# Si?



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

When I get to know a person better, their personality affects how I perceive their physical appearance. I find they look more or less attractive depending on whether I like their personality or not. 
Is this related to Si? 

Also, I don't notice things gradually changing in appearance, I just get a sudden realisation at some point, how much something has changed. 

Does Si perceive sensory information by seeing things as they once were? Or is it an influx of Si perception reaching my consciousness, when I suddenly perceive how an object has changed? Or is this just what everyone does, regardless of their functional stack?

I'm interested in clear descriptions of Si that I can relate to btw, not just the descriptions like 'Si is subjective' etc. I've read those already.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> When I get to know a person better, their personality affects how I perceive their physical appearance. I find they look more or less attractive depending on whether I like their personality or not.
> Is this related to Si?
> 
> Also, I don't notice things gradually changing in appearance, I just get a sudden realisation at some point, how much something has changed.
> ...


Seems more like Fi to me with Si. I can sometimes experience something similar but nothing as strongly as you seem to experience it.


----------



## leafling (Dec 15, 2011)

I'm not sure if that's Si (I still have a bit of trouble understanding it), but I can definitely relate to what you wrote! The same things happen to me.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

leafstone said:


> I'm not sure if that's Si (I still have a bit of trouble understanding it), but I can definitely relate to what you wrote! The same things happen to me.


Yep, reinforces my view that this is more Fi-related.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> When I get to know a person better, their personality affects how I perceive their physical appearance. I find they look more or less attractive depending on whether I like their personality or not.
> Is this related to Si?
> 
> Also, I don't notice things gradually changing in appearance, I just get a sudden realisation at some point, how much something has changed.
> ...


I think, you are just less perceptive for sensory info (as opposed to N). So that will I think also be less likely to be elaborated into memory, and less easily or less accurately to be retrieved from memory. I can talk with someone for an hour and if you ask me an hour later what the color of his sweater was, chances are I just don't know. I've seen it but can't remember it, unless it catched my attention for some reason. Biographical information, what the person told about himself, I can very accurately remember, except perhaps for the persons name. Face/name recognition is quite embarassing too.

I think I am also more perceptive for a change in behavioral pattern than a new hairdo.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

I've asked an ISFJ and an ISTP these questions, both said that they are aware of gradual change as it's happening. The ISFJ said that their perceptions of somebody's physical appearance changes when they know their personality better and the ISTP said it doesn't change how they perceive someone's physical appearance.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> ISTP said it doesn't change how they perceive someone's physical appearance.


Yes, and it makes sense because of Se and Ti. They just see the physical appearance as it is without making value judgements (inferior Fe, Fi is not a part of their dominant stack).


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LeaT said:


> Yes, and it makes sense because of Se and Ti. They just see the physical appearance as it is without making value judgements (inferior Fe, Fi is not a part of their dominant stack).


Yeah, I need to grab some XSFPs to see which it might relate to.


----------



## leafling (Dec 15, 2011)

mimesis said:


> I think, you are just less perceptive for sensory info (as opposed to N). So that will I think also be less likely to be elaborated into memory, and less easily or less accurately to be retrieved from memory. I can talk with someone for an hour and if you ask me an hour later what the color of his sweater was, chances are I just don't know. I've seen it but can't remember it, unless it catched my attention for some reason. Biographical information, what the person told about himself, I can very accurately remember, except perhaps for the persons name. Face/name recognition is quite embarassing too.
> 
> I think I am also more perceptive for a change in behavioral pattern than a new hairdo.


Yeah, I think this is it. Omg, my face/name recognition is horrible. Back in high school, I was a peer leader, and one of my freshman saw me in the hall and said hello. I couldn't remember who she was or what her name was, it was embarrassing. Obviously, I smiled and pretended I knew exactly who I was talking to hahaha. Oops.

And I am never sure if my boyfriend has gotten a haircut. I feel something different and I ask, "Um. Is something different with you? Did you get a haircut?"

And if you ask me whether he was clean shaven or had stubble or whatever, I will NOT remember. In fact, I have a really hard time percieving that information. I don't even notice those things when I'm with him.


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

No that's not Si.

Si is when you sense inwardly that something is (or isn't) the way it should be based on things you've done or felt in the past. It's not a direct memory, but a sensory memory.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

MyNameIsTooLon said:


> No that's not Si.
> 
> Si is when you sense inwardly that something is (or isn't) the way it should be based on things you've done or felt in the past. It's not a direct memory, but a sensory memory.


