# Si has nothing to do with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!



## KraChZiMan

Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


----------



## Tao Te Ching

*Introverted Sensing (Si) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)*
 Since Introverted Sensing is a Perceiving function, it can be understood, much like Introverted Intuition (Ni), as acting rather _passively_ and _outside of conscious control_. Like INJs, SJs often experience _a strong sense of conviction_, a gut feeling about whether some is true or false, right or wrong. This, without having really done much as far as conscious reasoning to arrive at such conclusions. So while Si types may seem stubborn or closed-minded, they may feel that they have little as far as free choice in what they believe. This is why Jung considered Si an _irrational_ function. Not because its conclusions are necessarily irrational, but because of the unconscious way it receives information and draws conclusions. An excellent example of the irrational element of Introverted Sensing can be found in the book, _The Woman Who Can’t Forget_. There, the author explains her uncanny ability to accurately recall the details of each and every day of her life, including related historical dates and events. While her powers of memory are undoubtedly unprecedented, what is most telling with regard to her Si is that fact that _she cannot control it_. She reports feeling great frustration because her mind is constantly replaying memories in a random fashion, despite her best efforts to eliminate them and focus on the present. Even if extraordinary, her experience speaks to the _passive, involuntary _way in which Si in records and recollects information. This helps to explain why Si dominant types seem to _effortlessly recall all sorts of random details and facts_. Their recall is simply too quick to be attributed to conscious effort. Such displays of effortless and accurate memory why many non-Si types may see ISJs as unusually intelligent. Finally, while Ni and Si are both irrational functions, Si is less synthetic and creative than Ni. _Si more or less preserves and relays information in its original form. Ni acts more synthetically__, weaving together disparate information to construct novel theories, visions, and insights._


----------



## KraChZiMan

Tao Te Ching said:


> *Introverted Sensing (Si) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)
> *
> 
> Since Introverted Sensing is a Perceiving function, it can be understood, much like Introverted Intuition (Ni), as acting rather _passively_ and _outside of conscious control_. Like INJs, SJs often experience _a strong sense of conviction_, a gut feeling about whether some is true or false, right or wrong. This, without having really done much as far as conscious reasoning to arrive at such conclusions. So while Si types may seem stubborn or closed-minded, they may feel that they have little as far as free choice in what they believe. This is why Jung considered Si an _irrational_ function. Not because its conclusions are necessarily irrational, but because of the unconscious way it receives information and draws conclusions.An excellent example of the irrational element of Introverted Sensing can be found in the book, _The Woman Who Can’t Forget_. There, the author explains her uncanny ability to accurately recall the details of each and every day of her life, including related historical dates and events. While her powers of memory are undoubtedly unprecedented, what is most telling with regard to her Si is that fact that _she cannot control it_. She reports feeling great frustration because her mind is constantly replaying memories in a random fashion, despite her best efforts to eliminate them and focus on the present. Even if extraordinary, her experience speaks to the _passive, involuntary _way in which Si in records and recollects information. This helps to explain why Si dominant types seem to _effortlessly recall all sorts of random details and facts_. Their recall is simply too quick to be attributed to conscious effort. Such displays of effortless and accurate memory why many non-Si types may see ISJs as unusually intelligent.Finally, while Ni and Si are both irrational functions, Si is less synthetic and creative than Ni. _Si more or less preserves and relays information in its original form. Ni acts more synthetically__, weaving together disparate information to construct novel theories, visions, and insights._


I can certainly not agree with the "Si is not really conscious reasoning, and animalistic, while Ni is intelligent observation etc."

Every single function stack or cognitive function is perfectly equal. There is no place in MBTI community for "S-types are stupid and animalistic, but they have those cute and adorable traits". Additionally, cognitive functions have nothing to do with recalling memories, because that has very little to do with MBTI. ISFJ's or ISTJ's can be nostalgic, but so can many other personality types, with the same amount as Si-doms.


----------



## Tao Te Ching

Awesome I didn't write the article and know little about it. I have no answers, just more questions.


----------



## LibertyPrime

@KraChZiMan 



Tao Te Ching said:


> Awesome I didn't write the article and know little about it. I have no answers, just more questions.


Why aren't you posting directly from Jung's writings? 

Jung basically said that Si is the same as Se, just with a subjective component aka the subject's own personal reaction to the intensity of the stimulus, not just the intensity of the sensory stimulus like Se.

When Jung says its is subjective sensing it means that literally: the subjective interpretation of all information received through the senses. It is not memory or tradition. MBTI has it wrong, they interpreted it wrong.

*This is the difference between Si & Se:*

*Extroverted Sensing* – These people perceive the world as it really exists. Their perceptions are not colored by any pre-existing beliefs. Jobs that require objective review, like wine tasters and proofreaders, are best filled by extroverted sensing people.

*Introverted Sensing* – These individuals interpret the world through the lens of subjective attitudes and rarely see something for only what it is. They make sense of the environment by giving it meaning based on internal reflection. Introverted sensing people often turn to various arts, including portrait painting and classical music.


----------



## Tao Te Ching

FreeBeer said:


> Why aren't you posting directly from Jung's writings?


I don't know Jung's writings ? The texts links directly to where I got the quotation from.... I already said, I have no answers.


----------



## LibertyPrime

Tao Te Ching said:


> I don't know Jung's writings ? The texts links directly to where I got the quotation from.... I already said, I have no answers.


I have answers, here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-description-envisioned-jung.html#post8567458


----------



## Tao Te Ching

[No message]


----------



## LilaGrace

KraChZiMan said:


> Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


OK. So what does it have to do with? How is it experienced? How does it differ from Se? from Ni?

And if your answer is going to be to copy and paste a long theoretical paragraph with no daily-life type examples, don't bother, at least not for my sake, I either won't read it or will read it but not understand it all any better ... sorry just the truth 

Perfectly fine if you don't have a helpful answer, but since you seem to feel strongly about what it isn't I was hoping you could enlighten me as to what it IS and how it can be distinguished from other functions. If you can help, thanks! If you can't, well, have a great day either way 

[ps yes this is partially because I'm confused about my type]


----------



## KraChZiMan

LilaGrace said:


> OK. So what does it have to do with? How is it experienced? How does it differ from Se? from Ni?
> 
> And if your answer is going to be to copy and paste a long theoretical paragraph with no daily-life type examples, don't bother, at least not for my sake, I either won't read it or will read it but not understand it all any better ... sorry just the truth
> 
> Perfectly fine if you don't have a helpful answer, but since you seem to feel strongly about what it isn't I was hoping you could enlighten me as to what it IS and how it can be distinguished from other functions. If you can help, thanks! If you can't, well, have a great day either way
> 
> [ps yes this is partially because I'm confused about my type]


I didn't intend to answer or debate anything. Just pointing out that Si about so much more than just recalling information, nostalgia or remembering the past.


----------



## LilaGrace

KraChZiMan said:


> I didn't intend to answer or debate anything. Just pointing out that Si about so much more than just recalling information, nostalgia or remembering the past.


OK. just fishing for information, but if that wasn't your intention no worries


----------



## reckful

FreeBeer said:


> I have answers, here: http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...-description-envisioned-jung.html#post8567458


As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more _function-centric_ MBTI theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually _nobody respectable_ really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences pretty clearly put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original Si description (for example), I really don't think he'd approve.

ADDED: Your linked post purports to describe the eight functions "as envisioned by Jung," but it also says, "Introverted sensing people often turn to various arts, including portrait painting and classical music." What Jung actually said about Si-doms was that their "conception of reality" was so "illusory" and "irrational" that their best hope for giving the rest of the world a decent glimpse of it was through art — but he went on to say that Si-dom artists were "the exception," with the result that the typical Si-dom "resigns himself to his isolation." (By contrast, Jung said "the artist might be regarded as the normal representative" of the Ni-dom.) And Jung also said that, if an Si-dom _did_ manage to create some art, it would tend to be strange in a way that made "the irrationality of this type ... extraordinarily striking" — so I'd say "portait painting" is hardly what Jung had in mind.


----------



## Dastan

One of the most important sentences in Psychological Types:


> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that such pure types occur at all frequently in actual practice.


----------



## reckful

Dastan said:


> One of the most important sentences in Psychological Types:


One of the most _misinterpreted_ sentences is more like it. Here it is in context:



Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions *I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life*. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


What Jung is saying is that his portraits are artifically "pure" in the sense that they're pretty much limited to the "common and therefore typical features" of the types, while generally omitting the "individual features" that would distinguish, e.g., an Si-dom with a T-aux from an Si-dom with an F-aux.

Jung is _not_ saying that what he calls "the common and therefore typical features" of, say, Si-doms that he includes in his Si-dom portrait are features that are only "common and therefore typical" of a small and relatively extreme minority of Si-doms who have unusually "pure" personalities (because they essentially don't have an auxiliary function). He's just saying that his portraits omit the more "individual features" that vary substantially from one Si-dom to another, with the result that _his portraits_ are artificially pure in the sense of being _incomplete_ (rather than artificially pure in the sense of being _extreme_).


----------



## LibertyPrime

reckful said:


> As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more _function-centric_ MBTI theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually _nobody respectable_ really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences pretty clearly put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.
> 
> Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original Si description (for example), I really don't think he'd approve.
> 
> ADDED: Your linked post purports to describe the eight functions "as envisioned by Jung," but it also says, "Introverted sensing people often turn to various arts, including portrait painting and classical music." What Jung actually said about Si-doms was that their "conception of reality" was so "illusory" and "irrational" that their best hope for giving the rest of the world a decent glimpse of it was through art — but he went on to say that Si-dom artists were "the exception," with the result that the typical Si-dom "resigns himself to his isolation." (By contrast, Jung said "the artist might be regarded as the normal representative" of the Ni-dom.) And Jung also said that, if an Si-dom _did_ manage to create some art, it would tend to be strange in a way that made "the irrationality of this type ... extraordinarily striking" — so I'd say "portait painting" is hardly what Jung had in mind.


:\ I give up then. For me MBT (and the functions)I doesn't work/makes little sense, its not scientifically valid psychology and I can't define myself based on something that is potentially not real or flawed, especially if I don't seem to fit either type they are talking about and don't experience it in myself.


----------



## LostFavor

FreeBeer said:


> :\ I give up then. For me MBT (and the functions)I doesn't work/makes little sense, its not scientifically valid psychology and I can't define myself based on something that is potentially not real or flawed, especially if I don't seem to fit either type they are talking about and don't experience it in myself.


Well it's all very much something that is only as useful as you make it. When a workplace says, "Everybody take MBTI tests now, we're good at management," most peoples' lives are not going to be significantly affected by taking the test. The goal would be that people understand each other better and are more accepting of basic personality differences. 

The other potential boon is having a better understanding of yourself and being accepting of the parts of yourself that you largely can't change. 

So I mean, you have every reason to be concerned about the accuracy of this stuff, but you can still gain from it without treating it as indisputable fact. I've always just viewed it as a model through which we can better understand people and the world.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

KraChZiMan said:


> *I didn't intend to answer or debate anything*. Just pointing out that Si about so much more than just recalling information, nostalgia or remembering the past.


Then what was the point of starting a thread?

I mean, like, was everyone just suppose to type "yea" and move on or what? I get your point, and I agree with it, but you can't just make a new thread for a claim and then complain when people seek to debate your point/ask questions.


----------



## Antipode

Problem is that people tend to focus on the "what" rather than the "why."

"If you have nostalgia, then it is Si."

That's such a limiting statement, and it's running off the idea that one cog is responsible for a human action.

The better question to ask if, "Why are you experiencing nostalgia?" The why will bring you to the answer of what set of cognitions are at work.

My mother is ISFJ, and she isn't nostalgic at all. 
I'm INFJ, and I'm nostalgic.

There are reasons behind why we are nostalgic and what causes that explain this reasoning...

---

But anyway, Si, on its own, is more about using past experiences to explain current and future things--they hold a belief that their experiences equal fact for most all situations.

This is why the "majority" if Si-doms are less creative and more stable, both for home and business. But again, that is a "what," rather than a "why." Perhaps a creative si-dom is creative because it provided some sense of stability in their life or another's...


----------



## Coburn

KraChZiMan said:


> Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


Si absolutely includes recalling information and the past.

What it does not mean is that one has an excellent memory.


----------



## Kizuna

Marlowe said:


> Si absolutely includes recalling information and the past.
> 
> What it does not mean is that one has an excellent memory.


I agree. And, rather than BEING the memory, I see Si and Ni's role in storing and recalling information as tools, ie HOW is the information accessed, in which form, etc. I do believe that Si is the tool for the more realistic and factual, detailed recall than Ni, which is blurry and kinda odd (because the info sinks into the unconscious except for the few relevant facts).

"Nostalgia" is too vague to be attributed to any function, imo, I can be nostalgic of something my Si-dom mother couldn't care less about (like how great a particular place was), but she is nostalgic in her own ways, too. Like, she'll re-run past experiences in her mind and actually remember details I couldn't care less about (and have forgotten as soon as they occurred). Maybe Ni's more like a telescope and Si more like a microscope? Maybe not ^^


----------



## KraChZiMan

MightyLizardKing said:


> Then what was the point of starting a thread?
> 
> I mean, like, was everyone just suppose to type "yea" and move on or what? I get your point, and I agree with it, but you can't just make a new thread for a claim and then complain when people seek to debate your point/ask questions.


The point of this thread was to give people of this forum a daily reminder that Si is not directly related to memory or recalling information. It's an ugly stereotype which trivializes cognitive functions and hinders the newcomers from using MBTI as a serious psychological tool.

I am not complaining, arguing or debating jack shit in this thread, because the stubborn people will never be likely to change their minds anyway. I am not interested in wasting time and energy on arguing some stubborn douchebags for 15 pages, using fancy words and lots of made-up statistics. It might be somebody's idea of fun, and they can go ahead, but it's not for me.

However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?", I would be more than happy to explain why Si is related to more than just "memory stuff". I have done it in my previous post, but it never hurts me to repeat myself if the need arises.



Marlowe said:


> Si absolutely includes recalling information and the past.
> 
> What it does not mean is that one has an excellent memory.


Could be... but so does every other cognitive function... especially perceiving functions. Ni, Si, Se, Ne all have something to do with recalling or memory in equal parts, while Ti, Te, Fi, Fe are more related with making decisions, socializing, leadership tactics etc.


----------



## Coburn

@KraChZiMan



> Could be... but so does every other cognitive function... especially perceiving functions. Ni, Si, Se, Ne all have something to do with recalling or memory in equal parts, while Ti, Te, Fi, Fe are more related with making decisions, socializing, leadership tactics etc.


What other functions do is irrelevant. Was not the point of my post. 

And not could be. Does. I'm surprised an Si user doesn't recognize this.


----------



## -Alpha-

KraChZiMan said:


> The point of this thread was to give people of this forum a daily reminder that Si is not directly related to memory or recalling information. It's an ugly stereotype which trivializes cognitive functions and hinders the newcomers from using MBTI as a serious psychological tool.
> 
> I am not complaining, arguing or debating jack shit in this thread, because the stubborn people will never be likely to change their minds anyway. I am not interested in wasting time and energy on arguing some stubborn douchebags for 15 pages, using fancy words and lots of made-up statistics. It might be somebody's idea of fun, and they can go ahead, but it's not for me.
> 
> However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?", I would be more than happy to explain why Si is related to more than just "memory stuff". I have done it in my previous post, but it never hurts me to repeat myself if the need arises.


So what happens if they disagree with you afterward?

I agree with your point about Si, however what you're essentially doing is saying that you're only willing to share your opinion with people that either agree with you or don't have an opinion of their own. Some people are of the philosophical belief that in between the things you know and the things I know, there's truth or things we couldn't have known. I've found that opinions that don't stand up to scrutiny are almost always incorrect and I believe that's the belief that's prevalent among most of (well, everywhere...) PerC. The point of debate isn't necessarily to convince other people so much as it is to gain better mutual understanding.




> Could be... but so does every other cognitive function... especially perceiving functions. Ni, Si, Se, Ne all have something to do with recalling or memory in equal parts, while Ti, Te, Fi, Fe are more related with making decisions, socializing, leadership tactics etc.


I could agree with this. The points that I don't are too small and minute to ass me to correct it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

*All* introverted functions have to do with recalling information.


----------



## PaladinX

KraChZiMan said:


> The point of this thread was to give people of this forum a daily reminder that Si is not directly related to memory or recalling information. It's an ugly stereotype which trivializes cognitive functions and hinders the newcomers from using MBTI as a serious psychological tool.
> 
> ...
> 
> However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?", I would be more than happy to explain why Si is related to more than just "memory stuff". I have done it in my previous post, but it never hurts me to repeat myself if the need arises.


Which is what was originally asked of you to which you replied that you did not intend to "answer or debate" anything... I think that's what you are being called out on. 




> Could be... but so does every other cognitive function... especially perceiving functions. Ni, Si, Se, Ne all have something to do with recalling or memory in equal parts, while Ti, Te, Fi, Fe are more related with making decisions, socializing, leadership tactics etc.


I'm not so certain of this.



Jung said:


> Supposing we hear a noise whose nature seems to us unknown. After a while it becomes clear to us that the peculiar noise must come from air-bubbles rising in the pipes of the central heating: we have recognized the noise. This recognition derives from a process which we call thinking. Thinking tells us what a thing is.
> 
> I have just called the noise “peculiar.” When I characterize something as “peculiar,” I am referring to the special feeling-tone which that thing has. The feeling-tone implies an evaluation.
> 
> 
> The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.” As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking.
> 
> 
> The process of evaluation is different. The fire I see arouses emotional reactions of a pleasant or unpleasant nature, and the memory-images thus stimulated bring with them concomitant emotional phenomena which are known as feeling-tones. In this way an object appears to us as pleasant, desirable, and beautiful, or as unpleasant, disgusting, ugly, and so on. In ordinary speech this process is called feeling.


The third and fourth paragraphs are relating Thinking and Feeling to memory.

I think it's worth looking into how each of the functions works with memory.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

KraChZiMan said:


> The point of this thread was to give people of this forum a daily reminder that Si is not directly related to memory or recalling information. It's an ugly stereotype which trivializes cognitive functions and hinders the newcomers from using MBTI as a serious psychological tool.
> 
> I am not complaining, arguing or debating jack shit in this thread, because the stubborn people will never be likely to change their minds anyway. I am not interested in wasting time and energy on arguing some stubborn douchebags for 15 pages, using fancy words and lots of made-up statistics. It might be somebody's idea of fun, and they can go ahead, but it's not for me.
> 
> However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?", I would be more than happy to explain why Si is related to more than just "memory stuff". I have done it in my previous post, but it never hurts me to repeat myself if the need arises.


In other words, "accept everything I say and do not question it. I'll repeat it again if you need me to"


----------



## Dedication

KraChZiMan said:


> However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?", I would be more than happy to explain why Si is related to more than just "memory stuff".


Then I have some questions because I'd like some answers.

- Why do you personally think that when somebody says 'Si is related to memory' it automatically means Si is limited to that? Why don't you think that the person saying such stuff could very well understand that Si is more than just related to memory?

- Your thread title is called "Si _has nothing to do_ with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!" yet, now you're saying "Si is related to more than just 'memory stuff'". I think you can see that you're contradicting yourself, first you say it has nothing to do with memory and now you say that it is more than that, as it if does include memory.

You're contradicting yourself. I'm a curious person and I ask why?

- What is Si to you?

There you have it, 3 questions from a curious person.


----------



## Dezir

KraChZiMan said:


> Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


I just felt the need to point out that you are wrong. Thank you!

I think you have a problem with Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information from the past but that doesn't mean you're right. What's the deal with it anyway ?


----------



## jcal

Dedication said:


> Then I have some questions because I'd like some answers.
> 
> - Why do you personally think that when somebody says 'Si is related to memory' it automatically means Si is limited to that? Why don't you think that the person saying such stuff could very well understand that Si is more than just related to memory?
> 
> - Your thread title is called "Si _has nothing to do_ with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!" yet, now you're saying "Si is related to more than just 'memory stuff'". I think you can see that you're contradicting yourself, first you say it has nothing to do with memory and now you say that it is more than that, as it if does include memory.
> 
> You're contradicting yourself. I'm a curious person and I ask why?
> 
> - What is Si to you?
> 
> There you have it, 3 questions from a curious person.


I'm obviously not @*KraChZiMan, *but as a Si-dom I feel the need to jump in and defend his position (if not his exact wording). 

Answering your questions from my perspective as a Si-dom:

Si is related to memory...yes. However, it is not "more" than memory... it's actually much LESS than memory. It's a subsystem that collects large amounts of very tiny snippets or snapshots of sensory impressions and then compares new sensory intake against the database.

Si does not attach any narrative, emotion, context or judgement to the sensory snippets it collects. I may or may not experience nostalgia about a certain time or place (I generally am devoid of nostalgic feelings), but it has nothing to do with Si. Si has no recollection of the circumstance surrounding the sensory impression. For a example, I can recall in great detail what an apple I ate as a child looks like... the shape, texture, variegated coloring, that the stem had obviously been pulled from the tree rather than cut from the tree... but I have no idea where I was, who I was with or any other contextual details. It is nothing more than a high resolution snapshot of the visual impression of the apple. This is NOT memory as most people consider memory, and it is most certainly not nostalgic... Si impressions are much too limited in scope to be what most people consider memory (although it certainly can be useful for "filling in the details").

So... overall, what is Si to me? Si is normally a very quiet subconscious sentry performing triage on incoming sensory data. Normally I am completely unaware of it, but it's there checking every new sensory input against what it has previously stored. When the new sensory intake matches what is expected, the new data is pretty much ignored and not even brought to my conscious attention. 

When does Si make itself known to my conscious mind? Two circumstances drive that. First, if it sees something completely different (i.e, completely new) from what has already been seen, I get an almost uncontrollable desire/curiosity to examine the object that created the new sensory information. I'll have no immediate practical need or reason to examine the object... but Si wants to be able to store it away for future reference. 

The second way that Si makes itself known is when something it encounters SHOULD match an existing impression, but does not. Then all hell breaks loose. I get an immediate "alarm" that I can only compare to an adrenaline shot (maybe that is exactly what it is?)... an immediate jump to full alertness, heightened senses, etc. 

None of this, however, means that the difference Si detected is either good or bad... its just *different*, and needs to checked out further, but not by Si. Si does NOT make those judgements... Si's only job is to stand guard and sound the alarm when something different comes along. It's up to Te to make logical sense of it, and then there's Ne always trying to find the worst possible outcome imaginable.

I believe that the maturity (as in development of lower functions) plays a big part in how a Si-dom (ISTJ, specifically) is seen by others. I think that immature ISTJs tend to take the Si alarm as a prima facie bad thing (it actually can be an unpleasant reaction in and of itself) and stop there, without allowing Te to do its job of sorting things out (including all of the _*Ne*_gatives). The ISTJ stereotype of resistance to change starts right there. A more fully developed ISTJ will take advantage of his Te and even have tamed his wild Ne enough to allow more thorough and objective analysis of new/different things.

Interestingly, I have not in any way figured out how Fi plays into any of this. Just a supposition on my part, but I suspect that my near complete lack of nostalgic tendencies is related to my relative unawareness of Fi.

