# Which of these 7 different definitions of Si is the correct one?



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Source 1


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Si is a detailed memory of facts. Si upholds traditions. Si is family-oriented. Si is hard-working and reliable. Si is drawn to routines.
[hr][/hr]
Source 2


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Si is comparative--comparing current experiences with previous ones. Si stores sensory details in memory and recalls them with ease.
[hr][/hr]
Source 3


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Si has to do with personal history--learning by doing, learning from past experiences. Si types are drawn to tried-and-true methods, old data, not interested in forming their own ways of doing things or coming up with their own ideas (lol wow). Si has to do with internal bodily sensations. Si recalls detailed information with ease, leading to great detailed memory. Si is less creative than Ni.
[hr][/hr]
Source 4


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Okay, this one is easily my favourite definition of Si. Si, unlike Se, compares current experiences with previous ones. Si doms have photographic memories. Si is very good at collecting detail information such as names, numbers, percentages, specifications. Si holds an ideal in its head of a "perfect" _____, and can easily compare present _____s with the ideal one because they're so good at remembering the exact details of what makes a perfect _____.
[hr][/hr]
Source 5


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Again with Si storing ideals of objects in its head, comparing present reality with ideal reality. Knows how things "should" be because it stores detailed sensory information about the objects with ease and recalls and compares these ideals with present reality.
[hr][/hr]
Source 6


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Si is about the "internal sensations" between objects. Si can change an environment to bring about desired sensations. Si can recreate previously experienced aesthetic sensations. Good memory for aesthetic sensations. Distinguish new experiences from old ones and collect and remember sensations. Particularly drawn to comfort.
[hr][/hr]
Source 7


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


tl;dr: Si is focused on internal states of objects. This leads to Si being very aware of the health of the subject. Si very in touch with comfort, convenience, aesthetics, pleasure. Unlike Se ego types which feel justified to judge others' aesthetic tastes and preferences, Si ego types are drawn to adapt to others' aesthetic preferences. Si is conflict avoidance.
[hr][/hr]

So if I were to assume that everything I just read is completely true, then here's what I would think of an Si ego type:
Si types are Temple Grandin. They have photographic memories for details (e.g. images of real-world tangible objects as well as names, dates, facts/figures, specific detailed information about anything/everything they're interested in). 

As well, Si is very comparative with its current environment--comparing objects it encounters with its knowledge of how objects "should" be. Very drawn to and in-touch with idealistic paradigms of objects.

Si is drawn to learning by doing. Si is very in-touch with its personal history, drawing on past experiences to make adjustments, learn from mistakes, grow. 

Si is drawn to traditions, family, civic institutions such as government, police force, etc. Si egos are very punctual.

Due to their photographic memory, Si egos can easily relive events in their mind as if they were actually there. And in doing so can recall how they felt during those events, experiencing the sensations/emotions all over again.

Si egos are very drawn to comfort and are very receptive to comments/complaints by others about their internal physical states. Si is good at accommodating others and adjusting to others' environmental/physical needs. Si egos can be quite conflict avoidant.

Si egos are uncreative and unimaginative, preferring to look to old/existing information for guidance rather than come up with their own ideas and information. They prefer to align themselves with durable, trustworthy, respectable, dependable institutions/objects/etc. They are drawn to these characteristics.

Si egos are very hard-working and drawn to routine tasks. Si types are very drawn to "duty" (whatever that is) and are very reliable and dependable.


Can anyone refute any of this?


My intentions for making this thread:
1. To get to the bottom of what Si really is. Not stereotypes of those with Si egos. But a definition of what the act and usage of Si is. What is Si, really?
2. Secondarily we can discuss common manifestations of Si egos, i.e., stereotypes, if you will. It seems the definition of Si is a rather abstract concept. So I would imagine that that is the reason so many descriptions focus on stereotypes--to give a more concrete concept--something you can visualize and see in the world.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

Not an expert, but I'll throw in my two cents:

I don't think memory is related to Si, or to any other function for that matter. An Si-dom could have bad memory, and a person with good memory doesn't have to be an Si-dom\aux. Si is a mode of perception, for which a good memory could be an advantage.

Since each person has one general way of perception, it's easier to think of (and identify) Si as part of the Si-Ne pair.
Through gathered information such as personal experiences, an Si user will analogize it with what's currently going on to try to understand how things might develop from here (Ne). For example, if an Si-dom experiences something that he already witnessed before, he will recall how it went that time, and decide that there's a good chance this is how it will happen this time as well.

