# A take on Introverted Sensation



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

This is a post I made elsewhere that I wanted to discuss further in the functions forum:


Here is my take on reconciling the differing ideas of Si.


First to compare with Se--I don't think Se is necessarily about the five senses whereas Si is about the "inner senses." I think Se is about the objective experience and Si is about the subjective experience/impression. What I mean by this, is let's say we have an Se and an Si trying out skateboards for the first time. They both fall and get some bad scrapes. The Se person can't wait to get back up on the board because of how exhilarating the objective experience was, regardless of his/her subjective experience (injury, pain); whereas the Si person might focus on his/her own pain and how much they dread getting back up on that board again. For the Si person, the personal experience of getting hurt outweighed the objective one of skateboarding. Essentially, Si is oriented by their personal experiences.


I believe that this focus on personal experiences is what enhances their memory and hence why memory is often a descriptor. Memory for details is heightened when we have emotional experiences. For example, most people remember some of the most mundane details in their environment when they first heard that the towers had been hit on 9-11. Everyone's senses were heightened during this emotional time and they can remember things like what they were wearing, what time it was on the clock, what they were doing, what other people in their environment were wearing and doing, etc. The Si user is almost always focused on his/her personal experiences with the environment and I think this is what enhances their memory (especially for sensory details).


Thirdly, I think that the combination of the focus on personal experience and "memory" ties into the archetypes. Essentially, all the introverted functions tie in with the archetypes. I think that Si ties in with archetypes associated with sensory experiences. I think this is where the observation of "past experiences informs the present" comes from. All introverted functions are also abstracted. I think one's specific personal experiences are abstracted into these archetypal ideas that inform the present. Which is perhaps why "tradition" is often associated with Si. These traditions are archetypes. The earlier mentioned skateboarding incident might translate into an avoidance of not only skateboarding, but perhaps other similar experiences such as skiing.


It's an idea I've been working on anyway... Thoughts? Criticisms?


EDIT: As a side note to myself after rereading this passage, I think that perhaps I should not have mentioned "exhilarating" because it seems to put the focus back on the subjective impression rather than the objective experience.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> Careful what you wish for. And understand there is a massive difference between sensor types. Si and Se are not one and the same. Si being more cautious and Se being more impulsive. My impulses are the little white bunnies hoppity hopping past my line of vision all day long ever day. Fire alarm all shiny and red is begging to be pulled, can we walk on our hands, hold up traffic, see if we can make the fat police officer run, what's the highest branch we can climb up that tree, this man has zero emotion on his face: can we make him flush red with anger, must remember to find a place to try shark to see what it tastes like, is that a drum, is this book any good, can I fix this myself...etc.... Se is Fun and Trouble. It requires constant policing and lots of stimulation.



These are the kinds of things that are shifting my idea of what Se and Si are. I am curious what your thoughts are on the first paragraph from the post above where I discuss Se in comparison to Si.

What do you think?


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Si - subjective orientation slightly antagonistic to an encounter with the objective through the senses. With behavior of the user often reflecting that fixation, away from _the_ world to _their_ world, be it as narrow as ones own body or more extensive like select circles within the community.


----------



## idoh (Oct 24, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> First to compare with Se--I don't think Se is necessarily about the five senses whereas Si is about the "inner senses." I think Se is about the objective experience and Si is about the subjective experience/impression. What I mean by this, is let's say we have an Se and an Si trying out skateboards for the first time. They both fall and get some bad scrapes. The Se person can't wait to get back up on the board because of how exhilarating the objective experience was, regardless of his/her subjective experience (injury, pain); whereas the Si person might focus on his/her own pain and how much they dread getting back up on that board again. For the Si person, the personal experience of getting hurt outweighed the objective one of skateboarding. Essentially, Si is oriented by their personal experiences.


i don't get it... :bored: both of them experience the rush; both of them will have to experience the pain, too; so both sensations seem objective to me... how they choose to interpret/act on those feelings is up to them, but since sensing is a perceiving function i thought it only had to do with taking information in... idk what Si really is so i won't try. but if i tried to describe Se i think i would say how i like the feel of snuggling under my soft blanket, eating new kinds of food, sitting next to a hot fire when it's cold outside drinking hot chocolate, playing under the warm sun during the summer... i enjoy the tinging sensations they send up my body :laughing:


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

idoh said:


> i don't get it... :bored: both of them experience the rush; both of them will have to experience the pain, too; so both sensations seem objective to me... how they choose to interpret/act on those feelings is up to them, but since sensing is a perceiving function i thought it only had to do with taking information in... i have no idea what Si really is so i won't try. but if i tried to describe it i think i would say how i like the feel of snuggling under my soft blanket, eating new kinds of food, sitting next to a hot fire when it's cold outside drinking hot chocolate, playing under the warm sun during the summer... i enjoy the tinging sensations they send up my body :laughing:


My apologies. As noted in my original post, I think it was a mistake to include "exhilarating" in attempting to differentiate Se from Si. If you look at my second post where I've quoted @_monemi_ from another thread, you will hopefully see in that quote what I mean by objective experience.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

idoh said:


> i don't get it... :bored: both of them experience the rush; both of them will have to experience the pain, too; so both sensations seem objective to me... how they choose to interpret/act on those feelings is up to them, but since sensing is a perceiving function i thought it only had to do with taking information in... idk what Si really is so i won't try. but if i tried to describe Se i think i would say how i like the feel of snuggling under my soft blanket, eating new kinds of food, sitting next to a hot fire when it's cold outside drinking hot chocolate, playing under the warm sun during the summer... i enjoy the tinging sensations they send up my body :laughing:


Well, from a Se-dom perspective, it's much more spontaneous than that. It's an awareness of surroundings and _relevant_ facts and details. It is seeking new experiences. So if you put these things together, for a Se-dom, most of us are going to seek external interactive stimulation. It might be something more subtle like a video game or it might be dancing on stage. But passively sitting around isn't going to last long. 

Example: Me and husband got babysitting and went skiing. Si-dom with the intermediate runs (capable of much more). Se-dom was not content, dragged Si-dom on black diamond courses. Se-dom had to bug Si-dom to go off-piste with a guide for 3 days before the real fun could start. If Se-dom hadn't been there, it would not occur to the Si-dom to go off-piste. Se-dom was aware of surroundings, recalled relevant facts and details and sought new experiences. Si-dom was content with staying with he knew. 

This is an example of the differences I see between Se and Si. It makes me wonder why sensors are so frequently grouped together as having the same qualities. I think our entire worldview is very different. Not in a bad way, obviously. I enjoy coaxing my husband out on the ice with me, you know? He admits to enjoying himself once he gets out there but needs encouragement. He encourages me to take more precautions than I would otherwise. Si focuses too much about risks and forgets the perks. Se forgets about the risks and focuses too much on the perks.


----------



## KraChZiMan (Mar 23, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> These are the kinds of things that are shifting my idea of what Se and Si are. I am curious what your thoughts are on the first paragraph from the post above where I discuss Se in comparison to Si.
> 
> What do you think?


It's a good insight. Se is always more impulsive, and Si is more cautious.

Perhaps the objective sensory experience relates to impulsiveness in a way that Se-user needs to test environment, to manipulate and exploit it in order to gain information about it's properties. Si-user has no use of objective information gained in that manner, so Si-user usually only tests or observes for few properties in environment that are currently important. 

For example, if you give Se-user a hammer, you can count on it that Se-user first smashes it against a wall or ground to test how durable the hammer is, because Se-user does not feel confident to work with the hammer if it is sluggish and won't live through a few hard blows against wall or ground, while Si-user thinks that this kind of smashing damages the hammer and tries to improve durability by saving and storing it in good conditions, and when it becomes sluggish, Si-user simply replaces it, because "nothing lasts forever anyways". 

