# Training to Boost Si



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

God said:


> OK, I think most of my shortcomings (at least those that can be related at all to MBTI) are due my lack of access to Si. Forgetting or not noticing details, not remembering names/faces, nearly forgetting appointments, losing track of time, not being neat and tidy with my papers and stuff. And the saddest part of all is that I'm an Accounting major. I'm supposed to be good at this kind of shit.
> 
> As an ENxP, Si is my inferior function - but that also means I should at least be using it sometimes, which fails to happen.
> 
> ...


Basically, you have to deny Ne. Do not make spontaneous connections, instead, focus on whatever object or idea that is in your vision. Study its form. See how it relates to other objects. In this, you will begin to develop Si. Train yourself to notice things. Be constantly aware of your environment. If something new happens, study it until you memorize it. When a noise happens around you, figure out what it is, so that later, when you hear that noise you do not simply rationalize it away...you know what it is. Learn to pick out slight differences in similar objects. Pay close attention to detail. In all this, you will develop Si.

Patience is key. Calm yourself and allow your senses to passively take in things around you.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Trigun64 said:


> Basically, you have to deny Ne. Do not make spontaneous connections, instead, focus on whatever object or idea that is in your vision. Study its form. See how it relates to other objects. In this, you will begin to develop Si. Train yourself to notice things. Be constantly aware of your environment. If something new happens, study it until you memorize it. When I noise happens around you, figure out what it is, so that later, when you hear that noise you do not simply rationalize it away...you know what it is. Learn to pick out slight differences in similar objects. Pay close attention to detail. In all this, you will develop Si.
> 
> Patience is key. Calm yourself and allow your senses to passively take in things around you.


Wouldn't you say that Si is more conducive to problem solving? If you have a problem to fix, you are taking in enough that is geared towards solution of the problem and that is the purpose of rinsing it through previous sensory experience. It seems to me that Si dominant or auxiliary users often use their perceiving to prep them for their decision making function (Fe or Te). Whereas Ne or Se doesn't take in information only surrounding a problem. It tries to take in everything. We are gaining input from the outside not tainted so much by our decision making function. It stays open. But then again, that is probably why those with Ni or Si are apt to make decisions more quickly and why they get the big ol' J at the end of their four letters.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Wouldn't you say that Si is more conducive to problem solving? If you have a problem to fix, you are taking in enough that is geared towards solution of the problem and that is the purpose of rinsing it through previous sensory experience. It seems to me that Si dominant or auxiliary users often use their perceiving to prep them for their decision making function (Fe or Te). Whereas Ne or Se doesn't take in information only surrounding a problem. It tries to take in everything. We are gaining input from the outside not tainted so much by our decision making function. It stays open. But then again, that is probably why those with Ni or Si are apt to make decisions more quickly and why they get the big ol' J at the end of their four letters.


I find this interesting. I have always associated my ability to problem solve with my well developed Ti. Si is how I understand things. The process of Si is subconscious, and I only recognize the input and and the result after it is processed. So in a way, I could see it being a problem solving function. However, if you believe that problem solving is a fully conscious process, then I would have say that Ti is more geared towards problem solving. Si lets me understand the world around me in a way that I can not really articulate.

This is a definition for Si I came up with on another thread:


Trigun64 said:


> *Si:* We understand the form and function of things. We understand how objects relate to each other and how multiple objects relate to a whole. We see systems and repetitions. We remember key distinctions as well as close similarities. We draw on experience, the more we have, the quicker we can react. We innately know percentages and probabilities of occurrences. We see the basic principles behind things. We have the ability to do repetitive work consistently.
> 
> Drawbacks- In new situations, we have trouble executing necessary functions due to a lack of experience. If we are away from something for a while, we get rusty quickly, and we take time to get back up to par. Others, who do not see the relations of objects and their form and function, find our views and/or advice irrational, especially when we are unable to articulate how we know this. With continual negative stimulus, we can become fatalistic as we see the possibilities of negative stimulus inevitable.


