like this idea a lot - it's probably already been explored, but hey, it makes sense.



brightflashes said:


> Ni - search for underlying meaning/reasons, concerned with the "whys", symbolic thinking, archetypal internal frameworks, synthesis of information, not just connecting dots (more Ne), but filling in blanks, curiosity, drive to plan, pattern recognition, flashes of brilliance, focus, beating a dead horse, unraveling objects, de-mystifying the world, searching...


I feel like you've just wrote up a descriptor of me.

To compare, for the lulz - with how I think this same descriptor would relate to Si - search for personal meaning, concerned with the "whats", subjective thinking, archaic* internal frameworks, separation of information, connecting the dots and filling in blanks, subjective curiosity, drive to plan, pattern recognition, flashes of brilliance, focus, beating a dead horse, wrapping objects in subjective lustre, mystifying the world, searching..

So I see a lot of similarities - I relate more to your Ni version, to be completely honest here - as it feels like more of a 'tear it down' way of viewing the world, whereas Si feels like a 'build it up' way of perceiving the world, if that makes sense.
Almost like Ni is minus, where Si is plus.

Ni seeks to strip things to their bare essentials, and expose them for what they are - to develop a crystal clear understanding, I suppose, whereas Si builds onto things with it's inherent attachments and essentially turns them into something magic, to develop a fuller and more personal understanding.

So I suppose I could then begin to break the two apart by suggesting Si is perceiving the world in a very personal way, whereas Ni is the exact opposite, impersonal.

I'm keen to hear whether this rings true, for Ni and Si dominants, because your post has me seriously questioning whether I've fooled myself into believing I use Si, and my understanding and perspective of Si is from an Ni point of view.
My whole approach to understanding Si begins with seeking to remove the stereotypes and understand the idea of Si, from the original source - there's a direct link between practically everything you've said and my approach and goals I had in mind, in relation to Si.

You've given me some food for thought, for sure.


_*by archaic, I mean subjective archaic - i.e 'how things were' according to the individuals own life experience thus far, not archaic as in 19th century romans or dinosaurs._


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

I start from the bottom and build my way up to understanding and truth. I cannot fathom just knowing something and finding all the supporting evidence afterward. That would mess me up real bad, because I would have anxiety just following this blind lead. From an Si dom. 

I seriously cannot relate to Ni’s top down approach, because I need to over analyze every facet of the situation before believing.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Something I didn't mention - I didn't realise it before asking Si dominants what they thought about my description - is that by far, these are the types who need to mull things over before responding.

I assumed this to be an Ni thing, however Ni dominants tend to respond almost immediately, I fall into this camp - Si types will literally say "I need time to think this over" - it's basically a response I can rely on from them.


I wonder what the reasoning is, it could simply be due to the incredibly small sample size I have (about 15) but it's a thing, as far as I can tell.

My theory is that Ni types are more likely to respond quicker as they have basically formed their opinions on things probably without even realising it, just due to how Ni works - so when prompted they are basically ready to go, whereas the Si types.. I believe, would prefer to absorb the question and fully understand everything before responding.. not due to being slow, but just due to the way Si works.

..and Si types apparently know themselves well enough to understand this.

Very powerful, careful function..
It's a wonder that Si isn't "accuracy", under the PersonalityHacker Genius system then - they have Ti named "accuracy" but this feels like a great word to describe Si with.

Just some random observations.
@AllyKat thanks for the response, I'll get around to it when I can - it's a very interesting one because it almost comes across more Te than Si - it doesn't reflect the general impression I've received from Si doms.
Feels like a piece from a different puzzle, haha.


----------



## PiT (May 6, 2017)

@Turi, it's true that Ni-doms seem to respond with a speed that is inconsistent with how Ni is usually characterized. If I am asked about a subject in a field I am reasonably knowledgeable in, I usually have an instant answer whether or not I have ever thought about that specific question before, and that has to do with the network of dots that we have to connect. Sometimes I need more data to test a hypothesis, in which case I will describe what information I need and how it may be obtained.