Se-users seems to put more faith in "what doesn't kill, makes it stronger", that when something survives a test, it's quality is objectively proved as good and it becomes something Se-user can trust, while Si-users think that any kind of harm is weakening and to make something stronger is to create good conditions for it where harm is minimal.

EDIT: There is an exception of Ne-doms (ENTP's and ENFP's) who can also have tendency to smash things or whatever, but this is more related to "wow, I have a badass hammer. Now I can smash things, and if I can, I will, fuck yeahh!" and it has not much to do with the will to test hammer's qualities, but rather the abilities, as in what are they able to do with hammer.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

I'd say so. Once I accidentally dropped my (ESFP) friend 25 meters with the rope he was attached to as he was climbing it. He coudl've get seriously hurt and I was preparing for him to scold me like the instructors were doing, instead 'WhooAOAo! That was *AWESOME!!!! Again!!*'

o_o

He wasn't mad at all and told me plunging down to the ground was the best part lolz

'You want to give it a try?' -'Nothx :3'

So, yeah, Se definitely values excitement over _potential_ danger and Si visa versa. The danger wasn't a relative fact since nothing bad ended up happening. But to me something bad _did _happen, meaning, I referred to my subjective experience of angst and he referred to the drop where nothing bad happened but a fun experience.

Something like this, right?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I've always just viewed Si orientation as mostly being mostly focused on the releases of physical affect in a more atmospherical and removed from physical reality sort of way. To be particularly straight forward about it, whenever one watches over and describes say a piece of music. A Se orientated person would most likely note the arrangement of beats that invokes a certain feeling by describing say how an instrument was plucked, or how a beat was "bumping". A more Si orientated way would mostly focus on the conveyance of the music, such as describing the general atmosphere of a song rather than bringing attention to more easily conveyed motions that are fairly easy to trace.

I am also not particularly a fan of implying that certain functions would go to necessarily to a conclusion 100% of the time. Which is why I don't like the skateboarding metaphor, I'm largely just interested in the process in that case, not the conclusion. Eh. I'm probably overly romanticizing the function, my understanding of it is somewhat poor anyways.


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

This is great I think you nailed it

You know, I hear a lot about intuition gathering unconscious sensory information to create abstract patterns, but how would sensing work with inferior intuition?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sixty Nein said:


> I am also not particularly a fan of implying that certain functions would go to necessarily to a conclusion 100% of the time. Which is why I don't like the skateboarding metaphor, I'm largely just interested in the process in that case, not the conclusion. Eh. I'm probably overly romanticizing the function, my understanding of it is somewhat poor anyways.


The point of my analogy was not the conclusion of why one would or would not get on a skateboard, but rather where the focus lies. The _focus _is what is important--where the psychic energy is directed.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

Hurricane said:


> This is great I think you nailed it
> 
> You know, I hear a lot about intuition gathering unconscious sensory information to create abstract patterns, but how would sensing work with inferior intuition?


In previous discussions posters have told me it's something that would happen occasionally without me noticing. For example, I had a problem where I had a 'type' that I was dating. The pattern wasn't obvious because they came from different walks of life. After repeating this pattern for years, one day it clicked that these were all the same men. They looked different, they spoke differently, had different interests etc.. but all required me to take a passive role in the relationship. Once I saw the pattern, I broke it. I've been told that would be an intuitive moment. Maybe? I might be talking out of my arse here, so take it with a pinch of salt.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

monemi said:


> In previous discussions posters have told me it's something that would happen occasionally without me noticing. For example, I had a problem where I had a 'type' that I was dating. The pattern wasn't obvious because they came from different walks of life. After repeating this pattern for years, one day it clicked that these were all the same men. They looked different, they spoke differently, had different interests etc.. but all required me to take a passive role in the relationship. Once I saw the pattern, I broke it. I've been told that would be an intuitive moment. Maybe? I might be talking out of my arse here,* so take it with a pinch of salt.*


But more than a grain!


----------



## kitsu (Feb 13, 2013)

monemi said:


> In previous discussions posters have told me it's something that would happen occasionally without me noticing. For example, I had a problem where I had a 'type' that I was dating. The pattern wasn't obvious because they came from different walks of life. After repeating this pattern for years, one day it clicked that these were all the same men. They looked different, they spoke differently, had different interests etc.. but all required me to take a passive role in the relationship. Once I saw the pattern, I broke it. I've been told that would be an intuitive moment. Maybe? I might be talking out of my arse here, so take it with a pinch of salt.


Haha I remember that, I believe I'm the one who said it  If I remember correctly I compared it to Ni inf. "taking the gears"

I meant more on in terms of immediate perception basis. I know how my Ne works with Si because it cross references everything that comes into mind with stored Si data to make Ne patterns, but how would Se be in continuous tandem with Ni? Or Si with Ne?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Si is more complicated than what is described in the OP. From Se POV, pain can also be objectively experienced. It would be as if Se types can't experience pain, hunger etc you know? That's not true. An Se type could equally go in the skateboarding scenario, "OWW THAT REALLY HURT! I'm never doing that again." I saw a good example of Si (with Fe) the other day:



> when my husband and I hold hands, I actually feel turned on because to me that is making love. It's not about
> intercourse, or oral sex or touching in a sexual manner





> I actually feel more love looking into my SO's eyes than feeling touched, especially since it's so difficult for me to lock eyes with anyone


I don't understand this as I'm not an Si type, but this is what Si cognition looks like to one degree or another. It focuses not so much on the experience itself, which pain actually would be, but instead it lingers on how they draw an internal experience of the sensory, more like intensity etc. Pain itself is objective - strength of pain of how it makes me feel inside my body is subjective.

Si types also internalize the sensory states of other objects into themselves but how that works I have no clue.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

@_ephemereality_

I'll have to update my OP. I mentioned in a later post that the point of the analogy is about the focus--where the psychic energy is directed. The outcome is irrelevant.

EDIT: Well apparently I can't edit it anymore.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> @_ephemereality_
> 
> I'll have to update my OP. I mentioned in a later post that the point of the analogy is about the focus--where the psychic energy is directed. The outcome is irrelevant.
> 
> EDIT: Well apparently I can't edit it anymore.


I know that, but I'm pointing out that something still doesn't match up, energy or not. The reason why I used the example I used here is because it's a good example of what I'm trying to express and why I feel your example doesn't quite live up to what it attempts to do. It likely is because of your own cognitive bias which I am not blaming you for, I don't get Si either, but Si is more than just feeling pain or focusing on the pain. Both Se and Si can do that. It's more about how pain itself is conceptualized. That's the difference. I felt you didn't quite show that in your OP.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

ephemereality said:


> Si is more complicated than what is described in the OP. From Se POV, pain can also be objectively experienced. It would be as if Se types can't experience pain, hunger etc you know? That's not true. An Se type could equally go in the skateboarding scenario, "OWW THAT REALLY HURT! I'm never doing that again." I saw a good example of Si (with Fe) the other day:


Thank you for verbalizing what I wanted to say. My original point wasn't that very clear so thanks.

The more I look at this function. The more confused I get.