The more I come to understand, the more I realize that everything is based off of perception. I find this fascinating, yet burdensome at the same time. Sorry for kind of a vague answer to your question, but honestly, I do not know how to answer it. I am still trying to fully grasp Si. However, any conclusion I come up with is relative to perception.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Trigun64 said:


> I find this interesting. I have always associated my ability to problem solve with my well developed Ti. Si is how I understand things. The process of Si is subconscious, and I only recognize the input and and the result after it is processed. So in a way, I could see it being a problem solving function. However, if you believe that problem solving is a fully conscious process, then I would have say that Ti is more geared towards problem solving. Si lets me understand the world around me in a way that I can not really articulate.
> 
> This is a definition for Si I came up with on another thread:
> 
> ...


OKay. Say you are just going for a walk. And you notice a stimuli- a tree. Go from there how your Si works.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> OKay. Say you are just going for a walk. And you notice a stimuli- a tree. Go from there how your Si works.


Normally a tree would just blend into the background for me. If I was familiar with that tree(if I had seen it before), I would notice any slight differences in it(say branches cut or leaf color stating to just change). Based on the way the tree looks, I would know the time of year and if the season was about to change. If I was familiar with the tree I could tell whether or not it was healthy. After enough time being around this tree, I would understand how old it is relative to the trees around it. I would be familiar with what wild life frequent its branches. Because I climb trees a lot as a kid, I would know if it is a good climbing tree.

If it was not a tree that I was familiar with, then there would have to be something specific about it. Like it being a weeping willow amongst maples or an evergreen surrounded by oaks. Maybe the light is hitting the tree in a particular way that gives it an interesting hue. The tree might have a lot of character: Lots of twisted, arcing branches with a grayish-brown wrinkled bark that beautifully contrasts dilapidated olive green leaves that hang effortlessly over its barky underside. A tree like that which just pops out at you, like something you would imagine while reading a book or watching a fantasy movie, is a tree I would notice.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Wouldn't you say that Si is more conducive to problem solving? If you have a problem to fix, you are taking in enough that is geared towards solution of the problem and that is the purpose of rinsing it through previous sensory experience. It seems to me that Si dominant or auxiliary users often use their perceiving to prep them for their decision making function (Fe or Te). Whereas Ne or Se doesn't take in information only surrounding a problem. It tries to take in everything. We are gaining input from the outside not tainted so much by our decision making function. It stays open. But then again, that is probably why those with Ni or Si are apt to make decisions more quickly and why they get the big ol' J at the end of their four letters.


In problem solving, I find Si to be a slower, more laborious process than Ne, Se, or even Ni. Sure, it works great if we are dealing with something that we've seen before, but when it is a new situation or a new problem then it can be a hindrance. 

As a Si dom, I have to break down whatever I am trying to understand into all of its component parts so that each part can be understood. Once the component parts are understood, then I can reassemble the parts into the whole and see the big picture. This is a very thorough method of problem solving, and lends itself to detail, but it is a slower process and can lead to a feeling of being overwhelmed if too much data is presented at once.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> OKay. Say you are just going for a walk. And you notice a stimuli- a tree. Go from there how your Si works.


Hard to say. Trees are very common and there would have to be a reason to notice it--else the tree would simply blend into the background. Now if there is something unusual about the tree, something that makes it stand out, then I could zero in on everything that makes that unique--the sights, sounds, smells, and any other sensory inputs that could be associated with that tree would be imprinted as part of that experience.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

niss63 said:


> In problem solving, I find Si to be a slower, more laborious process than Ne, Se, or even Ni. Sure, it works great if we are dealing with something that we've seen before, but when it is a new situation or a new problem then it can be a hindrance.
> 
> As a Si dom, I have to break down whatever I am trying to understand into all of its component parts so that each part can be understood. Once the component parts are understood, then I can reassemble the parts into the whole and see the big picture. This is a very thorough method of problem solving, and lends itself to detail, but it is a slower process and can lead to a feeling of being overwhelmed if too much data is presented at once.


This is why I'm suggesting Si is a much narrower focus than Se. Si seems to be somewhat on a mission. So it collects data only in relation to the focal point? As opposed to Se which is continually gathering a much broader sensory experience, but it's not as directed. What do you think? 

