# Introverted Sensing



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

I hope you don't mind, @Conclusion, but I was fascinated by your explanation of Introverted Sensing, in another thread, and I wanted to discuss it further without taking away from that other thread.

As silly as it may sound, are you able to provide any concrete examples of how you use these templates? Are you able to clarify what you mean by "impressionistic templates"?

Your explanation below is very much similar to what I would call "the mindset," "frames of mind," or "hats", which are different ways of looking at the present. I can't quite think of an example of what I mean right now, but I will try later.

Do other Si users agree with what is described in the quote below?



Conclusion said:


> To my definition of Si -- it's a very idiosyncratic one, and still a bit in development so I'll take the opportunity to expand on in here and ask for folks' reactions.  (As are all my functional un-concepts; I've read others' descriptions, but honestly I just started with what they're drawn to, how they attend to it, how they tend to be expressed, and refined as I go by listening to people. To me the 'authoritative framework' of JCF is very minimal, and filled in as I go with my own and others' experience.) Yet Si seems to be an especially difficult function to characterize well; of the descriptions I've read, if they meaningfully apply to me then they aren't very thorough, and if they're thorough and predictive then they don't meaningfully apply to me.
> 
> You mentioned Nardi, so I just skimmed his definitions in his two books; they seem to be 1/3 right, 1/3 inadequate, and 1/3 WTF no. In particular for his "snapshot of cognition," I have no idea what "warning mode" or "investing for material security" means (is he abstracting from Si-doms who are also phobic sp 6s?) and I'd swap out the "predictable standard" for the following:
> 
> ...


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Jung states that this function is an abstraction of sensation, by which he means aesthetic impression. Do you relate to this at all?


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> Jung states that this function is an abstraction of sensation, by which he means aesthetic impression. Do you relate to this at all?


Yes I do. For example: Say a 5 year old Si-dom walks into a room, this room's walls has shades of primarely blue and some yellow. In this room there are children ages 4-6. At the end of the day the Si-dom has had a really great time. Everything in that room that the Si-dom noticed (colors of the clothes weared by the others, floor patterns and colors, pictures on the walls and its listings, window frames and door colors, toy colors, closets etc etc) is associated with the feelings experienced.

That is the abstraction of sensation. Colors and forms visually. Hymns and pitch tones auditory. Etc. Everything has a feel. It doesn't just look or sound nice it also feels nice.


----------



## Conclusion (Sep 21, 2012)

Abstraction of sensation -- kinda. I think even my most imaginative thought is an abstraction from the acts of reading books and problem sets and personal essays and intelligent conversation in ways that, rather to my surprise, they aren't for other people; and my relation to these things seems characteristically aesthetic in ways that are again unusual. And I do think there's something to the idea that "relating to a cup of coffee through a lifetime of abstracted sense impressions of other cups of coffee" is somehow the purest example of my cognition.  But as you'd imagine when you build an entire mind around abstraction of sensation it ramifies into all manner of things in all manner of subtle ways, and on reflection I think I was chiefly interested in describing the ramification into intellectual / imaginative work.

"Impressionistic templates" was my attempt to describe the invisible currency / substance / fabric of Si, that which is to Si what concepts are to Ni, the inchoate stuff I'm working with when I think. As I see it they're a kind of skeleton of impression along which you channel new experiences as you attend to / take them in, and grow increasingly more sophisticated and discriminating as you gain familiarity with a subject; and aggregated together they function as a kind of reduction, distillation, of your experience with which you can think without all the unnecessary details of what you saw sprawled about your head and getting in the way.  Still I'm not terribly (consciously) aware of them (and I only realized I was a Si-dom two weeks ago after considering myself an INTP for most of my life!) so much of my analysis here is a bit inchoate and shot-in-the-dark, and I'd also be quite interested in how other Si-users would describe / refine such things. 