----------



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

Someone told me this is an oversimplification once but I was thinking if you placed the perception functions in time Si would be in the past, Se in the present, Ne in the future, and Ni pervading time. They were right to say that's oversimplified and explained it really nicely to me, but it might still help to begin to understand them a little, and try to explain the differences. Like with Se and Ne, because sometimes it's difficult to differentiate between the two. Se tends to be focused on what is immediately relevant(so this doesn't really mean they have no reach into the past or future, but that if something in the past isn't still in actual effect at the moment, they aren't likely to believe it to have any relevance, and if some future situation isn't a sure thing they probably won't give it much thought.) Se and Ne look alike because they both seem to be open to new experiences but Se is more accepting of them as they come, whereas Ne is always looking to what lies ahead.
I think Si's cautiousness comes in part from a focus on the arbitrariness of reality. I read a good example of this once. If Si is building a car, there is one way in which it can be done correctly and almost an infinite number of ways in which it can fail(you can see here where Si's use of Ne[perceiving all future potential] is in effect) so that's why these individuals will tend to prefer the tried and true, because it's something they know will work, and they also know that most things in life don't work so they will avoid trying something new that is a gamble in favor of something that has worked in the past.
I don't know if this is much of a contribution to your line of thought...


----------



## holysouljellyroll (May 9, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Si types also internalize the sensory states of other objects into themselves but how that works I have no clue.


Like PaladinX said, the introverted functions are all abstracted so maybe it's because they can take the sensory states of others out of context and apply it to their own experiences? I've read that Si types like to rely on the experiences of others in situations where they don't have their own experiences. I'm just speculating here and I'm not entirely sure if this is what you were referring to, haha.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I know that, but I'm pointing out that something still doesn't match up, energy or not. The reason why I used the example I used here is because it's a good example of what I'm trying to express and why I feel your example doesn't quite live up to what it attempts to do. It likely is because of your own cognitive bias which I am not blaming you for, I don't get Si either, but Si is more than just feeling pain or focusing on the pain. Both Se and Si can do that. It's more about how pain itself is conceptualized. That's the difference. I felt you didn't quite show that in your OP.


You are right. I can definitely see how the will is involved with Si in your examples. I guess the focus of that first paragraph was unintentionally more about Se than Si. Reading @monemi's posts in general helped me to see Se as something much more and exciting than merely being literal or just using the five senses.

I think I forgot about the act of will involved in the subjective experience when trying to describe the difference in a concrete manner. So, in the example I tried to describe, it doesn't highlight Si at all really because the subjective experience I tried to highlight was merely the literal sensations (ie innervations) rather than what the will brought to the table in that sensory experience.



It's interesting that people seemed to put more attention in the first paragraph than anything else. What do you think about the connection I am making between "traditions" or "past informing the present" and "archetypes?"


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> You are right. I can definitely see how the will is involved with Si in your examples. I guess the focus of that first paragraph was unintentionally more about Se than Si. Reading @monemi's posts in general helped me to see Se as something much more and exciting than merely being literal or just using the five senses.
> 
> I think I forgot about the act of will involved in the subjective experience when trying to describe the difference in a concrete manner. So, in the example I tried to describe, it doesn't highlight Si at all really because the subjective experience I tried to highlight was merely the literal sensations (ie innervations) rather than what the will brought to the table in that sensory experience.
> 
> ...


One word: idols.

As for memory, I was going to comment but I forgot for some reason, I don't think it has to do with Si as Jung points out memory is separate from cognition and operates independently of. I do however think that what kind of data we recall when we remember is determined or filtered by our functions or what you expressed as will here. So when I remember something, I don't ten to remember the sensory details for example, but I tend to remember what something meant. Take Inception for example. To me, that movie was about identity and how ideas shape who we are. So when I think of Inception and remember what it was about, that's what I am focusing on, being an intuitive type. A different type is going to apprehend a different kind of data from their memories.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> It's interesting that people seemed to put more attention in the first paragraph than anything else. What do you think about the connection I am making between "traditions" or "past informing the present" and "archetypes?"


I honestly focused more on the first paragraph because I found the others less wrong than it.

Anyways would an atmosphere be considered the domain of the Si or Feeling in general? I think both answers are correct but I generally remember that an atmosphere is more of a descriptive title that ascribes mood based adjectives such as "dark", "melancholic" and other such phrases.

Another thing I would ask, would you consider the whole deal with the drinking of Jesus's blood to be a Si type thing? I mean it is a ritual that involves a physical object, a symbolic piece of his blood that is usually wine or grape juice. Unless your concept of idol is different from mine.


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

My ESFJ grandmother and I have very different approaches to doing things. When it comes to cooking, the joy for me is in the experimentation, she however will only agree to make what has been proven to work in the past. She even refuses to try a new recipe, until someone she trusts makes it, more than once and sufficient praise is received from others. I will experiment with home decor, mixing colors, textures, styles, repurposing things etc. She will follow a subjective formula of how " it is supposed to be", or how normal people do it. Example: a painting of fruit, can only be hanging in the kitchen or dining room. Why? Because that's how it's done. She has a very specific list of "allowed" behaviors, and deviating from them causes her great stress. She will not speak a sentence of another language until she is sure it's perfect, otherwise, her sense of shame takes over, and tortures her for days. She will assign thoughts and feelings supposedly thought and felt toward her by absolute strangers. It clearly comes from her internal map, and is almost entirely independent of the stranger in question. She will never admit guilt, as it sets off a long and painful internal self-bashing cycle. She is convinced that parents must not praise their children, because it's clear that a parent loves his or her child, but the said parent has to strive to have his children praised by others.
I understand that what I am describing is Fe/Si, and Se/FI , but it provides examples of real life differences.


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

I think I have a fair grasp on how I use introverted sensing. 

If I'm in an exam and I can't remember the answer to a question I will try to recall where I was and the thought processes that what going on when I learnt the piece of information. So I'd be taken back to my room at 4am two days before the exam with a huge mug of coffee and I'd remember "well I remember that I was thinking about how stupidly pointless this bit of info was, and how I highlighted key words very well" and it tends to bring it back.

Also, once I can pinpoint passing a familiar street I can remember why it was significant enough for me to remember then it would also remind me of the following thought processes I had "guessing which way was correct, thinking it had many twists and bends" and that I actually remember what I remember about the time before it if that makes sense. Okay not really... I remember that the last time I was there it had reminded me of something else. Yeah that's the one!

Also I enjoy memorising large chunks of pointless information. Spent part of my day memorising pi to 200 d.p :dry:


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Hmm reading these explanations of the difference between Si and Se seriously makes me consider being an Se-user.

I like experiencing highly stimulating environments and I enjoy experimenting with different objects.

For example I went longboarding with my ESFP friend. It was my second time ever using it and I thought "ooo that hill looks exciting" and my friend was strongly against it. Anyway even though the walk back up the hill would take a good 5-10 minutes I would race down the hill going 25-30mph with cars passing alongside. Then I'd run up the hill and do it all over a good, even after almost falling off a couple of times, which wouldve severely injured me.

I also like testing out things, without really thinking through whether it's a good idea. For instance I had a pack of mints today and I wanted to see how strong they were. For instead of carefully using something to keep a mint in place to try and crush it I just hit the pack of mint against a wall to see the reaction. Out of boredom really, but I don't really see an Si-user doing that kind of thing.

I also enjoy sprinting at night time. I love the feeling of the cool air and the adrenaline that makes me feel that I'm going at super-speed. My girlfriend also thinks I'm quite impulsive and hyperactive. I can never just place rubbish in the bin, it has to be an epic basketball shot, and if I miss I'll keep picking it up and trying again. I like taking risks. If I see a wasp I'll fight with myself to get closer and closer and tempt getting stung even though I'm afraid of them.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> Si is more complicated than what is described in the OP. From Se POV, pain can also be objectively experienced. It would be as if Se types can't experience pain, hunger etc you know? That's not true. An Se type could equally go in the skateboarding scenario, "OWW THAT REALLY HURT! I'm never doing that again." I saw a good example of Si (with Fe) the other day:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thinking about this some more.... How is pain objectively experienced?