Sometimes I can compulsively overanalyze, but I think it's because I start reading implications into propositions that aren't really there. Intense introspecting also invokes this tendency. It happens to me occasionally, but I work with a woman who overanalyzes everything and took a half an hour to do a 12-minute personality test. I thought she was an Ni-dom at first, but later when we got officially typed she came out as an ISTJ.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Hmm. You know the one unifying theme I notice about Si users, especially the higher functioning usage ones? (Dom-Si and Aux Si) It's the ability to tell stories about their past experiences. This is how strong their inner impressions can be. My father and my mother were definitely both users of Si (ESTJ and ISFJ respectively) and they constantly would tell me stories about their pasts. Hearing them, I als focused on the way they talked about their experiences, accompanied with brief bits of Ne, you can notice a sort of comedic spin with the way they use slight bits of exaggeration, it's extremely immersive to see how the tell their stories. Nostalgia is a very comforting realm for them, to the point where I tend to be confused, but it mostly because of how varied I see experiences from their own perspectives. There's a sense of anxiousness to see newer matters, an inner anticipation that i hold within myself to see the *next* step of whatever I'm focusing on. Experiences for myself, are a lot like blurs, and I'm more inclined to remember things about others that I use to try to predict how they will proceed through life. For me, this lets me obtain the feeling that I've mastered understanding them, despite how much I dislike to boil a person down to mere mechanics. 

I could imagine a Si user listening to the same song over and over, because the song is something to their liking, and leaves an impression. Many of the Si users I know, tend to like music from a good decade ago, but even moreso, the songs they like are because it strikes a cord within them that resembles their own specific experiences. 

When I listen to music, I enjoy the music for being able to visualize something disconnected from it. I tend to focus more on painting a picture unrelative of it's original context. Or more or less a scene. However, my favorite point of music, is when it starts off with separate notes and later they all harmonize together. It's very symbolic and bears a correlation to how the power of unity can work with humanity for me in which I find quite beautiful. Personally, I would like to believe that, is the difference between a Ni user and a Si user. 

To both, the song is much more, but for various internal reasons. A Si user could hear a song, and feel sad because it reminds them of a feeling they experienced from a sad memory, while a Ni user could hear the tone of the song and have the music remind them through it's tones and sensations where it could resonate and be abstracted to be relative to how they process emotions and may feel sad.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


> I start from the bottom and build my way up to understanding and truth. I cannot fathom just knowing something and finding all the supporting evidence afterward. That would mess me up real bad, because I would have anxiety just following this blind lead. From an Si dom.
> 
> I seriously cannot relate to Ni’s top down approach, because I need to over analyze every facet of the situation before believing.


Can you elaborate more on this? Also, can I say I love your avatar?



Turi said:


> Something I didn't mention - I didn't realise it before asking Si dominants what they thought about my description - is that by far, these are the types who need to mull things over before responding.
> 
> I assumed this to be an Ni thing, however Ni dominants tend to respond almost immediately, I fall into this camp - Si types will literally say "I need time to think this over" - it's basically a response I can rely on from them.


In which side of the spectrum do I fall, from your perspective? We have talked quite enough since you posted on my "type me" thread, three months or so ago, so I am sure you can respond to this.



Xcopy said:


> Hmm. You know the one unifying theme I notice about Si users, especially the higher functioning usage ones? (Dom-Si and Aux Si) It's the ability to tell stories about their past experiences. This is how strong their inner impressions can be. [...] Nostalgia is a very comforting realm for them.
> 
> I could imagine a Si user listening to the same song over and over, because the song is something to their liking, and leaves an impression. Many of the Si users I know, tend to like music from a good decade ago, but even moreso, the songs they like are because it strikes a cord within them that resembles their own specific experiences.
> 
> To both, the song is much more, but for various internal reasons. A Si user could hear a song, and feel sad because it reminds them of a feeling they experienced from a sad memory, while a Ni user could hear the tone of the song and have the music remind them through it's tones and sensations where it could resonate and be abstracted to be relative to how they process emotions and may feel sad.


I can relate. I find myself telling stories about my past experiences even here on this forum, usually by self inserting myself into a situation, which falls into the realm of Fi, I think. Like, someone might have shared a problem, something that is bothering then and if I am inclined to help and have any ways to, my approach is to tell them about a similar experience I had. From my perspective, sometimes, it can come off as quite the selfish approach, as I talk more about myself than the other.

As for songs, listening to them, over and over again, can be linked to multiple different reasoning. Songs that I listen a lot and/or for a long time, generally share one or more of those traits: 

A good, usually but not always melancholic melody. I thinks this ties into the past experiences themes that is generally attributed to Si, because melancholic melodies can bring a sense of nostalgia to me. For example, the following song I have listened to the point others would have got annoyed at it. Since it is release, a few days ago, I would guess I listened to it for about... 60 times or so? If not more. I already attribute some level of nostalgia to the song, even though it makes no sense, as it was released on November 30th of this year.