I'm not totally sure what you mean by "concrete examples of how I use them," but over breakfast I thought through a response that provides a couple of examples of my own cognition / conversation / imaginative work analyzed in terms of impressionistic templates,

1) a couple of examples of immediate recall / response to abstract questions,
2) an example of thinking through a deliberate response / detailed analysis of an abstract question / interesting situation
3) a couple of examples of how I attend to things on each end of the "refinement and sophistication" continuum
+) plus a sidenote about the structure / fabric of Si and my understanding of it that I hinted at in the post

but before I write that out -- is that responding? If so I'll edit or post again later today with all that, but I wanted to check that I understood you first.  (And a bit dangerous to "call your analyses" like that in any case, but perhaps any discrepancies would themselves be illuminating. )


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

It's funny to me that when I ask for a concrete example, people don't seem to understand what that means. Maybe I'm using it wrong? Although, my psychologist once told me that once you go abstract, you never go back. Being autistic, I tend to be concrete and literal.

When I ask for a concrete example, I suppose I am looking for a literal, tangible description of how Si manifests. I can understand abstract things, but I need to tie it to something concrete for further examination. So if you can describe how Si manifests in a given context or situation that you can recall and provide as much concrete, literal, tangible data as possible, that would be very much appreciated. Analogies could work too.

In layman's terms, can you please dumb it down? 

Thanks!!


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

I might just be wrong, but maybe Introverted Sensation is just focused on how one interprates something instead of what the object actually is? It would make a lot more sense if it was like that.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

St Vual said:


> I might just be wrong, but maybe Introverted Sensation is just focused on how one interprates something instead of what the object actually is? It would make a lot more sense if it was like that.


Can you explain what you mean by that?


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Sure thing. To me, it seems like Introverted Sensation strips away the actual object's properties and fills in their own. Such as how one can view a cup as a ball catcher, or something. While with Extroverted Sensation you'd likely see the cup as just a cup.

Again I could totally be wrong. The idea of Si being like this is literally just something like "hey this likely makes the most sense instead of my previous ideas of what it is". Seeing objects being different than what they literally are, and how they can be many things is a Si-Ne process.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

St Vual said:


> Sure thing. To me, it seems like Introverted Sensation strips away the actual object's properties and fills in their own. Such as how one can view a cup as a ball catcher, or something. While with Extroverted Sensation you'd likely see the cup as just a cup.
> 
> Again I could totally be wrong. The idea of Si being like this is literally just something like "hey this likely makes the most sense instead of my previous ideas of what it is". Seeing objects being different than what they literally are, and how they can be many things is a Si-Ne process.


The way you describe it is basically what Jung was getting at. A subjectivity of perception. A sort of perception is reality way of looking at things where the actual qualities of the object or experience are downplayed in favor of the impression that object or experience gives off. 

This is probably why people do not have a good way to represent Si (or really any introverted function) in a concrete manner, because it is by its nature subjective and abstract. Because somehow Si got linked to memory and liking old stuff, I think people tend to sort of read too much down that road and associate it all as Si. "I like my grandmother's quilt," therefore I must be Si and stuff like that. Jung's definition if taken by its own account makes absolute sense: that you could either look at the object as it is without projecting anything on it from within, or downplay in favor of the impression the object gives off.


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

@Conclusion

i've always taken Si to be more along the lines of someone who doesn't see the tree in the forest as "just a tree", but may instead attribute characteristics that don't objectively exist. for example, the combination of light filtering through the leaves combined with the height of the tree may make it seem "imposing", or "malevolent"; the tree itself may take on a sentinel-like appearance, or, the person may just get a "feeling" inspired from the object that changes their sense perception of the object. 