Again, this is how my dominant Si functions for me... I cannot begin to know how Si works for others, especially when Si is not dominant.


----------



## Dedication

jcal said:


> I'm obviously not @*KraChZiMan, *but as a Si-dom I feel the need to jump in and defend his position (if not his exact wording).


Thank you for your elaborate answer on the third question, could you also answer the first two?


----------



## jcal

Dedication said:


> Thank you for your elaborate answer on the third question, could you also answer the first two?


I thought I did... in the first two paragraphs, respectively.


----------



## Killionaire

The OP only posted immature emotional garbage. He made some totally BS assertions just for emotional reasons. He claims Si isn't memory, but doesn't bother to say what it is, because he doesn't even have an alternative explanation. He refuses to debate it, because it's pure BS and he is unable to debate it whatsoever. 

When you boil it down to the essentials, Si just stores and retrieves memories, whereas Ni associates data in sophisticated ways and discovers new truths. Ni not only deals with information, it also deals with abstract concepts. 

Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.


----------



## DAPHNE XO

YamahaMotors said:


> *whereas Ni associates data in sophisticated ways and discovers new truths.* Ni not only deals with information, it also deals with abstract concepts.
> 
> Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. *This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.*


Aka - I'm a Ni-dom and I'm special :kitteh:


----------



## StunnedFox

YamahaMotors said:


> The OP only posted immature emotional garbage. He made some totally BS assertions just for emotional reasons. He claims Si isn't memory, but doesn't bother to say what it is, because he doesn't even have an alternative explanation. He refuses to debate it, because it's pure BS and he is unable to debate it whatsoever.
> 
> When you boil it down to the essentials, Si just stores and retrieves memories, whereas Ni associates data in sophisticated ways and discovers new truths. Ni not only deals with information, it also deals with abstract concepts.
> 
> Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.


Are you seriously asserting that Si users are incapable of pattern recognition? This is the same sort of reductionist view of cognitive functions that thinks Fi is just convictions or values, Fe just harmony or social cohesion, Ne just the creation of possibilities... it's far too simplistic a view of human cognition, and the marked personality differences readily observable, to claim that Si is simply memory and recall, or that any one function is only responsible for a basic aspect of human cognition that any member of any type might possess.


----------



## Word Dispenser

KraChZiMan said:


> I can certainly not agree with the "Si is not really conscious reasoning, and animalistic, while Ni is intelligent observation etc."
> 
> Every single function stack or cognitive function is perfectly equal. There is no place in MBTI community for "S-types are stupid and animalistic, but they have those cute and adorable traits". Additionally, cognitive functions have nothing to do with recalling memories, because that has very little to do with MBTI. ISFJ's or ISTJ's can be nostalgic, but so can many other personality types, with the same amount as Si-doms.


Whoa.

It says nowhere that S-types are stupid. I think maybe you're misunderstanding the text. Animalistic is being used more like 'natural', rather than 'primal' or 'primitive'. As it says further down, types other than Si dominants may see them as being unusually intelligent (which I agree with wholeheartedly-- It's kind of ridiculously spooky.)

It's certainly not about recalling memory, but the _way _in which memories are recalled for each type is invariably different. Si types experience their memory data as unconscious impressions, as far as I understand it.

But, yes, it's true that all types can and are nostalgic. The reasons why are paramount to the piece of the puzzle connecting types.

I may be one of the nostalgic people around, actually, and I have Si inferior.


----------



## Dedication

jcal said:


> I thought I did... in the first two paragraphs, respectively.


It must be me, but I can't find it.


----------



## Serpent

jcal said:


> Si has no recollection of the circumstance surrounding the sensory impression. For a example, I can recall in great detail what an apple I ate as a child looks like... the shape, texture, variegated coloring, that the stem had obviously been pulled from the tree rather than cut from the tree... but I have no idea where I was, who I was with or any other contextual details. It is nothing more than a high resolution snapshot of the visual impression of the apple. This is NOT memory as most people consider memory, and it is most certainly not nostalgic... Si impressions are much too limited in scope to be what most people consider memory (although it certainly can be useful for "filling in the details").


Interesting, it's the opposite for me. I struggle to recall the sensory details (they even seem like ghosts or imagined objects) but I'm excellent at recalling the context, the how's and why's. While my memories are quite accurate in the sense that they convey the general idea, they are probably highly inaccurate with regards to what is tangible.


----------



## jcal

Dedication said:


> It must be me, but I can't find it.




Dedication said:


> - Why do you personally think that when somebody says 'Si is related to memory' it automatically means Si is limited to that? Why don't you think that the person saying such stuff could very well understand that Si is more than just related to memory?




jcal said:


> Si is related to memory...yes. However, it is not "more" than memory... it's actually much LESS than memory. It's a subsystem that collects large amounts of very tiny snippets or snapshots of sensory impressions and then compares new sensory intake against the database.



Expansion... while some may understand what is different between Si and memory, it is quite clear in conversation that a frustratingly large number of folks consider them as exactly the same thing. They are not. Si is very specifically related to non-contextual and non-judgmental storage and recollection of sensory impressions. Memories contain much more context and judgment than Si can ever provide. Si-based sensory recollections can be a component of memory, but they are not what most people regard as episodic memories. 





Dedication said:


> - Your thread title is called "Si _has nothing to do_ with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!" yet, now you're saying "Si is related to more than just 'memory stuff'". I think you can see that you're contradicting yourself, first you say it has nothing to do with memory and now you say that it is more than that, as it if does include memory.
> 
> You're contradicting yourself. I'm a curious person and I ask why?




jcal said:


> Si does not attach any narrative, emotion, context or judgement to the sensory snippets it collects. I may or may not experience nostalgia about a certain time or place (I generally am devoid of nostalgic feelings), but it has nothing to do with Si. Si has no recollection of the circumstance surrounding the sensory impression. For a example, I can recall in great detail what an apple I ate as a child looks like... the shape, texture, variegated coloring, that the stem had obviously been pulled from the tree rather than cut from the tree... but I have no idea where I was, who I was with or any other contextual details. It is nothing more than a high resolution snapshot of the visual impression of the apple. This is NOT memory as most people consider memory, and it is most certainly not nostalgic... Si impressions are much too limited in scope to be what most people consider memory (although it certainly can be useful for "filling in the details").



Expansion: I do not actually see a contradiction once the proper distinction between Si and memory is clarified, which I expanded upon here. It's even more clearly non-contradictory when you start trying to attach nostalgia to Si. Nostalgia is all about the context and feelings associated with the memories... those feelings and context do not come from Si at all.


----------



## Serpent

An example of memory in my case. 
I recall a very vague image of me looking at a bunch of buildings (the image itself is probably inaccurate because I somehow remember that I was inside a car at the time and yet the image makes it seem as if I was outside). Yet, I instinctively know the location, the circumstances surrounding me being in that location, an idea of when the event took place and even the subsequent series of events. Just from a single, extremely fuzzy image. My memories are almost entirely contextual.


----------



## Glory

I think of it as a 'life has patterns' thing and being influenced by those patterns, like how Ne notices the interconnections.


----------



## Coburn

Phantasmagorical said:


> Interesting, it's the opposite for me. I struggle to recall the sensory details (they even seem like ghosts or imagined objects) but I'm excellent at recalling the context, the how's and why's. While my memories are quite accurate in the sense that they convey the general idea, they are probably highly inaccurate with regards to what is tangible.


I'm in between. I'll remember a specific aspect of something first, and then the context second. It drives me batshit if I can't put a memory into context. I hate not remembering the circumstances.


----------



## KraChZiMan

Marlowe said:


> @_KraChZiMan_
> 
> 
> 
> What other functions do is irrelevant. Was not the point of my post.
> 
> And not could be. Does. I'm surprised an Si user doesn't recognize this.


What other functions do can not be irrelevant if they are doing the same in virtually same amount.


----------



## KraChZiMan

-Alpha- said:


> So what happens if they disagree with you afterward?
> 
> I agree with your point about Si, however what you're essentially doing is saying that you're only willing to share your opinion with people that either agree with you or don't have an opinion of their own. Some people are of the philosophical belief that in between the things you know and the things I know, there's truth or things we couldn't have known. I've found that opinions that don't stand up to scrutiny are almost always incorrect and I believe that's the belief that's prevalent among most of (well, everywhere...) PerC. The point of debate isn't necessarily to convince other people so much as it is to gain better mutual understanding.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I could agree with this. The points that I don't are too small and minute to ass me to correct it.


When this is the case, everything is perfectly fine. :happy:

I understand that in some topics, the debates bring people closer to truth. However, I have learned in my time on PerC, is that every opinion is a subjective one, and when somebody wants to have a heated debate, it basically turns into one person asserting his opinion over the other, which does not serve any purpose besides annoying everybody else.

If somebody can not agree with my statements, or can not see any value in them, so be it. My goal here really is to arise awareness in regards to Si being the one and only function that handles memories and nostalgia as a source of sentimentality and learning.



Word Dispenser said:


> ....It's certainly not about recalling memory, but the _way _in which memories are recalled for each type is invariably different. Si types experience their memory data as unconscious impressions, as far as I understand it...


Couldn't agree more :happy:



Dezir said:


> I just felt the need to point out that you are wrong. Thank you!
> 
> I think you have a problem with Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information from the past but that doesn't mean you're right. What's the deal with it anyway ?


Said it million times before: Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information is putting cognitive functions into boxes and stereotypes that certainly serve no other purpose than to confuse people even further, giving the green light to even new stereotypes to arise. I am sick and tired of reading yet another "why can't SJ's appreciate my deep intuitive intelligence?" threads.



Dedication said:


> Then I have some questions because I'd like some answers.
> 
> - Why do you personally think that when somebody says 'Si is related to memory' it automatically means Si is limited to that? Why don't you think that the person saying such stuff could very well understand that Si is more than just related to memory?


Because it confuses the newcomers, who are just barely trying to grasp the essence of what cognitive functions are about. Besides, there is a very thin line between people who are just joking on the "Si = Memory" topic, and people who are very serious about "Si = Memory" topic, and actually believe that's exactly what Si is supposed to function as.



> - Your thread title is called "Si _has nothing to do_ with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!" yet, now you're saying "Si is related to more than just 'memory stuff'". I think you can see that you're contradicting yourself, first you say it has nothing to do with memory and now you say that it is more than that, as it if does include memory.


That's a very literal way of taking what I was meaning to express. Si has nothing to do with those things, because Si has exactly as much to do with those things as every other perceiving function, rendering Si's special status in dealing with those issues to be worth exactly nothing.



> You're contradicting yourself. I'm a curious person and I ask why?
> 
> - What is Si to you?
> 
> There you have it, 3 questions from a curious person.


First off, I really thank you for these constructive and relevant questions! :happy:

Si belongs to the perceiving functions. All perceiving functions - Si, Ni, Se and Ne - are related to creating a certain lifestyle, but based around wildly different aspirations. To narrow it down, Ne and Se, for example, are experience-based. Ne's tactics is to explore different options and choices, then later alternating between all these options as they please, while Se's tactics is to stick with one dream or aspiration at the time, and then following it all the way down to road, until it is achieved, before going for the next goal.

Ni and Si are similar in a way that they not so much based on these tactics, but rather on living a life in accordance to something. While Ni's lifestyle is to live their life in accordance to an ideology, such as "becoming an expert in the field" or "gathering supplies to prepare for a long trip", Si's lifestyle is centered around "protecting and keeping a certain order in their environment", "being able to provide", "sustaining the community where they belong" or "respecting their duties and paying proper respect to it".

As you can see, Ni and Si share some similarities, but they stem from very different sources, and act out in a radically different manner. Ni, for example, gathers most of it's inspiration from their own ideas, fantasies and thoughts, while Si gathers most of it's inspiration from being safe and secure from anything disruptive, hostile or threatening.

For example, when Ni dominant gets in their dream college, they are pleased, knowing that these studies will be a a good way in becoming more familiar with the field, and it would be an important stepping stone in landing on a dream job in the future, Si dominant would be pleased for getting in their dream college, knowing that they are moving somewhere with their lives, that they gain a good qualification once they graduate that school.

What we can conclude, is that Si is a cognitive function, which brings persistance and strong will to always sustain themselves, and their close ones, to perpetuate a certain order which enforces good consequences to succeed in their tasks and/or benefits others, while Ni is a cognitive function, which brings persistance and strong will to pursue a certain fantasy, ideology or a really big achievement which will be either a very important learning experience (a big trip, wanting to live in a foreign country, landing on a dream job) or bring them much recognition, fame and success (starting a business, attending to a well-respected university etc.)



MightyLizardKing said:


> In other words, "accept everything I say and do not question it. I'll repeat it again if you need me to"


These are your words only. I never said that people are not allowed to question me. What I said was that I do not wish to have people getting all emotional and furious over the subject which I arised, as what I said in regards to Si should be reasonable enough to not really provoke anyone to such extent.

Which part of what I said you do not want to agree on, may I ask?



PaladinX said:


> Which is what was originally asked of you to which you replied that you did not intend to "answer or debate" anything... I think that's what you are being called out on.


Well, if people want to be that literal, it's up to them :tongue: A good, polite discussion has always been a wonderful thing, but I have had my share of hot-heated debates and do not wish to descend in them any more.


----------



## Dedication

Thanks for the answers *KraChZiMan.*


----------



## Inveniet

LOL this thread again eh?



> nostalgia:
> a wistful desire to return in thought or in fact to a former time in one's life, to one's home or homeland, or to one's family and friends; a sentimental yearning for the happiness of a former place or time: a nostalgia for his college days.


Saying that Si is about nostalgia becomes kinda weird.
Just because you remember the past and wish you where back there does not have to be Si related.
I can remember how much easier my life was at some point, all the relationships I've lost.
I could wish that I was back in such circumstance.
This can be done entirely without Si.
Soooo yeah this is true.
You can also do this with Si not that it proves anything.


----------



## MightyLizardKing

KraChZiMan said:


> Which part of what I said you do not want to agree on, may I ask?


I already said I agree with your statement on Si. My issues stem from:

"I didn't intend to answer or debate anything"
"I am not complaining, arguing or debating jack shit in this thread"
"However, people who are open and curious enough to ask "Is that so? Why?"


You're basically saying "I'm right and if you have an opposing point of view or issue then don't post." What is the point of discussing a topic if the entire discussion has to agree with your opinion unquestionably? I mean, I don't even see that as a discussion. If you start a thread with an opinion (and again, I agree in general with your opinion), then you have to be willing to defend it if someone disagrees. I mean, I guess you don't HAVE to defend it, but, you can't just expect people to mindlessly agree with you and get upset when they don't.


----------



## RunForCover07

> The term nostalgia describes a sentimentality for the past, typically for a period or place with happy personal associations.[1] The word is a learned formation of a Greek compound, consisting of νόστος (nóstos), meaning "homecoming", a Homeric word, and ἄλγος (álgos), meaning "pain, ache", and was coined by a 17th-century medical student to describe the anxieties displayed by Swiss mercenaries fighting away from home. Described as a medical condition—a form of melancholy—in the Early Modern period, it became an important trope in Romanticism.[1]
> 
> Nostalgia in its most common form was responsible for the old front desk of The Beverly Hills Hotel (from 1942 to 1979) being made into a bar.
> In common, less clinical usage nostalgia can refer to a general interest in the past, their personalities and events, especially the "good old days" from one's earlier life. Boym[2] argues that nostalgia is more prevalent during times of great upheaval.
> 
> The scientific literature on nostalgia is quite thin, but a few studies have attempted to pin down its essence and causes. Smell and touch are strong evokers of nostalgia due to the processing of these stimuli first passing through the amygdala, the emotional seat of the brain. These recollections of our past are usually important events, people we care about, and places where we have spent time. Music and weather can also be strong triggers of nostalgia.





> Nostalgia’s definition has changed greatly over time, as it was once considered a medical condition similar to homesickness. Nostalgia now, however, is considered to be an independent, and even positive emotion that many people experience often. Nostalgia has been found to have many functions, but those functions have not truly been defined or explicitly stated. Several research articles have led to the determination of the following as functions of nostalgia: improve mood, increase social connectedness, enhance positive self-regard, and provide existential meaning. Many nostalgic reflections serve more than one function at a time, and overall seem to benefit those who experience them.


Nostalgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

While it is true that all introverted functions can be known to collect information from any moment of time, Nostalgia seems to be linked to sensing and emotions. There are two functions that are known to collect sensory information, and that would be introverted and extroverted sensing. We can eliminate Se for the most part, because we know that introverted sensing is an abstract function that deals with the impressions of sensory information. According to the information above about Nostalgia, it shows that sensing can recreate an impression from what was, to long after something that what was or has been either in a positive or negative light. It's not the actual sensing information much how extroverted sensing would be used. That seems to be a correlation with what introverted sensing and Nostalgia does. Introverted sensing isn't memory, but memory and the functions work together. What that means is, you can have a crap memory even if you have introverted sensing, but that doesn't mean that introverted sensing doesn't use memory.

ISFJ: Si - Fe - Ti - Ne
ISTJ: Si - Te - Fi - Ne
ESTJ: Te - Si - Ne - Fi
ESFJ: Fe - Si - Ne - Ti

All four of these types that have introverted sensing in the dom or aux position seem to create these kinds of impressions that can simulate what we could call Nostalgia. While I'm sure it would be stronger in the feelers (closer to the emotional side of Nostalgia), that doesn't mean that the thinking types wouldn't use their past impressions as a tool to help guide them through life (weaker intuition).

I wouldn't expect an INFP to see Si as having Nostalgia (higher Ne valuing), and I would imagine that thinkers wouldn't correlate with the emotional aspect of Nostalgia. What might be true, is there is somewhat of a link or correlation between introverted sensing and Nostalgia, but maybe it doesn't fit into the box perfectly (other functions come into play).


----------



## Kyro

I'm an INTP yet for the longest time I thought I was a strong Si user, just for the fact that I had a strong memory.


What a weak thought.


----------



## Inveniet

dandere said:


> I'm an INTP yet for the longest time I thought I was a strong Si user, just for the fact that I had a strong memory.
> 
> 
> What a weak thought.


Wouldn't want to be a Si user! :tongue:


----------



## niss

YamahaMotors said:


> The OP only posted immature emotional garbage. He made some totally BS assertions just for emotional reasons. He claims Si isn't memory, but doesn't bother to say what it is, because he doesn't even have an alternative explanation. He refuses to debate it, because it's pure BS and he is unable to debate it whatsoever.
> 
> When you boil it down to the essentials, Si just stores and retrieves memories, whereas Ni associates data in sophisticated ways and discovers new truths. Ni not only deals with information, it also deals with abstract concepts.
> 
> Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.


So many errors; it's hard to know where to start.

The OP is reasonably accurate. 

Si does not just store and retrieve memories.

Si-doms also deal with abstract concepts. This is not just an intuitive thing.

Ni is not more advanced than Si. Your understanding of Si is so very limited.


----------



## niss

fishlolly said:


> Nostalgia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> While it is true that all introverted functions can be known to collect information from any moment of time, Nostalgia seems to be linked to sensing and emotions. There are two functions that are known to collect sensory information, and that would be introverted and extroverted sensing. We can eliminate Se for the most part, because we know that introverted sensing is an abstract function that deals with the impressions of sensory information. According to the information above about Nostalgia, it shows that sensing can recreate an impression from what was, to long after something that what was or has been either in a positive or negative light. It's not the actual sensing information much how extroverted sensing would be used. That seems to be a correlation with what introverted sensing and Nostalgia does. Introverted sensing isn't memory, but memory and the functions work together. What that means is, you can have a crap memory even if you have introverted sensing, but that doesn't mean that introverted sensing doesn't use memory.
> 
> ISFJ: Si - Fe - Ti - Ne
> ISTJ: Si - Te - Fi - Ne
> ESTJ: Te - Si - Ne - Fi
> ESFJ: Fe - Si - Ne - Ti
> 
> All four of these types that have introverted sensing in the dom or aux position seem to create these kinds of impressions that can simulate what we could call Nostalgia. While I'm sure it would be stronger in the feelers (closer to the emotional side of Nostalgia), that doesn't mean that the thinking types wouldn't use their past impressions as a tool to help guide them through life (weaker intuition).
> 
> I wouldn't expect an INFP to see Si as having Nostalgia (higher Ne valuing), and I would imagine that thinkers wouldn't correlate with the emotional aspect of Nostalgia. What might be true, is there is somewhat of a link or correlation between introverted sensing and Nostalgia, but maybe it doesn't fit into the box perfectly (other functions come into play).


Disassociate any concept connecting Si and nostalgia, or Si and sensing (in the terms of the five senses). We know that all types of people sense with their five senses and all types of people feel nostalgia. Many that are not Si-doms will display stronger feelings of nostalgia than will Si-doms. 

Re-think this angle of your theory.


----------



## niss

Marlowe said:


> Si absolutely includes recalling information and the past.
> 
> What it does not mean is that one has an excellent memory.


Slow down there, tiger. Si uses memory, but memory does not need or use Si.

Just didn't want you going off the rails.


----------



## niss

Antipode said:


> Problem is that people tend to focus on the "what" rather than the "why."
> 
> "If you have nostalgia, then it is Si."
> 
> That's such a limiting statement, and it's running off the idea that one cog is responsible for a human action.
> 
> The better question to ask if, "Why are you experiencing nostalgia?" The why will bring you to the answer of what set of cognitions are at work.
> 
> My mother is ISFJ, and she isn't nostalgic at all.
> I'm INFJ, and I'm nostalgic.
> 
> There are reasons behind why we are nostalgic and what causes that explain this reasoning...
> 
> ---
> 
> But anyway, Si, on its own, is more about using past experiences to explain current and future things--they hold a belief that their experiences equal fact for most all situations.
> 
> This is why the "majority" if Si-doms are less creative and more stable, both for home and business. But again, that is a "what," rather than a "why." Perhaps a creative si-dom is creative because it provided some sense of stability in their life or another's...


This is truly excellent. It should be required that anyone wishing to discuss Si, read and understand what you have written, before posting in a thread like this one.


----------



## Coburn

niss said:


> Slow down there, tiger. Si uses memory, but memory does not need or use Si.
> 
> Just didn't want you going off the rails.


Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. 

I didn't mean to imply the act of remembering something (aka, memory) is Si itself. Just that Si uses memory as a part of its process. 

Does that clarify it?


----------



## niss

Marlowe said:


> Ah, I think I see what you're getting at.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply the act of remembering something (aka, memory) is Si itself. Just that Si uses memory as a part of its process.
> 
> Does that clarify it?


That's what I thought you meant, but it didn't seem clear to me. So many struggle with understanding Si; I didn't want them to misunderstand your point.


----------



## Coburn

niss said:


> That's what I thought you meant, but it didn't seem clear to me. So many struggle with understanding Si; I didn't want them to misunderstand your point.


Haha, no worries.


----------



## Antipode

niss said:


> This is truly excellent. It should be required that anyone wishing to discuss Si, read and understand what you have written, before posting in a thread like this one.


Oh... we... you know...


----------



## niss

Marlowe said:


> I'm in between. I'll remember a specific aspect of something first, and then the context second. It drives me batshit if I can't put a memory into context. I hate not remembering the circumstances.


I've mulled this over a bit and I think it is a result of the relationship between Te and Si. 

