# Si-dom describing a woman he loves



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

A romantic man shares how he sees the woman he loves. It screams Si to me. Thoughts?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

What about it "screams Si" to you?


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

niss said:


> What about it "screams Si" to you?


Here's information from a commonly respected definition of introverted sensing:
"Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference... Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself."​
That's exactly what these two pages are. Exactly. The entire thing. Did you read it?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

hmwith said:


> Here's information from a commonly respected definition of introverted sensing:
> "Introverted Sensing often involves storing data and information, then comparing and contrasting the current situation with similar ones. The immediate experience or words are instantly linked with the prior experiences, and we register a similarity or a difference... Sometimes a feeling associated with the recalled image comes into our awareness along with the information itself."​
> That's exactly what these two pages are. Exactly. The entire thing. Did you read it?


I understand Si fairly well.  Yes, I read it. I would not have posted a question to you without having read it. But you've gone NFP on me and answered a question I did not ask. 

What about it "screams Si" to you? I am asking this because I don't want to overlook something in particular that indicates Si to you.

I will say that the two pages of text you've posted does not even whisper Si, in anything that I can see. If you are basing that assessment on the memory angle--no, that's not Si. If you are basing it on the comparative statements--no, that's not Si.

IMO, the text is too abstract, and the comparison does not follow a sequential, linear logic, with the present concretely evoking the past. Si-doms don't trust intuition for the most part, so we need a fairly direct link between the present and the past for us to correlate the data.

Feel free to point out anything that you think I may have missed.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

it's Ne/Si. Ne relying on Si. he's using a metaphor, a really long metaphor. you're seeing Si because it's Si as an ENxP utilizes it


----------



## StandingTiger (Dec 25, 2010)

niss said:


> I will say that the two pages of text you've posted does not even whisper Si, in anything that I can see. If you are basing that assessment on the memory angle--no, that's not Si. If you are basing it on the comparative statements--no, that's not Si.
> 
> IMO, the text is too abstract, and the comparison does not follow a sequential, linear logic, with the present concretely evoking the past. Si-doms don't trust intuition for the most part, so we need a fairly direct link between the present and the past for us to correlate the data.


Oh, I see. How interesting. Thank you so much for taking the time to read, comment, and thoroughly explain. You've really helped my understanding of Si.



angelfish said:


> it's Ne/Si. Ne relying on Si. he's using a metaphor, a really long metaphor. you're seeing Si because it's Si as an ENxP utilizes it


That makes complete sense. It's the only way I can understand it, I suppose. Thanks for putting it that way.


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

hmwith said:


> That makes complete sense. It's the only way I can understand it, I suppose. Thanks for putting it that way.


of course  i see it that way too! it's a beautiful piece of writing, thanks for sharing it.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

angelfish said:


> it's Ne/Si. Ne relying on Si. he's using a metaphor, a really long metaphor. you're seeing Si because it's Si as an ENxP utilizes it


I would be interested in reading about this, as I've never encountered the use of two perceiving functions supporting each other. It seems to counter what I've read (which calls for a judging function to support a perceiving function, and vice versa). I've performed some basic searches in google, but have come up dry. Would you provide a link to a source, or tell me which book author you are referencing?

Thanks.


----------



## kateykinz (Nov 19, 2009)

I think what they are getting at is that this is and example of Si use by an author who is more Ne-dominant (so an INXP or ENXP)...i.e. the use of tertiary or inferior Si. Incoming data is filtered first through Ne and then through Si, rather than being a direct expression of Si. The Ne makes the seemingly abstract comparison to the woman as this wonderful electricity, the Si then focuses in on the details of why the connection was made (the way she makes him feel is similar to the way that the scene in the movie made him feel).