(another example--although it is a rather extreme, "pure" example: "the road may seem as if it's just asphalt and dirt--something without sentience or will--but once the light fades, your sight lessens, and you find yourself alone you'll realize it has indeed taken on a life, a will all it's own. it'll branch and change shape, offering up paths cloaked in the guise of safety. it'll gently prod and coerce you into darkness on an ill-made trail or into the den of a beast. the road is a creature just as much as we, but it is a creature that lacks our moral compunction, our human understanding--it is something that rises with the night, and hunts those unfortunate enough to be caught within it's grasp". again, extreme, but it also clearly shows a subjective form of perception that focuses upon that person's unique sensory abstractions)

but, that's not to say that what you find yourself falling into isn't a personal "extension" of "distilled Si" (distilled in the way that the idea itself is too pure to fit someone exactly--and that they will most likely build a unique form of their dominant function). 

i am curious though--you said you originally thought you were an INTP, but have now moved on to ISFJ... would you say that your life has been dominated by Ti up until this point, and the development of what could be called Si is really an aux? or would you say it's actually the other way around, and that you began as Si but while developing a mindset in order to differentiate a judging function you over identified with Ti and were temporarily "blinded" from the extent to which you rely upon Si? 

(if this is too all over the place or vague, just ask i'll clarify).


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility (Aug 5, 2011)

Si is indeed attribution of characteristics not necessarily present onto an object, but the reason why this happens is one step deeper. When Si goes into action, it is comparing "what is" to a very enormous storehouse of memories od all things that might relate to "what is". So what happens is new objects are acribed to have similar properties and tendencies as objects already experienced.

For example, if an Si dominant sees someone who looks and/or sounds like their father, and their father was an honest and noble and kind man, this new person in their life will be automatically acribed all of those characteristics of the father, as an automatic reflex.

Now when completely novel objects enter that give off contradictory Si impressions, this causes an Si user great stress, as the object can't easily be related to one dominant internal sensory impression. When this happens, inferior Ne kicks in and assumes the worst, automatically, as a defense mechanism, and the new experience will be painted in a negative light by default.

Because of this tendency, Si are called the guardians, not because what is know is better, but because what is known is easily assigned and kept as a positive impression via Si. So Si users will naturally seek out and maintain systems and objects that are familiar as a way to minimize stress, and hence are "traditional" in some way (although traditional is a very loose term as it can be manifest in many ways).

This is why the best way to introduce new objects to an Si mind is to do so gradually and consistently. The mere presence of something, even a negative stimulus, can be ascribed a positive impression if prolonged in exposure.

The tendency to ascribe a positive impression to a negative stimulus is likely one reason why ISFJ especially, but all giardians in general, mind find themselves in loops of bad relationships, due to the familiarity than comes out of the abuse being less stressful than the abuse itself.


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

I think you're sort of mixing up a lot of things here. Kiersey called Si-doms guardians but makes no reference to the introverted sensation function. He is basically noting that MBTI's ISFJs seemed to fit into his general pattern, but doesn't draw the cause/effect relationship to Si as others have tried to do. I think Jung would take exception to the idea of a Si-dom being a guardian (and he would know his wife Emma was a self-described Introverted Sensation type). Also anything like being a guardian or sticking to the plans or whatever, would, at least to a large extent be related to extraversion and not introversion. Kiersey's ISJs are basically quiet or shy Te and Fe doms. 

The thing about Si-doms is that they are sensation types. Much like their Se-dom cousins, they are oriented to the world as they experience it. The physical nature of things present or past (since you have not yet experienced the future). That is the nature of all sensation types generally speaking, since sensory perceptions must necessarily be related to those things we are either experiencing or have experienced. 

The tendency for an introverted sensation type to be wary about something new (overgeneralization and a poor stereotype I'll just make that disclaimer) would come from their inferior intuition. They have an uncomfortable relationship with intuition, as all sensation types do. Seeing the bigger picture without a myriad of negative possibilities and 'what ifs.' Its not that every Si-dom goes around hyperbolizing, just like not every Se-dom is a conspiracy theorist, its just there is a noticeable discomfort with the intangible. The comfort zone will be in the realm of experience. What is happening and what has happened, and less with the notions of what might be. The thing is because Si regards those things from a subjective perspective -- the impression the experience gives off in the person -- the tendency will be, like all introverts, to downplay the objective. An introverted sensation type (or any type with Si) might have a really hard time believing in objectivity of perception. That an experience could just be accepted or approached as is without any internally derived significance. 