While it definitely bugs me if I'm unable to place the memory in its context, I'm okay with it and trust that it will eventually come to me. My ESTJ friends seem more like what you've described of yourself: they're really bugged if they can't get the context figured out in short order.


----------



## Dezir

Si in a nutshell: Being connected to the past

others are just stereotypes.


----------



## Pelopra

YamahaMotors said:


> The OP only posted immature emotional garbage. He made some totally BS assertions just for emotional reasons. He claims Si isn't memory, but doesn't bother to say what it is, because he doesn't even have an alternative explanation. He refuses to debate it, because it's pure BS and he is unable to debate it whatsoever.
> 
> When you boil it down to the essentials, Si just stores and retrieves memories, whereas Ni associates data in sophisticated ways and discovers new truths. Ni not only deals with information, it also deals with abstract concepts.
> 
> Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.


Sadly, Ni does not provide inoculation against being a moron.


----------



## niss

Dezir said:


> Si in a nutshell: Being connected to the past
> 
> others are just stereotypes.


Sometimes the effort put into explaining these things seems so pointless.


----------



## Mammon

I tried getting nostalgic with an ESFJ, didn't want to hear any of it and was bored with it. I tried getting nostalgic with an ISFP, we both enjoyed it.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

Marlowe said:


> Ah, I think I see what you're getting at.
> 
> I didn't mean to imply the act of remembering something (aka, memory) is Si itself. Just that Si uses memory as a part of its process.
> 
> Does that clarify it?


This Si description is brief but really not too bad. Introverted Sensing (Si)

However this next one is likely to cause a good laugh. Introverted Sensing / Sensation (Si)
I think two PerC members commented below the description & it's kinda hilarious.


Face palmed & shaking my head due to this one. Extraverted Sensing (Se) vs. Introverted Sensing (Si)


----------



## Kizuna

If we all are aware of human "memory" being something unrelated to any Jungian function, and know that to recall a piece of information that we took in at some point in time some people need longer, some can recall it with more realism and detail, some only get a foggy "sense" of it... Si allows you to access the memory bank with more precision than Ni, because it builds its worldview based on what is learned and experienced in a more concrete way (and it accesses it more often and relies more on it, so the effect is greater).


----------



## Lady Mary

*This raises questions for me. I scored highly in Si on the cognitive functions tests I've taken because I'm nostalgic, ect!
I'd long been torn between ISFJ and INFJ, but given my sentimental nature, I figured I'm surly ISFJ.
My main question is, what is the "modern" definition of Si? I'm quite curious now. 
*


----------



## Fire Away

I've never really understood why people think that Si is memory.

Si is a sensory function, every one has a memory.


----------



## niss

stargazing grasshopper said:


> This Si description is brief but really not too bad. Introverted Sensing (Si)
> 
> However this next one is likely to cause a good laugh. Introverted Sensing / Sensation (Si)
> I think two PerC members commented below the description & it's kinda hilarious.
> 
> 
> Face palmed & shaking my head due to this one. Extraverted Sensing (Se) vs. Introverted Sensing (Si)


They are all incorrect, but the last one is definitely the worst.


----------



## niss

Miya said:


> If we all are aware of human "memory" being something unrelated to any Jungian function,


Very true.



> and know that to recall a piece of information that we took in at some point in time some people need longer, some can recall it with more realism and detail, some only get a foggy "sense" of it...


Also true - but not related to any function...



> Si allows you to access the memory bank with more precision than Ni, because it builds its worldview based on what is learned and experienced in a more concrete way (and it accesses it more often and relies more on it, so the effect is greater).


Depending on what you mean by this statement - maybe. Si places great importance on memory and prior experiences and tends to "see" those memories in a very concrete manner. It then contrasts the object before it with those prior experiences, "measuring" the reliability of the new data.

Si is not more precise, but does place greater emphasis on what is remembered as a method of cognition.


----------



## niss

Lady Mary said:


> *This raises questions for me. I scored highly in Si on the cognitive functions tests I've taken because I'm nostalgic, ect!
> I'd long been torn between ISFJ and INFJ, but given my sentimental nature, I figured I'm surly ISFJ.
> My main question is, what is the "modern" definition of Si? I'm quite curious now.
> *


Si is a cognitive function that uses past experiences as a method of understanding concepts in the present and in the future.


----------



## Coburn

niss said:


> I've mulled this over a bit and I think it is a result of the relationship between Te and Si.
> 
> While it definitely bugs me if I'm unable to place the memory in its context, I'm okay with it and trust that it will eventually come to me. My ESTJ friends seem more like what you've described of yourself: they're really bugged if they can't get the context figured out in short order.


Hmmm. What makes you suspect Te, other than the pattern between your friend and me?


----------



## Coburn

stargazing grasshopper said:


> This Si description is brief but really not too bad. Introverted Sensing (Si)
> 
> However this next one is likely to cause a good laugh. Introverted Sensing / Sensation (Si)
> I think two PerC members commented below the description & it's kinda hilarious.
> 
> 
> Face palmed & shaking my head due to this one. Extraverted Sensing (Se) vs. Introverted Sensing (Si)


Wow, those last two links are atrocious.

But I love how worked up the commentor "Rachel" got on link two. Her outrage pretty much redeems the ridiculousness of it all.

I'm almost tempted to create a thread for all the worst cog function descriptions the Internet has to offer. We could call it "Cognitive Function Descriptions: the facepalms, the double facepalms, and the headdesks."


----------



## Coburn

niss said:


> Si is a cognitive function that uses past experiences as a method of understanding concepts in the present and in the future.


As a side note, Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ (1927) has always struck me as a very Si sort of film.


----------



## tanstaafl28

KraChZiMan said:


> I can certainly not agree with the "Si is not really conscious reasoning, and animalistic, while Ni is intelligent observation etc."
> 
> Every single function stack or cognitive function is perfectly equal. There is no place in MBTI community for "S-types are stupid and animalistic, but they have those cute and adorable traits". Additionally, cognitive functions have nothing to do with recalling memories, because that has very little to do with MBTI. ISFJ's or ISTJ's can be nostalgic, but so can many other personality types, with the same amount as Si-doms.


Agreed. I'm an ENTP. I experience nostalgia regularly. I find understanding the past (in the proper context) is very useful in predicting and dealing with the future. Having nothing to build upon would make it very difficult to know where one is now, let alone where one might be moving forward. 

My ISTJ wife is too concerned with practicality to waste too much of her precious time being nostalgic, but that doesn't mean that she _never_ does it. 

Typism is ludicrous. I am certainly happy with my preferences, but I see how others get equivalent results using their preferences.


----------



## niss

Marlowe said:


> Hmmm. What makes you suspect Te, other than the pattern between your friend and me?


Te is what is providing order/structure for Si.


----------



## Coburn

niss said:


> Te is what is providing order/structure for Si.


Ah, so you think Te demands context?

What about the argument that Fi demands value, and that value requires context? Therefore it's actually Fi Si pushing for a contextual understanding?

Or is it just Monday and I need sleep?


----------



## niss

Marlowe said:


> Ah, so you think Te demands context?
> 
> What about the argument that Fi demands value, and that value requires context? Therefore it's actually Fi Si pushing for a contextual understanding?
> 
> Or is it just Monday and I need sleep?


It may be semantics, but I think "demand" is rather strong. I see Te seeking to provide externally sourced structure to serve as a check to the subjectivity of internal functions like Si and Fi.

Si and Fi, both being internally focused and more subjective than externally focused functions, would seem to implode in a loop of spiraling subjectivity. 

Fi is not values anymore than Te is context or Si is memory. These functions all place an emphasis on those things, but they are not those things.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper

Marlowe said:


> Wow, those last two links are atrocious.
> 
> But I love how worked up the commentor "Rachel" got on link two. Her outrage pretty much redeems the ridiculousness of it all.
> 
> I'm almost tempted to create a thread for all the worst cog function descriptions the Internet has to offer. We could call it "Cognitive Function Descriptions: the facepalms, the double facepalms, and the headdesks."


Sounds like it'd be fun, wouldn't it be kinda funny to write it "Function Dyscriptions"?


----------



## Thalassa

Tao Te Ching said:


> *Introverted Sensing (Si) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)
> *
> 
> Since Introverted Sensing is a Perceiving function, it can be understood, much like Introverted Intuition (Ni), as acting rather _passively_ and _outside of conscious control_. Like INJs, SJs often experience _a strong sense of conviction_, a gut feeling about whether some is true or false, right or wrong. This, without having really done much as far as conscious reasoning to arrive at such conclusions. So while Si types may seem stubborn or closed-minded, they may feel that they have little as far as free choice in what they believe. This is why Jung considered Si an _irrational_ function. Not because its conclusions are necessarily irrational, but because of the unconscious way it receives information and draws conclusions.An excellent example of the irrational element of Introverted Sensing can be found in the book, _The Woman Who Can’t Forget_. There, the author explains her uncanny ability to accurately recall the details of each and every day of her life, including related historical dates and events. While her powers of memory are undoubtedly unprecedented, what is most telling with regard to her Si is that fact that _she cannot control it_. She reports feeling great frustration because her mind is constantly replaying memories in a random fashion, despite her best efforts to eliminate them and focus on the present. Even if extraordinary, her experience speaks to the _passive, involuntary _way in which Si in records and recollects information. This helps to explain why Si dominant types seem to _effortlessly recall all sorts of random details and facts_. Their recall is simply too quick to be attributed to conscious effort. Such displays of effortless and accurate memory why many non-Si types may see ISJs as unusually intelligent.Finally, while Ni and Si are both irrational functions, Si is less synthetic and creative than Ni. _Si more or less preserves and relays information in its original form. Ni acts more synthetically__, weaving together disparate information to construct novel theories, visions, and insights._



Hmmm this isn't enough. Si types have a desire to RECREATE what they experienced before in detail, without synthesis or meaning, as a function of MUNDANE DAILY LIFE. For example, your "uber intelligent" Si dom might ask you why you didn't arrange the lights and rug back the way they were supposed to go, and when you say you don't notice things like that, they may even become enraged or indignant. They know exactly the way things are "supposed" to go, and in duplication, the things are duplicated as if duplication and detail itself *is* the meaning, it can be really bizarre to people without Si, to ask, why can't we eat with our hands on our foreheads (Nepal) or our mouth open (U.S.) ...why can't we sit on the floor under the table, and turn the lights a different way, why does it fucking matter. The duplication of the positive experience is the entire symbol itself. It can be seen as magnificent brilliance or the most inane stupidity, depending on the way you look at it.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility

KraChZiMan said:


> Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


The reason why it's interpreted that way, is because subjective perception processes (Ni and Si) will inevitably draw past information recalled by experience and distort incoming information - that's what makes them subjective. But since we all have access to an introverted perception process, we all have at least of hint of it. The important part when evaluating type, is how the Ni or Si manifest themselves in a person, as the functional position impacts it's orientation and frequency of expression.


----------



## Thalassa

Marlowe said:


> As a side note, Fritz Lang's _Metropolis_ (1927) has always struck me as a very Si sort of film.


Honestly, a very Si sort of film, at least Si of "average" rather than brilliant intelligence, is any film made by "the Hollywood formula" i.e....good guy/bad guy, plot building, climax, resolution (usually involving a mundane and awkward love story as a sub-plot). THAT IS WHAT SI IS. If you want to know what Si is, it is what the average Hollywood comedy/drama is built upon. 

That is Si in action. Brilliant Si in genius form may actually duplicate visual patterns and auditory experiences, may play upon nostalgia in a creepy expert way, but average Si is like... pretty much any "ok" film you would rent on video that did ok at the Box Office (without a lot of special effects or violence, because that would be more Se) but didn't especially stand out.

People who live outside of the United States comment on the bizarre fantasy world of the Hollywood Formula, which many Americans accept as a prescription for reality.

Nancy Drew novels, Agatha Christie series, etc...and I love Agatha Christie...some SJs are incredibly brilliant...I am not insulting them as a whole...but yeah Nancy Drew and Agatha Christie are like the "mediocre" and "genius" of Si.


----------



## niss

fourtines said:


> Hmmm this isn't enough. Si types have a desire to RECREATE what they experienced before in detail, without synthesis or meaning, as a function of MUNDANE DAILY LIFE. For example, your "uber intelligent" Si dom might ask you why you didn't arrange the lights and rug back the way they were supposed to go, and when you say you don't notice things like that, they may even become enraged or indignant. They know exactly the way things are "supposed" to go, and in duplication, the things are duplicated as if duplication and detail itself *is* the meaning, it can be really bizarre to people without Si, to ask, why can't we eat with our hands on our foreheads (Nepal) or our mouth open (U.S.) ...why can't we sit on the floor under the table, and turn the lights a different way, why does it fucking matter. The duplication of the positive experience is the entire symbol itself. It can be seen as magnificent brilliance or the most inane stupidity, depending on the way you look at it.


I see what you've observed, but it is a little off. The point of the recreation is to fine tune the process, with the goal being efficiency and effectiveness. The "why" of the thing is important and dictates the "how" of it.


----------



## Frenetic Tranquility

Shadow Logic said:


> *All* introverted functions have to do with recalling information.


Only introverted perception functions do, because recollection is a colloquial term describing a specific type of perception.


----------



## niss

Frenetic Tranquility said:


> Only introverted perception functions do, because recollection is a colloquial term describing a specific type of perception.


Does this mean that you do not believe that Fi and Ti do not interact with memory at any level?


----------



## d e c a d e n t

fourtines said:


> but average Si is like... pretty much any "ok" film you would rent on video that did ok at the Box Office (without a lot of special effects or violence, because that would be more Se) but didn't especially stand out.


Well, aren't most average things like that? ("Ok"/not standing out much, I mean.)


----------



## Thalassa

Kink said:


> Well, aren't most average things like that? ("Ok"/not standing out much, I mean.)


Just look up "Hollywood formula" because I think you missed my point.


----------



## d e c a d e n t

fourtines said:


> Just look up "Hollywood formula" because I think you missed my point.


No. I was just pointing out that yes, of course average is going to be average.


----------



## The_Cold_Apple

FreeBeer, 

This is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for this post. Introverted perceiving functions are harder for me to understand because the whole point of them is to _take in information_. So, how can you take in information from the world if its internal? 

My only solutions was what you just said. I think Introverted Sensing has to start out exactly as Extroverted Sensing. But as you wrote, unlike Se, Si puts its own spin on it afterwards. 

Same with Ni. It has to get its original idea from something it saw or experienced. It has to use Se to fuel its Ni, at least initially.


----------



## absylution

Si is associated with recalling details simply because the Si user is more focused on these details that later lend him or her the ability to pull them up again later.


----------



## Kitsune Love

Assuming from the title we're talking about how Si users perceive the world around them, yes?

From everything I've read about Introverted Sensing, the key word is "relying" and not specifically "recalling".
Whatever information an Si has stored in their 'library' so to speak, is recognized subconsciously. They will use it to make a split second judgement when it comes to a first impression and they will stubbornly stand by it.

So to recap what I just say in simple English:
1. Si users rely on the internal information they have stored from past experiences in order to make decisions/judgements.
2. Si users essentially call on (whether consciously or subconsciously) pre-developed impressions or decisions to make their judgements.

So - in a broad sense - Yes, it kinda does in a sense.
Although, that's not entirely all there is to a Si user, that's basically just how they make judgements and maybe how they perceive things.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## The_Cold_Apple

Nightstorm said:


> Assuming from the title we're talking about how Si users perceive the world around them, yes?
> 
> From everything I've read about Introverted Sensing, the key word is "relying" and not specifically "recalling".
> Whatever information an Si has stored in their 'library' so to speak, is recognized subconsciously. They will use it to make a split second judgement when it comes to a first impression and they will stubbornly stand by it.
> 
> So to recap what I just say in simple English:
> 1. Si users rely on the internal information they have stored from past experiences in order to make decisions/judgements.
> 2. Si users essentially call on (whether consciously or subconsciously) pre-developed impressions or decisions to make their judgements.
> 
> So - in a broad sense - Yes, it kinda does in a sense.
> Although, that's not entirely all there is to a Si user, that's basically just how they make judgements and maybe how they perceive things.
> 
> Please correct me if I'm wrong.



I need to cut and paste what you just said. I have been looking for a good definition that is easy to understand and you hit it on the head. I was confused about Si because it didn't make sense that a percieving function could be internal. Percieving is all about collecting data so how can you collect infromation "inside you??"

But you answered my question: "[They are collecting]"internal information they have stored from past experiences in order to make decisions/judgements." Well put! I couldn't explain it any better...

Although, this proves what I speculated before: Si must at one point be Se. In order for the first reference point to be made, it must be externally collected. You cannot get something from nothing. That stored information must have been generated from somewhere. 

In fact, I'm starting to think that most or all people start out being Se dom. We all have to be Extroverted Sensers at some point. However, at some early age that Se turns to Si. For others that turns into Ni and Ne. In other cases, Se never changes and stays Se.


----------



## niss

The_Cold_Apple said:


> FreeBeer,
> 
> This is exactly what I was thinking. Thanks for this post. Introverted perceiving functions are harder for me to understand *because the whole point of them is to take in information.* So, how can you take in information from the world if its internal?
> 
> My only solutions was what you just said. I think Introverted Sensing has to start out exactly as Extroverted Sensing. But as you wrote, unlike Se, Si puts its own spin on it afterwards.
> 
> Same with Ni. It has to get its original idea from something it saw or experienced. It has to use Se to fuel its Ni, at least initially.


The section in the bold font is where you are going wrong.


----------



## Kitsune Love

The_Cold_Apple said:


> I need to cut and paste what you just said. I have been looking for a good definition that is easy to understand and you hit it on the head. I was confused about Si because it didn't make sense that a percieving function could be internal. Percieving is all about collecting data so how can you collect infromation "inside you??"
> 
> But you answered my question: "[They are collecting]"internal information they have stored from past experiences in order to make decisions/judgements." Well put! I couldn't explain it any better...
> 
> Although, this proves what I speculated before: Si must at one point be Se. In order for the first reference point to be made, it must be externally collected. You cannot get something from nothing. That stored information must have been generated from somewhere.
> 
> In fact, I'm starting to think that most or all people start out being Se dom. We all have to be Extroverted Sensers at some point. However, at some early age that Se turns to Si. For others that turns into Ni and Ne. In other cases, Se never changes and stays Se.


I'm glad my explanation said something for you. Though I don't think Si users have to be Se at one point. 

Let me give you an example of how each one work to give you a better idea.
Let's say we have an Si user (let's call her Alice) and an Se user (Jake).

Alice is an Si dominant, she is an introvert and she likes to socialize but she enjoys being alone and recharging. Whenever she reads something or meets something, there is pre-existing data and therefore a pre-existing opinion or judgement about the subject (either by what she's heard by a friend or parent or what she's read... Basically something she already knows deep down).

Jake is an Se dominant, he's a real out-doorsy type. He likes the world around him because it stimulates his senses like nothing else can. Jake will make a decision or judgement based on whatever is going on around him in that instant, he could be out surfing and then decide to get out of the water because he's the first one to notice a sudden drop in temperature and maybe a slight choppiness of the water. Maybe he'll see a cloud forming or he'll smell electricity in the air. With all that external information, he'll know that he should get out of the water because there's a storm coming. 

Imagine Alice and Jake meeting.
Alice is in a room, trying to read a book and Jake will see her alone and think that it would be the perfect opportunity to say hello. When he does, Alice will immediately look to what she already knows (the internal information) about guys, and she will be very quick to pick up on her own discomfort of the situation of him trying to pick her up, even though he's only said hello to her. That is how the introverted sensing works. It is internal sensing.

Jake, on the other hand, wont have a clue unless she gives some obvious visual cue or simply tells him that she doesn't want to be disturbed. Although, in a different situation, he would also probably be the first to notice if there was a girl in his immediate area checking him out. That's just how Se works.


----------



## niss

Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with your five senses. All types have and use their five senses.

This is also true of Te and Ti (relative to thinking), Ne and Ni (relative to having intuition), or Fe and Fi (relative to feeling). 

Sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling are just labels to help is differentiate between the various functions. Sometimes these labels can be confusing because they have meanings outside of MBTI.

It is important to remember that everyone senses, thinks, feels and intuits outside of any preference of cognition.


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with your five senses. All types have and use their five senses.
> 
> This is also true of Te and Ti (relative to thinking), Ne and Ni (relative to having intuition), or Fe and Fi (relative to feeling).
> 
> Sensing, intuiting, thinking, and feeling are just labels to help is differentiate between the various functions. Sometimes these labels can be confusing because they have meanings outside of MBTI.
> 
> It is important to remember that everyone senses, thinks, feels and intuits outside of any preference of cognition.


I disagree. The function of sensation is by the five senses:



Jung said:


> Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs; ... sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.


I think that the functions actually fall in line for the most part with "meanings outside of MBTI."

While I do agree that everyone senses, thinks, feels, and intuits, the difference for "preference of cognition" is in what one is oriented by.


----------



## PaladinX

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












Jung said:


> Inside the endopsyche you first notice memory, which is still a function that can be controlled by the will; it is under the control of the ego complex.


- The Tavistock Lectures



Jung said:


> The four orienting functions naturally do not contain everything that is in the conscious psyche. Will and memory, for instance, are not included.


- Psychological Types, CW6

Memory is a separate function altogether.


----------



## Kozyfox

I think Si defined by Jung is an attention focus (orientation) of the Perceptive dimension. This is how I understand it which seems to make sense:

So Si asks itself what it feels sensationally and then looks about the world for ideas (Ne) to maintain the harmony of the inner sensations.
Si would thus mean you are the type who buys things just to maintain this inner health. The stereotype of nostalgia arised from how Si types tend to trust what they find safe and thus healthy. Si types may be more likely to enjoy meditation to relieve stress. When Ne is used first or as dom/aux, it focuses on the various ideas and when a person uses it it will feel like its sitting out of itself and be excited by which things in a brainstorm seem beneficial to inner health (Si).

Whereas Ni asks itself what it should be doing (an idea) and then looks about the world for information (Se) to maintain that idea.
Say the idea is a goal, then Ni takes in all the Se to make sure it reaches that goal. As a hence Ni doms tend to have a few things they are really interested in in life. Ni types may enjoy just prefer getting things done in advance to relieve stress. When a person uses Se alone or as dom/aux the user feels like its sitting out of itself like the Ne, but focuses on present sensations and data, it is energised in the moment by action and the Ni intuits the intensity and then creates an idea or little goal whereby the energy focus briefly connects to succeeding in something in the present (I imagine this is great in sports).

While Ni users rule Ni over Si, Si users rule Si over Ni. A person can use both but it is purely cognitive (I should say, natural) preference.

Certainly I prefer getting things done to relieve stress than putting things off, so I imagine I use a lot of Ni but whether it is natural for me to do so is another case perhaps. The way you are, in a good state, should be able to show you wish function you tend to use, only time and trial and error may show you your true preference.


----------



## niss

PaladinX said:


> I disagree. The function of sensation is by the five senses:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that the functions actually fall in line for the most part with "meanings outside of MBTI."
> 
> While I do agree that everyone senses, thinks, feels, and intuits, the difference for "preference of cognition" is in what one is oriented by.