Edit: @niss if you check out some of Eric B's posts, he talks about how the perceiving and judging functions work in tandems...i.e. Ni/Se, Si/Ne, Ti/Fe and Fi/Te - that might be of interest to you.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

kateykinz said:


> ...if you check out some of Eric B's posts, he talks about how the perceiving and judging functions work in tandems...i.e. Ni/Se, Si/Ne, Ti/Fe and Fi/Te - that might be of interest to you.


Thanks, I'll do that. I've read some of EricB's posts, but haven't read about tandems.


----------



## Zeptometer (Dec 5, 2010)

niss said:


> I understand Si fairly well.  Yes, I read it. I would not have posted a question to you without having read it. But you've gone NFP on me and answered a question I did not ask.


Hahaha, That always happens to us!


----------



## Tuttle (Oct 30, 2009)

The line, "I think I was seven or eight or six" should have immediately tipped you off that the author was not an Si-dom. 

An Si-dom would have said, "I think I was six years, four months and 27 days." Heck, several posters in the ISTJ forum have jokingly rearranged the "OCD" abbreviation to the sequentially-correct "CDO.":tongue::wink:


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

^ CDO. lmao 



niss said:


> I would be interested in reading about this, as I've never encountered the use of two perceiving functions supporting each other. It seems to counter what I've read (which calls for a judging function to support a perceiving function, and vice versa). I've performed some basic searches in google, but have come up dry. Would you provide a link to a source, or tell me which book author you are referencing?
> 
> Thanks.





kateykinz said:


> I think what they are getting at is that this is and example of Si use by an author who is more Ne-dominant (so an INXP or ENXP)...i.e. the use of tertiary or inferior Si. Incoming data is filtered first through Ne and then through Si, rather than being a direct expression of Si. The Ne makes the seemingly abstract comparison to the woman as this wonderful electricity, the Si then focuses in on the details of why the connection was made (the way she makes him feel is similar to the way that the scene in the movie made him feel).
> 
> Edit: @niss if you check out some of Eric B's posts, he talks about how the perceiving and judging functions work in tandems...i.e. Ni/Se, Si/Ne, Ti/Fe and Fi/Te - that might be of interest to you.


yes, this is true! 

eric b's ideas have been very helpful to me. there is also a really interesting dialogue about the Perceiving functions working in pairs on the typologycentral forums, but they're down right now - (provided i remember!) i'll try to find that whenever those go back up again. 

basically the idea is that the introverted and extraverted pairs rely on one another, because they can't really function without one another's principles. Si provides concrete data points for Ne to be able to connect, and Ne provides Si a matrix within which to group and categorize similar details (that may unintentionally be a Ne-biased description), while Se provides up-to-date information for Ni to be able to calculate outcomes based upon, and Ni provides Se with a timeline to contextualize events in. it's almost like Ne is a cartesian plane, Ni is a timeline, and the S functions are space (Si) and time (Se) data points. so there's no reality without S - there's no _content_ without S - but there's no contextualization of reality - no meaning beyond sensation - without N. N gives you the orientation points - location - of the data. 

so then what we're looking at in this example - it screams SI!!! to a Ne dom because we don't tend to think in such "specific detail" (i am sure a Si dom/aux is rolling their eyes here  ) otherwise. but as you pointed out, niss, it's really not pure Si at all, it's much too vague - obviously the author is not terrifically fluent in it - and the whole point of the excerpt is him coming up with a metaphor sufficient to communicate the abstraction of how love felt to him - the abstract contextualization of the concrete details of her and how she made him feel. figuring out where those details fit in, within the "space" of Ne - and once they're locked in he can find a successful metaphor because he understands how those details fit in the big picture, what they connect to. 

i guess this is really jumping to conclusions but i'd be willing to guess the author of the excerpt as an INFP. a Ne dom would tend to swing right into metaphor, but he hesitates because it's not _quite_ right to describe this feeling, and the whole thing is imbued with the complexity of trying to describe the energy of someone. and struggling to communicate (and finally succeeding beautifully) a deep, intense feeling is very Fi.


----------