I have spent a bit of time in art critiques and its always interesting because the Si/Se thing becomes really clear. Almost without fail Si will immediately gravitate to what they see in the image, or what the image does to or for them, where the Se-types will tend to focus on the components of the image itself. Line, shape, form, mass, color, etc. You're much more likely to hear a Si-type say something like "that looks like emptiness," which of course means something only they can understand. It's completely subjective, I can never know what you see that makes you see "emptiness" even if you describe it. That's the nature of introverted sensation. A Se-type might say 'emptiness' too but may very well be talking about there not being much on the page or canvas (these are oversimplified examples but I'm trying to make this somewhat easy). When Jung talks about some introverted sensation types being eccentric artists Van Gogh is what always comes to mind. The person for whom none of us would ever be able to see the world as he saw it. (I've actually been in arguments with some Si-types who find it incomprehensible that there would be any other way of seeing things. In their minds reality is always based on perception and thus subjective. They make arguments that everyone must see and experience the world in a wholly subjective way and Jung is saying that this seems not to be the case. That in fact there are people who do simply experience at face value).


----------



## nothingbutfoma (Jan 30, 2013)

I'm not an Si-dom but I use it as my dominant perceiving function. Although Ne now plays a larger role in how I perceive reality , I still sometimes experience my world purely through Si, so I will try to elucidate on what that's like. A couple of people have touched on various aspects of the function already, so some of what I will describe will be a bit redundant only because others have described it with fairly good accuracy. 

Because it is a sensing function, I automatically notice the tangible, sensate details of some person or situation. The color of a shirt, the smell of the room, the shagginess of a haircut, etc. However, all of these details are then collected and stored unconsciously (at least for my auxiliary Si, may be different for a dominant user) as I continue to navigate through the environment. And unlike an Se user, I have no drive to want to manipulate these sensory details for my satisfaction. It is solely about being aware of these details. And as these details are collected, the experience that I have with this person or situation (did I have a good time or bad time, for example) is also intimately tied to the sensory information. And together, all of these things make up an abstract "impressionistic template" of that person/situation. 

Once I have some template stored and filed somewhere, these templates can be pulled back up by new experiences. For example, if I pass by a person and I smell their cologne and I already have a template of that particular smell, then I will automatically think of the person that I know who wears the same or a similar cologne. And because that sensory detail will be connected to all of the stored impressions of that person, my mind will begin to experience bits and pieces of these stored memories, details, and feelings that are associated with the person. So I think this ability to pull up a stored template and re-experience past events due to a triggering of some present sensory detail is how Si is characterized as "living in the past". We are constantly navigating through a world that reminds of us things already experienced.

And because of these templates, it's very easy for us to notice subtle similarities and differences about things. For example, I knew that my favorite Indian restaurant had changed their yogurt sauce recipe because the taste no longer perfectly matched my stored impression of it. And from the example above, complete strangers frequently remind me of people I know because some detail about them triggers my stored impression of someone else. 

One more example, I work on the 5th floor of my building. And one day, I accidentally stepped onto the 4th floor from the stairwell. Immediately, I knew that something was wrong because the layout of the hallway did not match with what I am familiar with. However, I never consciously noticed all of the details of the hallway on the 5th floor, but instead they were unconsciously being stored every time I walked through it. And now, every time I pass by the 4th floor on my way up to the 5th floor, I am reminded of the time when I accidentally stepped off onto the 4th floor, realized there was a mismatch in the hallway layout, the confusion that I felt, and now, I will probably think about how I used it as an example for this post because that memory is now intimately connected to this posting. 

Hope that helps.


----------



## brittauzenne (Feb 8, 2013)

My Si is always working..its not as if I can really manipulate it so much..thats frustrating to think about. I take the impression that I get and I play off of it is more of how Id describe it because to me, any S whether introverted or extroverted is more of a catalyst to an action from what Ive read. I know I wont sit and try to make my Si what I want..that sounds more like some other function at play. Se or sexual energy...but Si for me tends to have more of a "sweet reminder" vibe going.