It just seems that there is a much shorter amount of time before Ni or Si reaches their decision making function. Which would make sense, since Js tend to make decisions quicker than Ps. Ne and Se gathers a broad range of input. I think this also must be why Si and Ni are so difficult to describe for the user because it gets to it's decision making function quicker. It's harder to separate it while explaining it.

Could you go ahead *Niss* and give an example how your Si leads to your Te (decision) while finding a solution to something? I would like to compare it to how an ISFJ explains Si leading to Fe (decision) while solving a problem. The input gathering process should be the same.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> This is why I'm suggesting Si is a much narrower focus than Se. Si seems to be somewhat on a mission. So it collects data only in relation to the focal point? As opposed to Se which is continually gathering a much broader sensory experience, but it's not as directed. What do you think?


I agree. It is the introversion that gives the narrower focus. This true of any Xi vs. Xe function.



pinkrasputin said:


> It just seems that there is a much shorter amount of time before Ni or Si reaches their decision making function. Which would make sense, since Js tend to make decisions quicker than Ps. Ne and Se gathers a broad range of input. I think this also must be why Si and Ni are so difficult to describe for the user because it gets to it's decision making function quicker. It's harder to separate it while explaining it.


I agree. We know that P's like to keep options open, while J's are all about closure and moving on to the next item. Taken too far, either behavior can be detrimental. Snap judgments are where I get bit.



pinkrasputin said:


> Could you go ahead *Niss* and give an example how your Si leads to your Te (decision) while finding a solution to something? I would like to compare it to how an ISFJ explains Si leading to Fe (decision) while solving a problem. The input gathering process should be the same.


It normally is a process that happens really fast and subconsciously. If I'm not careful, my Te will overtake my Si and (too) quickly pigeonhole data as having already been experienced.

Si wants to take the time to gather all of this data and compare it to something already experienced, so that the current project before me can be completely understood. So Si breaks everything down into it's component parts, labels, categorizes, compares, and then stores the data. Once it is understood, Te is what moves me off of dead center, preventing the paralysis of analysis. 

The most obvious difficulty is in forming a finished picture in my mind, having never seen it. Sometimes the best exercise I can perform is to catalog all of the component pieces to a project and then go sit in a recliner and close my eyes and mentally walk through the whole project.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

> Si wants to take the time to gather all of this data and compare it to something already experienced, so that the current project before me can be completely understood. So Si breaks everything down into it's component parts, labels, categorizes, compares, and then stores the data. Once it is understood, Te is what moves me off of dead center, preventing the paralysis of analysis.


Wow. I so want to copy and paste this on the "Intuitives are complex/Sensors are simple" thread.  However, I understand that you may be using a bit of Te to explain this to me? That is why I really hope an *ISFJ* can explain to me how it also takes in data.

I can't believe with the way you take in data, a decision can be made quickly. So when you _take in_ data, it won't go in unless it's "channeled" through parts, labels, categories, and comparisons? Or is that your Te already getting a hold of the data?

I would imagine your Si is fully aware of all that your Te needs to do in order to make sense of the data. If it wasn't and didn't filter properly, you might get overloaded quickly while trying to categorize and compare. Sort of like how my Mac was explained to me why it doesn't get viruses and doesn't crash. I have forgotten the terminology unfortunately. But I do know there is only a certain way I can receive information off the internet, like one portal(?). If too much comes through, it doesn't reach my computer, it will close the portal and shut down the internet instead. Ugh (computer people don't make fun, I'm trying here. I'm using Ne to make comparisons out of context so you can add your Te to it if you want to later.:crazy

Yep. My Ne is on a rampage today. :crazy:


----------



## Apollo Celestio (Mar 10, 2010)

I actually heard of a good way to train Si. Notice different state license plates and remember what state they're from.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> This is why I'm suggesting Si is a much narrower focus than Se. Si seems to be somewhat on a mission. So it collects data only in relation to the focal point? As opposed to Se which is continually gathering a much broader sensory experience, but it's not as directed. What do you think?
> 
> It just seems that there is a much shorter amount of time before Ni or Si reaches their decision making function. Which would make sense, since Js tend to make decisions quicker than Ps. Ne and Se gathers a broad range of input. I think this also must be why Si and Ni are so difficult to describe for the user because it gets to it's decision making function quicker. It's harder to separate it while explaining it.
> 
> Could you go ahead *Niss* and give an example how your Si leads to your Te (decision) while finding a solution to something? I would like to compare it to how an ISFJ explains Si leading to Fe (decision) while solving a problem. The input gathering process should be the same.