Since Si-dom/aux users have bad expertise at using Ne, they will have trouble reliably understanding how things will work out from situations they are unfamiliar with, which I think what makes them usually rely on tested methods, which in turn makes people label them as traditionalists. 

As claimed above, Si relies on gathered information, and so an Si-dom will be inclined to gather more details about events and ideas so that he may utilize Si in its full potential.


I probably made some mistakes here, feel free to correct me.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Mbaruh said:


> I don't think memory is related to Si, or to any other function for that matter. An Si-dom could have bad memory, and a person with good memory doesn't have to be an Si-dom\aux. Si is a mode perception, for which a good memory could be an advantage.


It seems that memory is a huge component of Si. Memory in terms of lived experiences, that is. And recalling those experiences. Especially memory of specific details of events. This seems to be key in many descriptions of Si.

It seems kind of wrong to say otherwise.



> Since each person has one general way of perception in general, it's easier to think of (and identify) Si as part of the Si-Ne pair.
> Through gathered information such as personal experiences, an Si user will analogize it with what's currently going on to try to understand how things might develop from here (Ne). For example, if an Si-dom experiences something that he already witnessed before, he will recall how it went that time, and decide that there's a good chance this is how it will happen this time as well.


See, even here you're referencing the recalling/comparative nature of Si. Which necessitates use of memory.



> Since Si-dom/aux users have bad expertise at using Ne, they will have trouble reliably understanding how things will work out from situations they are unfamiliar with, which I think what makes them usually rely on tested methods, which in turn makes people label them as traditionalists.


I believe you are quite right.



> As claimed above, Si relies on gathered information, and so an Si-dom will be inclined to gather more details above events and ideas so that he may utilize Si in its full potential.


Yes, this seems right as well.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

emberfly said:


> It seems that memory is a huge component of Si. Memory in terms of lived experiences, that is. And recalling those experiences. Especially memory of specific details of events. This seems to be key in many descriptions of Si.
> 
> It seems kind of wrong to say otherwise.
> 
> ...


As I said, Si is a function which benefits from good memory, but it doesn't imply correlation. Saying that "he's an Si-dom so he has photographic memory" seems just wrong to me.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Mbaruh said:


> As I said, Si is a function which benefits from good memory, but it doesn't imply correlation.


Define "good memory," and I think you'll see why it correlates.



Mbaruh said:


> Saying that "he's an Si-dom so he has photographic memory" seems just wrong to me.


I might agree that that seems wrong. The photographic memory part. Though I think the assumption that an Si ego would be good at remembering specific details would be correct and reasonable.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Define "good memory," and I think you'll see why it correlates.


I will offer another concept to think about while doing that:
Si is an introverted function. Like other introverted functions, it is subjective, meaning when a person compares what's going on to what he remembers, it will be exactly it: what *he* remembers- which might not necessarily be entirely true to what actually happened, or simply lacking in detail. A person with good memory will remember things in more detail, which will be beneficial to make a better assertion, while a person with weaker memory can still make good assertions, although lacking as much precision.

Another way how good memory is only beneficial to Si: there can be an array of events which can be compared to. One event might be more relevant than another. A person with good memory will have an easier time seeing the better one, while relying on a less relevant event does not mean a bad result, just not as good.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Mbaruh said:


> Si is an introverted function. Like other introverted functions, it is subjective, meaning when a person compares what's going on to what he remembers, it will be exactly it: what *he* remembers- which might not necessarily be entirely true to what actually happened, or simply lacking in detail.


Yes, that's very astute.



> A person with good memory will remember things in more detail


Which seems to be the focus of Si--storing and recalling details. It seems there's just no way to talk oneself out of saying that Si is good at recalling information, i.e. memory.



> there can be an array of events which can be compared to. One event might be more relevant than another. A person with good memory will have an easier time seeing the better one


This necessitates use of a value judgment. This is no longer just plain perception.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Keep in mind that all the functions deal with information and hence all the functions have access to memory.
The elevation of Si as the true memory agent is just messed up.
You store what you focus on in your memory, Si doms would therefore have a lot of Si derived information in memory.
Yet there is no real difference from a Se dom with a lot of Se derived information in memory.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

emberfly said:


> This necessitates use of a value judgment. This is no longer just plain perception.