That's one interpretation, that doesn't really explain Jungs description of it adding depth/meaning though and Se types seem to notice something different in sense impressions just as easily as anyone.


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

Ok firstly, Introverted Sensation is a left brain perceiving function. When you use Introverted Sensation you won't go along with the first impression of anything sensory that's presented to you, instead everything that is experienced through the five senses (consciously or unconsciously, aware or not aware) is stored for later use (depending on dominance and how it interacts with your other functions). All of this information is either memories or points of reference to recall that information such as facts, symbols, numbers, names, statistics, etc, anyway to compartmentalize it, all of which is retained over time. 

Obviously we filter a lot through our senses everyday, some which we are aware of and some that we aren't, based on our experiences and our psyche and how they both direct what you pay attention to. Introverted/Extraverted Sensation is the function of your psyche that gives direction and some sort of meaning or use for your sensory experiences. When Introverted Sensation is giving direction then it encourages us to scope out connections between new impressions of sensory data and old impressions, wether good or bad. 

When the attitude of sensation is extraverted then our first sense impressions are accepted and we run along with it. We will even become immersed in whatever it is that is occupying our senses and kind of just adapt to the impression of what it is we are experiencing in the moment without really thinking about it, we just judge it and change as our situation does. An example being a club where the music genre is constantly changing throughout the night, an Se user would be more able to keep a moderate mood and dance from song to song, whereas an Si users' mood might change or they might become disinterested if they can't find themselves within the new sensory experience, such as all the different kind of song genres playing at a club. Si and it's perceptions are held together by what it already knows.

The reason for this is that Se is a right brain function so it's more go with the flow, Si is left brain so it's more categorized and step by step oriented. 

The type of sensory information that Introverted Sensation picks up on is related to the things that matter to us. Instead of "subjective" it's really selective. If an Si user knows about all of the different iPod/iPhone generations (model version) but can't remember the birthday of a relative, it's not that they emotionally care for the essentially useless information, because surely they care about family more, it's that they're currently focused on a specific sensory perception. This information is more than just randomness, it's a part of the individuals experience and defines our interests, it becomes the catalyst for new data.

When Introverted Sensation is dominant, that selective aquiring of sensory data I spoke about in the last paragraph becomes the main theme for meaning and perceiving reality. Dominant Si might see that immediate situations and conditions have no consistent meaning, as a matter of fact it could be seen as too much information bombarding the senses. Things that can have an affect on how dominant Si responds to sensory information are; mood and energy levels, the state of mind, things we desire, and our emotions. It's about knowing what you should keep around and what you shouldn't, knowing this it gives a sense of safety and continuing endurance behind the perception with the self in mind (the ego). Introverted Sensation as a left brain function, strives to peel away everything until the basis of our self-experience is what's known (when it's dominant).

@_Neverontime_ There you have it, I explained it to the best of my knowledge (only for Si and a bit of Se since that's what I saw was asked) so I might not be spot on. 

Hope that helped!


----------



## JungyesMBTIno (Jul 22, 2011)

@Neverontime

I think it can be possibly correlated (as in, you have a tendency to be interested in your own subjective impressions of "the object"). It would depend on whether or not you have some image ideal of the object acting as a kind of template for how you prefer to see it.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

@Avian @JungyesMBTIno I'm not sure if I understood your explanations or if they just triggered Ne, so I apologize if it seems I missed your points. Si is somewhat similar to a browser cache? Saving sense impressions as 'data' to use later so it can be accessed faster without 'downloading' all the information every time?


----------



## MyNameIsTooLon (Apr 28, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> That's one interpretation, that doesn't really explain Jungs description of it adding depth/meaning though and Se types seem to notice something different in sense impressions just as easily as anyone.


An example would be, you're talking to someone and suddenly you see an expression flit across their face. It was very brief and barely noticeable but because you've sensed it before, you know that it means that person was offended by something you said. An extraverted sensor would notice the expression but not what it means


----------



## Avian (Aug 4, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_Avian_ @_JungyesMBTIno_ I'm not sure if I understood your explanations or if they just triggered Ne, so I apologize if it seems I missed your points. Si is somewhat similar to a browser cache? Saving sense impressions as 'data' to use later so it can be accessed faster without 'downloading' all the information every time?