In the examples from @monemi and @Merihim, Se is more focused on the objective situation rather than how the objective situation is affecting their well-being necessarily. The realization that they are in pain or could have been seriously injured still occurs to them, but is not where the focus is. There is also a sort of enthusiasm or excitement that goes along with it, which reminds me of Jung describing extraversion as a positive movement of interest to the object.

Introversion on the other hand, is a negative relation of subject to object. Interest withdraws from the object to the subject. This is where I think Si might focus more on their own pain and how it makes them feel. I admit that I describe things in a more objective fashion, which may make it more difficult for someone to slip into the shoes of Si user in this example. I don't think that I am that far off the mark though. 




> when my husband and I hold hands, I actually feel turned on because to me that is making love. It's not about intercourse, or oral sex or touching in a sexual manner





> I actually feel more love looking into my SO's eyes than feeling touched, especially since it's so difficult for me to lock eyes with anyone


For clarification, how do the above two quotes demonstrate a 'negative relation of subject to object' of Si? How is it not a 'positive movement of subjective interest towards the object?'


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Thinking about this some more.... How is pain objectively experienced?
> 
> In the examples from @monemi and @Merihim, Se is more focused on the objective situation rather than how the objective situation is affecting their well-being necessarily. The realization that they are in pain or could have been seriously injured still occurs to them, but is not where the focus is. There is also a sort of enthusiasm or excitement that goes along with it, which reminds me of Jung describing extraversion as a positive movement of interest to the object.


Again, I think it's about how we experience pain in a more abstract and conceptual sense, rather than pain itself or where we after we realize we are in pain, direct our thoughts. 



> Introversion on the other hand, is a negative relation of subject to object. Interest withdraws from the object to the subject. This is where I think Si might focus more on their own pain and how it makes them feel. I admit that I describe things in a more objective fashion, which may make it more difficult for someone to slip into the shoes of Si user in this example. I don't think that I am that far off the mark though.


Well, I never expressed you were wrong in theory, but that your examples did not exemplify or clarify what Si actually is. 



> For clarification, how do the above two quotes demonstrate a 'negative relation of subject to object' of Si? How is it not a 'positive movement of subjective interest towards the object?'


Because the focus is on how the object is making the subject feel. Complete denial of the object world can't happen. Even an Fi type will admit that there is a person they see crying. The difference is that an Fi type doesn't internalize the feelings of the crying person like an Fe type would, but the Fi type experiences any sadness caused in relation to this crying person as their own sadness, whereas the Fe type experiences as that person's sadness. 

The object only exists in a tangential relation to the subject, but what matters is how the person describes the sensation the object causes within the subject which clearly is of subjective experience and depth. Also, this person is an SiFe type, so you likely confuse the positive object experience with Fe.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> One word: idols.
> 
> As for memory, I was going to comment but I forgot for some reason, I don't think it has to do with Si as Jung points out memory is separate from cognition and operates independently of. I do however think that what kind of data we recall when we remember is determined or filtered by our functions or what you expressed as will here. So when I remember something, I don't ten to remember the sensory details for example, but I tend to remember what something meant. Take Inception for example. To me, that movie was about identity and how ideas shape who we are. So when I think of Inception and remember what it was about, that's what I am focusing on, being an intuitive type. A different type is going to apprehend a different kind of data from their memories.


I agree that no given function is necessarily associated with memory; however, I cannot see a reason to deny the possibility of a connection between Si and memory, since descriptions of Si so often include memory. The OP was, in part, an attempt to rationalize the link between the two.


When I watch a movie, I can only recall my experience of it. Usually when you see a movie with friends, there is some kind of discussion about it afterwards. I can recall laughing at certain parts for example, but I struggle to describe what the parts were that I found funny; yet, if someone else describes the scene, I can remember that it was exactly that scene that I laughed so hard at. 

I have been accused of having a selective memory because of this. For example arguing with an Ex about something; she might claim she never said 'blah blah' when I remember her doing it because of how it made me feel. Then she'll ask for more details, but I won't remember anything more than my experience; however, as more details do come up throughout the argument, I will 'suddenly' remember those details and my feelings/experiences associated with them.

Or when doing an exam, often times when I come across a concept that I am unfamiliar with, I can recall having studied that concept but I can't remember the details such as what I read or heard about that concept. I can remember where I was sitting (in my home office, in class, etc) when I covered the concept but recall nothing about the concept.


I thought this might be a sign of some sort of inferior Si, since I can mostly only recall these subjective experiences by some external need to recall them. I cannot recall these things at will usually.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Sixty Nein said:


> I honestly focused more on the first paragraph because I found the others less wrong than it.
> 
> Anyways would an atmosphere be considered the domain of the Si or Feeling in general? I think both answers are correct but I generally remember that an atmosphere is more of a descriptive title that ascribes mood based adjectives such as "dark", "melancholic" and other such phrases.
> 
> Another thing I would ask, would you consider the whole deal with the drinking of Jesus's blood to be a Si type thing? I mean it is a ritual that involves a physical object, a symbolic piece of his blood that is usually wine or grape juice. Unless your concept of idol is different from mine.



Good questions. I am assuming that one or both of these questions was intended for @_ephemereality_?

Either way, I am not quite sure. For the first question, I can see how they could be related to either/or. It all depends on whether you look at "dark" or "melancholic" as Feeling "moods" or as aesthetic impressions of Si. Personally, I am leaning towards the former than the latter.

Evidence:



From Jung's definition of Feeling said:


> Feeling is primarily a process that takes place between the ego and a given content, a process, moreover, that imparts to the content a definite value in the sense of acceptance or rejection ('like' or 'dislike'); *but it can also appear, as it were, isolated in the form of 'mood'*, quite apart from the momentary contents of consciousness or momentary sensations. This latter process may be causally related to previous conscious contents, though not necessarily so, since, as psychopathology abundantly proves, it can take origin equally well from unconscious contents. But even the mood, whether it be regarded as a general or only a partial feeling, signifies a valuation; not, however, a valuation of one definite, individual, conscious content, but of the whole conscious situation at the moment, and, once again, with special reference to the question of acceptance or rejection.





From Jung's definition of Feeling said:


> t is important to distinguish abstract feeling from ordinary concrete feeling. For, just as the abstract concept (v. Thinking) does away with the differences of the things embraced in it, so *abstract feeling*, by being raised above the differences of the individual feeling-values, *establishes a 'mood', or state of feeling*, which embraces and therewith abolishes the different individual values.





From Jung's definition of Sensation said:


> *Abstract sensation*, on the contrary, represents a differentiated kind of perception *which might be termed 'æsthetic'* in so far as it follows its own principle and is as equally detached from every admixture of the differences of the perceived object as from the subjective admixture of feeling and thought, thus raising itself to a degree of purity which is never attained by concrete sensation.





From Jung's definition of Sensation said:


> Concrete sensation as such is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always linked up with the will, i.e. the element of direction. *The will that is directed towards the abstraction of sensation is both the expression and the activity of the æsthetic sensational attitude.*


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

UndercoverInstigator said:


> Hmm reading these explanations of the difference between Si and Se seriously makes me consider being an Se-user.
> 
> I like experiencing highly stimulating environments and I enjoy experimenting with different objects.
> 
> ...


