# What are major distinctions between Si Role and Si DS?



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Besides the basic Model A distinctions such as Si Role is conscious while Si DS is unconscious and Si Role is usually loathed while Si DS is desired.

Particularly, is Si Role perceived as a personal weakness in the sense that predetermined preferences for certain sensations/circumstances are perceived as debilitating, uncontrollable, and limiting? (though I might suspect this would lean toward unconscious)


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

I have yet to understand role Si though I've made some pathetic attempts to observe Si in myself once in a while. It does not compute. If anything, I think it is my striking lack of Si that is more evident. Everything I touch eventually just falls apart. I'm also very bad when it comes to my own personal body maintenance and it was worse when I was more out of touch with Se I think (strengthened Se would also strengthen Si). 

Another part about role Si is a sense of not quite being able to understand body cues. Statements such as "listen to your body" make little to no sense. Body, what? Other than that, I am not sure how role Si works or how it manifests to be honest.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Based on my own experience plus what I've seen of Si-role, it is a weakness, however, it's not normally a sensitive spot. Criticism, or even opinions, related to Si are brushed off and can give you a negative impression of the other person, as if they had messed up priorities or something like that. One only tries to cover their basic needs regarding this IE. Overall, what comes to mind when thinking of Si-role is _boring_. Really boring. My mind turns off whenever I hear Si-related talk like health topics where the focus is in the internal sensation, relaxation exercises or similar things that involve body-perception and I have to fake interest. Thus, this manifestation is clearly different from DS. Role functions can actually appear stronger than DS ones though, as the role is a 3-dimensional IE while DS is 4D. More info: Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche (towards the end).


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> I have yet to understand role Si though I've made some pathetic attempts to observe Si in myself once in a while. It does not compute. If anything, I think it is my striking lack of Si that is more evident. Everything I touch eventually just falls apart. I'm also very bad when it comes to my own personal body maintenance and it was worse when I was more out of touch with Se I think (strengthened Se would also strengthen Si).
> 
> Another part about role Si is a sense of not quite being able to understand body cues. Statements such as "listen to your body" make little to no sense. Body, what? Other than that, I am not sure how role Si works or how it manifests to be honest.


I've never understood the phrase "listen to your body" either; I, too, am fairly disconnected from my own body, to the point where I worry about every little thing about my body that I do notice like a chronic hypochondriac. My body's only use to me is a vehicle for my mind, a meat-slave. 

According to the system itself, engaging in Role Si would inhibit the Lead Ni completely, much like the Beebe model states with Demonic Personality Complex Si and its inhibition of Hero Ni, so perhaps when under extreme negative conditions, Si Role types will get stuck in their ways and the details of their own past which are no longer mined for ulterior meaning but instead used to relive painful, negative experiences of the past. Simply a conjecture. 

I'm also wondering if 'picky eating', specifically, and other aesthetic preferences themselves could be closely intertwined with Si. Specifically in Role Si, I wonder if such picky eating taste preferences would be completely loathed by the Si Super-Ego types when criticized by others. I, for instance, constantly loathed my sense of taste when I was younger, as I was scolded for my uncontrollable taste buds's disgust of many foods. This, of course, could easily be NTR, but I think it might warrant some thought at least.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> I've never understood the phrase "listen to your body" either; I, too, am fairly disconnected from my own body, to the point where I worry about every little thing about my body that I do notice like a chronic hypochondriac. My body's only use to me is a vehicle for my mind, a meat-slave.
> 
> According to the system itself, engaging in Role Si would inhibit the Lead Ni completely, much like the Beebe model states with Demonic Personality Complex Si and its inhibition of Hero Ni, so perhaps when under extreme negative conditions, Si Role types will get stuck in their ways and the details of their own past which are no longer mined for ulterior meaning but instead used to relive painful, negative experiences of the past. Simply a conjecture.
> 
> I'm also wondering if 'picky eating', specifically, and other aesthetic preferences themselves could be closely intertwined with Si. Specifically in Role Si, I wonder if such picky eating taste preferences would be completely loathed by the Si Super-Ego types when criticized by others. I, for instance, constantly loathed my sense of taste when I was younger, as I was scolded for my uncontrollable taste buds's disgust of many foods. This, of course, could easily be NTR, but I think it might warrant some thought at least.