Yes, Si is a storage facility that contains all sensory experiences, though not for the speculative reason in your last question. Both Se and Si do this, but more so Si. And how it manifests is very different, Si collects all of those experiences so that it can compare new ones with the old ones to determine what to go with based on what it already knows. 

It's not really proper (in my opinion) to describe a cognitive function separately since you'll only get the basics of how it exists, not exactly how the function interacts with others.
@MyNameIsTooLon gave a good example of its application on its own, just it will be a bit different when paired with other functions.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> @_Avian_ @_JungyesMBTIno_ I'm not sure if I understood your explanations or if they just triggered Ne, so I apologize if it seems I missed your points. Si is somewhat similar to a browser cache? Saving sense impressions as 'data' to use later so it can be accessed faster without 'downloading' all the information every time?


You interpret what you sense based on what it 'triggers' inside. 



Neverontime said:


> When I get to know a person better, their personality affects how I perceive their physical appearance. I find they look more or less attractive depending on whether I like their personality or not.
> Is this related to Si?


I think it's possible that Ni or Si can influence judgement (whether T or F), in this case either judging attraction or avoidance. You say it's because of their personality, but it takes some time to really get to know someone. But some of this person's behavior might remind you of other people you know or have known, either conscious or unconscious. 

So for example someone else's behavior or a situation may be reminded by Si of a bully one used to know. This may distort (objective) perception and interpretation of current situation and the intentions and expecations, focusing on the negative things more than the positive, and blowing up proportions, sensing danger, disgust, etc.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion_and_memory


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

> You interpret what you sense based on what it 'triggers' inside.


Basically the definition of introverted sensation (at least in the Jungian sense). Where the subjective impression of the sense perception carries more weight than the actual qualities of the sense experience itself. You're more focused on what you get out of an experience or how something is perceived to you. 



> But some of this person's behavior might remind you of other people you know or have known, either conscious or unconscious.


That's not Si that's memory. We shouldn't confuse the two. Because Si deals with sense perception, the only place sense perceptions can come from are either from what you are currently experiencing, physically, or what you have already experienced. Memories, or emotions or any other thing from within can be triggered by introverted sensation (or any other function for that matter) but they should not be confused as being the same thing. 



> So for example someone else's behavior or a situation may be reminded by Si of a bully one used to know. This may distort (objective) perception and interpretation of current situation and the intentions and expecations, focusing on the negative things more than the positive, and blowing up proportions, sensing danger, disgust, etc.


This is likely not really SI (it might be in the MBTI context, but definitely not in the Jungian). This is really just a feeling-tone or a memory of an event that is loaded with emotion (probably a complex going on behind the scenes). If it was indeed Si you start getting into the question of 'do only Si types experience this?' and so forth and it gets silly quickly. Typically anytime a person or a situation steps on some aspect of your psychology that 'hits a nerve,' so to speak, that is a sign that a complex has been constellated and that complex can bring to fore all sorts of things like memories or emotions, or negative thoughts, affective responses and so on


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

MyNameIsTooLon said:


> An example would be, you're talking to someone and suddenly you see an expression flit across their face. It was very brief and barely noticeable but because you've sensed it before, you know that it means that person was offended by something you said. An extraverted sensor would notice the expression but not what it means


I would have thought that an extraverted sensor would recognise the meaning of an expression. Is that what you mean or am I misunderstanding you?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Avian said:


> Yes, Si is a storage facility that contains all sensory experiences, though not for the speculative reason in your last question. Both Se and Si do this, but more so Si. And how it manifests is very different, Si collects all of those experiences so that it can compare new ones with the old ones to determine what to go with based on what it already knows.


What do mean by 'determine what to go with'? Actions? 
Also, the whole idea of Si primarily being a storage facility built on experience or collecting impressions of sensory experience doesn't sit right with me. I can't explain exactly what I mean, I'll need to think about how to describe it. 



> It's not really proper (in my opinion) to describe a cognitive function separately since you'll only get the basics of how it exists, not exactly how the function interacts with others.
> @MyNameIsTooLon gave a good example of its application on its own, just it will be a bit different when paired with other functions.


I understand that the functions aren't easy to interpret without including the interactions with each other, but their must be a basic process that is the same in every function stack which includes the same function. 