* *












A song that holds meaning for me. Perhaps the opening song of a show I used to watch a lot when I was a kid or a teen. Perhaps a song that my mother used to listen to while doing housework. Either way, usually songs that bring back memories, or rather, the impression of such memories. They are not necessarily tied to good memories, sometimes bad memories instead. The first song is very special to me. It is tied to the experience of watching the first movie of the series I adored for over 15th years, to the point I was called the "Pokémon chick" among some folks — unfortunately, I don't like it anymore, but I value the good times i had with it. It was also my first time going to the movies, the date was 1999, I think. It is brief, but if I close my eyes, listening to that song, I can pretty much go back to the that moment. Of course, I am revisiting my impression of what happened at that time, not what exactly happened.

The second song is one of the various my mother used to listen, and the most memorable of the bunch, to me.


* *


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Hugging Wabbits said:


> Can you elaborate more on this? Also, can I say I love your avatar?


Thanks! Me too, I mean...it's a rabbit...a vampire rabbit...that sucks carrots dry. Need I say more? :kitteh:

So back to the bottom up approach. When somebody tells me something or I research something, I'm not really a believer right away. I don't _not _believe either - I'm just a skeptic by nature. I need facts or details to form _my_ conclusion on things. This led me to believe that I was rather open minded, not taking a stance on anything until all perspectives were disclosed. However, not _really_. I think Fi makes the fact gathering sort of cherry picking in a sense. That's why many times, in a debate, I'll argue rather heatedly because even though I am considering and taking in other's perspectives, I feel like I've got my feet in thick chocolate pudding and even though I can walk out of it and into someone else's territory, it's *thick *chocolate pudding, if that makes sense. In other words, it takes some effort to really put myself in other people's shoes (not just emotionally but logically as well). I suppose this is Si at work. It knows what it knows, by nature.

Therefore, it's pretty difficult for me to just live life going on hunches. It does cause anxiety, because it's just so _uncertain _and potentially risky. How can I trust something that has no basis? This is where the skepticism comes in again. I imagine Ni users live life in the opposite way, from what I've read about going with the gut feeling and finding the supporting evidence afterward, aka filling in the blanks.

I wonder why ISTJs are such skeptics. Is it a combination of our Si and Te? What does that even mean? Is it because we already have answers in our "database", and we just need to apply those answers to the right questions? Therefore, it becomes a long "sorting" process in which many things might fit, but we need to find the *one *thing that fits to be satisfied. This is exactly what I mean by the bottom up approach. 

I hope that my post was clear enough to understand the meaning of it.


----------



## nep2une (Jun 15, 2017)

PiT said:


> @Turi, it's true that Ni-doms seem to respond with a speed that is inconsistent with how Ni is usually characterized. If I am asked about a subject in a field I am reasonably knowledgeable in, I usually have an instant answer whether or not I have ever thought about that specific question before, and that has to do with the network of dots that we have to connect. Sometimes I need more data to test a hypothesis, in which case I will describe what information I need and how it may be obtained.
> 
> Sometimes I can compulsively overanalyze, but I think it's because I start reading implications into propositions that aren't really there. Intense introspecting also invokes this tendency. It happens to me occasionally, but I work with a woman who overanalyzes everything and took a half an hour to do a 12-minute personality test. I thought she was an Ni-dom at first, but later when we got officially typed she came out as an ISTJ.


I know a guy who does this, too. Another friend and I were Skyping with him once and sent him a link to a video to watch and I swear it took him twenty minutes just to get through 3:00 minutes of the video just because he was ranting too hard about what little he was already watching. He's not into MBTI and the one time he took a test he got INFJ and that could very well be a good fit for him (I could see it, certainly) or not. 