In the world of psychology, "sensation" is dealing with the five senses and our subjective interpretation of what we have sensed. Cognitive functions are describing our method of subjective interpretation and the emphasis we place on various methods of interpreting the stimuli.

Therefore, we are not using a function when we use the five senses, but we are receiving outside stimuli through the only channels available to us. The processing of that stimuli invokes the cognitive functions.

Jung was not saying that Se = five senses.


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> In the world of psychology, "sensation" is dealing with the five senses and our subjective interpretation of what we have sensed. Cognitive functions are describing our method of subjective interpretation and the emphasis we place on various methods of interpreting the stimuli.
> 
> Therefore, we are not using a function when we use the five senses, but we are receiving outside stimuli through the only channels available to us. The processing of that stimuli invokes the cognitive functions.
> 
> Jung was not saying that Se = five senses.


I never said he did.

To provide further context, the quotes I used were from Jung describing the four functions:



> *Under sensation I include all perceptions by means of the sense organs;* by thinking, I mean the function of intellectual cognition and the forming of logical conclusions; feeling is a function of subjective evaluation; intuition I take as perception by way of the unconscious, or perception of unconscious events.





> For complete orientation all four functions should contribute equally: thinking should facilitate cognition and judgment, feeling should tell us how and to what extent a thing is important or unimportant for us, *sensation should convey concrete reality to us through seeing, hearing, tasting, etc.*, and intuition should enable us to divine the hidden possibilities in the background, since these too belong to the complete picture of a given situation.


----------



## niss

PaladinX said:


> I never said he did.
> 
> To provide further context, the quotes I used were from Jung describing the four functions:


The functions being described by Jung in this context are not the functions of Se, Si, Ne, Ni, etc.

I said that Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with the five senses. You said that you disagreed with that and quoted an excerpt from Jung to support your statement. That implies that you are trying to say that Jung was equating Se/Si with the five senses - not cognitive functions. Now you say that you did not say that. Is this an argument of semantics? Or is there something that you're saying that I am missing?

Again, sensation, as a psychology term, naturally includes perceptions obtained through the five senses. Systems to determine cognitive preference are focused on where the emphasis is placed. To confuse the two is to would result in all functions being skills to be developed by the user, over time. Meaning, the sensor has a better sense of touch than the intuitor, but the intuitive person could develop this skill, with enough effort. That thought process is ... lacking.


----------



## pernoctator

YamahaMotors said:


> Computer engineers & programmers have been able to create memory and software that manipulates memory since the beginning of computers. However, it's only recently that they've been able to make software that does (on a basic level) some of the things that Ni can do, such as pattern recognition. In computers, Ni is far more difficult and complex to emulate than Si. This shows that Ni is far more advanced than Si.


lol no.


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> The functions being described by Jung in this context are not the functions of Se, Si, Ne, Ni, etc.
> 
> I said that Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with the five senses. You said that you disagreed with that and quoted an excerpt from Jung to support your statement. That implies that you are trying to say that Jung was equating Se/Si with the five senses - not cognitive functions. Now you say that you did not say that. Is this an argument of semantics? Or is there something that you're saying that I am missing?


Probably semantics. I thought you were implying that I claimed that Se, specifically, is equated to the five senses.



> Again, sensation, as a psychology term, naturally includes perceptions obtained through the five senses. Systems to determine cognitive preference are focused on where the emphasis is placed. To confuse the two is to would result in all functions being skills to be developed by the user, over time. Meaning, the sensor has a better sense of touch than the intuitor, but the intuitive person could develop this skill, with enough effort. That thought process is ... lacking.


Why does one have to be better than the other? Are you suggesting that no one who prefers intuition will ever have a better sense of touch than anyone who prefers sensing? How do you quantify that? Why does attitude = aptitude? Why can't you develop a function like a skill? What is the difference between function and cognitive function?


----------



## niss

PaladinX said:


> Probably semantics. I thought you were implying that I claimed that Se, specifically, is equated to the five senses.


I wasn't sure what you were saying. It sounds like that now we are both in agreement with my original statement of, "Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with your five senses. All types have and use their five senses."





> 1)Why does one have to be better than the other? 2)Are you suggesting that no one who prefers intuition will ever have a better sense of touch than anyone who prefers sensing? 3)How do you quantify that? 4)Why does attitude = aptitude? 5)Why can't you develop a function like a skill? 6)What is the difference between function and cognitive function?


This is purely miscommunication. Your questions in order:

1) They don't - I'm saying quite the opposite. 

2) I'm saying that the five senses are not equal to cognitive functions. Therefore it is possible for an intuitive person to have a better sense of touch/smell/taste/hearing/seeing than a sensor might have. Being an intuitive or a sensor has no bearing on this.

3) I don't believe it, so I don't quantify it.

4) It doesn't.

5) For several reasons, not the least of which is genetics.

6) Function is merely a way something is done, or how it functions. Cognitive functions are preferences for a particular way of interpreting stimuli that is primarily hardwired into our brain from an early age.

HTH


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> I wasn't sure what you were saying. It sounds like that now we are both in agreement with my original statement of, "Se and Si are cognitive functions and should not be confused with your five senses. All types have and use their five senses."


Yes and no. In my opinion, Se and Si do not simply equate to the five senses necessarily, but it is a big part of the equation. The problem for me with moving away from the five senses is then you have claims that if someone is imagining a concrete object, like a car, they are using their Sensing function to do so (Se or Si). I disagree wholeheartedly with this notion. Essentially, I have a problem with completely separating Sensation and Se/Si conceptually.




> 5) For several reasons, not the least of which is genetics.


Such as? What about neuroplasticity? Or the fact that Jung said type can change?



> 6) Function is merely a way something is done, or how it functions. Cognitive functions are preferences for a particular way of interpreting stimuli that is primarily hardwired into our brain from an early age.
> 
> HTH


So would you agree that Se and Si, as cognitive functions, achieve cognition by means of Sensation as a function?


----------



## niss

PaladinX said:


> Yes and no. In my opinion, Se and Si do not simply equate to the five senses necessarily, but it is a big part of the equation. The problem for me with moving away from the five senses is then you have claims that if someone is imagining a concrete object, like a car, they are using their Sensing function to do so (Se or Si). I disagree wholeheartedly with this notion. Essentially, I have a problem with completely separating Sensation and Se/Si conceptually.


Se/Si are cognitive processes that may/may not be preferred in a particular function stack. Those types lacking great Se/Si still operate just fine by preferring other cognitive functions to interpret the data received via their five senses.

Yes, if we are talking about a concrete object that I have experienced before, I will be using Si/Te to understand the conversation about that concrete object that is no here before me, right now, in the present. If we are talking about something with which I have some general experience, but nothing precise, I will rely on Si/Te to understand the concept or object being discussed.This is how I perceive the world.



> Such as? What about neuroplasticity? Or the fact that Jung said type can change?


Such as genetics. Neuroplasticity is great, but consciously redirecting your actions/thought processes is very hard to do. We can change our actions/behaviors, but outside of extreme trauma, I doubt that type (preferences) actually changes, long term.





> So would you agree that Se and Si, as cognitive functions, achieve cognition by means of Sensation as a function?


Of course - just as Ne and Ni do. Everyone, regardless of type and outside of disabilities, have access to the five senses. This is not type dependent.


----------



## Modal Soul

KraChZiMan said:


> I didn't intend to answer or debate anything. Just pointing out that Si about so much *more than just* recalling information, nostalgia or remembering the past.


"Si has *nothing* to do with nostalgia, recalling information or past!!!"


----------



## Modal Soul

Antipode said:


> Problem is that people tend to focus on the "what" rather than the "why."
> 
> "If you have nostalgia, then it is Si."
> 
> That's such a limiting statement, and it's running off the idea that one cog is responsible for a human action.
> 
> The better question to ask if, "Why are you experiencing nostalgia?" The why will bring you to the answer of what set of cognitions are at work.
> 
> My mother is ISFJ, and she isn't nostalgic at all.
> I'm INFJ, and I'm nostalgic.
> 
> There are reasons behind why we are nostalgic and what causes that explain this reasoning...
> 
> ---
> 
> *But anyway, Si, on its own, is more about using past experiences to explain current and future things--they hold a belief that their experiences equal fact for most all situations.*
> 
> This is why the "majority" if Si-doms are less creative and more stable, both for home and business. But again, that is a "what," rather than a "why." Perhaps a creative si-dom is creative because it provided some sense of stability in their life or another's...


i have a tendency to do this


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> Yes, if we are talking about a concrete object that I have experienced before, I will be using Si/Te to understand the conversation about that concrete object that is no here before me, right now, in the present. If we are talking about something with which I have some general experience, but nothing precise, I will rely on Si/Te to understand the concept or object being discussed.This is how I perceive the world.


What if it is a concrete object that you have not experienced before? Are you still using Si? Why is recalling a concrete image considered to be Si? If a Ni dom recalls a concrete object, are they then using Si?




> Of course - just as Ne and Ni do. Everyone, regardless of type and outside of disabilities, have access to the five senses. This is not type dependent.


Yes everyone has access to the five senses, but not everyone is oriented by them. Sensing types are consciously and actively attuned to their sense experience. Intuitive and rational types in general are not. This is how an intuitive type might be living unawares in a brothel or that "sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them." (Ok so I didn't have a good concrete example of sensation in a rational attitude )


----------



## uncertain

FreeBeer said:


> @_KraChZiMan_
> Jung basically said that Si is the same as Se, just with a subjective component aka the subject's own personal reaction to the intensity of the stimulus, not just the intensity of the sensory stimulus like Se.
> 
> When Jung says its is subjective sensing it means that literally: the subjective interpretation of all information received through the senses. It is not memory or tradition. MBTI has it wrong, they interpreted it wrong.


So how does it different from Se+Fi/Ti and how can you tell the difference? I always think any subjective component or interpretation on top of the sensory experience to be the (introverted) judging function.


----------



## LibertyPrime

uncertain said:


> So how does it different from Se+Fi/Ti and how can you tell the difference? I always think any subjective component or interpretation on top of the sensory experience to be the (introverted) judging function.


Fi would be different, so if you say that you like the taste of your hamburger or that the couch is comfortable or that the sunset makes you feel warm and relaxed, then those would be Si related and not Fi related, because Fi functions as a way to establish the value of the relationships between the subject & ideas, things, actions.

Si is the feeling of the sand between your toes on the beach: "The sand feels great! ", while Fi is valuing the beach for what it provides you & consequently defending that environment from being ruined: "I value the beach, don't throw your trash on the sand!"

People often confuse Si for Fi due to an improper understanding of Fi (which has more to do with establishing values), a statement made by MBTI specialists.

Se on the other hand has to do with the external state of objects, not with the subjective feeling they generate in the user, which is Si. Se would be something like observing the sate of a speeding car or evaluating the necessary force to crush a can of beer in your hand, to kick a ball etc.. People who do parkour require good use of Se.


----------



## niss

PaladinX said:


> What if it is a concrete object that you have not experienced before? Are you still using Si? Why is recalling a concrete image considered to be Si? If a Ni dom recalls a concrete object, are they then using Si?


1) I am still using Si/Te to understand the object. I will relate it to things that I have experienced and modify my mental picture of the object as more information is brought to light.

2) Si values or emphasizes the concrete (able to be experienced with the five senses) and past experience over the conceptual and abstract. This is why Si is considered to be concrete.

3) No, they would be using Ni/Te or Ni/Fe, since that is their cognitive process preference. And this drives at the heart of what I have been trying to share with you: Si is just another way of dealing with the stimuli ... it is a way of understanding the present by invoking the past ... it emphasizes memory and trusts what can be measured via the five senses ... which does not mean that it can't deal in the abstract, but that it doesn't trust the abstract over the concrete. It is NOT memory ... it is NOT the five senses. All of us share those things, regardless of type.



> Yes everyone has access to the five senses, but not everyone is oriented by them. Sensing types are consciously and actively attuned to their sense experience. Intuitive and rational types in general are not. This is how an intuitive type might be living unawares in a brothel or that "sensation is equally repressed, whenever a rational function, thinking or feeling, possesses the priority, ie. it can be said to have a conscious function, only in so far as the rational attitude of consciousness permits accidental perceptions to become conscious contents; in short, realizes them." (Ok so I didn't have a good concrete example of sensation in a rational attitude )


This is off. Everyone is attuned to their five senses. Everyone. Each of us may emphasize one, or more, of these senses, but the reality is that these senses are the only method we have of taking in information. (Once taken in, THEN our cognitive functions come into play, determining what is important and drawing conclusions - creating a mental image.)

A Si-dom can have poor eye sight, a poor sense of balance, a poor sense of smell/taste, be color blind, have a poor memory, and have touch sensory issues, but yet still be a Si-dom. It is what they emphasize. OTOH, a Ne/Ni dom can have excellence in all the five senses and still cognitively prefer intuition as a method of interacting with the object - cognitively.


----------



## niss

FreeBeer said:


> Fi would be different, so if you say that you like the taste of your hamburger or that the couch is comfortable or that the sunset makes you feel warm and relaxed, then those would be Si related and not Fi related, because Fi functions as a way to establish the value of the relationships between the subject & ideas, things, actions.
> 
> Si is the feeling of the sand between your toes on the beach: "The sand feels great! ", while Fi is valuing the beach for what it provides you & consequently defending that environment from being ruined: "I value the beach, don't throw your trash on the sand!"
> 
> People often confuse Si for Fi due to an improper understanding of Fi (which has more to do with establishing values), a statement made by MBTI specialists.
> 
> Se on the other hand has to do with the external state of objects, not with the subjective feeling they generate in the user, which is Si. Se would be something like observing the sate of a speeding car or evaluating the necessary force to crush a can of beer in your hand, to kick a ball etc.. People who do parkour require good use of Se.


Sorry, but this is wrong.

Fi =/= values, internal or otherwise. Fe users have internal values equal to Fi users.

Se =/= outside experiences. Se users can appreciate the feel of the sand between their toes just as intensely as any Si user.

Si =/= warm and relaxed on a beach. All types can revel in that feeling - even those that little or no use of Si.


----------



## Worriedfunction

Tao Te Ching said:


> *Introverted Sensing (Si) vs. Introverted Intuition (Ni)
> *
> 
> Since Introverted Sensing is a Perceiving function, it can be understood, much like Introverted Intuition (Ni), as acting rather _passively_ and _outside of conscious control_. Like INJs, SJs often experience _a strong sense of conviction_, a gut feeling about whether some is true or false, right or wrong. This, without having really done much as far as conscious reasoning to arrive at such conclusions. So while Si types may seem stubborn or closed-minded, they may feel that they have little as far as free choice in what they believe. This is why Jung considered Si an _irrational_ function. Not because its conclusions are necessarily irrational, but because of the unconscious way it receives information and draws conclusions.An excellent example of the irrational element of Introverted Sensing can be found in the book, _The Woman Who Can’t Forget_. There, the author explains her uncanny ability to accurately recall the details of each and every day of her life, including related historical dates and events. While her powers of memory are undoubtedly unprecedented, what is most telling with regard to her Si is that fact that _she cannot control it_. She reports feeling great frustration because her mind is constantly replaying memories in a random fashion, despite her best efforts to eliminate them and focus on the present. Even if extraordinary, her experience speaks to the _passive, involuntary _way in which Si in records and recollects information. This helps to explain why Si dominant types seem to _effortlessly recall all sorts of random details and facts_. Their recall is simply too quick to be attributed to conscious effort. Such displays of effortless and accurate memory why many non-Si types may see ISJs as unusually intelligent.Finally, while Ni and Si are both irrational functions, Si is less synthetic and creative than Ni. _Si more or less preserves and relays information in its original form. Ni acts more synthetically__, weaving together disparate information to construct novel theories, visions, and insights._



That website is shite. It talks about stages of life and phases of development. 

Yet more clouded information designed to force people to take life as a series of blocks, each one to be achieved after the last, rather than a more nuanced flow in which people permeate and develop differently in a multitude of ways.


----------



## uncertain

niss said:


> Sorry, but this is wrong.
> 
> Fi =/= values, internal or otherwise. Fe users have internal values equal to Fi users.
> 
> Se =/= outside experiences. Se users can appreciate the feel of the sand between their toes just as intensely as any Si user.
> 
> Si =/= warm and relaxed on a beach. All types can revel in that feeling - even those that little or no use of Si.


For Se/Si part, his post makes me think of the focus. While both type can appreciate the feel, Se focus on the sand (the object) while Si focus on how the sand makes one feel (the subject). The difference is subtle, but it's there. For Se-user, the feel is BTW. So if I choose to go to a beach, I wouldn't think of the comfy feeling the sand or the breeze will give me or exactly how I might enjoy.

If Si is about focusing how it makes you feel, you will naturally "remember" the feeling you previous have as the data/experience you use to make yourself a deeper sense of the experience at this moment. Focusing on or remembering the sensory feeling/experience can exist without the judgement. It's just the feeling but not like or dislike, although we often make a judgement right after the feeling.

So I kinda disagree with this,


> Fi would be different, so if you say that you like the taste of your hamburger or that the couch is comfortable or that the sunset makes you feel warm and relaxed, then those would be Si related and not Fi related, because Fi functions as a way to establish the value of the relationships between the subject & ideas, things, actions.
> 
> Si is the feeling of the sand between your toes on the beach: "The sand feels great! ", while Fi is valuing the beach for what it provides you & consequently defending that environment from being ruined: "I value the beach, don't throw your trash on the sand!"


I would be doing both Si-related and Fi-related things, according to the description here.

I do like the taste of my burger. I can feel comfortable sitting on the couch. Sunset can make me feel warm and relaxed. But it usually depends on the moment, and I don't find myself thinking about those feelings in everyday life. I will have to sit on a couch, or at least see the real thing, to decide whether or not it's comfortable.

That's how I understand it.


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> 1) I am still using Si/Te to understand the object. I will relate it to things that I have experienced and modify my mental picture of the object as more information is brought to light.
> 
> 2) Si values or emphasizes the concrete (able to be experienced with the five senses) and past experience over the conceptual and abstract. This is why Si is considered to be concrete.
> 
> 3) No, they would be using Ni/Te or Ni/Fe, since that is their cognitive process preference. And this drives at the heart of what I have been trying to share with you: Si is just another way of dealing with the stimuli ... it is a way of understanding the present by invoking the past ... it emphasizes memory and trusts what can be measured via the five senses ... which does not mean that it can't deal in the abstract, but that it doesn't trust the abstract over the concrete. It is NOT memory ... it is NOT the five senses. All of us share those things, regardless of type.


I think we are getting away from the main point of my original argument. My point was that I object to Se/Si as being conceptually separate from the five senses because it allows for the idea that imagining a concrete object _is _using Se or Si. This further line of questioning comes from the fact that it seemed to me that you were agreeing with this notion.





> *This is off.* Everyone is attuned to their five senses. Everyone. Each of us may emphasize one, or more, of these senses, but the reality is that these senses are the only method we have of taking in information. (Once taken in, THEN our cognitive functions come into play, determining what is important and drawing conclusions - creating a mental image.)
> 
> A Si-dom can have poor eye sight, a poor sense of balance, a poor sense of smell/taste, be color blind, have a poor memory, and have touch sensory issues, but yet still be a Si-dom. It is what they emphasize. OTOH, a Ne/Ni dom can have excellence in all the five senses and still cognitively prefer intuition as a method of interacting with the object - cognitively.


Can you please tell me what is wrong with the argument presented? From my perspective, I don't see anything wrong with the argument I presented based on what you are saying, only that they don't match. What I mean is that essentially, I am saying that A is true because of reason B and you are saying that A is false because B =/= C, but I want to know why reason B is wrong.

I also disagree that "these senses are the only method we have of taking in information," but I don't want to get into a philosophical debate about it.

And again, why are we talking about better or worse? I am talking about what people are oriented by, not how good they are at it. If we agree that attitude =/= aptitude, then why keep bringing it up? 




niss said:


> Sorry, but this is wrong.
> 
> *Fi =/= values, internal or otherwise. Fe users have internal values equal to Fi users.*
> 
> Se =/= outside experiences. Se users can appreciate the feel of the sand between their toes just as intensely as any Si user.
> 
> Si =/= warm and relaxed on a beach. All types can revel in that feeling - even those that little or no use of Si.


This is wrong. 

Ok, well I agree that the concept of Fi does not equate to the concept of values. With that said, Feeling _is_ the function of valuing. There is a difference between what a function does and doesn't do and what a person can and cannot do. A person who prefers a function does not embody that function. The difference is what the person is _oriented_ by in general.

The same goes for your objection to the Si description here. Just because a person enjoys a subjective sense experience, does not mean that their general attitude is oriented by it.


I like the distinction between Fe and Fi that @_ferroequinologist_ makes here:



> You are in a social situation, where a compromise is necessary. Which would make you feel more guilty? Compromising your own values--something you hold important--for the sake of the harmony of the group? Or making everybody else sacrifice for the sake of your own values? The former is Fi--focused on the subject, and the latter, obviously, Fe, focusing on the object.


----------



## niss

uncertain said:


> For Se/Si part, his post makes me think of the focus. While both type can appreciate the feel, Se focus on the sand (the object) while Si focus on how the sand makes one feel (the subject). The difference is subtle, but it's there. For Se-user, the feel is BTW. So if I choose to go to a beach, I wouldn't think of the comfy feeling the sand or the breeze will give me or exactly how I might enjoy.
> 
> If Si is about focusing how it makes you feel, you will naturally "remember" the feeling you previous have as the data/experience you use to make yourself a deeper sense of the experience at this moment. Focusing on or remembering the sensory feeling/experience can exist without the judgement. It's just the feeling but not like or dislike, although we often make a judgement right after the feeling.
> 
> So I kinda disagree with this,
> I do like the taste of my burger. I can feel comfortable sitting on the couch. Sunset can make me feel warm and relaxed. But it depends on the moment, and I don't find myself thinking about those feelings in everyday life, but I might think about the things themselves. I will have to sit on a couch, or at least see the real thing, to decide whether or not it's comfortable.
> 
> I would be doing both Si-related and Fi-related things, according to the description here.
> 
> That's how I understand it.


Think a little bigger. Where is the Ne-dom in all of this? Si and Se are almost non-existent in their function stack, so does that mean that they have less sensory input recognition than a Si or Se dom?

If you answer no, then your theory is on the ropes. If you answer yes, then your theory can be objectively proven wrong.

And this is due to Si/Te: There is little an ISTJ likes more than a good debunking.


----------



## jcal

I'm a Si-dom and I struggle mightily with the whole supposed "subjective" aspect of Si. I don't I get it... at all. 

If it refers to how I directly perceive things with my senses... I really have no way to know/compare whether my view of an object is any different than what others would perceive. If what appears as perfectly normal to me would look like a Picasso painting to someone else... there's no way for me to know. Some of the Si descriptions I've seen make it seems like this is true... that my world would look foreign and strange to someone else.

If it refers to subjective impressions/feelings... more like the "warm and fuzzies" so many try to associate with Si and nostalgia... I don't get that either. I might even find that harder to believe than the possibility that my world would look like a Picasso painting to someone else. I have tons and tons of "snippets" of sensory details stored away... but every last one of them is a very cold, clinical recording of some small bit of detail... with absolutely no connection to associated feelings or related context. All of those recorded details are more like the photos and samples collected by forensics technicians at a lab scene... they have no context on their own until someone else reviews them and makes sense of them... in functional terms I would liken this to my Te analyzing and comparing to the current external data to reach a logical conclusion... or Fi developing an emotional response to them. But the Si stuff itself just seems like cold, clinical laboratory data to me. 