I agree that @MyNameIsTooLon gave good descriptions, but still not enough to explain the description originally from Jung. If one aspect of the Si difference in perception could only really be perceived by others in artwork attempting to accurately replicate an object, then it must be something about the artists interpretation of sensory data that can sometimes differs from what is actually there. Common sense tells us that this difference must be subtle, because typical, healthy Si doms aren't seen as crazy for seeing things that don't exist. Although, I think Jung was saying in a mentally ill Si dom, the difference between reality sense impressions and Si perceptions would be extreme. 
Jung mentions this in addition to 'looking through age old eyes' and 'depth, meaningful'.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

mimesis said:


> You interpret what you sense based on what it 'triggers' inside.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yes that's along the same lines as what I was thinking, not so much 'reminding' necessarily and definitely not consciously, just to be clear. Since whatever is perceived is altered at the source, it's not a conscious adjustment. 
I'm particularly focusing on the perception of physical appearance of the object changing. Like for instance, I can see a dog and make a judgement that it's the ugliest dog I've ever seen. Then later, after getting to know the dog, I may look at it and can't see why I originally thought it was ugly, even though I clearly remember thinking so, initially.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> Basically the definition of introverted sensation (at least in the Jungian sense). Where the subjective impression of the sense perception carries more weight than the actual qualities of the sense experience itself. You're more focused on what you get out of an experience or how something is perceived to you.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I suppose anyone who doesn't have dominant Si will not be able to effectively separate it in order to gain a clear concept of it. In the same way that I've noticed when trying to explain dominant feeling to other types, they aren't able to imagine it as separate from personal emotional experiences or feeling-intuition experiences.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Neverontime said:


> When I get to know a person better, their personality affects how I perceive their physical appearance. I find they look more or less attractive depending on whether I like their personality or not.
> Is this related to Si?
> 
> Also, I don't notice things gradually changing in appearance, I just get a sudden realisation at some point, how much something has changed.
> ...


 @LiquidLight and @Avian have shared some good information. 

Directly, what you have described is not Si, but memories and our reaction to them.

As a Si-dom, if I understand a concept, then I start with a finished picture when stimuli referencing that concept is presented to me. As additional information is introduced, I will change my picture of the concept to fit within the newly supplied information.

If I don't understand a concept and it is not central to what is being experienced, I will be ok with maintaining a nebulous understanding and proceeding with the processing of the information being presented. If it piques my interest, I will go back at a later date and research that concept until I understand it to my satisfaction.

If I don't understand a concept and it is central to what is being experienced, I won't be ok with a nebulous understanding. Depending on the circumstances, I will either be lost as to the subject matter, or I will have to stop the bigger processing of information until I can disassemble the concept into it's component parts, and then reassemble them once they are understood, into the larger concept.

Here are links to a couple of posts from some time back, where I delved into discussing Si in relation to understanding the concept of a "pond":

http://personalitycafe.com/istj-forum-duty-fulfillers/95543-strengthen-si.html#post2407858

http://personalitycafe.com/istj-forum-duty-fulfillers/95543-strengthen-si.html#post2411206

HTH


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

LiquidLight said:


> If it was indeed Si you start getting into the question of 'do only Si types experience this?' and so forth and it gets silly quickly.


I don't think only Si types experience this, but I could imagine they are more susceptible to this. 

I can't imagine any function to develop and operate without using memory. 

For Jung these Si 'images' may be "concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas". I don't reject this notion, but I really don't see why these Si images are only 'primordinal' or as 'random' in its relation to the object, as Jung suggests. 

If we are food-poisoned from certain food we will likely be filled with disgust when we even think about eating it again, and even worse when we see it. The example I gave is a comparable extreme example to illustrate how past experience can influence perception and interpretation, triggered by perceived similarity, and projected on the stimulus object. 

Si is here just the perceived image without judgement, the feeling tone you mentioned is in this case likely Fi or Fe which projects its demon on the other person, and pictures oneself as victim/ martyr/ warrior. (to use some of that archaic imagery)

But the influence could of course also be positive (for instance safe, romantic or sexy), and much less intense. 

With regard to 'complex going on behind the scenes...'
http://personalitycafe.com/articles/25205-dominant-tertiary-loops-common-personality-disorders.html


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

niss said:


> @LiquidLight and @Avian have shared some good information.
> 
> Directly, what you have described is not Si, but memories and our reaction to them.
> 
> ...


Thanks, great explanation. I get it now.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

mimesis said:


> If we are food-poisoned from certain food we will likely be filled with disgust when we even think about eating it again, and even worse when we see it. The example I gave is a comparable extreme example to illustrate how past experience can influence perception and interpretation, triggered by perceived similarity, and projected on the stimulus object.