pinkrasputin said:


> Wow. I so want to copy and paste this on the "Intuitives are complex/Sensors are simple" thread.  However, I understand that you may be using a bit of Te to explain this to me? That is why I really hope an *ISFJ* can explain to me how it also takes in data.
> 
> I can't believe with the way you take in data, a decision can be made quickly. So when you _take in_ data, it won't go in unless it's "channeled" through parts, labels, categories, and comparisons? Or is that your Te already getting a hold of the data?
> 
> ...


When I play Halo: Reach firefight mode(basically a first-person shooter on a game type where hoards of enemies come at you), I handle it by directing the flow of enemies. If I were to just actively pursue all the enemies, I would easily be overwhelmed. However, I corral them, dealing with them in a manageable fashion. Then, with my Ti, I seek the most efficient way to eliminate them.

In Dominion(a group card game), I know how cards effect the game and other players individually(Si). I only play cards that I would be okay with having played against me and that keep the game fun and flowing(Fe).

In music, if I have heard a song before, when I hear it again, I can tell if the person performing misses a note, but even if I have not heard a particular song before, I have heard enough music to build an understand of what notes sound good together and what notes will naturally proceed others, so if I can also tell if a performer misses a note, even if its a song I have never heard before. I will not be as sure with the ladder example as I was with the former, simply because it requires more of a transition from the original idea to the conclusion.

I hope this helps with understanding how Si functions. Sorry that I can not quantify it for you.



niss63 said:


> We know that P's like to keep options open, while J's are all about closure and moving on to the next item. Taken too far, either behavior can be detrimental. Snap judgments are where I get bit.


This, I disagree with. J's have a structured external world, but internally they usually keep options open. P's have a very lax stance towards the outside world, but have a very structured internal world.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Wow. I so want to copy and paste this on the "Intuitives are complex/Sensors are simple" thread.  However, I understand that you may be using a bit of Te to explain this to me? That is why I really hope an *ISFJ* can explain to me how it also takes in data.
> 
> I can't believe with the way you take in data, a decision can be made quickly. So when you _take in_ data, it won't go in unless it's "channeled" through parts, labels, categories, and comparisons? Or is that your Te already getting a hold of the data?
> 
> ...



I was primarily describing my reaction to something with which I am either unfamiliar, or something with which I am familiar, but has some type of problem that is unusual and needs to be solved.

Go back earlier in this thread. Remember the post about sitting in the grass and focusing on the smell in order to trigger a memory? The reason that was necessary was because Si and Te were working so efficiently together that everything coming in was quickly experienced and filed away. I had to stop that process in order to consciously visit my old memory.

It is a pretty quick process. Think of it as a filtering process, such as sifting information through a screen, or panning for gold. As soon as something is understood, it is filed away and isn't revisited, for the most part. What I'm looking for is something new or something that matches a predetermined criteria.

And yes, too much new or unfamiliar data will overwhelm me. However, I can deal with the mundane and ordinary experiences without much difficulty.

HTH


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> This, I disagree with. J's have a structured external world, but internally they are usually keep options open. P's have a very lax stance towards the outside world, but have a very structured internal world.


Not sure exactly where the difference you are referencing lies. J's are all about reaching a conclusion while P's like to keep their options open. The fact that J's are ordered externally and P's are ordered internally has little direct bearing on the need to reach a conclusion or the need to keep your options open.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

niss63 said:


> Not sure exactly where the difference you are referencing lies. J's are all about reaching a conclusion while P's like to keep their options open. The fact that J's are ordered externally and P's are ordered internally has little direct bearing on the need to reach a conclusion or the need to keep your options open.


I have an INFP friend. We one time got in to an argument because I believed Peanut M&Ms were more uniform then Peanut Butter M&Ms, and he believed the inverse was true. He was so sure about this and could not see how I could possibly think that Peanut M&Ms were uniformed that he shut out any information I provided him. Until we got empirical evidence(looking at Peanut vs Peanut Butter M&Ms) did he finally concede to being able to see that Peanut M&Ms could be more uniform.