I can make arguments that suggest an INTP's functions would be Ti+Ni / Se+Fe. Another possibility is Ti + N / S + Fe, where the auxiliaries kind of waffle between extraversion and introversion, kind of like from this picture that Jung made:










But I won't get into that here. Related topics I started: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...iary-balancing-extraversion-introversion.html and http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/154497-auxiliary-same-attitude-dominant.html


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I agree that no given function is necessarily associated with memory; however, I cannot see a reason to deny the possibility of a connection between Si and memory, since descriptions of Si so often include memory. The OP was, in part, an attempt to rationalize the link between the two.


I think descriptions over-conflate certain aspects while failing to show the true relationship. To me it seems to be that Si types rather are fond of recalling memories or more precisely events that occurred to them in the past that they have strong sensory associations to, which is not itself an ability to have a good memory or is good at memorizing (my ESFJ grandma keeps a diary where she notes daily events and she is fond of collecting various memorabilia that helps her recall the past because she remember the richness of events, but not context so to speak), and that there is a ritualistic nature to Si that makes the Si type inclined to repeat the same pattern over and over in order to master it completely. Similarly, I'm very good at recalling theories at a basic level. 



> When I watch a movie, I can only recall my experience of it. Usually when you see a movie with friends, there is some kind of discussion about it afterwards. I can recall laughing at certain parts for example, but I struggle to describe what the parts were that I found funny; yet, if someone else describes the scene, I can remember that it was exactly that scene that I laughed so hard at.
> 
> I have been accused of having a selective memory because of this. For example arguing with an Ex about something; she might claim she never said 'blah blah' when I remember her doing it because of how it made me feel. Then she'll ask for more details, but I won't remember anything more than my experience; however, as more details do come up throughout the argument, I will 'suddenly' remember those details and my feelings/experiences associated with them.
> 
> ...


Yeah, I can't relate to this at all. For me it's more about actual details themselves then. I might be able to recall that I read something of importance somewhere but I can't remember where I read it, or that someone said something interesting to me, but I can't remember who or where, but I remember what was being said conceptually, though I cannot recall specific words or phrases. 



PaladinX said:


> Good questions. I am assuming that one or both of these questions was intended for @_ephemereality_?
> 
> Either way, I am not quite sure. For the first question, I can see how they could be related to either/or. It all depends on whether you look at "dark" or "melancholic" as Feeling "moods" or as an aesthetic impression of Si. Personally, I am leaning towards the former than the latter.
> 
> Evidence:


I am not sure how it's intended for me?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ephemereality said:


> I am not sure how it's intended for me?





ephemereality said:


> *One word: idols.*
> 
> 
> As for memory, I was going to comment but I forgot for some reason, I don't think it has to do with Si as Jung points out memory is separate from cognition and operates independently of. I do however think that what kind of data we recall when we remember is determined or filtered by our functions or what you expressed as will here. So when I remember something, I don't ten to remember the sensory details for example, but I tend to remember what something meant. Take Inception for example. To me, that movie was about identity and how ideas shape who we are. So when I think of Inception and remember what it was about, that's what I am focusing on, being an intuitive type. A different type is going to apprehend a different kind of data from their memories.





Sixty Nein said:


> I honestly focused more on the first paragraph because I found the others less wrong than it.
> 
> 
> Anyways would an atmosphere be considered the domain of the Si or Feeling in general? I think both answers are correct but I generally remember that an atmosphere is more of a descriptive title that ascribes mood based adjectives such as "dark", "melancholic" and other such phrases.
> ...


I assumed that the question was more likely intended for you because @_Sixty Nein_ asked a question about the subject of idols, which you originally brought up and not me. Though there was also a strong possibility that the question was intended for me since in that post, there was a quote from me and not you; however, the question in question was edited in later, after your subsequent post. It was not part of his original post.

Ok. So sometimes I can recall details really well...


----------



## Old Intern (Nov 20, 2012)

@monemi Am I being fair about Se and Si http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/175072-improved-function-definitions-perception.html


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

surgery said:


> This was so confusing at first…how can an "experience in itself" be different from a reaction to an experience if what one experiences is just a reaction in the first place?
> 
> But, then I realized what you mean that Se type are more interested in "experiencing the moment." Of course, I don't mean "the moment" as in a concern for the ticking of the clock so much as they are invested in adapting to the situation at hand and (subjectively) experiencing as much of the "richness" of it as possible via as many of their senses as possible. Like I said, an ESP experiences sensations subjective, but their Ego just isn't dominated by that subjectivity. They ignore it (as well as other mental processes) for the sake of getting more external contact.
> 
> ...


 @surgery

Here is a thread where I tried to explore Se and Si as objective and subjective experience. I tried to incorporate the common notions of Si such as relating to the past, memory, and tradition. Please note that from the first paragraph, my intention was about the focus on the experience itself rather than the resulting outcome.

If you look at my second post where I quote Monemi, you'll see what I would call "experiences in itself." Again, what I am trying to point out is what the interest/attention (psychic energy) is focused on.


----------



## Chest (Apr 14, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> I think Se is about the objective experience and Si is about the subjective experience/impression. What I mean by this, is let's say we have an Se and an Si trying out skateboards for the first time. They both fall and get some bad scrapes. The Se person can't wait to get back up on the board because of how exhilarating the objective experience was, regardless of his/her subjective experience (injury, pain); whereas the Si person might focus on his/her own pain and how much they dread getting back up on that board again. For the Si person, the personal experience of getting hurt outweighed the objective one of skateboarding. Essentially, Si is oriented by their personal experiences.


I think you nailed it, this is how I see it too


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

monemi said:


> He admits to enjoying himself once he gets out there but needs encouragement. He encourages me to take more precautions than I would otherwise. Si focuses too much about risks and forgets the perks. Se forgets about the risks and focuses too much on the perks.


Interestingly, I think inferior Se can be the same as Si in this way. I'm extra conscious of risks, myself, probably because my Se is so underused and I don't trust it. 

I have noticed that with the right advice, I can utilize my Se a lot more consciously, but it's nonetheless like trying to sprint when you're really out of shape; I'm using a muscle that's weak and atrophied.

In comparison, I find that I have to go do theoretical explorations like this every so often - my Ni doesn't just want it but *demands* it. I imagine it's like the Ni-dom version of Se-dom needing to go do interesting physical stuff. I wonder what the core need looks like for other types.


----------



## dulcinea (Aug 22, 2011)

Based on what i've seen, this looks like one of the most common descriptions of Si that I've seen. I have never experience Si myself, but I listen a lot to how my SFJ mom expresses herself and how she thinks and feels. I've noticed that she's very aware of the sensations that she's feeling, especially now that she's been sick but has a hard time explaining it in words. "She says a lot of 'I feel sick, like, all of a sudden (something really strange and descriptive), has that ever happened to you?" or "Have you ever felt like this?" but most of the time it's "I feel really bad, but I can't explain it in words." She also remembers a lot of the sensory details of when she was growing up. She can recall food really well. 