That's memory and experience, which should not be confused with Si as a cognitive process.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Yes that's along the same lines as what I was thinking, not so much 'reminding' necessarily and definitely not consciously, just to be clear. Since whatever is perceived is altered at the source, it's not a conscious adjustment.



Yes, I tend to agree as Si it's not a conscious recollection. 




Neverontime said:


> I'm particularly focusing on the perception of physical appearance of the object changing. Like for instance, I can see a dog and make a judgement that it's the ugliest dog I've ever seen. Then later, after getting to know the dog, I may look at it and can't see why I originally thought it was ugly, even though I clearly remember thinking so, initially.



Know what you mean. It's acquired taste =)


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

niss said:


> @_LiquidLight_ and @_Avian_ have shared some good information.
> 
> Directly, what you have described is not Si, but memories and our reaction to them.
> 
> ...


Have you checked that definition with any xSFJ 's?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Yeah, I need to grab some XSFPs to see which it might relate to.





LeaT said:


> Seems more like Fi to me with Si. I can sometimes experience something similar but nothing as strongly as you seem to experience it.





leafstone said:


> I'm not sure if that's Si (I still have a bit of trouble understanding it), but I can definitely relate to what you wrote! The same things happen to me.





Anodyne said:


> The simplest answer is this: that "how [you] perceive their physical appearance" is, in the last analysis, subjective.
> 
> But actually, what you call "perception" is, in fact, a subjective _judgement_ via your Fi. Their physical features remain the same, yet you have accumulated either positive or negative judgements on their character which influences how you regard them.
> 
> ...





mimesis said:


> I think, you are just less perceptive for sensory info (as opposed to N). So that will I think also be less likely to be elaborated into memory, and less easily or less accurately to be retrieved from memory. I can talk with someone for an hour and if you ask me an hour later what the color of his sweater was, chances are I just don't know. I've seen it but can't remember it, unless it catched my attention for some reason. Biographical information, what the person told about himself, I can very accurately remember, except perhaps for the persons name. Face/name recognition is quite embarassing too.
> 
> I think I am also more perceptive for a change in behavioral pattern than a new hairdo.





LeaT said:


> Yes, and it makes sense because of Se and Ti. They just see the physical appearance as it is without making value judgements (inferior Fe, Fi is not a part of their dominant stack).





mimesis said:


> Yes, I tend to agree as Si it's not a conscious recollection.
> 
> Know what you mean. It's acquired taste =)


I've actually reassessed as a result of these posts and gaining more understanding from what @niss said. I now think that the way I perceive differences regarding attractiveness in something, is a result of my Fi judgement directing my perceiving function. Which honestly, I find a little bit disturbing. 
I think the sudden realisation of changes is because of Ne searching above, beyond and behind everything that's right in front of me. Which I can't complain about because Ne kindly ignores the evidence that there's chores that need doing. XD


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

mimesis said:


> Have you checked that definition with any xSFJ 's?


Yes. Why?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

niss said:


> That's memory and experience, which should not be confused with Si as a cognitive process.


"In science, cognition is a group of mental processes that includes *attention, memory*, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions."


This is what you wrote: 


> Much more likely that context of the conversation will dictate a memory or a concept. (...) That said, Si is the function that interacts with the presented stimuli by comparison with past experiences: what is evoking what was.


I believe that's basically my point, too. So I don't see any difference here, but please explain if you think there is. 

My example was someone who is in discussion with someone else, and the nature or context of this conversation triggers a memory of a negative past experience. It doesn't necessarily enter the mind on a conscious level, but by arousal and a sense of danger and hostility.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I've actually reassessed as a result of these posts and gaining more understanding from what @_niss_ said. I now think that the way I perceive differences regarding attractiveness in something, is a result of my Fi judgement directing my perceiving function. Which honestly, I find a little bit disturbing.
> I think the sudden realisation of changes is because of Ne searching above, beyond and behind everything that's right in front of me. Which I can't complain about because Ne kindly ignores the evidence that there's chores that need doing. XD


Moral values are different from aesthetic. Although there is some belief that what is beautiful/attractive is good, or what is good is beautiful. Because you want to attract the good or be attracted by it and avoid the bad. 

But it depends I think on what for you is beautiful or attractive. I do believe you can find beauty in things and learn to love something. Something is beautiful for me because I give meaning to it, or that I can discover just by having a closer look and reflect on it and reason. I don't believe values are eternal anyway and so will our perception of beauty, right and wrong change along the way. 