I'm not trying to argue anything here... just trying to reconcile what I experience against the "theory".


----------



## uncertain

niss said:


> Think a little bigger. Where is the Ne-dom in all of this? Si and Se are almost non-existent in their function stack, so does that mean that they have less sensory input recognition than a Si or Se dom?
> 
> If you answer no, then your theory is on the ropes. If you answer yes, then your theory can be objectively proven wrong.
> 
> And this is due to Si/Te: There is little an ISTJ likes more than a good debunking.


I don't know. I am not an Ne-dom, and I don't get it. But I mean, if you don't pay attention to the environment, you will get less sensory information from it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Think a little bigger. Where is the Ne-dom in all of this? Si and Se are almost non-existent in their function stack, so does that mean that they have less sensory input recognition than a Si or Se dom?
> 
> If you answer no, then your theory is on the ropes.* If you answer yes, then your theory can be objectively proven wrong.*
> 
> And this is due to Si/Te: There is little an ISTJ likes more than a good debunking.


Bold: explain how you can *objectively* prove that wrong. Key word: *objectively*, pay close attention to that word/concept. The last I checked cognitive functions, nor personality types, have *objectively* been proven to even exist. So it's quite confusing when you suggest you can *objectively* prove something that's based on something else that has never been proven right or wrong *objectively*.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Since this thread has gone the way that many other threads have, let me make something clear. No matter how each of you feel or think about the situation, there are core/key concepts that separate each function from another. That means each function is more adept at what it does than another function. In other words that means that Ne is better at being Ne than Si is because Si is not Ne and can not do what Ne can.

Ne= to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Si=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Ni=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Se=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Fi=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Fe=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Ti=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
Te=to a concept that separates itself from every other function

This means every type is more adept at something than other types by default.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> Bold: explain how you can *objectively* prove that wrong. Key word: *objectively*, pay close attention to that word/concept. The last I checked cognitive functions, nor personality types, have *objectively* been proven to even exist. So it's quite confusing when you suggest you can *objectively* prove something that's based on something else that has never been proven right or wrong *objectively*.


Double blind study of those with different dominant functions should suffice. Maybe it would be less than perfect, but there is little doubt that we could narrow down that having a particular dominant function doesn't give you 20/10 vision (or the inverse).

Now, if we are going to go all philosophical and say that everything is subjective ... meh, the discussion is over. But otherwise, the statement stands.


----------



## niss

uncertain said:


> I don't know. I am not an Ne-dom, and I don't get it. But I mean, if you don't pay attention to the environment, you will get less sensory information from it.


We all pay attention to the environment. We merely choose the areas of our focus.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> Since this thread has gone the way that many other threads have, let me make something clear. No matter how each of you feel or think about the situation, there are core/key concepts that separate each function from another. That means each function is more adept at what it does than another function. In other words that means that Ne is better at being Ne than Si is because Si is not Ne and can not do what Ne can.
> 
> Ne= to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Si=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Ni=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Se=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Fi=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Fe=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Ti=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> Te=to a concept that separates itself from every other function
> 
> This means every type is more adept at something than other types by default.


I have no issue with this statement, in general. My issue is when we equate memory with Si or the five senses with Se/Si. Those things are not a part of a particular cognitive function, and to assert they are ignores the obvious things about cognition preferences.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Double blind study of those with different dominant functions should suffice. Maybe it would be less than perfect, but there is little doubt that we could narrow down that having a particular dominant function doesn't give you 20/10 vision (or the inverse).
> 
> Now, if we are going to go all philosophical and say that everything is subjective ... meh, the discussion is over. But otherwise, the statement stands.


Double blind study on something that has not been objectively proven yet? You do understand that cognitive functions, and personality types, haven't been objectively proven yet? That means you would have to first prove that cognitive functions objectively exist, which btw would be revolutionary for psychology, then after proving that cognitive functions objectively exist you will have the opportunity to objectively prove your point. The fact stays that you can't objectively prove anything without first objectively proving that cognitive functions exist, meaning as of right now you have no way of objectively proving your point.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> I have no issue with this statement, in general. My issue is when we equate memory with Si or the five senses with Se/Si. Those things are not a part of a particular cognitive function, and to assert they are ignores the obvious things about cognition preferences.


I'm pretty sure cognitive functions are focused on the orientation of a principle. If sensations are the core principle of Si/Se then both functions would be oriented around sensations. A person more oriented towards sensations would naturally be more adept at being oriented by sensations than let's say a person not oriented by sensations. Do you agree or disagree?


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> Double blind study on something that has not been objectively proven yet? You do understand that cognitive functions, and personality types, haven't been objectively proven yet? That means you would have to first prove that cognitive functions objectively exist, which btw would be revolutionary for psychology, then after proving that cognitive functions objectively exist you will have the opportunity to objectively prove your point. The fact stays that you can't objectively prove anything without first objectively proving that cognitive functions exist, meaning as of right now you have no way of objectively proving your point.


Of course, but you do realize that people have been identifying their personality type for some number of years, right? And that many things about type have been studied and tendencies have been found?

Based on this, it is not such a far stretch to think that maybe we could rather easily determine if those professing a certain dominant function and verified through a bit of testing, couldn't be used to observe a tendency between said dominant function and superior physical attributes related to the five senses or memory.

I mean, I know we don't have all of the answers, but this seems easy enough to demonstrate.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> I'm pretty sure cognitive functions are focused on the orientation of a principle. If sensations are the core principle of Si/Se then both functions would be oriented around sensations. A person more oriented towards sensations would naturally be more adept at being oriented by sensations than let's say a person not oriented by sensations. Do you agree or disagree?


Depends on what you mean by oriented.

If by oriented you mean that they have inherent abilities relating to memory or the five senses, then my answer is no.

If by oriented you mean that when cognitively processing stimuli received via the five senses they place emphasis on intuition, sensory data, or memory, then I would agree.

To reiterate my point: Si is not memory or a memory bank, nor is it the five senses just subjectively experienced, just as Se is not the five senses objectively experienced.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Of course, but you do realize that people have been identifying their personality type for some number of years, right? And that many things about type have been studied and tendencies have been found?
> 
> Based on this, it is not such a far stretch to think that maybe we could rather easily determine if those professing a certain dominant function and verified through a bit of testing, couldn't be used to observe a tendency between said dominant function and superior physical attributes related to the five senses or memory.
> 
> I mean, I know we don't have all of the answers, but this seems easy enough to demonstrate.


If, and only if, these individuals have/can accurately type themselves. If a lot of people are self identifying with false types than the whole study fails to not only be objective, but lacks precision. An imprecise study is equivalent to a useless study. We could do the study, but the results of that study, without any tools to make sure if what we are receiving is any bit accurate, then those answers can easily change if a more precise study was to come out. This is the problem of doing studies looking for objectivity when what we are studying hasn't even been objectively proven yet.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> If, and only if, these individuals have/can accurately type themselves. If a lot of people are self identifying with false types than the whole study fails to not only be objective, but lacks precision. An imprecise study is equivalent to a useless study. We could do the study, but the results of that study, without any tools to make sure if what we are receiving is any bit accurate, then those answers can easily change if a more precise study was to come out. This is the problem of doing studies looking for objectivity when what we are studying hasn't even been objectively proven yet.


Understood, but we are dealing with studies, all of which - even the most precise - have a margin of error.

I think it should be rather easy to document that having Se or Si as a dominant function does not give a person super powers related to the five senses.

TBH, I can't even really see the need for a study - it is that logical and obvious.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Depends on what you mean by oriented.
> 
> *If by oriented you mean that they have inherent abilities relating to memory* or the five senses, then my answer is no.
> 
> If by oriented you mean that when cognitively processing stimuli received via the five senses they place emphasis on intuition, sensory data, or memory, then I would agree.
> 
> To reiterate my point: Si is not memory or a memory bank, nor is it the five senses just subjectively experienced, just as Se is not the five senses objectively experienced.


bold: on the third page of this thread I made a comment that said that all introverted functions are about recalling information. 

Now I agree that Si is not the memory function, but it's a function based on memory along with all other introverted functions. Can you agree on that?

My personal theory on the five senses is that everyone has them and many more senses, but sensors are focused on the aspect of sensations, meaning the sensations that the five senses bring forward. While an intuitive also uses the 5 senses but the information gets rearranged differently, or intuitively I should say. What's your opinion on this?


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Understood, but we are dealing with studies, all of which - even the most precise - have a margin of error.
> 
> I think it should be rather easy to document that having Se or Si as a dominant function does not give a person super powers related to the five senses.
> 
> TBH, I can't even really see the need for a study - it is that logical and obvious.


Most things that are obvious or logical to one person isn't so obvious or logical to another person. The need for studies is to show how accurate an individual's logic could actually be. Different religions believe their logic is superior to another's but they can't all be right, so at the least all but one must be wrong.

Even though all studies have a margin of error, the point is to minimize that margin to be as accurate as possible. In this case the lack of objective proof for or against the cognitive functions leads the margin of error for our hypothetical study so great that it leads the study almost pointless to even conduct.


----------



## PaladinX

niss said:


> Depends on what you mean by oriented.


Just to throw out there the Jungian definition of orientation:



> ORIENTATION. I use this term to denote the general principle governing an attitude (q.v.). Every attitude is oriented by a certain viewpoint, no matter whether this viewpoint is conscious or not. A power attitude (v. Power-complex) is oriented by the power of the ego (q.v.) to hold its own against unfavourable influences and conditions. A thinking attitude to oriented by the principle of logic as its supreme law; a sensation attitude is oriented by the sensuous perception of given facts.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> bold: on the third page of this thread I made a comment that said that all introverted functions are about recalling information.
> 
> Now I agree that Si is not the memory function, but it's a function based on memory along with all other introverted functions. Can you agree on that?
> 
> My personal theory on the five senses is that everyone has them and many more senses, but sensors are focused on the aspect sensations, meaning the sensations that the five senses bring forward. While an intuitive also uses the 5 senses but the information gets rearranged differently, or intuitively I should say. What's your opinion on this?


1) I would go further and say that all functions access memory as needed, introverted or not.

2) Sort of. Si is not *based* on memory any more than any other function. Si trusts memory and sensory input above intuition, so Si naturally gravitates to emphasizing those things when interacting with an object.

3) Probably not too differently, but my choice of words would be "emphasizing" and "trusting." As a Si-dom, I experience intuition all of the time, but I don't trust it more than memory or than what sensory data is available to me. I'm married to a Ne-dom and SWMBO trusts her intuition above memory and sensory data that is available. It's not that she ignores the obvious coffee table in the middle of the room, but that she will go for the more abstract in seeking to determine the coffee table and how others in the room are interacting with the coffee table. She's an ENFP, so her focus is naturally on how people are affected by the environment.

IOW, we both see the coffee table just as concretely as the other, but once seen, what we do with that data - that is the difference in our cognitive preferences.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> Most things that are obvious or logical to one person isn't so obvious or logical to another person. The need for studies is to show how accurate an individual's logic could actually be. Different religions believe their logic is superior to another's but they can't all be right, so at the least all but one must be wrong.


Sure, there are situations that call for study and some of it is based on personal experience, but sometimes I'm just a tad flabbergasted by what we study in the name of science. For example:

Horses talk with their EARS: Creatures use subtle body language to communicate thoughts | Mail Online

Really? We needed a study to determine that horses communicate with their ears? Anyone that is even remotely aware of horse behavior should be able to tell you this.

To me, that memory and the five senses =/= Si is this basic. Like Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot by just watching."



> Even though all studies have a margin of error, the point is to minimize that margin to be as accurate as possible. In this case the lack of objective proof for or against the cognitive functions leads the margin of error for our hypothetical study so great that it leads the study almost pointless to even conduct.


Meh, we've determined that INTJs are the most intelligent, surely this isn't harder than that.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> 1) I would go further and say that all functions access memory as needed, introverted or not.
> 
> 2) Sort of. Si is not *based* on memory any more than any other function. Si trusts memory and sensory input above intuition, so Si naturally gravitates to emphasizing those things when interacting with an object.
> 
> 3) Probably not too differently, but my choice of words would be "emphasizing" and "trusting." As a Si-dom, I experience intuition all of the time, but I don't trust it more than memory or than what sensory data is available to me. I'm married to a Ne-dom and SWMBO trusts her intuition above memory and sensory data that is available. It's not that she ignores the obvious coffee table in the middle of the room, but that she will go for the more abstract in seeking to determine the coffee table and how others in the room are interacting with the coffee table. She's an ENFP, so her focus is naturally on how people are affected by the environment.
> 
> IOW, we both see the coffee table just as concretely as the other, but once seen, what we do with that data - that is the difference in our cognitive preferences.


For the first two points: what is your definition and view on introverted functions. Also in your view, what separates introversion from extraversion. I ask because from what I know, introversion is a storage of princriples, while extraversion is a seeker of principles. I'm not understanding how an extraverted function can access memory. I can understand an extraverted function using the help of an introverted function (Ne-Ti) to access memory, but I don't see how extraversion in of itself can access memory. So may you explain your viewpoint so I have clearer picture of where you are coming from.

3) if you get intuitions and you don't trust them, doesn't that mean you unconsciously are repelled by intuitions. If so, then wouldn't a person who isn't repelled by intuitions have much more access to intuitions since they have nothing holding their intuitions back, or repelling them. In other words, if I have two cars driving but one car has a force holding it back or repelling it, while the other car has nothing holding it back/repelling it, wouldn't you say the care with no force holding it back will drive more efficiently to its destination than the other car being held back? If so, then the same concept works for functions. Two people can have Ne, one in the dominant spot and one in the inferior. The inferior Ne wouldn't have access to Ne the way the dominant Ne individual would because dominant Ne has direct access with nothing intervening in its process while inferior Ne has something intervening the Ne process in your case it would be "trust" or lack of I should say.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> Sure, there are situations that call for study and some of it is based on personal experience, but sometimes I'm just a tad flabbergasted by what we study in the name of science. For example:
> 
> Horses talk with their EARS: Creatures use subtle body language to communicate thoughts | Mail Online
> 
> Really? We needed a study to determine that horses communicate with their ears? Anyone that is even remotely aware of horse behavior should be able to tell you this.
> 
> To me, that memory and the five senses =/= Si is this basic. Like Yogi Berra said, "You can observe a lot by just watching."
> 
> 
> 
> Meh, we've determined that INTJs are the most intelligent, surely this isn't harder than that.


I see what you are saying but studies aren't for the individual, they're for the crowd. If an individual claims a fact, that fact should be broken apart to see its innards and to see if that fact is indeed a true valid fact. We can know we breathe air, but a study shows why we breathe that air or how the process looks in action. Now I never studied horses and learning that horses talk with their ears is a new fact for me which I probably would've never known if you didn't show me that study.

I wouldn't say we determined INTJs are the smartest but instead we have concluded that the majority of those who type as INTJs tend have higher IQ scores. Those testing as INTJs aren't verifiable objective facts, nor is IQ a true determinate of intelligence since the definition of intelligence is constantly changing. The true results are that a specific set of people are better at a specific test than others but it doesn't prove that those individuals are indeed INTJs, or that IQ is a valid way of measuring intelligence. This is why not having precise measuremen's of objectivity causes problems in studies.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> For the first two points: what is your definition and view on introverted functions. Also in your view, what separates introversion with extraversion. I ask because from what I know, introversion is a storage of princriples, while extraversion is a seeker of principles. I'm not understanding how an extra vetted function can access memory. I can understand an extra vetted function using the help of an introverted function (Ne-Ti) to access memory, but I don't see how extraversion in of itself can access memory. So may you explain your viewpoint so I have clearer picture of where you are coming from.


I think what you are describing is again, emphasis. Introverted functions will place a greater emphasis on memory than will extroverted functions, but all of them access memory, as needed. When we say that they interact with the object internally or externally, that is somewhat of a confusing thing, since we equate subjective with internal and objective with external, yet we know that all functions by their very nature must be subjective.

So, unless the externally oriented function needs to delve deeper into memory to make sense of the object before it, then it won't. It accepts it at more or less, face value. The internally oriented function will have a need to know on a more granular level, a comparative process to enable it to fully understand the object so that object can then be conceptualized internally. Therefore, it will access memory more as a function of understanding the object.



> 3) if you get intuitions and you don't trust them, doesn't that mean you unconsciously are repelled by intuitions. If so, then wouldn't a person who isn't repelled by intuitions have much more access to intuitions since they have nothing holding their intuitions back, or repelling them. In other words, if I have two cars driving but one car has a force holding it back or repelling it, while the other car has nothing holding it back/repelling it, wouldn't you say the care with no force holding it back will drive more efficiently to its destination than the other car being held back? If so, then the same concept works for functions. Two people can have Ne, one in the dominant spot and one in the inferior. The inferior Ne wouldn't have access to Ne the way the dominant Ne individual would because it has direct access with nothing intervening in its process.


I'll probably confuse you with this, but Ne/Ni (as a function) are not intuition. Everyone has intuition. Our function preference simply indicates how much we trust it and emphasize it in our interaction with our environment.

The difference in our function stack indicates how our brain is wired to process information. Even though I am a Si-dom, I can (for a while) create focus that would utilize my intuition to a great extent. The problem is that I cannot do this long term or without exhausting my mental stamina. Similar to the introvert that is exhausted by interacting with large crowds, I must step back and regroup after doing this for a while.

So basically, we are seeking to conserve energy in our processing of information. This is why we go with what is comfortable.

To change your analogy a bit, I can drink Dr.Pepper, but I prefer Coke. I will tire of Dr.Pepper much quicker than I will Coke, which causes me to abstain and go for something else to drink.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> I think what you are describing is again, emphasis. Introverted functions will place a greater emphasis on memory than will extroverted functions, but all of them access memory, as needed. When we say that they interact with the object internally or externally, that is somewhat of a confusing thing, since we equate subjective with internal and objective with external, yet we know that all functions by their very nature must be subjective.
> 
> So, unless the externally oriented function needs to delve deeper into memory to make sense of the object before it, then it won't. It accepts it at more or less, face value. The internally oriented function will have a need to know on a more granular level, a comparative process to enable it to fully understand the object so that object can then be conceptualized internally. Therefore, it will access memory more as a function of understanding the object.
> 
> 
> 
> I'll probably confuse you with this, but Ne/Ni (as a function) are not intuition. Everyone has intuition. Our function preference simply indicates how much we trust it and emphasize it in our interaction with our environment.
> 
> The difference in our function stack indicates how our brain is wired to process information. Even though I am a Si-dom, I can (for a while) create focus that would utilize my intuition to a great extent. The problem is that I cannot do this long term or without exhausting my mental stamina. Similar to the introvert that is exhausted by interacting with large crowds, I must step back and regroup after doing this for a while.
> 
> So basically, we are seeking to conserve energy in our processing of information. This is why we go with what is comfortable.
> 
> To change your analogy a bit, I can drink Dr.Pepper, but I prefer Coke. I will tire of Dr.Pepper much quicker than I will Coke, which causes me to abstain and go for something else to drink.


For both parts I'm going to need to see sources for your claims. You say we all know that all functions must be subjective but wheres the proof of this. If objective is external and subjective is internal then that to me and to the rules of their definition means that only introversion is subjective while extraversion is objective. Also you claiming that Ne/Ni is not intuition needs to be proven also. From Jung both Ne/Ni are the sole containers and utilizers of intuition, so if this is not the case I'm going to need to see sources on this.

It's hard for me to accept that an Si user who has inferior Ne knows what it's like to have dominant Ne because they have never experienced a life with dominant Ne. So it's hard for me to accept that you think you know that you can use intuition as great as an intuitive when you have no access or experience with dominant intuition. It's like talking about how you know just as much about Japanese culture than the person born in raised in Japanese culture while you have never landed foot in Japan; or like you telling LeBron James you're just as good as him in basketball but you never been in a basketball court ever. Hence why sources are definitely needed for this.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> I see what you are saying but studies aren't for the individual, they're for the crowd. If an individual claims a fact, that fact should be broken apart to see its innards and to see if that fact is indeed a true valid fact. We can know we breathe air, but a study shows why we breathe that air or how the process looks in action. Now I never studied horses and learning that horses talk with their ears is a new fact for me which I probably would've never known if you didn't show me that study.
> 
> I wouldn't say we determined INTJs are the smartest but instead we have concluded that the majority of those who type as INTJs tend have higher IQ scores. Those testing as INTJs aren't verifiable objective facts, nor is IQ a true determinate of intelligence since the definition of intelligence is constantly changing. The true results are that a specific set of people are better at a specific test than others but it doesn't prove that those individuals are indeed INTJs, or that IQ is a valid way of measuring intelligence. This is why not having precise measuremen's of objectivity causes problems in studies.


This conversation has taken an amusing turn in that I am actually very fact based and have a huge respect for factual data. I usually get into debates over objective vs. subjective. 

I get what you are saying and I don't disagree, but I think we can understand a lot if we apply our thinking apparatus to the things we've observed. 

As an aside, too many times people fail to engage their own mind, instead assimilating and regurgitating what others have said. I find this somewhat bothersome. We all have a brain and it is up to us to use it. No one, Myers, Briggs, Keirsey, or even Jung, has had all of the answers, so we must seek to understand them and then think through the processes for ourselves and do our own thinking.

Additionally, I would hope that the ideas I've thrown out here would be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, so that they can be proven or disproven by those reading them, through their own experiences and developed understanding. I think everything should be questioned.

I also understand your point about the INTJ IQ topic. I've been one in the past that would poke holes in it. However, there is some validity to the tendency.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

niss said:


> This conversation has taken an amusing turn in that I am actually very fact based and have a huge respect for factual data. I usually get into debates over objective vs. subjective.
> 
> I get what you are saying and I don't disagree, but I think we can understand a lot if we apply our thinking apparatus to the things we've observed.
> 
> As an aside, too many times people fail to engage their own mind, instead assimilating and regurgitating what others have said. I find this somewhat bothersome. We all have a brain and it is up to us to use it. No one, Myers, Briggs, Keirsey, or even Jung, has had all of the answers, so we must seek to understand them and then think through the processes for ourselves and do our own thinking.
> 
> Additionally, I would hope that the ideas I've thrown out here would be met with a healthy dose of skepticism, so that they can be proven or disproven by those reading them, through their own experiences and developed understanding. I think everything should be questioned.
> 
> I also understand your point about the INTJ IQ topic. I've been one in the past that would poke holes in it. However, there is some validity to the tendency.


I agree that Jung, kiersey, myers, and so on didn't and don't have all the answers but they did have systems that explained the world in a way that they could understand. In order for people, like you and I, to understand these systems we must first understand all the components (definitions) and their logical relation with each other. As in why Jung named Se/Si Sensation functions instead of a different word. Once we understand all of their system in the way that they did, then we can create our own opinions/facts based on their systems or our interpretation of these systems. I also agree everything should be questioned, but after what is being questioned is first understood.