I think she can't get past feeling ill, because it's like a constant discomfort. I've always seen that in SJs. They don't like things that give discomfort to them, physically... well nobody does, but I've seen SJs be more preoccupied with comfort and the inner sensation than other types that I've known. It also kills her that she can't do things like, clean and stuff the way she's always done them, because she feels like she should do things the way she's done them, and if she asks me to do things for her, she gets discouraged easily, because if I don't do things the way she's always done them, it's not "right" to her. That's the only things I've really seen, but I imagine other SJs have had varying experiences on these sorts of things.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Sense as an Se user I observe things "as they are" I actually oppose things slightly from the subjective past as someone already suggested. I am antagonistic to the past, so prefer the past as A CONCEPT (Ni) which encompasses those epic people who existed before I was born in a kind of metaphorical symbolic glory of humanity and that which existed conceptually rather than concretely during my formative years. I love a real life mystery before it's solved and my theories about the future are based in what I observe now. I also think Charles Manson was ENFJ rather than ENFP for this reason. He had batshit crazy theory, but even SP members of the Manson family followed his predictions (-race war) based on current events, such as the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr and Malcolm X and the Black Panthers.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Fi Se Ni actually explains why I can't accept my childhood as a construct. I think in modern times every type except SJ must feel this, but SPs especially would experience a bizarre duplicitous love of the past as a concept but be naturally lost as to believing in it per Fi or Ti. I think a lot of recent period films are made by artistic SPs who love their personal or cultural past as a vivid epic construction but not as their present personal reality. Hence ISFP as Artists and ISTP as Craftsman. We don't live that past but share it as a concept to the public.

ENxP in my observations even forget and disregard the past except to become pendantantic. INxP may duplicate the past in sensory details but little else.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

fourtines said:


> Fi Se Ni actually explains why I can't accept my childhood as a construct. I think in modern times every type except SJ must feel this, but SPs especially would experience a bizarre duplicitous love of the past as a concept but be naturally lost as to believing in it per Fi or Ti. I think a lot of recent period films are made by artistic SPs who love their personal or cultural past as a vivid epic construction but not as their present personal reality. Hence ISFP as Artists and ISTP as Craftsman. We don't live that past but share it as a concept to the public.
> 
> *ENxP in my observations even forget and disregard the past except to become pendantantic.* INxP may duplicate the past in sensory details but little else.


I certainly do. In arguments the best way I can explain it is that I forget all context. I become fixated on the argument rather than on the person that I'm talking to or the environment that I'm in, if that makes sense.

I also care little for nostalgia, as I scarcely remember my dreams/childhood. Only random unorganized snapshots.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Raawx said:


> I certainly do. In arguments the best way I can explain it is that I forget all context. I become fixated on the argument rather than on the person that I'm talking to or the environment that I'm in, if that makes sense.
> 
> I also care little for nostalgia, as I scarcely remember my dreams/childhood. Only random unorganized snapshots.


Yeah when I was deciding between ENFP hippie archetype and ISFP hippie archetype I decided ISFP partly because I was appalled by the lack of memory in ENFPs. It literally appalled me. Not because I believe in an Si uniform Fe or Te conformity to subjective past, but because my placement of Se/Ni will never accepta cconceptual world without Adam Ant, Oliver Stone and Mad Men. My life wouldn't even make sense without reference to the Ni symbols of the past all humans lived but I never personally did, and my own childhood, much as I may Fi ethically disagree with it.

I feel as an N does, slightly alienated from the SJ who accepts the past as present or some personal guidelines literally to now, but my past and our cultural past as Americans defines me as an individual.

Martin Scorsese is doubtless an SP.

My mom is ESFP and rejected more past as Ni symbolic concept, but is a genius at accepting and dealing with now, and I do relate to our tendency to weave "big fish" narratives. I could die young securely now in the knowledge my mother would make me a legend. That's why SPs are artists. They put this Ni spin on Now and The Past, compared to the ironically "authentic acting" SJs the NFs call artificial.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Interestingly, I think inferior Se can be the same as Si in this way. I'm extra conscious of risks, myself, probably because my Se is so underused and I don't trust it.
> 
> I have noticed that with the right advice, I can utilize my Se a lot more consciously, but it's nonetheless like trying to sprint when you're really out of shape; I'm using a muscle that's weak and atrophied.
> 
> In comparison, I find that I have to go do theoretical explorations like this every so often - my Ni doesn't just want it but *demands* it. I imagine it's like the Ni-dom version of Se-dom needing to go do interesting physical stuff. I wonder what the core need looks like for other types.


I'm interested in experiences. Exploring theories is an experience. Unless I have a vested interest in a theory, there is only so much time I will invest into it. Theories that generally get my attention are or potentially could be used in real life. For instance, one of my favourite interests is aeronautics. I worked in aviation for the better part of a decade. I spent a lot of time at a small airfield near my grandparents growing up learning about small planes. Understanding flight required learning a lot of theory and improving my maths skills. 

Using Se doesn't mean that your ability to understand theory will atrophy. The real world has a lot of theoretical knowledge in it that you need to understand. I went through a pyro period as a child. I spent a lot of time learning the principles behind fire and perfecting starting small fires. Learning about gases, led me to kinetic theory and just made me more curious. In general, I think you'll find extraverted sensing loves science and ends up picking up theory along the way. It's our interest in the physical world that leads us to theory. I want to understand what I'm experiencing. Science has a lot of fact and theory and we're eager to prove or disprove theories. We might blow ourselves up in the process, I've got the scars to show for my curiosity as a child, but we _really_ want to know. 



fourtines said:


> Yeah when I was deciding between ENFP hippie archetype and ISFP hippie archetype I decided ISFP partly because I was appalled by the lack of memory in ENFPs. It literally appalled me. Not because I believe in an Si uniform Fe or Te conformity to subjective past, but because my placement of Se/Ni will never accepta cconceptual world without Adam Ant, Oliver Stone and Mad Men. My life wouldn't even make sense without reference to the Ni symbols of the past all humans lived but I never personally did, and my own childhood, much as I may Fi ethically disagree with it.
> 
> I feel as an N does, slightly alienated from the SJ who accepts the past as present or some personal guidelines literally to now, but my past and our cultural past as Americans defines me as an individual.
> 
> ...


I'm interested in the past. Not as interested as I am with the present. I like how I can shape the future in the present and draw lessons from the past in my endeavors. The past often looks so surreal and the future too uncertain if I don't take action to mold it. I find meaning in things after the fact. Once I've had time to absorb it. But initially, when I'm first taking it in, it's all meaningless. Hindsight is 20/20 right?


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

monemi said:


> I'm interested in experiences. Exploring theories is an experience. Unless I have a vested interest in a theory, there is only so much time I will invest into it. Theories that generally get my attention are or potentially could be used in real life. For instance, one of my favourite interests is aeronautics. I worked in aviation for the better part of a decade. I spent a lot of time at a small airfield near my grandparents growing up learning about small planes. Understanding flight required learning a lot of theory and improving my maths skills.
> 
> Using Se doesn't mean that your ability to understand theory will atrophy. The real world has a lot of theoretical knowledge in it that you need to understand. I went through a pyro period as a child. I spent a lot of time learning the principles behind fire and perfecting starting small fires. Learning about gases, led me to kinetic theory and just made me more curious. *In general, I think you'll find extraverted sensing loves science and ends up picking up theory along the way*. It's our interest in the physical world that leads us to theory. I want to understand what I'm experiencing. Science has a lot of fact and theory and we're eager to prove or disprove theories. We might blow ourselves up in the process, I've got the scars to show for my curiosity as a child, but we _really_ want to know.


Interesting take on it. It's possible I'm trying to make the types more different than we are, but I think the bolded part there is a difference; I tend to love theory and pick up the more physical explorations (for lack of a better phrase) along the way. Although I do want stuff to apply to reality and I do want to see how things work, I can (for example) spend hours and hours on the internet with my only connection to "new" physical reality being text that myself and others are saying. 

I've always gotten the impression that Se-doms can't do that sort of thing comfortably for long because they need to go interact with the physical environment in more depth.

But it is useful to be told that the one will not weaken the other, so thank you for that. I think it is a question of need for me, ultimately, when it comes to how physical I get; "does X situation require me to get 'physical' to understand? If so, do it. If not, don't bother." That's the instinctive response, of course. I'm sure I could choose to ignore it and go in a different direction with enough awareness. 