I'm not sure what I'd say about his answer speed. Or mine. I think both of us do have tendencies to try to give answers on things even if we're not that familiar with what we're talking about. And I have noticed before that there will be times where I do what I just did and say "I'm not sure" and then ramble on as I tend to do because I like to think (at least when I'm typing) outloud, showing how I'm conflicted, how I have ideas as to what the answer could be but I'm not entirely sure. Then given a little bit more time, I'll be able to come up with something that is hopefully much less wasting of people's time, not me just expressing uncertainty and suggesting the answer could be _this_ or the answer could be _that_ and potentially confusing people. I'll be more theoretical at first and then later on I'll have processed it more thoroughly and... I guess that's when I'll come up with a concrete example as evidence because I can't argue with myself over a concrete example. Like the question could be, '_Is this person kind?_' I could go back and forth on whether they are or not but ultimately come up with an example of something they did that shows that, yes, this person _is_ a kind person.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

neptune_faced said:


> I know a guy who does this, too. Another friend and I were Skyping with him once and sent him a link to a video to watch and I swear it took him twenty minutes just to get through 3:00 minutes of the video just because he was ranting too hard about what little he was already watching. He's not into MBTI and the one time he took a test he got INFJ and that could very well be a good fit for him (I could see it, certainly) or not.
> 
> I'm not sure what I'd say about his answer speed. Or mine. I think both of us do have tendencies to try to give answers on things even if we're not that familiar with what we're talking about. And I have noticed before that there will be times where I do what I just did and say "I'm not sure" and then ramble on as I tend to do because I like to think (at least when I'm typing) outloud, showing how I'm conflicted, how I have ideas as to what the answer could be but I'm not entirely sure. Then given a little bit more time, I'll be able to come up with something that is hopefully much less wasting of people's time, not me just expressing uncertainty and suggesting the answer could be _this_ or the answer could be _that_ and potentially confusing people. I'll be more theoretical at first and then later on I'll have processed it more thoroughly and... I guess that's when I'll come up with a concrete example as evidence because I can't argue with myself over a concrete example. Like the question could be, '_Is this person kind?_' I could go back and forth on whether they are or not but ultimately come up with an example of something they did that shows that, yes, this person _is_ a kind person.


This is exactly what I do also. Hubby (who is INTJ) and I were talking about how things come to orbit one another in space. He is very straight to the point, and states the main idea first, then goes on to elaborate on the laws of physics and how they come into play. I am aware of these laws as well, but I keep interrupting every couple of minutes to insert my question or comment on the law. The reason was to break it down further into sub divisions of logic, so that I can make sure I agree with every facet before agreeing with the main point. This is a common theme in my life. Break down bigger ideas into smaller ones, and cross check them all with my mental map before coming to a decision of whether I agree or not. Detail oriented. Skeptic. These are all words commonly associated with ISTJ that I _do _agree with.

On another note, it also took me like half an hour to take a 12 minute personality test. I really had to make sure that what I chose was indeed representative of me.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


> Thanks! Me too, I mean...it's a rabbit...a vampire rabbit...that sucks carrots dry. Need I say more? :kitteh:
> 
> So back to the bottom up approach. When somebody tells me something or I research something, I'm not really a believer right away. I don't _not _believe either - I'm just a skeptic by nature. I need facts or details to form _my_ conclusion on things. This led me to believe that I was rather open minded, not taking a stance on anything until all perspectives were disclosed. However, not _really_. I think Fi makes the fact gathering sort of cherry picking in a sense. That's why many times, in a debate, I'll argue rather heatedly because even though I am considering and taking in other's perspectives, I feel like I've got my feet in thick chocolate pudding and even though I can walk out of it and into someone else's territory, it's *thick *chocolate pudding, if that makes sense. In other words, it takes some effort to really put myself in other people's shoes (not just emotionally but logically as well). I suppose this is Si at work. It knows what it knows, by nature.
> 
> ...


Indeed, it was very clear. I am quite skeptical, too, which I attributed to Ti, when I mistyped myself as INTP. I think what you were saying is a combination of Si, Te and Fi. You said:

"That's why many times, in a debate, I'll argue rather heatedly because even though I am considering and taking in other's perspectives, I feel like I've got my feet in thick chocolate pudding and even though I can walk out of it and into someone else's territory, it's *thick *chocolate pudding"

My interpretation of this is that as much as you want to consider the other's perspectives, perhaps you believe in your own perspective enough to be confident on it. So, pushing it back in order to temporarily consider the other's perspective might be a struggle. I imagine that would be much easier for an ISFJ, perhaps, since they have Fe rather than Fi.

Te, on the other hand, would gather information, facts, to support one's perspective — a perspective that could or could not have been accessed by Fi beforehand. By default, it doesn't work with subjective logic, but what happens when it works for a subjective perception function as Si?

I wonder if this makes any sense. I did not expect the post to head this way when I started typing it. If it does make some sense, I also wonder how ISFJs would act instead, having Fe and Ti rather than Te and Fi.