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

celticstained said:


> @_Conclusion_
> 
> i've always taken Si to be more along the lines of someone who doesn't see the tree in the forest as "just a tree", but may instead attribute characteristics that don't objectively exist. for example, the combination of light filtering through the leaves combined with the height of the tree may make it seem "imposing", or "malevolent"; the tree itself may take on a sentinel-like appearance, or, the person may just get a "feeling" inspired from the object that changes their sense perception of the object.
> 
> ...


This is super interesting. Some time ago when my derealization got a bit messy there was this bike. And I became 'aware' that it was looking at me. With a look of 'WTF is wrong with you?!' I couldn't shake the feeling. Its two handles, its light, the wheels, the way it stood there slightly tilted as if it had one hand on its hip with a disapproving and disappointed look on its face. This became so strong it seemed that if I were to talk to it, it would understand my every word. It became so strong it seemed it arived where it was on its own. (I knew better but the feeling was quite strong)

Then I got home, sat infront of my pc and after an hour or two I noticed my desk lamp. It was shyly observing me. It stood there between my monitor and bass thingy. Hiding, hoping not to be seen, shyfully watching me 'Please don't pay too much attention to me.'

It didn't freak me out though. I was intrigued! The way one can interprent reality is literally endless and up to the individual more so than reality having it force its way on the individual(what a Si way of saying it). And what's even more interesting is that they where kind of a metaphor of my at the time mental state.

The first while having a strong sense of reality being fake and like reality reached no further than my own mind -my state was something like 'I hope I'm not swirling into madness' and the second being 'Nothing better than spending some hermit time and none to bother me'

See? The way they both 'looked' was a metaphor of my current state. This is Introverted Sensing drowning in its own make believe.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Mu'Amon said:


> This is super interesting. Some time ago when my derealization got a bit messy there was this bike. And I became 'aware' that it was looking at me. With a look of 'WTF is wrong with you?!' I couldn't shake the feeling. Its two handles, its light, the wheels, the way it stood there slightly tilted as if it had one hand on its hip with a disapproving and disappointed look on its face. This became so strong it seemed that if I were to talk to it, it would understand my every word. It became so strong it seemed it arived where it was on its own. (I knew better but the feeling was quite strong)
> 
> Then I got home, sat infront of my pc and after an hour or two I noticed my desk lamp. It was shyly observing me. It stood there between my monitor and bass thingy. Hiding, hoping not to be seen, shyfully watching me 'Please don't pay too much attention to me.'
> 
> ...


I thought anthropomorphizing objects was an Ni thing? Or maybe a schizophrenic thing?


----------



## LiquidLight (Oct 14, 2011)

PaladinX said:


> I thought anthropomorphizing objects was an Ni thing? Or maybe a schizophrenic thing?


Or maybe a Ne thing? Wasn't Walt Disney ENTP?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

That's possible too!

I guess Ni is more about anthropomorphizing objects in the mind? Like when I say that my intuition is telling me something? Or maybe it doesn't do that at all?

EDIT: Nevermind. I went back to the source where I read that and it talks about Si anthropomorphizing concrete things and Ni abstract things.



> The accentuation here was on the locomotives and animals because the Introverted Sensing type, the type that the previous quotation meant to depict is focused primarily on concrete things--or sensations. Hence, he anthropomorphizes concrete entities. Or assumes that the objects in themselves have much to do with his own personal qualities. This is precisely the reason why we often have seen eyes on the Moon, the nose on the sun, and the Sword in the hands of the cloud. So our mythologies have compelled us to see!
> 
> However, since Introverted Intuition, the function by which the INFJ is led is abstract, it tends not to see the external world in this fashion. However, the relationship it has to abstract perceptions is indeed much analogous to the relationship Introverted Sensing has to concrete data. Thus, Introverted Sensing anthropomorphizes the physical world, Introverted Intuition, almost wholly without a doubt, anthropomorphizes abstractions and ideas. For this reason it is not uncommon for INJ philosophers and scientists to be observed deeming some ideas as wicked and others as benevolent without having any reasonable explanations for such taxonomy. That is because there truly is not an explanation for such a thing, as judgments of the like reflect more about them personally rather than about the matter they have commented on and therefore often serves as evidence of their personal biases and prejudices.