However... I suspect that instinct is morphing somewhat as I age and become more comfortable with the physicality of things.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Interesting take on it. It's possible I'm trying to make the types more different than we are, but I think the bolded part there is a difference; I tend to love theory and pick up the more physical explorations (for lack of a better phrase) along the way. Although I do want stuff to apply to reality and I do want to see how things work, I can (for example) spend hours and hours on the internet with my only connection to "new" physical reality being text that myself and others are saying.
> 
> I've always gotten the impression that Se-doms can't do that sort of thing comfortably for long because they need to go interact with the physical environment in more depth.
> 
> ...


I find when science is presented in class, from a book, I'm a slow learner. When science is something I can interact with, I'm the fastest to learn it. I take in much more information that way and then if you test me on it later, I will ace it. It's when it's presented in a dry manner that I have to work hard at it. For instance, learning the basic principles guiding understanding of flight represented with a paper airplane. I can see for myself lift, thrust, weight and drag. Now, I could learn that in a classroom, but it will take twice as long and my depth of understanding won't reach as far. I want a kinetic and spatial understanding of what I'm dealing with. That way I can turn it around in my head and examine it in a multidimensional way long after I learn it. I can memorize and learn to pass a test. But to be able to do something useful with that information, I need to understand it in depth. When I'm interested in something, I'm _all in_. 

In general, Se-doms are capable of sticking with theory in a non-physical way. But if you want to see us develop an idea and do something with it, we're going to want a tactile experience. I take theoretical ideas and give them life. I've done this literally in real life where my husband or friends have an idea. But I take that idea and find practical uses for it or a way to make money from it. That's what Se is best at in my opinion. Making ideas/theories reality. Of course, this is the perspective of a female ESTP. I'm sure if there's a male ESTP who is built like a tank, they would view Se very differently if they entertained MBTI at all. Not all Se-doms are going to be interested in using their minds. I just see it that it really depends on the individual and their life circumstances. Maybe if I were a tomboy I'd experience it differently.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

monemi said:


> I find when science is presented in class, from a book, I'm a slow learner. When science is something I can interact with, I'm the fastest to learn it. I take in much more information that way and then if you test me on it later, I will ace it. It's when it's presented in a dry manner that I have to work hard at it. For instance, learning the basic principles guiding understanding of flight represented with a paper airplane. I can see for myself lift, thrust, weight and drag. Now, I could learn that in a classroom, but it will take twice as long and my depth of understanding won't reach as far. I want a kinetic and spatial understanding of what I'm dealing with. That way I can turn it around in my head and examine it in a multidimensional way long after I learn it. I can memorize and learn to pass a test. But to be able to do something useful with that information, I need to understand it in depth. When I'm interested in something, I'm _all in_.
> 
> In general, Se-doms are capable of sticking with theory in a non-physical way. But if you want to see us develop an idea and do something with it, we're going to want a tactile experience. I take theoretical ideas and give them life. I've done this literally in real life where my husband or friends have an idea. But I take that idea and find practical uses for it or a way to make money from it. That's what Se is best at in my opinion. Making ideas/theories reality. Of course, this is the perspective of a female ESTP. I'm sure if there's a male ESTP who is built like a tank, they would view Se very differently if they entertained MBTI at all. Not all Se-doms are going to be interested in using their minds. I just see it that it really depends on the individual and their life circumstances. Maybe if I were a tomboy I'd experience it differently.


I can relate somewhat to what you're saying about learning. Personally, I've struggled most with memorization-based learning. I'd actually rather write a paper on a subject than take a test, given those are my only options. I need to be able to explore, though maybe not in quite the same way as you.

Interesting to know about how you actualize ideas. Makes sense when I think about it. You may be right that a more tank-oriented ESTP isn't going to care much about ideas/theories. But then, some of it is probably just age, awareness, and - as you say - how you're "built." If you subscribe to the idea that people tend to develop their weaker functions as they age, then I'd imagine that young ESTPs (teens and younger) are going to do a lot more of the raw experimenting without necessarily having a specific idea/theory to actualize. Whereas, older ESTPs, who have had some time to grow into their talents, will tend to make their focus more pointed; like a laser pointer, instead of an overhead light.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

PaladinX said:


> I agree that no given function is necessarily associated with memory; however, I cannot see a reason to deny the possibility of a connection between Si and memory, since descriptions of Si so often include memory. The OP was, in part, an attempt to rationalize the link between the two.
> 
> 
> When I watch a movie, I can only recall my experience of it. Usually when you see a movie with friends, there is some kind of discussion about it afterwards. I can recall laughing at certain parts for example, but I struggle to describe what the parts were that I found funny; yet, if someone else describes the scene, I can remember that it was exactly that scene that I laughed so hard at.
> ...


This is very relatable, especially the highlighted part. I had this strange experiences when being under pressure I couldn't remember the exact information, but could recall how the page or font with needed information looked like, whether it was right or left page in the book, place where I studied and sometimes sensations (whether I felt cold, hot, comfortable etc.) I have this example of Se versus Si, it is very sensory but anyway. When tasting new food Se would notice first objective side - whether it is salty, bitter, sweet etc, while Si would notice first subjective information - whether this dish is tasty, pleasant, familiar. And I think experience of an Ni user would be closer to Se example, and of and Ne user to Si - as those functions work in pairs.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> I can relate somewhat to what you're saying about learning. Personally, I've struggled most with memorization-based learning. I'd actually rather write a paper on a subject than take a test, given those are my only options. I need to be able to explore, though maybe not in quite the same way as you.
> 
> Interesting to know about how you actualize ideas. Makes sense when I think about it. You may be right that a more tank-oriented ESTP isn't going to care much about ideas/theories. But then, some of it is probably just age, awareness, and - as you say - how you're "built." If you subscribe to the idea that people tend to develop their weaker functions as they age, then I'd imagine that young ESTPs (teens and younger) are going to do a lot more of the raw experimenting without necessarily having a specific idea/theory to actualize. Whereas, older ESTPs, who have had some time to grow into their talents, will tend to make their focus more pointed; like a laser pointer, instead of an overhead light.


I was a pretty driven kid with some odd dichotomies going on. No one paid attention to my grades, but I felt I had something to prove, so I kept my grades up. At the same time, Saturday I was raving nearly every week. My parents can be sort of hippies in their parenting, I didn't have a lot of rules, but I gave myself some boundaries. Like I was in bed by about midnight school nights. My room was actually relatively tidy. I had a smart mouth though and landed in the headmasters office quite often. I was extremely into sports and cars. I drove illegally once and crashed at 15. I followed the rules when it suited me and was a little difficult to predict.


----------



## Nordom (Oct 12, 2011)

I love analyzing Si.

My younger brother is an Aspie ISFJ (Si dominant). He is the type who remembers EVERYTHING to an extreme. In high school (in the late 90's) there was a directory that had everyone's landline number in it. He knew everyone's phone number. It creeped people out, but it was just that everything stuck with him. He found pleasure in memorizing and reciting things from his mind. His inferior Ne didn't really allow him to make the connection that having a photographic memory could make people uncomfortable, and he is/was unable to reconcile what is "acceptable" social conversation for that reason. And the few people who were amazed by it encouraged him even more which reinforced its importance to him. He can do 3 digit multiplications in his head without much trouble because his Ti is also studly.