----------



## AllyKat (Jan 24, 2014)

@Hugging Wabbits For clarification, my reference to the link not convincing me was more in relation to Turi's original post, where he linked the same article and used it in support of that particular root beer analogy. 

I also wanted to make it clear that in no way, shape, form or any level am I claiming that Si doms _aren't_ creative or can't be creative. I don't believe type to be limiting or defining in that it dictates whether or not someone is creative. I just don't believe it's accurate to describe Si as a _'creative function'_. For what it's worth, I see creativity as being more about imagination, and separate from any cognitive functions which describe the processes or mechanisms that go on in your brain and your motivations towards things. If you took anything I said as being a disservice to any of the creative ISJs you know, then I apologise. That wasn't my intention. 



Turi said:


> Something I didn't mention - I didn't realise it before asking Si dominants what they thought about my description - is that by far, these are the types who need to mull things over before responding.
> 
> I assumed this to be an Ni thing, however Ni dominants tend to respond almost immediately, I fall into this camp - Si types will literally say "I need time to think this over" - it's basically a response I can rely on from them.
> 
> ...


This pops up in _Gifts Differing_ (is it the _Learning Styles_ chapter?) where Myers talks about the differences between intuitive and sensing children. She mentions at one point that sensors tend to take more time in examinations, making sure they understand exactly what questions say, before answering them. I think she provides an example of an ISFJ in particular and talks about if sensing children follow their first instinct instead of reading and re-reading the questions, they can score much higher in timed tests. I have to say even though I never really struggled at school, I really really related to this whole section (even though it surprised me because, as I say, I never had any real issues academically so it'd never really occurred to me). It was absolutely a rare thing for me to finish an exam paper during high school. 

I've noticed Ni can be lightning speed at times. My ex-colleague was an ENTJ and we used to come to very similar conclusions frequently (our Te just seemed to operate in the same way and end up with the same results), but the speed at which he could wrap his head around some new aspect or concept was impressive. We had to take professional exams for work too, and I recall once explaining that I'd remember a particular thing via mnemonics or acronyms because I know that I way I only have to remember that the answer is in the letters somewhere (then on recall I get _all_ the details I need to know) and he said he couldn't remember things in that way, he just needed to understand it. I mean, I had to understand it too, but I can't remember all that detail at once without some shortcut trigger. 



> @AllyKat thanks for the response, I'll get around to it when I can - it's a very interesting one because it almost comes across more Te than Si - it doesn't reflect the general impression I've received from Si doms.
> Feels like a piece from a different puzzle, haha.


Sorry, I tend to have this affect on people. :tongue: I don't always see things in the same way as others. I find that ISFJs describe Si differently to ISTJs in any case, not that it isn't relatable, it just has that Fe edge to it because that's how they explain or interpret it. It works both ways. I don't know if it makes much of a difference but I do tend to explain things mechanically or at least visualise things that way but that might just be because that's what I do at work and through education rather than specifically a Te thing.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

I can admit, I personally think one of the biggest indicators of rather if you're on the Si-Ne axis or Ni-Se axis, is that the Si-Ne axis tends to come off to me as more cautious in general. (Why wouldn't it? It's already taking in the ideas of multiple possibilities?) While the Ni-Se axis goes straight into matters and doesn't feel that it needs to dot every "i" and cross every "t", I would go so far as to say it finds it to be a waste of time. In many ways, it can come off as more reckless at times compared to the Si-Ne whom is considering every little aspect and detail, but whom ignores the whole.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

Hugging Wabbits said:


> Te, on the other hand, would gather information, facts, to support one's perspective — a perspective that could or could not have been accessed by Fi beforehand. *By default*, it doesn't work with subjective logic, but what happens when it works *for *a subjective perception function as Si?


Exactly. Works *for *is the key here. Te usage in an ISTJ is already going to be cherry picking because of this exact reason. That's why there's a mental checklist process before arriving at the conclusion.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Bunniculla said:


> I start from the bottom and build my way up to understanding and truth. I cannot fathom just knowing something and finding all the supporting evidence afterward. That would mess me up real bad, because I would have anxiety just following this blind lead. From an Si dom.
> 
> I seriously cannot relate to Ni’s top down approach, because I need to over analyze every facet of the situation before believing.