That's bad phrasing on my part. What I meant is that when an Si user sees something as something that he already witnessed before, if he remembers something more relevant he will be more inclined to compare it to this event over the less relevant one. This is all subconscious.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

hornet said:


> Keep in mind that all the functions deal with information and hence all the functions have access to memory.


Not really. The perceiving functions deal with perceiving information. The judging functions deal with making decisions, judging. They work side-by-side in tandem, they have to, as one needs information and the other needs some way to make sense of the information.



> The elevation of Si as the true memory agent is just messed up.


Please elaborate.



> You store what you focus on in your memory, Si doms would therefore have a lot of Si derived information in memory.


Yes. Definitely. This is what we common folk generally call "good memory." People who have a brain for details and can remember them.

Other people's brains value different kinds of information. And this information, if it is not detail-oriented, is not what we usually call "good memory" but rather "vague memory" or "bad memory."



> Yet there is no real difference from a Se dom with a lot of Se derived information in memory.


"Se-derived information in memory" is Si-accessed.



Mbaruh said:


> That's bad phrasing on my part. What I meant is that when an Si user sees something as something that he already witnessed before, if he remembers something more relevant he will be more inclined to compare it to this event over the less relevant one. This is all subconscious.


Still, relevance is determined via making a judgment.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

emberfly said:


> Still, relevance is determined via making a judgment.


You're implying that any Si related perception is actually judgement, since a person has to evaluate which event to relate it to. This is not the case, though.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Mbaruh said:


> You're implying that any Si related perception is actually judgement, since a person has to evaluate which event to relate it to. This is not the case, though.


No, I'm not implying that. What Si perceives is mere information. What it does with what it perceives (placing a weight of worth on it--good/bad, relevant/irrelevant) is not Si, but judgment.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

@emberfly

I don't want to discus anymore with you.
I'm too angry today to get into an argument without crushing my computer as a substitute for you face.
It really has nothing to do with the subject, but the fact that I don't want to deal with conflict at all.
I'm sure you are aware of the enneagram dilemma.

So no I don't agree with you and no I don't want to elaborate on the why.


----------



## Mbaruh (Aug 22, 2013)

emberfly said:


> No, I'm not implying that. What Si perceives is mere information. What it does with what it perceives (placing a weight of worth on it--good/bad, relevant/irrelevant) is not Si, but judgment.


Then this is again bad phrasing on my part. Not sure how to relay what I'm thinking of...


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

The detail emphasis always seemed like a consequence of holding certain sensory items with more value than others. I do see the confusion here that people have been mentioning with regards to Si often being described in conjunct with having some judging criteria. How does this selectivism work with Ni for example and if anyone wants to answer. Because it's the selectivism itself that appears to be confused with judging. To value something - is this also to judge? To have an attitude in jungian terms is a form of judgement? Genuine question.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

To properly deconstruct Si you need to understand sensation, and you need to understand introversion.

This may require you to deconstruct sensation, and to deconstruct introversion.

Once you have deconstructed the language sufficiently (wherever you decide to draw that line is up to you, and will determine the depth of your analysis), you can then synthesize its elements into an understanding of the concept on your own.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Abraxas said:


> To properly deconstruct Si you need to understand sensation, and you need to understand introversion.
> 
> This may require you to deconstruct sensation, and to deconstruct introversion.
> 
> Once you have deconstructed the language sufficiently (wherever you decide to draw that line is up to you, and will determine the depth of your analysis), you can then synthesize its elements into an understanding of the concept on your own.


That would be pretty pointless since it's an objective system, not a subjective one. I'm not trying to come up with something of my own. I want to understand the system that's already in place.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

How does Jung's actual description factor in?

Psychological Types - Wikisocion


What do you think about this perspective (Si desc from Jung's wife, a Si-dom)?

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/431306-si-recalling-comparing-past.html

My opinion from that is:

"Si itself is not necessarily about recalling or comparing to past experiences, but that those notions are secondarily related because of what the Si type has absorbed. If anything, it's the auxiliary thinking or feeling that is doing the recalling and comparing to past experiences; whereas Si is the function that has absorbed specific details from reality."


Here is another post I had made on the topic on memory:



> Memory lies somewhere between the functions and subjective components of functions according to this diagram by Jung:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



EDIT:

FWIW here is an attempt I made a while back on reconciling stuff about Si:

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174490-take-introverted-sensation.html


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

And here is a bunch of facts and myths about Si from @niss (Si-dom):

http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...st-misunderstood-function-2.html#post11170170


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

This is from Gifts Differing by Isabel Briggs-Myers:


*Extraverted Sensing**Introverted Sensing*

Suppresses as far as possible the subjective element of the sense impression.