I also play strategy games with him and he is a much slower learner than I am. I'll immodestly call it the INTP advantage. He is unable to see more than one step ahead, so I'll beat the crap out of him for a month or so. Then by the time he has accumulated enough experience and organized it through his Ti, he is an unstoppable force. He doesn't even need his Ne to do so.

He's one of the top Scrabble players in the world because of that skill set. I think he averages something like 425 points a game. Ridiculous.


----------



## Mr inappropriate (Dec 17, 2013)

^^That's all Asperger's, its so stereotypical; remembering numbers, lacking the ability to read social clues and such.

Si is perfectionist in its experience seeking unlike Se, who wants to try it all at least once. The differences are just like Ne vs Ni, but in the sensing realm of perception this time.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

monemi said:


> I was a pretty driven kid with some odd dichotomies going on. No one paid attention to my grades, but I felt I had something to prove, so I kept my grades up. At the same time, Saturday I was raving nearly every week. My parents can be sort of hippies in their parenting, I didn't have a lot of rules, but I gave myself some boundaries. Like I was in bed by about midnight school nights. My room was actually relatively tidy. I had a smart mouth though and landed in the headmasters office quite often. I was extremely into sports and cars. I drove illegally once and crashed at 15. I followed the rules when it suited me and was a little difficult to predict.


Does sound like you were somewhat directionless in your intensity then, though as you indicate, not necessarily _messy_. I was more meandering myself. I lived out in the country in a large family and was homeschooled, so going out and doing things was mostly running around our big yard. I had/have a tendency to get addicted to things (which I don't think has to do with type) so I would get periodically obsessed with certain activities, only to abandon them when I got burned out. For example, my thing was tracing at one point. Don't know why. Just liked tracing pictures.

I also had some bizarre moments of efficiency, like I used to have a thing where I would lay out all my clothes on the ground, neatly, before bed (they had to be stretched out as if someone was wearing them, not folded). The idea was that I could get dressed more quickly when I got up lol. I remember early on, something my brother said about Sherlock Holmes and reasoning prompted me to learn how to trace my insights backwards, so that gave me a pretty good sense of when my intuitive leaps were bullshit. I sometimes wonder if I would have developed that skill had I not been prompted to.

Thank you for the fascinating discussion by the way.


----------



## Raawx (Oct 9, 2013)

LostFavor said:


> Does sound like you were somewhat directionless in your intensity then, though as you indicate, not necessarily _messy_. I was more meandering myself. I lived out in the country in a large family and was homeschooled, so going out and doing things was mostly running around our big yard. *I had/have a tendency to get addicted to things (which I don't think has to do with type) so I would get periodically obsessed with certain activities, only to abandon them when I got burned out.* For example, my thing was tracing at one point. Don't know why. Just liked tracing pictures.
> 
> *I also had some bizarre moments of efficiency,* like I used to have a thing where I would lay out all my clothes on the ground, neatly, before bed (they had to be stretched out as if someone was wearing them, not folded). The idea was that I could get dressed more quickly when I got up lol. I remember early on, something my brother said about Sherlock Holmes and reasoning prompted me to learn how to trace my insights backwards, so that gave me a pretty good sense of when my intuitive leaps were bullshit. I sometimes wonder if I would have developed that skill had I not been prompted to.
> 
> Thank you for the fascinating discussion by the way.


Strange. I can relate to what's in bold really well. Have you ever considered being ENxP?


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Regarding stereotype on remembering numbers, dates and a lot of exact data I don't get how this relates to Si. What if a person has a bad memory, does he/she automatically become intuitive because of this?
Si seems to be more abstract, it doesn't perceive objective data directly, it's like a mirror - I like Jung's metaphor - where Si-user see subjective sensory impressions which were formed as a reaction to perceiving of tangible data and objects.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

Raawx said:


> Strange. I can relate to what's in bold really well. Have you ever considered being ENxP?


Never seriously entertained the idea, no. Even setting aside the letters and their related meanings, I don't think my functions correspond to ENxP well. For example, I can relate to Ni but not Ne, Fi but not Ti, and so on. 

It may be one of those situations where we relate strongly while being distinctly different in other areas. I have some of those situations with my ENFJ mother.

I'm curious though, do you consider yourself to have a tendency to get addicted to things or do you view it in a different way? And how do you feel about efficiency nowadays? Personally, my interest in efficiency is not #1 priority all the time - sometimes I prioritize things like relaxation over efficiency - but it has a distinct presence. It's why I can't stand bureaucracy; because bureaucracy is seriously inefficient half the time due to the amount of red tape you have to go through.

I instinctively learned to mentally distance myself from situations where I have no control over the efficiency because otherwise, I'll just be preoccupied with something that I can't change and that may not need changing. So I think in the beginning (my original example with the clothes) it was a matter of coming to terms with what efficiency is and what I can do with it. 

If you're ENFP, then perhaps your sense of efficiency manifests itself similarly to my 3rd process, Fi; as something that is important but relatively easy to ignore most of the time. (I believe the burning need for efficiency stems most strongly from Te, in terms of processes.)


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

To_august said:


> Regarding stereotype on remembering numbers, dates and a lot of exact data I don't get how this relates to Si. What if a person has a bad memory, does he/she automatically become intuitive because of this?
> *Si seems to be more abstract, it doesn't perceive objective data directly, it's like a mirror - I like Jung's metaphor - where Si-user see subjective sensory impressions which were formed as a reaction to perceiving of tangible data and objects.*



Agreed. To me, Si is nothing like memory. It's not even a "conscious" process. It goes about it's business in the background, quietly monitoring my sensory intake. However, when it sees/feels/tastes/smells/hears something that doesn't match up with what it expects (based on that storehouse of previous _sensory_ impressions), it lets me know pronto... I get a "kicked in the gut" feeling and an instant sense of hyper-awareness that something is "wrong". There is not much of anything about it that feels like recalling a memory. No recall of details of a specific prior experience... only a sense of alertness/wariness about what I just experienced.

I tend to scoff at descriptions of Si that include statements like "enjoys reliving past experiences", "comfortable with the past", etc. New experiences that match up with old essentially elicit no reaction from me at all. They just... "are". Just because an experience doesn't give me that kicked-in-the-gut feeling, it doesn't mean that it gives me the "warm and fuzzies", either. It's largely just... unremarkable.

Because of this lack of reaction to "familiar" experiences, I think that Si-doms (at least me, anyway) end up having a blind spot for recognizing things that are "less than optimal" IF they have always been that way. Quite often, I will find that some small change in a familiar setting will cause me to look into the cause/nature of that change, but while investigating it I will coincidentally notice something else that is less than optimal, that has always been there but I had just never noticed it. Some of the negative stereotypes about Si users probably are rooted in this blind spot.

I also think that another root of Si stereotypes comes from immature or unhealthy Si-doms who have not yet learned to utilize their lower functions. An immature Si-dom might experience that Si alert and have it just end there, with that stereotypical "DO.NOT.LIKE." reaction. However, I believe that as a Si-dom matures, the lower functions will develop and be able to take on the task of analyzing that reaction and decide if that new experience that Si had alerted them to was really "bad different", "good different", or just "different". A mature Si-dom will carefully vet and accept - welcome, even - change when it is shown to be a good one, whereas the immature Si-dom likely will reject the change out of hand based solely on Si's initial alert.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

I think Si is more conservative and likes to "hold on". I tend to reject too much consumption, too many new experiences. I like to cherish what has already been obtained. If someone buys a $200 phone then buys another one three months later, I'm not gonna agree with that kind of behavior for myself. I would buy one thing, stick with it until I feel it's "paid off (subjectively)" at least. This is why I still play old games, I enjoy nostalgia because it feels like I'm getting most out of something.


----------