I feel this speaks more towards Te, than Si.
Te, I feel, uses something similar to inductive reasoning - starts with the facts, shifts to the theory, ends with the facts.
Ergo, it builds up to a probable conclusion with evidence, like this:










In that example, I imagine a Te user wouldn't just begin with "Bugsy robbed the safe" - you can see there is a clear gathering of facts to support a likely conclusion. Bottom-up.

It sounds like you're not a fan of abuctive reasoning, which is basically how I work.

Can read more about them here:
Deductive, Inductive and Abductive Reasoning - TIP Sheet - Butte College



PiT said:


> @Turi, it's true that Ni-doms seem to respond with a speed that is inconsistent with how Ni is usually characterized. If I am asked about a subject in a field I am reasonably knowledgeable in, I usually have an instant answer whether or not I have ever thought about that specific question before, and that has to do with the network of dots that we have to connect. Sometimes I need more data to test a hypothesis, in which case I will describe what information I need and how it may be obtained.
> 
> Sometimes I can compulsively overanalyze, but I think it's because I start reading implications into propositions that aren't really there. Intense introspecting also invokes this tendency. It happens to me occasionally, but I work with a woman who overanalyzes everything and took a half an hour to do a 12-minute personality test. I thought she was an Ni-dom at first, but later when we got officially typed she came out as an ISTJ.


Well, this is suckage because you're describing how I work.
Lame.



Hugging Wabbits said:


> In which side of the spectrum do I fall, from your perspective? We have talked quite enough since you posted on my "type me" thread, three months or so ago, so I am sure you can respond to this.


I've never asked you to fill out a questionnaire or like, watched you (physically) solve a problem or anything like that, so who knows.
You don't take long to respond to PMs, though. I'm not sure 'average response time to PMs' is a reliable metric for typing yourself with, haha.

But, seriously, even last night - the Si doms need time to mull things over - ask a question and you get silence for like 3-4 hours, the way they work must be similar to how we imagine Ni to work in that it needs time to develop an understanding, I suppose the inherent cautiousness in Si prevents them from just hammering out immediate responses.

The quickest responses I got, were from two Ni doms who basically responded immediately and chipped in their 2p (not that I asked them, I literally joined Si dominant groups, and requested information from Si doms), hours later I began to get a trickle of Si responses - they were aligned with how I thought they'd go down, but honestly - my posts were massive, and I don't know, I just 'know' the people who responded must have read every word or something, and made sure they understood the whole thing, before responding.

It's just a thing I've noticed, I'm sure of it.



AllyKat said:


> This pops up in _Gifts Differing_ (is it the _Learning Styles_ chapter?) where Myers talks about the differences between intuitive and sensing children. She mentions at one point that sensors tend to take more time in examinations, making sure they understand exactly what questions say, before answering them. I think she provides an example of an ISFJ in particular and talks about if sensing children follow their first instinct instead of reading and re-reading the questions, they can score much higher in timed tests. I have to say even though I never really struggled at school, I really really related to this whole section (even though it surprised me because, as I say, I never had any real issues academically so it'd never really occurred to me). It was absolutely a rare thing for me to finish an exam paper during high school.


Ah, so it is. Awesome.The ISFJ scored 10 points higher in an IQ test, when she just read the questions once before responding, rather than digesting the entire question each time.
How interesting.. so this here could spawn some interesting and fruitful questions, for tests - why aren't there questions like this:

When writing an assignment, do you prefer to:
- Quickly glance over the question and begin writing; or
- Develop an understanding of what is required, then begin writing.

When responding to multiple choice questionnaires, do you prefer to:
- Respond immediately with the first option that enters your head; or
- Make sure you understand the question, for the most accurate response.

I finish my exam papers, any tests etc, at lightning fast speeds - I'm the first guy to leave any and all of them, every time - and I get better results than my friend, and he's there the entire time.

It's basically a running joke - that I'll finish things before he does and beat him at them - and he knows it. Kinda funny.
He doesn't understand how I can even begin to formulate an idea, without understanding everything - and I can't understand how he doesn't just "get it" right off the bat and get to work.
Of course this means, sometimes, I miss crucial details - things that you *need* in order to pass the exam, or so I've learnt. Lol.

My wife gets so irritated at me, when we watch any kinds of trivia/quiz shows, because I answer before she's even halfway through reading the question - I'm one of those annoying guys, who at a glance, can respond with the correct answer - I swear I don't fully read or comprehend the question, it's like.. I just immediately the answer - it's like my brain processes the whole question without me reading it, just by 'looking' at it.