Doesn't apply to me, the part about eating though the hypochondria to a degree, yes. I've always been a big eater.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Based on my own experience plus what I've seen of Si-role, it is a weakness, however, it's not normally a sensitive spot. Criticism, or even opinions, related to Si are brushed off and can give you a negative impression of the other person, as if they had messed up priorities or something like that. One only tries to cover their basic needs regarding this IE. Overall, what comes to mind when thinking of Si-role is _boring_. Really boring. My mind turns off whenever I hear Si-related talk like health topics where the focus is in the internal sensation, relaxation exercises or similar things that involve body-perception and I have to fake interest. Thus, this manifestation is clearly different from DS. Role functions can actually appear stronger than DS ones though, as the role is a 3-dimensional IE while DS is 4D. More info: Socionics - the16types.info - Model A: Blocks of the Socionic Model of the Psyche (towards the end).


So, then, would Si-related tasks be considered unimaginably boring and perhaps even useless to the Si Role types?

I have been criticized for my lack of aesthetic preference, and I care not, for I do not see any true point to aesthetics. Often, when people do criticize my lack of aesthetic preference, I tell them "I value utility and efficiency over aesthetics." Clothes, for instance, are not as society sees them as a way to express style to me, but simply a necessity in the modern world. Thus, I always wear not what is appropriate (and I've been criticized for this too, but I laugh it off usually) but what is the most comfortable. I've heard this is comparable to the LIE's sense of aesthetics as well. Is this an example? (relating personal experience to see if Si role is how I perceive it to be, considering I have a predisposition to an Si role type)


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> So, then, would Si-related tasks be considered unimaginably boring and perhaps even useless to the Si Role types?


Sure, but we may ocassionally care about it for a while just to go back to our usual habits. It happens and it's in the role description.



> I have been criticized for my lack of aesthetic preference, and I care not, for I do not see any true point to aesthetics. Often, when people do criticize my lack of aesthetic preference, I tell them "I value utility and efficiency over aesthetics." Clothes, for instance, are not as society sees them as a way to express style to me, but simply a necessity in the modern world. Thus, I always wear not what is appropriate (and I've been criticized for this too, but I laugh it off usually) but what is the most comfortable. I've heard this is comparable to the LIE's sense of aesthetics as well. Is this an example? (relating personal experience to see if Si role is how I perceive it to be, considering I have a predisposition to an Si role type)


Hmm I think aesthetics are related to Se as well but in a different way... I can't quite put it into words. The act of caring about aesthetics however can also be related to feeling because the ethical types may care about the impression they produce on other people or use clothing as a way to express themselves, obviously. And even logical-sensing types, in all their pragmatism, may care about aesthetics, particularly deltas. You should see my dad lol. "I can't wear this suit, it's a winter suit in summer!"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> So, then, would Si-related tasks be considered unimaginably boring and perhaps even useless to the Si Role types?
> 
> I have been criticized for my lack of aesthetic preference, and I care not, for I do not see any true point to aesthetics. Often, when people do criticize my lack of aesthetic preference, I tell them "I value utility and efficiency over aesthetics." Clothes, for instance, are not as society sees them as a way to express style to me, but simply a necessity in the modern world. Thus, I always wear not what is appropriate (and I've been criticized for this too, but I laugh it off usually) but what is the most comfortable. I've heard this is comparable to the LIE's sense of aesthetics as well. Is this an example? (relating personal experience to see if Si role is how I perceive it to be, considering I have a predisposition to an Si role type)


I think Si isn't as much about aesthetics in itself but comfort, though. There was a thread about that recently in the MBTI forum: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/212722-importance-being-comfortable-tvsf.html

Se can care about aesthetics too, especially when coupled with Fi. Stratiyevskaya for example alludes to this in her ILI-SEE duality article where she notes that poorly dualized ILIs often come across as unattractive because they have no real sense of how to properly present themselves in order to attract other people including their duals.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Sure, but we may ocassionally care about it for a while just to go back to our usual habits. It happens and it's in the role description.
> 
> 
> Hmm I think aesthetics are related to Se as well but in a different way... I can't quite put it into words. The act of caring about aesthetics however can also be related to feeling because the ethical types may care about the impression they produce on other people or use clothing as a way to express themselves, obviously. And even logical-sensing types, in all their pragmatism, may care about aesthetics, particularly deltas. You should see my dad lol. "I can't wear this suit, it's a winter suit in summer!"


That's fairly understandable that we occasionally care about it but then cast aside it.

As for my specific aesthetic description, I was concerning personalized aesthetics, what one's own preferences for things are. I would agree that Se would also deal with aesthetics, but I would conjecture that Se isn't so much focused on what the individual likes/_already prefers_ so much as it is with interesting, novel things spotted in the environment in the moment, no?

I've seen on some Si Super-Ego descriptions that picking favorite aesthetic preferences often is hard for Si Super-Ego types, such as deciding what one's favorite color is, or what one's favorite food is. Though I suspect that the projection of the introverted judging function, specifically with Fi, might cast value on certain preferences and pick favorites as well. A lack of care for personal aesthetics (already predetermined) would be indicative of the Super-Ego Si type then, no?