Marcel Duchamp once said 'Beauty is not an intrinsic quality. A piece of art without anyone looking at it, is no piece of art. Just the material. It becomes beautiful, and art, when it is given meaning by people who look at it, and within the context of other art. It's the work of art and the viewer that together make art.' 

Fountain 1917










So I didn't have so much problems with what you said. I know I have all kinds of biases, predispositions and false beliefs, like being an optimist and positvist. I'm sure you will find bias, false beliefs and flaws in any person.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

mimesis said:


> "In science, cognition is a group of mental processes that includes *attention, memory*, producing and understanding language, solving problems, and making decisions."


But what we are discussing is Si, as opposed to the definition you've supplied, which is discussing cognition in broader terms.



> This is what you wrote:


Yes, I made those statements, but not to stand alone as a definition of Si. The rest of the posts I linked to goes more in depth about Si not being simply a memory function (everyone has memories - even those that do not use Si), but that Si links understood concepts to a particular memory. The purpose of this is to provide a building block of information that can be assembled to facilitate understanding of new concepts.



> I believe that's basically my point, too. So I don't see any difference here, but please explain if you think there is.
> 
> My example was someone who is in discussion with someone else, and the nature or context of this conversation triggers a memory of a negative past experience. It doesn't necessarily enter the mind on a conscious level, but by arousal and a sense of danger and hostility.


Which is simply memory of a bad experience - which we all have, not just Si users. In the scenario you've selected (which is a more difficult one to understand and explain, since it is not dealing with something concretely tangible), Si is not about finding a particular food revolting due to having experienced food poisoning. Instead, Si will associate food poisoning with our first realization of having food poisoning. So when food poisoning comes up in conversation, depending on the surrounding context, the past will define the present by going to that internal cache of sensations associated with this concept and recalling them (the feelings of being sick that are associated with food poisoning, in this case) and I will apply those feelings (subjectively) to the present discussion as a method of understanding this discussion. IOW, I will go for a concrete definition of how I felt when I had food poisoning, the first time I was aware that I had it. If the speaker changes something about the context in the discussion, I will mentally adjust my thinking to incorporate the new data, rectifying any discrepancies between my internal image and what the speaker is describing.

Si will start with a concrete example for understanding something and will adjust that concrete example to meet the current description being presented. If it gets to be too different, that example may be discarded for a more fitting stored impression.

And it is an impression, not a memory, per se. It happens so effortlessly and so fast that the Si user is typically unaware of what is happening. It is only through careful self examination that we can see ourselves doing this. The example of the pond, in the links I provided, explains this more thoroughly.

HTH


----------



## Moya (May 22, 2012)

Just a bit confused -- if it's not Si, is the general conclusion that it's Fi being used here? Because I've definitely experienced it before...a person who I was not attracted to initially is now the person I am most attracted to, physically and emotionally, because of who they are. I just ran it by my INTP friend and she said it absolutely happens to her too.


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

niss said:


> But what we are discussing is Si, as opposed to the definition you've supplied, which is discussing cognition in broader terms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Yes everyone has memory, and what you explain is semantic deconstruction, which also applies to everyone. 

Connotations and Denotations

I'm afraid you don't follow me. I didn't mean the word 'foodpoisoning' but I explained as an example the reaction in a situation seeing the (kind of) shrimps you once got foodpoisoned from. Which triggered the inner sensation. I think Si is actually pretty basic emotional learning, of how we as human learned to deal with our environment, read expressions, when words didn't exist. We needed to know what was good to eat and bad to eat. 

Connotation is a personal emotional association, that is linked to a word . A word has aside from a meaning also an image (right side of the brain), emotional connotation and personal associations. That's just how (basically) everyone's brain works. I can understand your explanation with a T or more logical/conceptual perspective, but I have lived with a Si-aux for about 14 years quite intensively, and she is a Feeler, so I have a bit of idea of how she perceived things.

Think not about pond, but snake this time. You see something on the ground that looks like a snake. You have once been bitten by a snake. You are also 'security seeker'. There is not THE snake, but many types of snake. How do you cognitively protect yourself from being bitten again and deal with what you see on the ground what looks like a snake but perhaps is a garden hose?