Suppresses as far as possible the objective element of the sense impression.


Values the object sensed rather than the subjective impression, of which the individual may hardly be aware.


Values the subjective impression released by the object rather than by the object itself.


Sees things photographically, the impression being one of concrete reality and nothing more. The "primrose by a river's brim" is simply a primrose.


Sees things highly colored by the subjective factor, the impression being merely suggested by the object and coming out of the unconscious in the form of some meaning or significance.


Leads to concrete enjoyment, seizing very fully the momentary and manifest existence of things, and that only.


Leads to ideas, through the activation of archetypes, seizing the background of the physical world rather than its surface.


Develops attention that is riveted by the strongest stimulus, which invariably becomes the center of interest, so that life seems wholly under the influence of accidental outer happenings.


Develops attention that is very selective, guided wholly by the inner constellation of interests, so that it is impossible to predict what outer stimulus will catch and hold attention.


Develops a pleasure-loving outer self, very rich in undigested experience and unclassified knowledge of uninterpreted facts.


Develops an extremely eccentric and individual inner self, which sees things other people do not see, and may appear very irrational.


Must be balanced by introverting judgment, or it makes a shallow, wholly empirical personality, with many superstitions and no morality except collective conventions and taboos.


Must be balanced by extraverting judgment, or it makes a silent, inaccessible personality, wholly uncommunicative, with no conversation except conventional banalities about the weather and other collective interests.


EDIT:

The official MBTI stance on Si:
(Source from myersbriggs.org & the MBTI practitioner's training manual)

Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.


Respect and rely on internally stored, realistic, and complete data about actual events and people important to them; able to access that information as needed.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Atrium Strutionum said:


> If only I had the drive that my entj friend is gifted with.


ikr I wish I had that too lmao


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

@emberfly, I think description 2 and 5 are the best. I just read the tl;dr now, but I'll read them through and come back with more details. 



> Si types are Temple Grandin. They have photographic memories for details (e.g. images of real-world tangible objects as well as names, dates, facts/figures, specific detailed information about anything/everything they're interested in).
> 
> As well, *Si is very comparative with its current environment--comparing objects it encounters with its knowledge of how objects "should" be.* Very drawn to and in-touch with idealistic paradigms of objects.
> 
> ...


*Even though my ENTJ friend beats me here by far. 
**Recall, with details. Not relive. I do not experience the emotions and sensations again, but I do recall them.
***Nope, conflicts can be fun, but are important for development. ESTJs who avoids conflicts?
****When it comes to organizations, sure. When it comes to people, no. Rather the opposite then.
*****No to routine tasks, they get boring. And definitely no to "whatever that is".
@PaladinX.


> Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.


I agree, except with "trusts the past". I may, if it's my past, but I won't trust something just because it worked 100 years ago. Or 20 for that matter. 
@Atrium Strutionum


> The reason why people have such a hard time with understanding Si is because Si doesn't perceive sensations objectively, but rather the sensations are perceived subjectively. Each Si user is a different individual/subject, and therefore the sensations perceived in one exact moment by two different Si users will be completely different because of the individual influence based upon their subjective disposition. So there is no way to completely understand what it is that Si users are perceiving exactly, and it's this exact knowledge that people seem to want to grasp the most, unbeknownst to the impossibility of such a feat.


This makes a lot of sense, thanks!
@Sweetish


> I think people should leave "routine" and "tradition" (and even punctuality) out of it; that would be Si paired with aux Te, and Si paired with aux Fe, respectively (or both in terms of punctuality)- but, it's not purely Si.


Absolutely agree with you! Even paired with Te or Fe, I think it's a long shot. (Now my Si is aux, but I'd guess it works kinda the same?)


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Pinina said:


> > I think people should leave "routine" and "tradition" (and even punctuality) out of it; that would be Si paired with aux Te, and Si paired with aux Fe, respectively (or both in terms of punctuality)- but, it's not purely Si.
> 
> 
> Absolutely agree with you! Even paired with Te or Fe, I think it's a long shot. (Now my Si is aux, but I'd guess it works kinda the same?)


I wonder if you could please elaborate.