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> I think Si isn't as much about aesthetics in itself but comfort, though. There was a thread about that recently in the MBTI forum: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/212722-importance-being-comfortable-tvsf.html
> 
> Se can care about aesthetics too, especially when coupled with Fi. Stratiyevskaya for example alludes to this in her ILI-SEE duality article where she notes that poorly dualized ILIs often come across as unattractive because they have no real sense of how to properly present themselves in order to attract other people including their duals.


Would Si not already have decided personal preferences for things beforehand to ensure comfort in the future, however? I find the two, personal aesthetics and comfort, comparable to each other, in a way. For instance, if based on specific past information one recalls a bad experience, one would go out of the way to avoid that negative experience which has already been labeled as "bad/uncomfortable" by the individual to ensure comfort when presented with a choice of either the bad experience or another experience.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> Would Si not already have decided personal preferences for things beforehand to ensure comfort in the future, however? I find the two, personal aesthetics and comfort, comparable to each other, in a way. For instance, if based on specific past information one recalls a bad experience, one would go out of the way to avoid that negative experience which has already been labeled as "bad/uncomfortable" by the individual to ensure comfort when presented with a choice of either the bad experience or another experience.


Perhaps I understand aesthetics differently, but I tend to interpret the word more in terms of artistic ideals. Sure, I suppose there is that aspect of Si too, but it's narrow to only attribute it to Si is what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I'm also biased because I am prone to think that Si types in general have shit taste lol. In comparison I would say that I think my sense of taste is really refined, at least for an ILI? But I've been heavily involved in the arts for a long time so I suppose it's not that strange.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Perhaps I understand aesthetics differently, but I tend to interpret the word more in terms of artistic ideals. Sure, I suppose there is that aspect of Si too, but it's narrow to only attribute it to Si is what I'm trying to say. Perhaps I'm also biased because I am prone to think that Si types in general have shit taste lol. In comparison I would say that I think my sense of taste is really refined, at least for an ILI? But I've been heavily involved in the arts for a long time so I suppose it's not that strange.


Yeah, I realize I should have probably have found a better way to state predetermined personal preference other than 'personal aesthetics', apologies. I, too, agree that it would be narrow to solely attribute that to Si, but the problem lies with me attempting to refine what I am attempting to describe through these pesky words.

I guess what I am getting at would simply be that Si lead and creative types might, in addition to other mechanical features of Si (intrinsic of what I perceive to be "swiss-army knives" that characterize each function), have an extremely easy time at telling what sensations they prefer over others naturally. These people would theoretically know what they like and what they don't like in the realm of aesthetics in the terminology of comfort vs discomfort easily and readily, perhaps, without much forethought. Whereas Super-Ego Si types like us (or you, at least) would have a difficult time deciding what sensations make us uncomfortable or comfortable and whether or not we have a personal preference for something or not. This, of course, would juxtapose the love of novel aesthetics characteristic (compared to past aesthetic characteristics/previously decided upon) of Se types.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> Yeah, I realize I should have probably have found a better way to state predetermined personal preference other than 'personal aesthetics', apologies. I, too, agree that it would be narrow to solely attribute that to Si, but the problem lies with me attempting to refine what I am attempting to describe through these pesky words.
> 
> I guess what I am getting at would simply be that Si lead and creative types might, in addition to other mechanical features of Si (intrinsic of what I perceive to be "swiss-army knives" that characterize each function), have an extremely easy time at telling what sensations they prefer over others naturally. These people would theoretically know what they like and what they don't like in the realm of aesthetics in the terminology of comfort vs discomfort easily and readily, perhaps, without much forethought. Whereas Super-Ego Si types like us (or you, at least) would have a difficult time deciding what sensations make us uncomfortable or comfortable and whether or not we have a personal preference for something or not. This, of course, would juxtapose the love of novel aesthetics characteristic (compared to past aesthetic characteristics/previously decided upon) of Se types.


Yes, well I know what you mean. Nostalgia, essentially, the way I've seen it manifested. I remember my EII friend was going all gooey over some china she inherited from her grandmother because it made her think of her grandmother and all that entails in an Si sense where I was just standing there wondering why she gave a shit. It's just china? 

But another thing about Se and Si in terms of aesthetics is that Si prefers objects with personal meaning that they extrapolate from past experience like we see with my EII friend and her china. Se types like aesthetics that leave an impact more like strong colors, shapes etc. To Si this isn't as much of a concern as the personally infused meaning with the object is, from what I understand. I mean, as a theoretical example, take Scrooge McDuck's first dime. We could turn it into any object, make it look whatever we wanted but the truth is that Scrooge is still going to think the same about that dime because of the memories he associates with it, but to an Se type the pleasure of the dime actually hinges on its external appearances and how it comes across.