Source: http://www.typologycentral.com/forums/nf-idyllic/4629-infj-profile.html


----------



## Mammon (Jul 12, 2012)

PaladinX said:


> I thought anthropomorphizing objects was an Ni thing? Or maybe a schizophrenic thing?


I first thought 'This is oddly schizophrenic-ish' especially since my aunt is a paranoid schizophrenic. I googled it and could only find one topic (on a DR/DP forum) about a few people experiencing that objects seem alive and feel like those objects are observing them. So I don't know for sure if it has to do with DR or not. But since I didn't jump to the conclusion of 'Damnit! Shapeshifting gnomes working for the government are following me around!' I think I'm safe


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

LiquidLight said:


> I think you're sort of mixing up a lot of things here. Kiersey called Si-doms guardians but makes no reference to the introverted sensation function. He is basically noting that MBTI's ISFJs seemed to fit into his general pattern, but doesn't draw the cause/effect relationship to Si as others have tried to do. I think Jung would take exception to the idea of a Si-dom being a guardian (and he would know his wife Emma was a self-described Introverted Sensation type). Also anything like being a guardian or sticking to the plans or whatever, would, at least to a large extent be related to extraversion and not introversion. Kiersey's ISJs are basically quiet or shy Te and Fe doms.
> 
> The thing about Si-doms is that they are sensation types. Much like their Se-dom cousins, they are oriented to the world as they experience it. The physical nature of things present or past (since you have not yet experienced the future). That is the nature of all sensation types generally speaking, since sensory perceptions must necessarily be related to those things we are either experiencing or have experienced.
> 
> ...



@PaladinX


I think LiquidLight's description overall sounds accurate, though parts of it make Si seem kind of crazy (the whole idea of not seeing things for what they really are). It made me think of this thread that I made a while back:

http://personalitycafe.com/myers-briggs-forum/116980-si-sjs-irrationality.html

(Coincidentally, @Conclusion responded a fair bit in that thread when he thought he was a type other than an ISFJ).



I still don't know exactly how to describe my Si, even though it's come up in a lot of threads. In general, I tend to think about the past a lot, and I'm always building things very sequentially. It's like I need one piece to be added onto another...it's like I feel like the past is what helps me understand the present and the future. 

Because of that, my dom Si makes me want to keep things consistent....I like to know what's coming, I like to experience things in cycles, I like there to be certain traditions that I know I can rely on.


I think I once explained what I felt was the link between Si/SJs and their supposed fondness of tradition...and I think it was related to that, the idea of liking to know what's coming and to be able to rely on things...to be able to establish that consistency. It seems to fit with the idea that SJs enjoy structure and rules and organization.



It's hard for me to directly relate this feeling (which I truly believe is related to my dom Si) to what LiquidLight is saying about the idea of Si subjectively viewing things.



I do feel like Si doms can let their Si take control of them to the degree that they do stick to their beliefs blindingly and don't consider new perspectives, and that's when they become the most unhealthy.


I have also read that Si doms have a tendency to have the most trouble understanding how other people are different than they are, and how they tend to assume that everyone shares things with them that are actually unique to themselves. I think that's partly why Si doms can seem kind of closed-minded to new ideas...they kind of assume certain things are "normal" and just automatically accept them to be fact, and they stick to them out of comfort.


So I don't know....I know what it's like to be an Si dom, and I know those general characteristics. But I don't know how to directly relate them to the official Jungian descriptions of Si and all of the official psychological descriptions that I read people post about Si sometimes.


----------