----------



## reptilian (Aug 5, 2014)

> A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus.
> 
> Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world.


 Jung Psychological Types - Wikisocion


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

emberfly said:


> I wonder if you could please elaborate.


For a start, I honestly don't think tradition is a part of Si. Sure, many Si-types are probably more inclined to trust the past. But not because of Si itself, but because Si works in a way that uses prior experiences for what happens in the moment. Therefore, individuals who hasn't developed their Ne (maybe even the J-functions) are more inclined to rely on Si by itself, and therefore trust what has worked before. But that's the thing, _some_ Si-types probably does this, but in a healthy individual, the combination of other functions takes this away. So rather than being traditional, we utilize experiences. 
Also, I think there is a small misunderstanding in the work "traditional" in this context. I think it's rather "traditional" as in what has worked for me before, and not following certain traditions. 

If a strong Si-type has the experience that when they follow a routine works, then yes, they'll probably follow a certain routine. But I do not think that longing for routine has anything to do with Si itself. Rather as a way for some people, to get their safety. Maybe more common among Si-types, to go to that kind of safety, but not something that comes from Si itself. 

Again, as @Atrium Strutionum said, Si is subjective, so it varies from person to person. But for me, Si is not tradition, and not routine. It's a way of perceiving things, and that's about it. Not tradition, not routine (I think that is Te combined with Si or Ni), but my own way of seeing _things_ through my, subjective lens. I do believe the other parts of what's usually described as Si is how many people experiences it, sure, but as it is subjective, not to be taken as "truth" about the function. 

Did that make any sense at all?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Pinina said:


> For a start, I honestly don't think tradition is a part of Si. Sure, many Si-types are probably more inclined to trust the past. But not because of Si itself, but because Si works in a way that uses prior experiences for what happens in the moment.


It looks to me as though you've contradicted yourself here. But maybe I misunderstood.



> Therefore, individuals who hasn't developed their Ne (maybe even the J-functions) are more inclined to rely on Si by itself, and therefore trust what has worked before.


So it seems like to me that you're trying to make the distinction between Si as not "trusting the past" but merely "seeing the past." Although not necessarily just "the past", but more specifically: the sensory experiences of the past. Or the moods aroused by and attached to certain objects experienced in the past. And while Si egos _may_ tend to trust the sensory moods experienced in the past more than other egos, it isn't necessarily always the case, especially if they are healthy and rely on other functions to balance them.

Am I understanding correctly?



> But that's the thing, _some_ Si-types probably does this, but in a healthy individual, the combination of other functions takes this away. So rather than being traditional, we utilize experiences.
> *Also, I think there is a small misunderstanding in the work "traditional" in this context. I think it's rather "traditional" as in what has worked for me before, and not following certain traditions. *


Yes, I think it's the dichotomy between tradition and innovation. You either do something new (to you, to most people, to your society, for the world, . . . ), or you do something familiar (to you, to your friends, to whomever). Like choosing to be a doctor instead of an underwater basket weaver. Tradition vs innovation.



> If a strong Si-type has the experience that when they follow a routine works, then yes, they'll probably follow a certain routine. But I do not think that longing for routine has anything to do with Si itself. Rather as a way for some people, to get their safety. Maybe more common among Si-types, to go to that kind of safety, but not something that comes from Si itself.


That makes sense. I think it seems plausible that an Si ego (an ego very in-touch with his personal past) would be drawn to recreating his personal past (instead of innovating), especially if it brought about pleasurable and enjoyable experiences last time.

This naturally follows into the formation of a routine. Probably by accident, too.

Would you disagree?


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

emberfly said:


> It looks to me as though you've contradicted yourself here. But maybe I misunderstood.


The point I'm trying to make is that even though it might be common among Si-types, it's not something that comes with the package of being an xSxJ. Si and tradition may go hand in hand in a lot of people, but they are not depending on each other. Like strawberries and cream. You usually eat them together, a lot of people do, but you don't have to. They're not depending on the other, and you can eat strawberries without cream. 



> So it seems like to me that you're trying to make the distinction between Si as not "trusting the past" but merely "seeing the past." And while Si egos _may_ tend to trust the past more than other egos, it isn't necessarily always the case, especially if they are healthy and rely on other functions to balance them.
> 
> Am I understanding correctly?


Yes, exactly. 