As for the INTJS IQ discussion, some parts are valid as in the group that tends to test as INTJ has higher IQs, we may not be able to prove right now that those individuals are INTJ or that IQ tests can accurately test intellegence, but what is valid is that there is a specific group of people who test as INTJ who tend to have higher IQ scores. I just like to get as precise as possible when it comes to statements or results.


----------



## niss

Shadow Logic said:


> For both parts I'm going to need to see sources for your claims. You say we all know that all functions must be subjective but wheres the proof of this. If objective is external and subjective is internal then that to me and to the rules of their definition means that only introversion is subjective while extraversion is objective. Also you claiming that Ne/Ni is not intuition needs to be proven also. From Jung both Ne/Ni are the sole containers and utilizers of intuition, so if this is not the case I'm going to need to see sources on this.


Why the appeal to authority? Just think about it. All things perceived by an individual are by their very nature subjective. How hot is hot, how hard is hard, how blue is blue? It's all subjective, relating to the individual. When we say a person in interacting with an object externally, they don't turn off their brain ... they are still going through subjective thought processes to determine their reaction to the object.

As for Ne/Ni, we know that Si-doms really lack in this area. Yet we are surrounded by Si-doms that use intuition on a daily basis. We can observe it - it's there for us to see, just as the horse's ears. Just insert some logic and we can develop a pattern of behavior. 

I use intuition daily. All of the time. It's just part of the human existence.

However, in the grips of Ne, now that is a different experience for me, altogether. Quenk is right - it is catastrophizing and imagining the very worst that could happen. Unchecked, Ne will bring on a panic attack - something I'm not prone to at all. But when I find myself in that grip, I can logically take control of the thought process and bring myself back from the ledge.

Use what you can and discard the rest. Just be sure that whatever theory you conjure, there is an ISTJ somewhere ready to poke holes in it.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Rex Magnus said:


> Yeah, this is what I don't understand. The way Si is usually described is terrible. Consulting the past to understand the present? Isn't that what everyone does? That's not Si. That's being wise and not making the same mistake again and again. The OP gave a good example. If I didn't like a song a few years ago and thus refused to listen to it in the present, does that make me an Si user? Why would my opinion of the song change? Maybe I just don't want to waste my time and look for a better song.
> 
> To_august provided a great description of Si in another thread. It clarified many of my doubts.


What? No link? Can you drop the link here?

As for myself, Si has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. I say "always" because people I've known through they years, who are strong Si types (SJ types), while I did not know them as such, have seemed to fit a common mold that I couldn't fit into. 

I describe the mold this way. These are people who live in a world of "ought to", as in, "people ought to..." It's not a world of rules per say, but of expectations toward certain behaviors--and these behaviors have _nothing_ to do with morality or right and wrong as we normally think of it. These normal behaviors are as mundane as to how to wash dishes or load a dishwasher, to proper car of your car, to whatever. But yes, these "ought to's" extend to things like morality or political correctness, too. these types tend to project their own order of the world onto _everything_. Granted, they frequently are right--how to load a dishwasher, for instance. There are good ways to do some things, but for them, it's like railroad tracks. My mom would have a cow if I ever put a cup on the bottom shelf of the dishwasher. I do it all the time if they don't fit--but she would have a cow. 

On the other hand, it's not like they are adverse to adventure or learning new things, etc. But to me, inertia is stronger than for, say, Se types, or Ni types. The few Ne types I know tend to be much more adventurous in mental pursuits, but quite comfortable in daily routine almost as well as SJ types, and certainly don't seem adverse to them like I am. My problem with routine, habit, etc. is that over time, it gets harder and harder to maintain--to the point my brain and body are screaming out for some change. I may be fine for the 21 days that people say takes a new habit to form, but three months later, I am completely unable to maintain a "new habit." It all falls apart. But by then, an SJ type is happily engrossed in the habit--at least the ones I know. 

Another "feature" of SJ types I know. They love learning new facts, and memorizing things by rote--poems, train and bus routes, etc. I've never been able to memorize anything well. I do well if I can remember the structure, and require patterns to help me with that much. 

So, to my way of looking at it, It's much more than just consulting the past to understand the present. It's more like the past _is_ the present, and the present doesn't count until it's entered the past, and then it matters to them. An illustration. The first time they may drive somewhere or experience it. They are just "testing" it, and they give it no credence or value the very first time. It's not like they won't experiment, but to them, it is nothing more than a test of validity--it has to prove itself. If, after multiple tries, that new route or experience works, then they will accept it as valid. For me, it is sort of the opposite. The same old route I've always taken--well, there's no meaning to it for me. I will try to find a better route, or a different approach, but I'm always pushing on it, always molding it. Granted, sometimes, like the route from my home to work--it's short, very few options, and only one good one, but it's multi-lane, and there are different times I can leave home, etc. Even after 10 years, I still try to tweak and perfect the trip to shorten it. It's never settled to me (even though I think I know the best times, and which lanes are best), but is always something to tweak. Yeah, it sounds dumb, but that is me. 

And, I should add, that these thoughts above were things I observed and recognized long before I heard of the terms MBTI and Si and Se. They were just observations of quirks in people I now know to be SJ types. 

And I'm still interested in a link to that description you mentioned.

Edit:

I realize I need to clarify something. These "ought to's" I'm referring to are strictly in the material realm. In other words, governing behavior, habits, etc. This does not apply to the mental or intellectual realm. In fact, the ones I have in mind are very engaging conversationalists, and quite intellectually powerful, and full of wonderful ideas. In other words, what I seem to portray as staid and fearful of change does not apply to their whole life, as they often have very innovative ideas, and are quite adept at pushing the envelope in their areas of expertise, just like any type. It is just in those daily routines that I notice the difference. I suppose I should add that some of the people I view as SJ "ought to" types may, in fact, be NP types. But when it comes to mundane, daily things, they appear to me as SJ types. This realm of the mundane is where I sense Si most, but only in contrast to my own approach to the same things.


----------



## Serpent

ferroequinologist said:


> What? No link? Can you drop the link here?
> 
> As for myself, Si has always been somewhat of a mystery to me. I say "always" because people I've known through they years, who are strong Si types (SJ types), while I did not know them as such, have seemed to fit a common mold that I couldn't fit into.
> 
> I describe the mold this way. These are people who live in a world of "ought to", as in, "people ought to..." It's not a world of rules per say, but of expectations toward certain behaviors--and these behaviors have _nothing_ to do with morality or right and wrong as we normally think of it. These normal behaviors are as mundane as to how to wash dishes or load a dishwasher, to proper car of your car, to whatever. But yes, these "ought to's" extend to things like morality or political correctness, too. these types tend to project their own order of the world onto _everything_. Granted, they frequently are right--how to load a dishwasher, for instance. There are good ways to do some things, but for them, it's like railroad tracks. My mom would have a cow if I ever put a cup on the bottom shelf of the dishwasher. I do it all the time if they don't fit--but she would have a cow.
> 
> On the other hand, it's not like they are adverse to adventure or learning new things, etc. But to me, inertia is stronger than for, say, Se types, or Ni types. The few Ne types I know tend to be much more adventurous in mental pursuits, but quite comfortable in daily routine almost as well as SJ types, and certainly don't seem adverse to them like I am. My problem with routine, habit, etc. is that over time, it gets harder and harder to maintain--to the point my brain and body are screaming out for some change. I may be fine for the 21 days that people say takes a new habit to form, but three months later, I am completely unable to maintain a "new habit." It all falls apart. But by then, an SJ type is happily engrossed in the habit--at least the ones I know.
> 
> Another "feature" of SJ types I know. They love learning new facts, and memorizing things by rote--poems, train and bus routes, etc. I've never been able to memorize anything well. I do well if I can remember the structure, and require patterns to help me with that much.
> 
> So, to my way of looking at it, It's much more than just consulting the past to understand the present. It's more like the past _is_ the present, and the present doesn't count until it's entered the past, and then it matters to them. An illustration. The first time they may drive somewhere or experience it. They are just "testing" it, and they give it no credence or value the very first time. It's not like they won't experiment, but to them, it is nothing more than a test of validity--it has to prove itself. If, after multiple tries, that new route or experience works, then they will accept it as valid. For me, it is sort of the opposite. The same old route I've always taken--well, there's no meaning to it for me. I will try to find a better route, or a different approach, but I'm always pushing on it, always molding it. Granted, sometimes, like the route from my home to work--it's short, very few options, and only one good one, but it's multi-lane, and there are different times I can leave home, etc. Even after 10 years, I still try to tweak and perfect the trip to shorten it. It's never settled to me (even though I think I know the best times, and which lanes are best), but is always something to tweak. Yeah, it sounds dumb, but that is me.
> 
> And, I should add, that these thoughts above were things I observed and recognized long before I heard of the terms MBTI and Si and Se. They were just observations of quirks in people I now know to be SJ types.
> 
> And I'm still interested in a link to that description you mentioned.
> 
> Edit:
> 
> I realize I need to clarify something. These "ought to's" I'm referring to are strictly in the material realm. In other words, governing behavior, habits, etc. This does not apply to the mental or intellectual realm. In fact, the ones I have in mind are very engaging conversationalists, and quite intellectually powerful, and full of wonderful ideas. In other words, what I seem to portray as staid and fearful of change does not apply to their whole life, as they often have very innovative ideas, and are quite adept at pushing the envelope in their areas of expertise, just like any type. It is just in those daily routines that I notice the difference. I suppose I should add that some of the people I view as SJ "ought to" types may, in fact, be NP types. But when it comes to mundane, daily things, they appear to me as SJ types. This realm of the mundane is where I sense Si most, but only in contrast to my own approach to the same things.


http://personalitycafe.com/socionics-forum/371250-name-quadra-16.html#post12948258


----------



## Acadia

I don't quite understand Si, only enough to know I don't use it. My family is filled with Si-users at some level and the way we interact in the world is very different. for instance, I was speaking with my dad the other night and told him I can't stay in one place for too long; his response was that eventually I'll get tired--but I don't think that's the case. 

A couple of observation and comparisons to help illustrate the difference between Si and Se 
{dad and I are looking for a parking spot} 

Dad: I can never find any spots here. Every single time I come here, the parking lot is filled. It's so frustrating, I can't stand being in this plaza
Me: Hey look there's a spot that just opened up.

also ESTJ Ex
Ex: blahblahblah I'm manly don't you think? 
Me: no you're 20 you're still a kid what are you talking about
Ex: you don't think I'm masculine? 
Me: not particularly. still wanna cook dinner tonight? 
Ex: yeah sure but fyi I'm a MAN 
Me: dude we're juniors in college, we're kids

Ultimately Se is more aware of what is actually going on. Se notices time passing, sees quick movements, notices patterns and phenomenons as they pertain to immediate reality, and acts immediately on what they want to do; Se is tremendously in the moment, does not check what it is saying, does not frequently look before it leaps, and frequently finds itself in quite a bit of trouble. whereas, from what I understand, introverted sensing processes all of these things internally and ponders, a bit, I think. Because Se works with Ni, and Si would work with Ne, and Ne loves possibilities. So it sees things and makes connections; but it can't do that without introverted sensing. 

both types can be nostalgic; both can have fond or sad memories; both types can be practical. the differences, I think, are most visible in reactions to things and manner of speaking. I can talk about things that have hurt me without feeling hurt. When explaining what happened in the past, even if it's told as a story, it's still a statement. Si-users, I've noticed, not so much. They relive those moments when they're explaining what happened. So when they explain something that happened, it's much more of retelling an experience. 

but again I don't really understand Si that well so if somebody can clarify and/or correct my statements please do.


----------



## Du Toit

To refute description of cognitive functions you have to 1. Make sure you understand them well (what will this understanding be based on, if you are not agreeing with original functions descriptions ?) 2. Make sure you _really_ know what your type is.

Si is definitely about nostalgia, comparing present stimuli to previous one, etc. Maybe you (OP) are simply not aware of how Si works, or you're trying to repress anything associated with it, or you aren't even an INFP in the first place.


----------



## To_august

Laf said:


> To refute description of cognitive functions you have to 1. Make sure you understand them well (what will this understanding be based on, if you are not agreeing with original functions descriptions ?)


Except that original function description doesn't contain any reference to nostalgia or memory recall.


----------



## Dezir

KraChZiMan said:


> Said it million times before: Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information is putting cognitive functions into boxes and stereotypes that certainly serve no other purpose than to confuse people even further, giving the green light to even new stereotypes to arise. I am sick and tired of reading yet another "why can't SJ's appreciate my deep intuitive intelligence?" threads.


You can also say it trillion times, that doesn't necessarily makes it true.

Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information is.... exactly what the function does.

Putting cognitive function into boxes and stereotypes that certainly serve no other purpose than.... to clearly explain people with examples how the functions work.

I am sick and tired of reading yet another "why can't SJ's appreciate my deep intuitive intelligence?" threads... definetly not because they couldn't care less about N related stuff.

*CONFUSING FUN FACT: You use all the 8 functions!

Tada!

You wouldn't expect that would you ?

You use all your 8 functions but only prefer 4 of them which you use more often

And INTJ may practice Fe and get better at communicating with people, that does mean he is better at communicating with people now, but that doesn't mean he likes talking to people more than science, this is what MBTI is about and most stereotyping people on the interent don't get, preference.

The question is not which of them you use but which of them you prefer ?*

Cognitive functions in a nutshell:

*Te* - looks outward for its logic. (Logic based on objects, like how to organise a desk)

*Ti* - looks inward for logic. (Logic based on subjects, like why does the sun really shine)

*Fe* - looks outward for its morality. (Morality based on objects (people), I want people to feel good)

*Fi* - looks inward for its morality. (Morality based on subjects, that's not the right thing to do)

*Se* - looks outward for physical stimulation. (Sensing based on objects, I want more action, more adrenaline)

*Si* - looks inward for experience. (Sensing based on subjects, and the only 'sensing subject' is memory, how did I solved this before ?)

*Ne* - looks outward for mental stimulation (Intuition based on objects, you know what desks and ravens have in common ?) 

*Ni* - looks inward for ideas. (Intuition based on subjects, Let me guess what that means… am I right? Yes! I knew it!) _(Contrary to a popular stereotype belief, Ni can also be wrong sometimes)_

Now, what do Si-doms tend too look more for than other types ? expericence, and where does experience come from ? aha! the past! so what do Si-doms look more for than other types ? the past.

What would they naturally tend to do when going to their old school they graduated from or the old home they used to live in as children ? Well since they tend to look for the past more than any of the other types you can already guess the answer... nostalgia.




*EDIT:* If you don't believe me..

you don't have to, check this out:

http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/understanding-mbti-type-dynamics/the-eight-function-attitudes.htm


----------



## Du Toit

To_august said:


> Except that original function description doesn't contain any reference to nostalgia or memory recall.


It does mention a recalling of past information, and a strong inclination to compare actual data/situations/stimuli to previous one.


----------



## To_august

Laf said:


> It does mention a recalling of past information, and a strong inclination to compare actual data/situations/stimuli to previous one.


No, it doesn't. And by 'original' I mean Jung.


----------



## Dezir

To_august said:


> No, it doesn't. And by 'original' I mean Jung.


And that makes Jung right instead of an MBTI based on years of studies with evidence not just theory because ? Jung didn't even noticed the P - J dichotomy, can you say ISTJ are the same as ISTP ?


----------



## Zee Bee

KraChZiMan said:


> Just felt the need to point this out one more time. Thank you!


That is obvious! Si would remember that!


----------



## Du Toit

To_august said:


> No, it doesn't. And by 'original' I mean Jung.


Well, it doesn't explicitly mention those things but the main idea is that Si is about subjective apprehension of stimuli. Which means that the Si user will have an internal map of personal sensations that he will use to navigate through life. Which is why Si users are likely to compare new data/situations/stimuli to previous one, because once the outside doesn't reflect internal sensation map, the Si user gets a gut ''punch''.

I was talking about memory and this sensation thing with my brother, and without having even read anything about cognitive functions, he was totally cosigning with descriptions of Si. "When I'm walking down the streets, I compare buildings to those of London (where we lived before). When I look at the metro station, I think of the underground. When I get inside a classroom, I automatically compare it to classrooms I've been to in the past. Same goes with food. When I eat food, I notice how different it is from the previous time it was cooked...''. And as he was talking, you could see his body getting all animated as if exactly reliving what he was describing; something that's always been assigned to Si usage.


----------



## To_august

Dezir said:


> And that makes Jung right instead of an MBTI based on years of studies with evidence not just theory because ? Jung didn't even noticed the P - J dichotomy, can you say ISTJ are the same as ISTP ?


Evidence of what? That Si is information recalling?
MBTI is centered first of all around dichotomies, and while functions are provided as an additional read, I don't think MBTI does better job at describing or recognizing them than other typology theories that pay major attention to functions particularly, and no better than Jung for sure.
P/J dichotomy is the least useful part of MBTI theory imo. It doesn't provide with any useful information except clearly messing things up for introverts.



Laf said:


> Well, it doesn't explicitly mention those things but the main idea is that Si is about subjective apprehension of stimuli. Which means that the Si user will have an internal map of personal sensations that he will use to navigate through life. Which is why Si users are likely to compare new data/situations/stimuli to previous one, because once the outside doesn't reflect internal sensation map, the Si user gets a gut ''punch''.


Not really. The main idea is that objective stimuli acts as a trigger for evoking of subjective content, and impressions/images that influence perception doesn't come from the external world, they are already outlined in the psyche. If they would come externally such function should be named extroverted, because of its orientation by objective factors, while Si is obviously introverted. This is true for all introverted functions.


----------



## Du Toit

To_august said:


> Evidence of what? That Si is information recalling?
> MBTI is centered first of all around dichotomies, and while functions are provided as an additional read, I don't think MBTI does better job at describing or recognizing them than other typology theories that pay major attention to functions particularly, and no better than Jung for sure.
> P/J dichotomy is the least useful part of MBTI theory imo. It doesn't provide with any useful information except clearly messing things up for introverts.
> 
> 
> 
> Not really. The main idea is that objective stimuli acts as a trigger for evoking of subjective content, and impressions/images that influence perception doesn't come from the external world, they are already outlined in the psyche. If they would come externally such function should be named extroverted, because of its orientation by objective factors, while Si is obviously introverted. This is true for all introverted functions.


We are saying the same thing, just that I made few extrapolations


----------



## reckful

To_august said:


> No, it doesn't. And by 'original' I mean Jung.


As I told FreeBeer five months ago (in this very thread):

As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more _function-centric_ MBTI theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually _nobody respectable_ really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences pretty clearly put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.

Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original Si description (for example), I really don't think he'd approve.​


----------



## ferroequinologist

To_august said:


> No, it doesn't. And by 'original' I mean Jung.


I seem to recall that most modern practitioners tend to think that Jung really didn't do a good job of describing Si, and that maybe he didn't understand it too well... And considering Socionics take on it is that it is primarily based on being very body-aware, I would guess that maybe those people have a point. 

I wouldn't hold up Jung as the definitive authority on Si... I suggest more reading on this subject, though, to be sure...


----------



## Deus Absconditus

reckful said:


> As I told FreeBeer five months ago (in this very thread):
> 
> As discussed at length in this post, most modern Si descriptions — including the ones you'll find in more _function-centric_ MBTI theorists like Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — bear little resemblance to Jung's Si descriptions, and are more like the _opposite_ of Jung's descriptions in many respects. Virtually _nobody respectable_ really subscribes to Jung's original conception of Si anymore, and I think it's fair to say that Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences pretty clearly put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.
> 
> Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them. If Jung was still around and became aware that, 90 years after Psychological Types was published, somebody was inclined to ignore all the improvements that had been made to his original ideas by Myers and others and was telling people they should be typing themselves based on his original Si description (for example), I really don't think he'd approve.​


The problem is that if Si is described as the opposite of what Jung's Si is, then it becomes impossible (in every sense of the word) to be describing the same thing. In other words, if someone describes a car to you by defining it, then someone else disagrees with that and states all horses are cars and whatever the former described as a car isn't really a car because it's not a horse, then that would mean that the latter guy is obviously perceiving a different object and trying to call it the same thing.

The second problem is that we define things to reference concepts. Jungs definition of Si is describing a concept he perceived as an individual. Discarding the whole definition means discarding the concept, by discarding the concept you are inevitably not perceiving the same concept. Therefore any concept that doesn't resemble the initial concept, *is not the same concept*. So how is it that all of these "modern theorists" are claiming to define Si as opposite of Jungs, when their only reference to Si is the initial concept of Si from Jung? By basically describing a function opposite of Jungs you are inevitably describing something opposite of the function/concept that Jung observed, in other words, you are not describing the same concept. It's like I decide to describe the moon by discarding the whole concept of the moon, it's impossible and everything I state is inevitably describing something completely different than the initial concept of the moon. IN order to define the moon you are forced to abide by its concept or else you are not describing the concept of the moon.

Which brings up my next problem, how in the living hell is anyone claiming to analyze Jung's concepts without observing the concept? Its like analyzing thenmoon without ever seeing the moon, its nonintellectual. In order to analyze the concept, you need to actually focus on the concept itself to understand what exactly it is you are analyzing. If you are defining a new concept or a concept separate from the one supposedly being analyzed then you were never analyzing the initial concept but instead a concept of your own. Therefore you are clearly talking about two different concepts, and admitting to it when you state that the original concept was wrong. It becomes even more ridiculoud to claim a concept was wrong when you were never observing it in the first place. In other words, how can you claim something is wrong when you never even looked at that something? How can you claim a concept is wrong without looking at the concept?


----------



## To_august

Laf said:


> We are saying the same thing, just that I made few extrapolations


I still have an impression that what you meant were previously experienced concepts as memories, while I referred to archetypal elements not experienced before and already existing in human psyche. 



reckful said:


> Jung's Si-dom description does a poor job of capturing the personality of any reasonably large group of non-disordered people who have ever walked the Earth, today or in 1921 or at any time. And in any case, it certainly does a lousy job of describing most of the people (extraverts and introverts both) whose preferences pretty clearly put them on the S and J sides of those two MBTI dimensions.


Lol, I'm definitely here, walking the Earth and identifying with Jung's description of an Si. I probably have some mental issues, as no one is completely sane these days, but I believe not to have any major disorders. 
And it's obvious that he described extreme cases of dominant function individuation, which clearer demonstrated what he alluded to.



ferroequinologist said:


> I seem to recall that most modern practitioners tend to think that Jung really didn't do a good job of describing Si, and that maybe he didn't understand it too well... And considering Socionics take on it is that it is primarily based on being very body-aware, I would guess that maybe those people have a point.
> 
> I wouldn't hold up Jung as the definitive authority on Si... I suggest more reading on this subject, though, to be sure...


I'm not telling that his description of an Si is ideal and all-encompassing, but it captures the basics of my experience with this function from where one can extrapolate on an individual manifestations.
I think an overall body focus of an Si in Socionics partially comes from its authors' experience with it (Augusta is believed to be an ILE), which is pretty much in line with what Jung said about inferior Si actually.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Shadow Logic said:


> In other words, how can you claim something is wrong when you never even looked at that something? How can you claim a concept is wrong without looking at the concept?


The thing is, if there is Fi and Fe, Ni and Ne, Ti and Te, then there must also be Si and Se. That means that conceptually, Si must exist. The concept is there, regardless of how it is understood or described. Jung attempted to describe and understand it to the best of his ability. However...