----------



## Hiemal (Jan 5, 2014)

ephemereality said:


> Yes, well I know what you mean. Nostalgia, essentially, the way I've seen it manifested. I remember my EII friend was going all gooey over some china she inherited from her grandmother because it made her think of her grandmother and all that entails in an Si sense where I was just standing there wondering why she gave a shit. It's just china?
> 
> But another thing about Se and Si in terms of aesthetics is that Si prefers objects with personal meaning that they extrapolate from past experience like we see with my EII friend and her china. Se types like aesthetics that leave an impact more like strong colors, shapes etc. To Si this isn't as much of a concern as the personally infused meaning with the object is, from what I understand. I mean, as a theoretical example, take Scrooge McDuck's first dime. We could turn it into any object, make it look whatever we wanted but the truth is that Scrooge is still going to think the same about that dime because of the memories he associates with it, but to an Se type the pleasure of the dime actually hinges on its external appearances and how it comes across.


I'm in accordance with that definition. 

Also, I understand your confusion with people's attachments to mere objects; I've never understood why people associate objects with their own memories, it's weird. The only thing close to that association I have is through synesthesia with its unconscious color attachments to words and numerals, but even those associations don't signify anything memory-related. I picture it as some sort of 4th dimension to an object that I just can't see nor would even care about either.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

The main difference is that the Role function competes with your Base, and your Dual-Seeking complements your Base. 

The Role function is a rejected direct competitor to your Base function. To be proficient in your Role function, you would have to abandon your Base function, which obviously will not happen for extended periods of time. In the short run, however, one can "improve" areas of life where the Role function's input would help - but your use of this function will always be circumstantial, and lack a sense of fluidness and creativity. You may have positive opinions towards people who use your Role well when it is used to cover your blind side - but when they use it in a way that competes with your Base, you usually receive it negatively. This is why Superego and Business relations can be admirable from a distance, but can become competitive and irritating at close distance. 


I experience Si role as having a mild admiration for people who can establish routine logistics, conserve or use resources in a way that maximizes comfort or stability, or create/maintain nice atmospheres. These are things I can do if I put a lot of concentration into it, and if I notice someone who's strong in this area doing it well in a way I can do (investing a certain way, organizing my home, making a certain kind of food) I may take up the new method on my own, in my own way. But never, ever would these things come to the forefront during a critical decision, or while solving a problem, dealing with something important - they would then seem like distractions or unimportant details of the main issue at hand. I don't think about them on my own very often.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Statements like "listen to your body" make no sense to me either. And I usually care more about aesthetics than comfort. And I can't understand or relate to associating personal meaning and memories with objects either. 

In fact, about 90% of what I read about Si in general doesn't resonate at all. Now I'm really confused, because everyone tells me I'm definitely a Ne/Si type, but I'm not relating to Si (or Ne, lately).


----------



## Tainted Streetlight (Jun 13, 2011)

Both functions are attractive. In fact, you see your role in other people long before your dual seeking. It has to do with the consciousness aspect.

So you walk down the street, and the people who leave the largest impression are not your Super ID block, but instead your Super Ego. Long term you dislike people with your Super Ego, short term you're attracted to it.


----------



## zinnia (Jul 22, 2013)

Alea_iacta_est said:


> I picture it as some sort of 4th dimension to an object that I just can't see nor would even care about either.


That's an interesting thought. I do that memory attachment more than I would like some times, resulting in an inability to get rid of said object. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever - that item is not worth more or more lucky than some other identical object - but I guess that's subjectivity. Though it's not always memories... I hate when I receive gifts I did not ask for because I will likely feel no emotional connection to it, which usually makes it a waste of space.

As far as "listen to your body": I can understand the idea behind it but most of the time I hear that in association with programs about how to be happy and healthy blah blah... and it sounds like a load of shit to me. Perhaps something an immature Si HA would talk about. "Wow! So amazing! Listen to my awesome unique idea and you can be happy too!" or maybe like those self-help books that say how to get out of debt is to save money or invest. 

I noticed today I can't really experience emotions without a corresponding physical reaction - without it it's like I can't really pinpoint the feeling or its intensity (anger = some emotional stuff I can't describe + clenched hands + desire to punch someone, anxiety = legs feel weak + nausea, depression = feeling nearly paralyzed)

I realize this didn't answer your question but I thought it might be helpful to get another viewpoint on Si.


----------