> Yes, I think it's the dichotomy between tradition and innovation. You either do something new (to you, to most people, to your society, for the world, . . . ), or you do something familiar (to you, to your friends, to whomever). Like choosing to be a doctor instead of an underwater basket weaver. Tradition vs innovation.
> 
> 
> That makes sense. I think it seems plausible that an Si ego (an ego very in-touch with his personal past) would be drawn to recreating his personal past (instead of innovating), especially if it brought about pleasurable and enjoyable experiences last time.
> ...


With Si-ego, you mean Si dom and aux, right?

This is probably the case. Now again, it depends on how developed the other functions are, and how much you rely on just Si, but someone relying completely on Si, I do think this might be the case. I do think xNxPs do this to some extent as well, just not as often as xSxJs. (Experience with two ENFPs, so I don't know how accurate it is.)

But yes, it can probably happen, and probably by accident. So no, I don't disagree. As long as it is something that is _possible_, maybe even _probable_ and not something that goes for every single xSxJ.


----------



## JTHearts (Aug 6, 2013)

Si is not uncreative or unimaginative.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Pinina said:


> **Recall, with details. Not relive. I do not experience the emotions and sensations again, but I do recall them.


Can you explain what recall means to you in this response?

Is your recall of emotional state more at a distance, observational ("oh, i felt this way or that way when X was occurring")? Is it more personal ("I feel these same emotions as strongly as i did when they occurred way back when X happened")? Is it a mix ("i'm re-experiencing some of the emotions associated with X event. huh.")?

I'm interested in the strength of the emotional tie-in to past experiences via Si.


----------



## westlose (Oct 9, 2014)

Si is similar to Ni in a certain way.
Both Pi dominants are emphasizing the subjective interpretations of information. They are both far away from reality, and from empirical data.

But while Ni is focused on the perception of causality, imagery and subconscious vision and associations ; Si is focused on all the sensory data, and particularly the interactions between the subject and the object.

Si-users are perceiving reality through a lens based on impressions and interpretations of the original data. Those sensations are regrouped, and represent an archetype of sensations. Si-users are fascinated when it comes to reach a state when sensations are perfectly mixed, and this is what they call comfort. Luminosity, smell, sound: All those data can be comfortable, or not.

The Si-user first motivation is to stay in this wonderful state. This familiar state, is described as a sort of "amniotic fluid", where the Si-user feels good.

So, we can make a contrast with Se. Se is perceiving raw and concrete data. There's no meaning or interpretation: the data is perceived as a pure external sensation.

Socionics adds a territory dimension to Se. Se, being focused on the external world, will lead to a conqueror behaviour about it. Willpower and determination are the consequences of this concrete perception.

Si on the other hand, will not conquer territory. It is focused on the internal state: our territory must reach this "amniotic fluid" state. It will rearange and build internally. It doesn't want to expand the perception. But to sharpen, and amplify our own self-state.

There is another dimension in Si: the recreation. This state, and these states, we can collect them and type them. If Ni can recreate an event, to find the logical consequences and alternatives, Si can recreate those aesthetics states, and apply them.


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Pilot said:


> Can you explain what recall means to you in this response?
> 
> Is your recall of emotional state more at a distance, observational ("oh, i felt this way or that way when X was occurring")? Is it more personal ("I feel these same emotions as strongly as i did when they occurred way back when X happened")? Is it a mix ("i'm re-experiencing some of the emotions associated with X event. huh.")?
> 
> I'm interested in the strength of the emotional tie-in to past experiences via Si.


It is that I can remember the emotions I had at the time, but I don't feel the same emotions, and I don't re-experience them. I am often certain of the emotions I had at the moment though, and what I felt. So it's pretty much as the first example.


----------



## Coburn (Sep 3, 2010)

Pinina said:


> It is that I can remember the emotions I had at the time, but I don't feel the same emotions, and I don't re-experience them. I am often certain of the emotions I had at the moment though, and what I felt. So it's pretty much as the first example.


So its more like recalling a fact than a reexperience.


----------



## Pinina (Jan 6, 2015)

Pilot said:


> So its more like recalling a fact than a reexperience.


I guess you could describe it like that, yes.


----------



## Abraxas (May 28, 2011)

Just so the OP is aware, Jung defined "memory" as a specific function, one of the endopsychic functions, in his Tavistock Lectures. Sensation is an ectopsychic function.

This is why I said you need to just study the material. It's called doing research.

Oh wait. Sorry, I guess that would be subjective as well. I mean, who really knows what research is anyway.


----------