I realise this sounds messed up - my wife loves it when I get it wrong because she finds me to be arrogant and too hasty - she actually thinks it's stupid, and a sign of low intelligence, to behave the way I do with questions or basically any kinds of problems, but she quickly understood how uncannily accurate I am - she doesn't get it, nor does she even want to be able to do what I do.
Vastly prefers actually reading things, and understanding things, before responding.



> Sorry, I tend to have this affect on people. :tongue: I don't always see things in the same way as others. I find that ISFJs describe Si differently to ISTJs in any case, not that it isn't relatable, it just has that Fe edge to it because that's how they explain or interpret it. It works both ways. I don't know if it makes much of a difference but I do tend to explain things mechanically or at least visualise things that way but that might just be because that's what I do at work and through education rather than specifically a Te thing.


Ah fair enough - you're positive it's Si-Te and not Te-Si?



Xcopy said:


> I can admit, I personally think one of the biggest indicators of rather if you're on the Si-Ne axis or Ni-Se axis, is that the Si-Ne axis tends to come off to me as more cautious in general. (Why wouldn't it? It's already taking in the ideas of multiple possibilities?) While the Ni-Se axis goes straight into matters and doesn't feel that it needs to dot every "i" and cross every "t", I would go so far as to say it finds it to be a waste of time. In many ways, it can come off as more reckless at times compared to the Si-Ne whom is considering every little aspect and detail, but whom ignores the whole.


Yes, this aligns with what everyone has said, basically - except, I would disagree that Si-Ne "ignores the whole" - in fact, I think their cautiousness (which I don't share at all) stems from a want/need to understand the whole.
As in, actually understand it - for real, i.e to develop a complete understanding of the whole - rather than a 'guess' which is kind of what it feels like I do.

At least this is how I see it.


----------



## Xcopy (Dec 10, 2016)

Turi said:


> Yes, this aligns with what everyone has said, basically - except, I would disagree that Si-Ne "ignores the whole" - in fact, I think their cautiousness (which I don't share at all) stems from a want/need to understand the whole.
> As in, actually understand it - for real, i.e to develop a complete understanding of the whole - rather than a 'guess' which is kind of what it feels like I do.
> 
> At least this is how I see it.


Ah, I believe I need to rework my wording. What I notice isn't that they don't understand the whole, but more or less that I notice them grasp a bit more in "segments" and focus too much on details of a story, while Ni-Se has a stronger tendency to worry more about how they flow together or work as a whole. With your thinking function sorting out rather if they make sense. My impression of them is that Ti is the one more likely point out inconsistencies (Wait a minute, earlier you said this and now you're saying this!) while Te is more likely to point out an inefficiency.((Why would you do this, when this other method would've saved you more time and works faster?)


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

[Q


AllyKat said:


> @Hugging Wabbits For clarification, my reference to the link not convincing me was more in relation to Turi's original post, where he linked the same article and used it in support of that particular root beer analogy.
> 
> I also wanted to make it clear that in no way, shape, form or any level am I claiming that Si doms _aren't_ creative or can't be creative. I don't believe type to be limiting or defining in that it dictates whether or not someone is creative. I just don't believe it's accurate to describe Si as a _'creative function'_. For what it's worth, I see creativity as being more about imagination, and separate from any cognitive functions which describe the processes or mechanisms that go on in your brain and your motivations towards things. If you took anything I said as being a disservice to any of the creative ISJs you know, then I apologise. That wasn't my intention.


I understand. I took no offense from your post, worry not. Where we differ is that while you wouldn't describe Si as a creative function, I wouldn't describe _any_ function as "creative". It is true that creativity is often attributed to Ne and Ni, but I don't think the functions by themselves bless their users with powers of creativity. Si, just like Ne, Ni and other functions _can_ be directed towards creative pursuits, but none of them are naturally geared towards such.


----------



## Bunniculla (Jul 17, 2017)

The more I read, the less and less I am attracted to the idea of singling out the functions and comparing them to behaviors and examples, even though I find those easiest to comprehend. The combination of functions seems to be much more understandable in terms of human nature than the actual single function themselves. Which then leads me to believe that it could be more than two functions responsible for most behaviors and examples. Therefore, it brings us back to the big picture, which is ISTJ, INTJ, INFJ, ISTP, so on and so forth.


----------