I have another INFP friend who believed there was no good music after 1992. He adamantly held this position and talked about theories and gave explanations to why it was this way. He was unable to comprehend why I liked music after 92 because me and him had many discussions of classic rock, and it is both of ours favorite music. One day we provided him with songs, and now he begrudgingly admits to there being some good music after 1992.

INFP's have Si+Te and are able to make snap judgments and hold firm believes even though they are P's. Unfortunately, I can only give you experiences of my Ti, which do not hold up to much in Te court. Sorry I do not have the outwardly structured ability to articulate my thoughts in a precise manner.

All I can say is this, everyone has the ability to make snap judgments, we just go about it in different ways.


----------



## sts06 (Aug 12, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> Wow. I so want to copy and paste this on the "Intuitives are complex/Sensors are simple" thread.  However, I understand that you may be using a bit of Te to explain this to me? That is why I really hope an *ISFJ* can explain to me how it also takes in data.


This is something that I'm struggling with a) extrapolating out from everything else I do and b) explaining, but I'll give it a go. This may be very mixed up.

If, say, I'm out and about driving I pretty much do everything on 'autopilot' that is I've done it so often before and I just assimilate all 'new' data so quickly that I don't even notice it. Sometimes I'll 'wake up' and not remember anything I've done in the drive but I know it's all coming, being analysed and stored because if, say, a kid ran out to the road I react immediately regardless of how airy fairy I had just been. So I guess my senses are just really fast at shifting the data from the real world and into a bank of 'normal' and 'not normal' because the 'not normal' stuff is so minuscule comparatively.

If it's a new situation, though, I have to be on high alert at all times because the experience had switched and the 'normal' is outweighed by the 'not normal' In the totally new situation, the data is gathered and stored but the process is a lot more conscious -- I actively take in my surroundings and I will sometimes even verbalise it in my head (hah, sounds weird, but I just have this constant litany of thought running through there). The connections I make are a lot more clear in this case. I agree with Niss that when it's conscious like this I actively compare it to the data bank I have stored. I think of it like those charts where you start with one category (in this case it would be 'driving routes') and there is a flow down as the categories break down further and further, and lines interconnect them, and it's working through the pathway of connections to find the one that 'fits' the new data, and if it doesn't 'fit' exactly, finding a space to slot the new information into. In this way the data bank is constantly expanding. Also I find it doesn't actually take that much longer to assimilate the new information -- it just takes a lot more conscious work.

I recently had a major run-in with this because my whole world underwent a very major change. In this situation the 'new' information is actually replacing the old and this is where I get caught up in the time-consuming problems. While driving, my body tries to do the autopilot thing but it doesn't work because the entire landscape is changed. The old databanks need updating and that's where the problem comes in because I have a really hard job 'letting go' of the old information. The decision-making in this case is faulty and because of my Fe (I guess -- it's some sort of emotional something anyway) the emotional connection I had/have to the 'old' information and routes gets in the way and snags the whole process. This situation actually hurts somehow. So where Niss says that the data gets pigeonholed too quickly as being experienced because of Te, in my case the F can be a hindrance because it ties me to wanting the 'old' pathways back and finds it hard to let go and move on to the new ones. That's actually the only difference I can see in what the two of us experience. Lol, so this was a long way of saying that.


----------



## Trigun64 (Jul 24, 2010)

pinkrasputin said:


> I would like to compare it to how an ISFJ explains Si leading to Fe (decision) while solving a problem.


I think I know know how to answer your question. I took me being stupid in an earlier post to remember things. I tend to learn by trial and error unfortunately.

When an ISFJ observes something, they try to understand it. What it is. What its function is. What is going on. They take those observations and store them to be later processed by Ti+Ne. When a stimulus is introduced, the Si takes it in and quantifies it, then the ISFJ has three ways to interact through Fe. Either by empathy(understanding the object, person, situation, etc and relating in a way that is most harmonious), through reflection(mirroring how the object, person, situation, etc is interacting and reacting with them), or with manipulation(understanding the object, person, situation, etc and manipulating it to their advantage). Empathy would be a positive action, reflection would be a neutral action, and manipulation would be a negative action. 