If Jung truly was an INFJ, then his weakest function would have been Se, and Si, to him, would have been something that he would struggle to understand and define. I know that, for myself, I struggle to understand it, and understand, even Ne better than Si. That said, I do see it playing itself out in other people through my Se--but in Jung's case, it would have been much harder--the one function he would have most likely struggled to understand and explain would have been Si, and add to it, the difficulties that people even today have with Si, and you have a perfect storm of confusion for the next generation to work out...

So, the concept is there, regardless of how or how well Jung described it. The later descriptions, given by later practitioners is no surprise. In other words, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.


----------



## Dezir

To_august said:


> Evidence of what? That Si is information recalling?
> MBTI is centered first of all around dichotomies, and while functions are provided as an additional read, I don't think MBTI does better job at describing or recognizing them than other typology theories that pay major attention to functions particularly, and no better than Jung for sure.
> P/J dichotomy is the least useful part of MBTI theory imo. It doesn't provide with any useful information except clearly messing things up for introverts.


All I see is: opinion, opinion, opinion, no facts, no proof, no evidence.

Yes evidence that Si is information recalling. If you deny MBTI's definition of Si you're actually denying dozens of real evidences which is practially irrational. Reality dictates theory, not otherwise.

MBTI is centered first of all around dichotomies but that doesn't make the functions "additional read" less valid.

And why is that MBTI doesn't do a better job at describing or recognizing functions than Jung 'for sure' I wonder ?
I just mentioned that MBTI's work is based on studies and evidence, most of Jung's work was based on his personal interpretation, I have the facts, you have the opinion.

P/J dichotomy is one of the most important parts of MBTI theory actually, you change that letter, and you change all the 4 main functions a person has.

If you think you're right at least explain me your definition of Si and expalin me why you think you're right, with some evidence if possible. What makes me wonder is why you have such a hard time with Si when you're a Si dominant.

Does this truly have something to do with the function or MBTI ? or is it something more personal ? Because if your problem is personal you're trying to solve it the wrong way. Every individual of the same type has different functions development ratios, also different moral choices, you may find an ENTJ who doesn't really care about people at all, while another ENTJ may be as nurturing as a healty Fe user.

As I said in the last post, Si is a memory function, works like a blueprint. Takes sensational impressions to be stored as a template. And that template is memory, being a Si dominant it means this is your default mode, therefore you value routine and tradition. If this is not true for you, then maybe you're not an ISTJ.


----------



## Du Toit

To_august said:


> I still have an impression that what you meant were previously experienced concepts as memories, while I referred to archetypal elements not experienced before and already existing in human psyche.


I was talking about both. There an obvious innate archetypal map, that is fed and fine-tuned by outer stimuli. How Si goes about processing that outer stimuli is something I don't understand very well.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

ferroequinologist said:


> The thing is, if there is Fi and Fe, Ni and Ne, Ti and Te, then there must also be Si and Se. That means that conceptually, Si must exist. The concept is there, regardless of how it is understood or described. Jung attempted to describe and understand it to the best of his ability. However...
> 
> If Jung truly was an INFJ, then his weakest function would have been Se, and Si, to him, would have been something that he would struggle to understand and define. I know that, for myself, I struggle to understand it, and understand, even Ne better than Si. That said, I do see it playing itself out in other people through my Se--but in Jung's case, it would have been much harder--the one function he would have most likely struggled to understand and explain would have been Si, and add to it, the difficulties that people even today have with Si, and you have a perfect storm of confusion for the next generation to work out...
> 
> So, the concept is there, regardless of how or how well Jung described it. The later descriptions, given by later practitioners is no surprise. In other words, I think this is a tempest in a teapot.


The problem though is that Jung's description of Si isn't just a description made out of nothing, it's the properties of it that make it what it is and that's what he described. Before talking about the individual functions he first defined the process of of extraversion/introversion which are properties of a function. He described introversion as abstraction, and abstraction as the process of extracting a portion from the whole. This is a rule that means that *all* Introverted functions extract a portion from a whole. This is not subject to change or else we move away from the concept altogether. Therefore Si is a process that extracts a portion from the whole, the portion it abstracts is sensing. He then defines sensation as: 



> Sensation, or sensing, is that psychological function which transmits a physical stimulus to perception.





> Primarily; therefore, sensation is sense-perception, i.e. perception transmitted via the sense organs and 'bodily senses' (kinaesthetic, vaso-motor sensation, etc.).


This means that Si extracts a portion of the whole sense perception, that is directly related to the individual (the sensing subject). He even describes it in a simple manner here:



> Abstract sensation, on the other hand, immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, as for instance its brilliant redness, and makes it the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all the other admixtures alluded to above.


So in order to define Si he had to define introversion, along with Sensation, and then described their relation which each other, which is what introverted sensation is, a mixture of introversion and sensation.

So for anyone to claim that their concept is *opposite* of Jung's, they are inevitably implying a lot. They're Implying that either the concept of sensation, introversion, or both are wrong. If sensation is wrong then intuition may be wrong because it is described as the opposing function, the one function that is the complete of opposite sensing. It's like saying the concept of hot is wrong, well if hot is wrong then cold must be too since they are in relation to each other. If introversion is wrong then you are implying all of the introverted discriptions are wrong, never mind Si. 

Basically if you agree with the concepts of introversion and sensation then you automatically agree with Jung's description since it is exactly that, the introversion of sensation. If you don't agragree with those concepts and then you define the concepts as opposite of what they are then you are inevitably not defining the same concept. In order to talk about the same concept we must define the same concept. Defining a concept as opposite of what it is, is a contradiction and proves that the two opposing concepts are actually two completely different concepts. If you are describing a concept you need to actually focus on the concept, the moment you define it as a completely different concept is the moment you are talking about about a completely different concept.


----------



## Dezir

Laf said:


> I was talking about both. There an obvious innate archetypal map, that is fed and fine-tuned by outer stimuli. How Si goes about processing that outer stimuli is something I don't understand very well.


While Se may be 100% enviroment ; Si is 50% enviroment - 50% memory. It holds a template of how things taste, how things used to be, how things felt and compares the past with the present, and has a tendencty to trust the past, unless the present is way better. So it's not really memory in the same way Ni it's not really future but it does acces memory _(that template)_ quite a lot in the same way a Ni user thinks about the future quite a lot.

The in-your-face difference is that while you may think about the past from time to time, a Si-dom user does this by default, they don't really want to think about the past nor put any conscious effort in doing so, they just do. The same thing goes for Ni-users but in the opposite dirrection, the future.


----------



## Serpent

Like I said before, Si being correlated with memory recall is ludicrous. I don't even know why I have to explain this, it's part of what makes you an intelligent, functioning human being. Both Jung and Socionics never even alluded to this in their descriptions.


----------



## reckful

Shadow Logic said:


> The problem is that if Si is described as the opposite of what Jung's Si is, then it becomes impossible (in every sense of the word) to be describing the same thing. ...





Shadow Logic said:


> The problem though is that Jung's description of Si isn't just a description made out of nothing, it's the properties of it that make it what it is and that's what he described. Before talking about the individual functions he first defined the process of of extraversion/introversion which are properties of a function. He described introversion as abstraction, and abstraction as the process of extracting a portion from the whole. ... This is not subject to change or else we move away from the concept altogether. ...
> 
> Defining a concept as opposite of what it is, is a contradiction and proves that the two opposing concepts are actually two completely different concepts. If you are describing a concept you need to actually focus on the concept, the moment you define it as a completely different concept is the moment you are talking about about a completely different concept.


_BWOOOP...BWOOOP...BWOOOP..._

Earth to Shadow Logic! Earth to Shadow Logic!

Allow me to introduce you to a Swiss psychologist named Carl Jung. He was an early associate of Freud's, but more importantly for purposes of this thread, he _broke with Freud_! And you want to know why? Well, as I've already explained _twice_, Jung broke with Freud in large part because he thought Freud wanted him (and others) to treat Freud's theories as a kind of religion, rather than having an appropriately sceptical and open-minded scientific attitude toward them.

Jung was a believer in science, and thought that its methods and principles should be brought to bear in the field of psychology to the extent reasonably feasible. He published Psychological Types in 1921, and I think it's fair to say it didn't exactly cause a big stir. In fact, it more or less languished until the 1940s, when a smart lady (first in her class at Swarthmore) named Isabel Myers decided to get all _scientific_ on Jung's ass, taught herself the relevant psychometrics, and devoted a large chunk of her life to putting his typological categories to the test. Over the course of 20 years, Myers adjusted Jung's categories and concepts so that they better fit the data she gathered from thousands of subjects, and by the start of the 1960s, she had a typology (and an instrument) that was respectably tapping into four of the Big Five personality dimensions — long before there really was a Big Five.

McCrae and Costa are the leading Big Five psychologists, and they've studied both Jung and the MBTI, and concluded — correctly — that Jung's typology erred in lumping various psychological characteristics together that decades of studies have shown _are not significantly correlated_. By contrast, after Myers was finished adjusting Jung's system to fit the data, she had a modified version whose dichotomies passed muster by the relevant scientific standards. As McCrae and Costa explain:



McCrae & Costa said:


> Jung's descriptions of what might be considered superficial but objectively observable characteristics often include traits that do not empirically covary. Jung described extraverts as "open, sociable, jovial, or at least friendly and approachable characters," but also as morally conventional and tough-minded in James's sense. Decades of research on the dimension of extraversion show that these attributes simply do not cohere in a single factor. ...
> 
> Faced with these difficulties, Myers and Briggs created an instrument by elaborating on the most easily assessed and distinctive traits suggested by Jung's writings and their own observations of individuals they considered exemplars of different types and by relying heavily on traditional psychometric procedures (principally item-scale correlations). Their work produced a set of internally consistent and relatively uncorrelated indices.


You explained in your first post that Jung "described introversion as abstraction." He most certainly did, and he _also_ described introverts as the types of people familiar from more modern conceptions of introversion (including MBTI introversion). Jung said introverts tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny." And conversely, he said extraverts tended to be "concretistic" (rather than abstract), but _also_ said extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

But Myers discovered that not only are there abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), there is in fact _no significant correlation_ between Myers' (psychometrically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.

Jung said extraverts tend to subscribe to the mainstream cultural views of their time, while introverts tend to reject mainstream values in favor of their own individualistic choices. But Myers discovered that a typical ISTJ is significantly more likely to be a traditionalist than a typical (more independent-minded) ENTP. Jung said an extravert likes change and "discovers himself in the fluctuating and changeable," while an introvert resists change and identifies with the "changeless and eternal." But Myers discovered that it was the S/N and J/P dimensions that primarily influenced someone's attitude toward change, rather than whether they were introverted or extraverted.

And as further explained in that long post I already linked to, it turned out that there was no Jungian function in more need of correction than "Si." And _this is not a controversial issue_, Shadow Logic. And it's not a "dichotomies vs. functions" issue. As described in the linked post (with illustrative quotes), even the more _function-centric_ modern MBTI theorists (Thomson, Berens, Nardi, Quenk) don't make significant use of Jung's Si description. Their IS_J portraits are very much like Myers' IS_J portraits, and are to a substantial extent the _opposite_ of Jung's Si-dom portrait.

Jung said an Si-dom "has an illusory conception of reality," and that the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it is "unpredictable and arbitrary," while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as noteworthy for their down-to-earth, practical and reliable focus on the facts. Jung said it was understandable why the Si-doms (together with their Ni-dom cousins) are considered the "most useless of men" from the standpoint of achieving practical, real-world results, while Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk portray Si-doms as among the likeliest candidates for employee-of-the-month.

And again, there's a much lengthier discussion, with many more quotes, in that linked post.

And the reason Myers and Keirsey and all those function-centric theorists describe IS_Js in ways that bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-dom description is that, at the end of the day, _facts are facts_, Shadow Logic — and Jung agreed with that. Jung wasn't interested in coming up with typological "concepts" that were detached from reality. He believed that his types corresponded to real, underlying biological dimensions that he speculated had been fashioned by evolution because they represented alternative niche strategies for reproductive success. His typological categories made _falsifiable predictions_ about people — e.g., that people hardwired to be introverts would be _both_ shy/reserved _and_ abstract in orientiation — and Myers ended up falsifying quite a few of them.

But... look there... floating untethered above the facts, way up in the Cosmic Conceptual Quadrant... it's Shadow Logic, and here's his perspective:



Shadow Logic said:


> The problem is that if Si is described as the opposite of what Jung's Si is, then it becomes impossible (in every sense of the word) to be describing the same thing. ...
> 
> The second problem is that we define things to reference concepts. Jungs definition of Si is describing a concept he perceived as an individual. Discarding the whole definition means discarding the concept, by discarding the concept you are inevitably not perceiving the same concept. Therefore any concept that doesn't resemble the initial concept, *is not the same concept*. So how is it that all of these "modern theorists" are claiming to define Si as opposite of Jungs, when their only reference to Si is the initial concept of Si from Jung? ...
> 
> Which brings up my next problem, how in the living hell is anyone claiming to analyze Jung's concepts without observing the concept? ... If you are defining a new concept or a concept separate from the one supposedly being analyzed then you were never analyzing the initial concept but instead a concept of your own. Therefore you are clearly talking about two different concepts, and admitting to it when you state that the original concept was wrong.


When you say that those modern MBTI theorists didn't "observe Jung's concept," I'd agree with you if what you meant was that, when they "observed" MBTI IS_Js, they "observed" that _those people_ didn't come close to matching Jung's Si-dom description. But alas, that's not what you meant.

And you're certainly free, if you really want to, to say, "I'm convinced there are people who match up well with Jung's Si-dom portrait, and when I refer to an Si-dom, _those_ are the people I'm referring to." But in that case, you shouldn't be saying you're talking about IS_Js, or the MBTI. Because in that case, not only have you gone "back to Jung," but you've gone "back to Jung" in a way that even the _function-centric_ modern MBTI theorists (Thomson/Berens/Nardi/Quenk) have known better than to do, and in a way that refuses to acknowledge — and to a degree that Jung would presumably not approve — the results of decades of MBTI studies that have consistently shown that Jung's original typological "clusters" are _wrong_ in many respects.


----------



## reckful

To_august said:


> Lol, I'm definitely here, walking the Earth and identifying with Jung's description of an Si. I probably have some mental issues, as no one is completely sane these days, but I believe not to have any major disorders.
> 
> And it's obvious that he described extreme cases of dominant function individuation, which clearer demonstrated what he alluded to.


First, there's a kind of Catch-22 when it comes to Jung's Si-doms. He said that they were spectacularly out of touch with reality — as described (with quotes) in that long post I already linked to — but he also said that their "lack of comparative judgment" left them "wholly unconscious of this fact." So it's no wonder Jung also said that not only were Si-doms hard for other people to understand, but that the Si-dom "usually fares no better in understanding himself."

So... if you read all that stuff in Jung about Si-doms having "an illusory conception of reality," and about the relation between the actual physical world and the Si-dom's perceptions of it being "unpredictable and arbitrary," and you say, "Yes, by God! That's me! I relate to that!"... then you don't really fit Jung's conception of an Si-dom.

But second, and probably more importantly, your reference to "extreme cases of dominant function individuation" makes it sound like you've swallowed that not-infrequently-encountered internet forum canard that says that Jung's type descriptions in Chapter 10 of Psychological Types were "extreme" (or otherwise unusual) portraits that wouldn't much resemble typical people of the applicable type. And really, when you think about it, WTF sense would that have made? Jung spent most of Psychological Types talking about the things he saw as common to _all introverts_ and _all extraverts_. Chapter 10 is the _only_ place where he gave us anything like in-depth descriptions of his eight functions. Why on earth would he not have described what he viewed as the more or less _typical_ characteristics of his types?

And he did. There's certainly some inconsistency among the portraits in terms of the ratio of the more ordinary stuff and the here's-what-happens-when-they-get-neurotic stuff. But his general approach in those eight portraits is to _first_ describe the more-or-less ordinary version of the type — which means what the type is like when the unconscious is supplying enough ordinary day-to-day "compensation" to prevent the person from becoming too "one-sided" — and then to go on to describe the _neurotic_ version of the type that results if the unconscious functions are overly suppressed and end up wreaking havoc.

In my experience, the notion that Chapter 10 only described extreme (or otherwise unusual) versions of the types is most often encountered in the posts of Jung defenders who don't want to own up to the fact that Jung actually got quite a bit _wrong_ in coming up with his typological concepts — and who therefore brush off some of the more cartoonish stuff in Chapter 10 by saying, oh, well, you know, Chapter 10 isn't really about what the functions are like in _normal_ people.

The Jung passage that such defenders most often point to is this one:



Jung said:


> In the foregoing descriptions I have no desire to give my readers the impression that these types occur at all frequently in such pure form in actual life. They are, as it were, only Galtonesque family portraits, which *single out the common and therefore typical features, stressing them disproportionately, while the individual features are just as disproportionately effaced*. Closer investigation shows with great regularity that, besides the most differentiated function, another, less differentiated function of secondary importance [— i.e., the auxiliary function —] is invariably present in consciousness and exerts a co-determining influence.


What Jung is saying in this passage is that his eight portraits are artifically "pure" portraits in the sense of leaving out the "individual features" that tend to distinguish, say, one Si-dom from another Si-dom —and, most notably, an Si-dom with a T-aux from an Si-dom with an F-aux. (It's important to remember that the sentence about the "pure form" was at the start of the paragraph where Jung introduces the reader to the auxiliary function.)

When it comes to the characteristics that derive from Si (for example), and will therefore tend to found in Si-doms generally, Jung says that his portraits concentrate on "the common and therefore typical features" of the type. So it makes no sense to claim that the features Jung described as "common" and "typical" were features he thought would only show up in rare "extreme" cases.

The term "Galtonesque family portraits" is a reference to Francis Galton, often referred to as the "father of psychometrics," and that's consistent with the idea that Jung's portraits were primarily intended to reflect the personality characteristics that were statistically the most likely to be found in people with that type.

As a final (maybe) clarification with respect to the relationship between the "purity" Jung is referring to and the auxiliary function, please note that there's a big difference between saying (1) that Jung's _portraits_ are artificially "pure" in the sense of omitting the features that would vary depending on _which_ auxiliary function someone had, and (2) that the _people_ Jung is describing are the "pure" people who _don't have an auxiliary function_. Jung makes it clear that he thought it was overwhelmingly _typical_ to have an auxiliary function — and in fact, he went so far as to say that an auxiliary function is "invariably present in consciousness." So... there's no way Jung would have described Si characteristics that were only present in some rare no-auxiliary-function subset of Si-doms as characteristics that were the "common and therefore typical" features of the type.

--------------------------------------------

As a final-final note, so as not to ignore an elephant in the room... I suspect you're an MBTI N (as you originally tested) rather than an MBTI S, and if that's true, that would make the extent to which you do or don't think you "relate" to aspects of Jung's Si-dom description even less relevant (from my perspective, anyway) than it would otherwise be.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx

As someone else pointed out Si is abstract, so trying to explain something you feel or think in a abstractive way is complex. As an ENFP we we take in information using 3/4 functions that are abstractive, oh joy oh bliss.

I was at a restaurant this summer sitting beside a young girl ( maybe 4-5). She was eating a bowl of strawberry shortcake. She lifted her spoon to put a strawberry in her mouth and dropped it on the floor. She bent down to pick it up and proceeded to put it in her mouth and eat it. This instantly triggered something inside of me about a time when I was at my grandmothers house, I was about 5-6 yrs old. I was sitting at the table eating strawberry shortcake, I remember lifting my fork to put a strawberry in my mouth and it fell to the floor. I picked it up and ate it. This trigger wasn't about action, it was about how it made me feel at that moment, wanting to be back at my grandmas house eating strawberry shortcake, and longing for that moment in time again. I do think Si is associated with nostalgia and memory, not in the traditional sense like remembering what I did a few years ago, more in a sense of bring back a particular feeling and relieving that feeling all over again. Is this Si ? IDK, yet it's the closest I can come to describing how it feels for me.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

@reckful

You wrote a lot but nothing that pertained to my question. So I'm going to focus on this quote that gets straight to the point:



> When you say that those modern MBTI theorists didn't "observe Jung's concept," I'd agree with you if what you meant was that, *when they "observed" MBTI IS_Js, they "observed" that those people didn't come close to matching Jung's Si-dom description*. But alas, that's not what you meant.


MBTI is derived from Jung, therefore IS_J is referring to Si dom. The problem is the bold, if they didn't observe Si doms as Jung described them, then they are obviously not observing the same thing. If I describe to you a square, you can not observe a circle and then proceed to tell me my observation of a square is wrong because it's not a circle. The square and the circle are not the same thing, they are two different things being observed. Therefore if Jung, the definer of cognitive functions, defined a concept, then the only way to analyze the concept, in order to test it's validity, is to analyze the concept that was defined. If you can't find anything that doesn't match that definition, then you have inevitably not found anything to match that definition. So to make a statement that you have tested the validity of a concept, when you have never even found anything to resemble the concept, is very foolish ssince you have never even encountered the concept in order to even analyze In the first place. 

Btw, so I can put you on the right path, I'm debating the validity of the system, I am not debating who has more authority. That is something that you need to understand, I don't care about who wrote what, all I care about is how valid the system is. You're argument is authoritarive, but imprecise, it doesn't focus on the validity of system but instead what "modern theorists" state it is, or In other words you argument is based on the "intellectual mode of the day" instead of how valid is the system, *in of itself*. You can attach yourself to theories of others based on who is more authoritative, or you as you put it sometimes, _more respectable_, but nevertheless you are focusing on the teacher and not the craft. 

My sole focus is on the craft, on the system, and if your going to state that the system is flawed, then you best back it up with logical proof that the system, or some of its parts are, indeed, invalid. The only way to do that is to analyze the system as is and find its inherent flaws, such as contradictions, fallacies, and so on. Stating that you can't find anything to resemble a concept, only proves that you have never came across or became aware to the concept itself. It does not, in any way, prove that the concept is wrong because you failed to identify it. Your failure to identify it is not the fault of the system. The only fault a system can have would be those derived from within it (contradictions, fallacies etc.), not based on those who can't perceive it. Basically the concept is wrong if it's logically invalid, if you want to state that it is, then logically prove it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

@reckful

You wrote a lot but nothing that pertained to my question. So I'm going to focus on this quote that gets straight to the point:



> When you say that those modern MBTI theorists didn't "observe Jung's concept," I'd agree with you if what you meant was that, *when they "observed" MBTI IS_Js, they "observed" that those people didn't come close to matching Jung's Si-dom description*. But alas, that's not what you meant.


MBTI is derived from Jung, therefore IS_J is referring to Si dom. The problem is the bold, if they didn't observe Si doms as Jung described them, then they are obviously not observing the same thing. If I describe to you a square, you can not observe a circle and then proceed to tell me my observation of a square is wrong because it's not a circle. The square and the circle are not the same thing, they are two different things being observed. Therefore if Jung, the definer of cognitive functions, defined a concept, then the only way to analyze the concept, in order to test it's validity, is to analyze the concept that was defined. If you can't find anything that doesn't match that definition, then you have inevitably not found anything to match that definition. So to make a statement that you have tested the validity of a concept, when you have never even found anything to resemble the concept, is very foolish ssince you have never even encountered the concept in order to even analyze In the first place. 