----------



## mimesis (Apr 10, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Like for instance, I can see a dog and make a judgement that it's the ugliest dog I've ever seen. Then later, after getting to know the dog, I may look at it and can't see why I originally thought it was ugly, even though I clearly remember thinking so, initially.


Funny you mentioned that by the way, because when I visit a friend of mine, his Staffordshire always comes to greet me. And usually I say to her 'Bonkers, it's amazing I always forget how ugly you are!'. And then I see her backside wiggle, as if she wags her tail she doesn't have which doesn't help her look any more elegant. And because she is so ugly it's hard to see she shows affection, and is actually a little bit shy, but I've come to know her by now, so I stroke over her head, which immediately makes her more enthousiastic, as it prompts her to spontaneously jump with her feet on my lap. It's so funny, so incredibly ugly and a body like a big fat sausage with short feet, but such a doll, and so cheerful (in her own way) and playful.

:kitteh:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> I've actually reassessed as a result of these posts and gaining more understanding from what @_niss_ said. I now think that the way I perceive differences regarding attractiveness in something, is a* result of my Fi judgement directing my perceiving function*. Which honestly, I find a little bit disturbing.
> I think the sudden realisation of changes is because of Ne searching above, beyond and behind everything that's right in front of me. Which I can't complain about because Ne kindly ignores the evidence that there's chores that need doing. XD


Yeah, I suspected as much, actually. I'm an inferior Fe type so I'm not very likely to judge people the way you describe it here, although yes, it happens. What's important to note here though is that this always happens based on my snap judgement of them as people; judgement comes first, perception later, as I try to find clues to reinforce why I like or dislike this person and can dismiss data that does not coincide with this view. Then when this person says or does something that reinforces my view I just go, hah, told you so! I wouldn't say it colors my perception in the sense that I think people become more physically ugly or beautiful (if I understood you right?), but I can judge people based on say terms of if I think they are repulsive or attractive. Meh in retrospect, what's the difference when that dichotomy describes the same thing? -.- I also try to stay the hell away from people I find repulsive.

AAh, I think I have to take back that it probably also colors my physical perception of these people... I think it does. In retrospect, it does. I find people I like more attractive and people I dislike physically repulsive. Doh, guilty as charged.

EDIT
Hm, I wonder if just dominant judgers are more likely to do this with Si in this stack? How do SFJs, especially ESFJs fare in this area? Do you guys experience this too?


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

Title said:


> Just a bit confused -- if it's not Si, is the general conclusion that it's Fi being used here? Because I've definitely experienced it before...a person who I was not attracted to initially is now the person I am most attracted to, physically and emotionally, because of who they are. I just ran it by my INTP friend and she said it absolutely happens to her too.


Well it was until now XD 
In light of your post, I'm now wondering if it could be due to Ji Ne si stacking, since the dominant judgement guides the perception and Ne doesn't place importance on the strongest concrete sensation, like Se does, but instead places importance on what's behind it?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Neverontime said:


> Well it was until now XD
> In light of your post, I'm now wondering if it could be due to Ji Ne si stacking, since the dominant judgement guides the perception and Ne doesn't place importance on the strongest concrete sensation, like Se does, but instead places importance on what's behind it?


Thinking a person is beautiful or ugly is a value judgement though (and in my mind I fail to see why Ti would give a damn about that), which would imply F being employed as the preferred judgement in this case.


----------



## Kynx (Feb 6, 2012)

niss said:


> But what we are discussing is Si, as opposed to the definition you've supplied, which is discussing cognition in broader terms.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





mimesis said:


> Yes everyone has memory, and what you explain is semiotics deconstruction, which also applies to everyone.
> 
> Connotations and Denotations
> 
> ...


I think you're both referring to slightly different processes here. I believe niss is simply discussing how he processes and sorts incoming information in order to understand it, comparing it to already prepared concepts. Whereas Ji compares information in order to judge it. 
I can see the difference in the Si vs Ne perception because I don't use an impression when perceiving data. For instance, if someone was describing a pond to me, I would begin with flashes of various parts of a pond that all ponds have in common, not an entire mental image. As more information comes in about the particular pond in question, I fill in the rest. It's not clear or detailed, just points dotted about, so it's always open to possibilities. 
When making judgements, I have contents ready and waiting to match information to and I will reject anything that clashes strongly with what's there, unless I can see good reason to reassess what's there. 
It seems that extraverted functions always start with a blank canvas, ready to construct on, as data comes in and introverted functions have contents ready and waiting as a basis to start understanding/judging.


----------