The best way I can think to describe it is like the show Psyche. The main character notices things, and knows what they mean. His father(a detective) drilled in him to be aware of certain things and how to tell what they mean.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Trigun64 said:


> When I play Halo: Reach firefight mode(basically a first-person shooter on a game type where hoards of enemies come at you), I handle it by directing the flow of enemies. If I were to just actively pursue all the enemies, I would easily be overwhelmed. However, I corral them, dealing with them in a manageable fashion. Then, with my Ti, I seek the most efficient way to eliminate them.
> 
> In Dominion(a group card game), I know how cards effect the game and other players individually(Si). I only play cards that I would be okay with having played against me and that keep the game fun and flowing(Fe).
> 
> ...


Thank you. I did not want you to quantify it for me. I wanted Si in it's raw state as much as possible. 

As far as the music goes, my degree is in music. We spent many hours in ear training and having pitches pounded into our heads. It got to a point where at night in bed all I could hear is pitches and intervalic relationships. They are _burned_ into your brain forever. When the radio comes on, I can recognize pitches and intervalic relationships and rhythm patterns. I can quantify them because I was trained. We HAD to be able to dictate on paper what we heard playing.

I want to go back to your example about how you recognize a "wrong note". When you can recognize a pitch (note) isn't correct in a piece of music you've never heard before, it is probably a pitch that falls outside of the chord. Your ear has been trained over the years to pick up on traditional western harmonies and chord structure. These are pitches that sound "right" to you when played together. So your ear was being trained according to a structure whether you were aware of it or not. Then when something falls outside of the structure it's noticeable to you, it sounds odd to you: it creates _dissonance_. It probably comes more readily to you than others because you remain present to the environment when you originally listen to the music. 

Another way I can explain the above is: You subconsciously picked up a pattern in music growing up by listening to it. Now, you can tell when something falls outside of an aural pattern you are used to hearing.

My purpose in giving the examples above was not so I could give a music theory lesson. It was to try and define your use of Si in different languages for a deeper understanding. 




> This, I disagree with. J's have a structured external world, but internally they usually keep options open. P's have a very lax stance towards the outside world, but have a very structured internal world.


I think both are accurate. :wink:


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Trigun64 said:


> All I can say is this, everyone has the ability to make snap judgments, we just go about it in different ways.


Of course, we can all behave in all ways. But the tendency remains true.


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

sts06 said:


> I recently had a major run-in with this because my whole world underwent a very major change. In this situation the 'new' information is actually replacing the old and this is where I get caught up in the time-consuming problems. While driving, my body tries to do the autopilot thing but it doesn't work because the entire landscape is changed. The old databanks need updating and that's where the problem comes in because I have a really hard job 'letting go' of the old information. The decision-making in this case is faulty and because of my Fe (I guess -- it's some sort of emotional something anyway) the emotional connection I had/have to the 'old' information and routes gets in the way and snags the whole process. This situation actually hurts somehow. So where Niss says that the data gets pigeonholed too quickly as being experienced because of Te, in my case the F can be a hindrance because it ties me to wanting the 'old' pathways back and finds it hard to let go and move on to the new ones. That's actually the only difference I can see in what the two of us experience. Lol, so this was a long way of saying that.


Wow. Thank you. That is exactly what I was hoping for. This makes a lot of sense. 

With Si it sounds like there is a need to categorize information quickly as it comes in so that you understand it. As long as it's familiar, it can be absorbed fast, almost subconsciously into these categories. If the information is new, it requires a bit more conscious effort. Perhaps it's very "now" focused? From that point on, a decision is made how to store it. That decision is made through Fe or Te. 

Because sensory perception is concrete, it has to be filed in order to make sense to you. That is the way you make your "connections". As an Ne user, connections are also very important to me but I go about it differently. Wow. I just had a big huge "aha" moment. I need to go and sit on a hill now. 

Thank you *GOD* for this thread. Sorry for hijacking it. But hopefully it allowed you to see where there might be some hint of where you're already using some Si.


----------