Btw, so I can put you on the right path, I'm debating the validity of the system, I am not debating who has more authority. That is something that you need to understand, I don't care about who wrote what, all I care about is how valid the system is. You're argument is authoritarive, but imprecise, it doesn't focus on the validity of system but instead what "modern theorists" state it is, or In other words you argument is based on the "intellectual mode of the day" instead of how valid is the system, *in of itself*. You can attach yourself to theories of others based on who is more authoritative, or you as you put it sometimes, _more respectable_, but nevertheless you are focusing on the teacher and not the craft. 

My sole focus is on the craft, on the system, and if your going to state that the system is flawed, then you best back it up with logical proof that the system, or some of its parts are, indeed, invalid. The only way to do that is to analyze the system as is and find its inherent flaws, such as contradictions, fallacies, and so on. Stating that you can't find anything to resemble a concept, only proves that you have never came across or became aware to the concept itself. It does not, in any way, prove that the concept is wrong because you failed to identify it. Your failure to identify it is not the fault of the system. The only fault a system can have would be those derived from within it (contradictions, fallacies etc.), not based on those who can't perceive it. Basically the concept is wrong if it's logically invalid, if you want to state that it is, then logically prove it.


----------



## reckful

Shadow Logic said:


> MBTI is derived from Jung, therefore IS_J is referring to Si dom. The problem is the bold, if they didn't observe Si doms as Jung described them, then they are obviously not observing the same thing.


No. As a _factual_ matter — not a matter on which reasonable people can disagree — the modern MBTI is not "derived from Jung" to the extent that "IS_J is referring to Si dom" if by "Si dom" you mean _Jung's_ conception of Si-doms.

The MBTI is "derived from Jung" in the sense that Myers _started_ from Jung — although, to be more precise, Briggs and Myers actually started from a _combination_ of (1) Jung's typology and (2) a separate typology that Briggs had been developing _before_ Psychological Types was published.

But Myers then, as I said before, spent a large chunk of her life devising type questionnaires and analyzing the responses by modern psychometric standards, to find out what personality characteristics clustered together. And what she discovered was that the main clusters were the four dichotomies, and the MBTI's 16 types are the 16 types that result from the combinations of preferences on those four dichotomies.

And it turned out that MBTI IS_Js — i.e., the people who test as I, S and J on those three dichotomies — typically bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And _all_ the well-known function-oriented MBTI theorists — e.g., Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — subscribe to the version of the MBTI that says an IS_J is someone who tests as I, S and J on those three dichotomies. And that's why the "Si" descriptions that you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk bear so little resemblance to Jung's Si description. Those theorists may refer to their modernized (or MBTI-ized) versions of the functions as "Jungian," but their function descriptions depart from Jung's original conceptions in many ways, both large and small, and I'd say the overall difference is probably the greatest in the case of "Si."

You can use the term "Si-dom" to refer to a _Jungian_ Si-dom if you like, but if you do, you won't be referring to MBTI IS_Js. What's more, you'll be referring to a personality type that's based on Jungian "clusters" — e.g., social introversion clustered with an abstract orientation — that have effectively been _disproven_ by decades of studies. And why would you want to do that?


----------



## Deus Absconditus

reckful said:


> No. As a _factual_ matter — not a matter on which reasonable people can disagree — the modern MBTI is not "derived from Jung" to the extent that "IS_J is referring to Si dom" if by "Si dom" you mean _Jung's_ conception of Si-doms.
> 
> The MBTI is "derived from Jung" in the sense that Myers _started_ from Jung — although, to be more precise, Briggs and Myers actually started from a _combination_ of (1) Jung's typology and (2) a separate typology that Briggs had been developing _before_ Psychological Types was published.
> 
> But Myers then, as I said before, spent a large chunk of her life devising type questionnaires and analyzing the responses by modern psychometric standards, to find out what personality characteristics clustered together. And what she discovered was that the main clusters were the four dichotomies, and the MBTI's 16 types are the 16 types that result from the combinations of preferences on those four dichotomies.
> 
> And it turned out that MBTI IS_Js — i.e., the people who test as I, S and J on those three dichotomies — typically bear little resemblance to Jung's Si-doms. And _all_ the well-known function-oriented MBTI theorists — e.g., Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk — subscribe to the version of the MBTI that says an IS_J is someone who tests as I, S and J on those three dichotomies. And that's why the "Si" descriptions that you'll find in Thomson, Berens, Nardi and Quenk bear so little resemblance to Jung's Si description. Those theorists may refer to their modernized (or MBTI-ized) versions of the functions as "Jungian," but their function descriptions depart from Jung's original conceptions in many ways, both large and small, and I'd say the overall difference is probably the greatest in the case of "Si."
> 
> You can use the term "Si-dom" to refer to a _Jungian_ Si-dom if you like, but if you do, you won't be referring to MBTI IS_Js. *What's more, you'll be referring to a personality type that's based on Jungian "clusters" — e.g., social introversion clustered with an abstract orientation — that have effectively been disproven by decades of studies. And why would you want to do that?*


So MBTI is its own system that incorporated a portion of Jung's system into, mixing it with other psychological elements not directly related to it, but isn't itself a system fundamentally built on Jung's whole system. Is that correct?

A person who is abstractly oriented is a person who is oriented towards subjects it extracts from whole objects. Their primary focus is on the subject and their relation to it, as in it has a positive relation with the abstraction. This positive relation with the abstraction, in contrast to its negative relationship with the objective. Other individuals are also objects, therefore social introversion tends to couple itself with abstract orientation based on its depreciatory value on the object. This isnt a cluster, its a consequence that logically follows from the implications of abstraction. Now my question is, how has this been disproven? Mind you, the moment you stated that Si has been disproven, you made a claim that the concept of Si has been logically disproven, as in you found a flaw within the system. Lack of evidence isn't evidence, only legit proof qualifies as factual in this regard. So I would like the evevidence of the flaw within the system.


----------



## reckful

Shadow Logic said:


> A person who is abstractly oriented is a person who is oriented towards subjects it extracts from whole objects. Their primary focus is on the subject and their relation to it, as in it has a positive relation with the abstraction. This positive relation with the abstraction, in contrast to its negative relationship with the objective. Other individuals are also objects, therefore social introversion tends to couple itself with abstract orientation based on its depreciatory value on the object. This isnt a cluster, its a consequence that logically follows from the implications of abstraction. Now my question is, how has this been disproven?


It's been disproven because, as I already noted, there is _no significant correlation_ between the MBTI E/I dimension and the MBTI S/N dimension. Decades of data have clearly and consistently established that an introvert is no more likely than an extravert to choose the abstract (N) side of MBTI items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses or courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? Facts or ideas?" and Which word appeals to you most? Concrete or abstract?" and "Do you value facts more as being interesting in themselves, or illustrating some principle or relationship?"

Again: Jung said that introverts, in addition to being abstract, also tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny." And conversely, he said extraverts tend to be "concretistic" (rather than abstract), but _also_ said extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."

And Myers discovered that there was one cluster of personality characteristics that included reserved/shy/hesitant/defensive vs. open/sociable/outgoing/venturesome (her version of E/I) and a second cluster that included concrete/abstract, among other things (her version of S/N), and that there was _no correlation between the two_. There are just as many ISs as ESs, and just as many ENs as INs.

ISTJs, like all the IS types, are introverts, but they're also concrete rather than abstract. And ENFPs, like all the EN types, are extraverts, but they're also abstract rather than concrete.


----------



## KraChZiMan

Dezir said:


> You can also say it trillion times, that doesn't necessarily makes it true.
> 
> Si being related with nostalgia and recalling information is.... exactly what the function does.
> 
> Putting cognitive function into boxes and stereotypes that certainly serve no other purpose than.... to clearly explain people with examples how the functions work.
> 
> I am sick and tired of reading yet another "why can't SJ's appreciate my deep intuitive intelligence?" threads... definetly not because they couldn't care less about N related stuff.
> 
> *CONFUSING FUN FACT: You use all the 8 functions!
> 
> Tada!
> 
> You wouldn't expect that would you ?
> 
> You use all your 8 functions but only prefer 4 of them which you use more often
> 
> And INTJ may practice Fe and get better at communicating with people, that does mean he is better at communicating with people now, but that doesn't mean he likes talking to people more than science, this is what MBTI is about and most stereotyping people on the interent don't get, preference.
> 
> The question is not which of them you use but which of them you prefer ?*
> 
> Cognitive functions in a nutshell:
> 
> *Te* - looks outward for its logic. (Logic based on objects, like how to organise a desk)
> 
> *Ti* - looks inward for logic. (Logic based on subjects, like why does the sun really shine)
> 
> *Fe* - looks outward for its morality. (Morality based on objects (people), I want people to feel good)
> 
> *Fi* - looks inward for its morality. (Morality based on subjects, that's not the right thing to do)
> 
> *Se* - looks outward for physical stimulation. (Sensing based on objects, I want more action, more adrenaline)
> 
> *Si* - looks inward for experience. (Sensing based on subjects, and the only 'sensing subject' is memory, how did I solved this before ?)
> 
> *Ne* - looks outward for mental stimulation (Intuition based on objects, you know what desks and ravens have in common ?)
> 
> *Ni* - looks inward for ideas. (Intuition based on subjects, Let me guess what that means… am I right? Yes! I knew it!) _(Contrary to a popular stereotype belief, Ni can also be wrong sometimes)_
> 
> Now, what do Si-doms tend too look more for than other types ? expericence, and where does experience come from ? aha! the past! so what do Si-doms look more for than other types ? the past.
> 
> What would they naturally tend to do when going to their old school they graduated from or the old home they used to live in as children ? Well since they tend to look for the past more than any of the other types you can already guess the answer... nostalgia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *EDIT:* If you don't believe me..
> 
> you don't have to, check this out:
> 
> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The Eight Function Attitudes


I can agree some parts, but not all. Definitely not the one that Si is related with experience, memories and nostalgia. If your Si-dominant grandmother is being old-fashioned, that only means that she is old, and old people are really fond of memories and stuff. Young people with Si as dom or secondary are not more old fashioned than other youths.

Also, seems to me your reference material is myers-briggs. Myers-briggs definitions of the functions are overly simplified ("Fe- emotion, Fi - dark emo gothing feeling, Te - businessman, Ti - science stuffs, Ni - deep introspective wise knowledge wizard, Ne - funny stuff, Se - sex and violence, Si - old fashined nostalgia person" kind of simplified). I wouldn't really count on myers-briggs definitions, especially when, in fact, there are much more perfect definitions around. Such as Wikisocion , which is absolutely perfect for descriptions of that kind. Relies and connects very much to what Jung has already written. 

Also, Jung and socionics refers to Se as experience-based learning. Si is related to decision-making based on physical sensations produced by immediate surroundings. While Se relates to concepts such as beauty and elaborate displays of skill and craft, Si relates to concepts such as "bad vibes, good vibes" and "a clean room brings serenity, a cluttered room makes the mind cluttered" and so on and so forth.

Here's the proof. Under wikisocionics chapter of introverted sensing, the following is described. Can you see any reference to experience-based learning, nostalgia and memories in this description? See for yourself:



> Aspects in the Valued Functions by Dmitry GolihovSi as leading function of SLI (ISTp; Jean Gabin) and SEI (ISFp; Dumas)These people live with sensory pleasures of life and look for them everywhere: great food, a comfortable chair, a variety of good, stable physiological sensations. Often consider themselves to be experts in their physical tastes: "If I love warmth, then everyone who likes cold is a walrus". Very self-confident in matters of health, can put their views about health "above" the opinions of the doctors or even to treat their advice as irrelevant. Almost always have good health, but excessive enthusiasm for sensory pleasures of life can sabotage them. Smoking, alcohol, gluttony - it is very difficult to just give it up. At the same time on these issues they have very conservative tastes. If he is involved in the kitchen, such skills come to him easily if he is predisposed to such activity. But can be very critical of cooking of others, especially high-risk atypical dishes. Often carry all that is necessary for comfort with them. Freely talk about intimate matters, don't consider it necessary to hide any of this from strangers, like to talk about their illnesses and inner workings of their bodies. Conservative in his sensory experiences, so in these matters, he is very attentive. Confident in his invulnerability and reliability. If he senses or feels something, then he won't listen to anyone and will do everything "in his own way." He likes reliable things that can be used to "bend a horseshoe", and indeed such an idea may come to his mind easily. Has good control of his body and its plasticity. Have a need to always feel something physically, to confirm own presence in the world, and will surround themselves with such things: warm carpet, woolen socks, soft kitten, baoding balls for spinning in hands. Fuss a lot over issues of convenience, but does not worry, this fussing is a way to maintain a conversation.





I can repeat for the trillionth and one time again: Cognitive functions are not related to the capabilties of anything sensory. Cognitive functions are not able to give you boosts in abilities to perceive the world. Cognitive functions are not the motherfuckin superpowers. 

Cognitive functions are strictly psychological, related to preferences. Se-person is not inherently strong, fast or beautiful, Se-person is simply more receptive to information coming from these spheres. Si-person relies on solutions that work, because in their mind they find it easier to trust already proven and true methods, not because they are "remembering" them. Fe-person is not inherently a better communicator, Fe-person is just more receptive to openly displayed emotional overtones, and as such, they resonate with such information, and feel inclined to return it in communication. It's part of socionics theory called Information Elements, or Information Metabolism.

I can perhaps agree that Si is related to being conservative in tastes. I can even agree that they are holding on to tried and true ways, but everyone who is still clinging onto irrational belief that Si is directly linked with memories, nostalgia and experience-based learning, is an *utter idiot*. Very seriously so. Are ENTJ's and ENFJ's, who are absolutely Si-PoLR, truly the kind of people who do not even remember people's names after meeting them? *FUCKIN NOPE!! *

Guys, we are in for psychology here, not neurological superpowers!


----------



## Modal Soul

alright what the fuck does Si have to do with then


----------



## PaladinX

reckful said:


> It's been disproven because, as I already noted, there is _no significant correlation_ between the MBTI E/I dimension and the MBTI S/N dimension. Decades of data have clearly and consistently established that an introvert is no more likely than an extravert to choose the abstract (N) side of MBTI items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses or courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? Facts or ideas?" and Which word appeals to you most? Concrete or abstract?" and "Do you value facts more as being interesting in themselves, or illustrating some principle or relationship?"
> 
> Again: Jung said that introverts, in addition to being abstract, also tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny." And conversely, he said extraverts tend to be "concretistic" (rather than abstract), but _also_ said extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."
> 
> And Myers discovered that there was one cluster of personality characteristics that included reserved/shy/hesitant/defensive vs. open/sociable/outgoing/venturesome (her version of E/I) and a second cluster that included concrete/abstract, among other things (her version of S/N), and that there was _no correlation between the two_. There are just as many ISs as ESs, and just as many ENs as INs.
> 
> ISTJs, like all the IS types, are introverts, but they're also concrete rather than abstract. And ENFPs, like all the EN types, are extraverts, but they're also abstract rather than concrete.


This doesn't prove or disprove anything. 

The terms abstract and concrete are being used in different ways. Just because an introverted type abstracts from the object into the subject, that doesn't mean that they necessarily have an interest in abstract topics (ie theory). Your examples of questions that point to a preference for facts or theory still go along with Jung's fundamental paradigm with Sensing types having a general interest in what is (ie facts) and Intuitive types for whence they come / whither they go (ie theory). The difference with E/I is the interest in the thing itself or what was abstracted from it.

This is how the MBTI defines Se and Si:

Extraverted Sensing: Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go.


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

In both cases, there is an interest in "what is" (ie concrete reality, as it were). The distinction between the two is that Se is interested in the concrete here and now as where Si is interested in what has been abstracted into the self, which is why there is an emphasis and trust on Si's own memory and experiences rather than the facts in the moment. In my opinion, I don't think MBTI has moved away from Jung at all.


----------



## PaladinX

KraChZiMan said:


> I can agree some parts, but not all. Definitely not the one that Si is related with experience, memories and nostalgia. If your Si-dominant grandmother is being old-fashioned, that only means that she is old, and old people are really fond of memories and stuff. Young people with Si as dom or secondary are not more old fashioned than other youths.


Tru dat!



> Also, seems to me your reference material is myers-briggs. Myers-briggs definitions of the functions are overly simplified ("Fe- emotion, Fi - dark emo gothing feeling, Te - businessman, Ti - science stuffs, Ni - deep introspective wise knowledge wizard, Ne - funny stuff, Se - sex and violence, Si - old fashined nostalgia person" kind of simplified). I wouldn't really count on myers-briggs definitions, especially when, in fact, there are much more perfect definitions around. Such as Wikisocion , which is absolutely perfect for descriptions of that kind. Relies and connects very much to what Jung has already written.


I can't tell if you are being serious or not. Regardless, MBTI definitely does not directly state or imply those things. Did you even look at the link @Dezir provided. 



> Also, Jung and socionics refers to Se as experience-based learning. Si is related to decision-making based on physical sensations produced by immediate surroundings. While Se relates to concepts such as beauty and elaborate displays of skill and craft, Si relates to concepts such as "bad vibes, good vibes" and "a clean room brings serenity, a cluttered room makes the mind cluttered" and so on and so forth.


Can you please cite where Jung has described or implied Se as "experience-based learning?" I'm inclined to call BS on that, but I'm open to being wrong. Si description is wrong because it is an irrational function. Decision-making, ie judgment, well... I think you know which functions do that. Sensing is about "what is" and Feeling is about "whether it is agreeable or not." How do "bad vibes, good vibes" relate to the former over the latter?



> Here's the proof. Under wikisocionics chapter of introverted sensing, the following is described. Can you see any reference to experience-based learning, nostalgia and memories in this description? See for yourself:
> 
> *Socionics quote*


How does a Socionics description of Si prove anything about Jung's? All this logically proves is that Socionics doesn't think that Si has anything to do with "experience-based learning, nostalgia and memories." I could equally say Socionics is wrong and provide an MBTI quote to back up my argument assuming that it directly relates to Jung's description. I think it's called an association fallacy? Or maybe something else. I'm not all up on my fallacies. *shrugs*



> I can repeat for the trillionth and one time again: Cognitive functions are not related to the capabilties of anything sensory. Cognitive functions are not able to give you boosts in abilities to perceive the world. Cognitive functions are not the motherfuckin superpowers.


I agree. Attitude =/= aptitude. I should make that another quote in my sig!



> Cognitive functions are strictly psychological, related to preferences. Se-person is not inherently strong, fast or beautiful, Se-person is simply more receptive to information coming from these spheres. Si-person relies on solutions that work, because in their mind they find it easier to trust already proven and true methods, not because they are "remembering" them. Fe-person is not inherently a better communicator, Fe-person is just more receptive to openly displayed emotional overtones, and as such, they resonate with such information, and feel inclined to return it in communication. It's part of socionics theory called Information Elements, or Information Metabolism.


I'd argue that these descriptions are not necessarily congruent with Jung's description. For example, Fe determines whether something is agreeable or not through feeling-tones, which are based on external factors. Not sure that it necessarily has to do with "emotional overtones."



> I can perhaps agree that Si is related to being conservative in tastes. I can even agree that they are holding on to tried and true ways, but everyone who is still clinging onto irrational belief that Si is directly linked with memories, nostalgia and experience-based learning, is an *utter idiot*. Very seriously so. Are ENTJ's and ENFJ's, who are absolutely Si-PoLR, truly the kind of people who do not even remember people's names after meeting them? *FUCKIN NOPE!! *


You need to separate people from their understanding and actions. Because someone incorrectly understands something does not make them an "utter idiot." In my opinion, the ignorance in that statement is utterly idiotic. I am not saying or implying that you are an idiot for saying it, just that the phrase itself is idiotic. I say dumb shit all the time, doesn't mean I'm dumb. Si _is_ connected to memory in a way, though I agree that it is not synonymous with it.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

reckful said:


> It's been disproven because, as I already noted, there is _no significant correlation_ between the MBTI E/I dimension and the MBTI S/N dimension. Decades of data have clearly and consistently established that an introvert is no more likely than an extravert to choose the abstract (N) side of MBTI items like "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach fact courses or courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? Facts or ideas?" and Which word appeals to you most? Concrete or abstract?" and "Do you value facts more as being interesting in themselves, or illustrating some principle or relationship?"
> 
> Again: Jung said that introverts, in addition to being abstract, also tend to be "reserved, ... rather shy people," with "a hesitant, reflective, retiring nature that keeps itself to itself, shrinks from objects, is always slightly on the defensive and prefers to hide behind mistrustful scrutiny." And conversely, he said extraverts tend to be "concretistic" (rather than abstract), but _also_ said extraverts tend to be "open" and "sociable," with "an outgoing, candid, and accommodating nature that adapts easily to a given situation, quickly forms attachments, and ... will often venture forth with careless confidence into unknown situations."
> 
> And Myers discovered that there was one cluster of personality characteristics that included reserved/shy/hesitant/defensive vs. open/sociable/outgoing/venturesome (her version of E/I) and a second cluster that included concrete/abstract, among other things (her version of S/N), and that there was _no correlation between the two_. There are just as many ISs as ESs, and just as many ENs as INs.
> 
> ISTJs, like all the IS types, are introverts, but they're also concrete rather than abstract. And ENFPs, like all the EN types, are extraverts, but they're also abstract rather than concrete.


As @PaladinX has already stated, this doesn't prove anything. All you did was change the definition of a few words, which inevitably changes the concept, and then blamed Jung's concept on being faulty because it doesn't match up to Myers definition of a totally different concept. This only proves that when Myers was focused on abstraction, it was her definition, rather than Jungs that she was focusing on. Her concept of abstractions (intuition) is completely different than Jung's concept of abstraction (extracting a portion from the whole), because of this her definition of abstraction is incompatible with Jungs definition, meaning that the concepts that both were perceiving, are fundamentally different. Their incompatibility means that the facts of one does not disprove or prove the facts of another. Just like the facts of a dog does not disprove the facts of a cat. In order to analyze the cat, you need to see the logical components of the cat, but instead you are focused on the dog and using the dog as proof that the cat doesn't exist, it's nonintellectual. The dog isn't the tool that measures the existence of a cat, they are completely different systems/concepts, and the only way to see if a system/concept is valid or not is to analyze the logical consistency (or lack of) of its framework, which you seemed to be fundamentally incapable of even doing. 

If you are going to state a system/concept is invalid, then you must proof that the components of the system or illogical (contradictions, fallacy). If you have never perceived the concept, then you have no say on its validity. 

Basically what Im getting at it is, if you are going to prove or disprove a concept, it takes system analysis, changing the definition doesn't prove the validity of the former concept/system. All it does is change the area of focus onto a completely new concept, that is fundamentally different than the original concept. So it's obvious that if you are focused on the latter, then you are inevitably not focused on the former. Your lack of focus on the former says nothing on validity.

I'll give you another example: if we look at the concept of self, we have to define it as the representation of "I". If someone changes the definition of "I" to group, then it no longer is focused on the concept of self. The concept of group does not disprove the concept of self, because they are completely two separate concepts. So to state that the concept of self is wrong because it doesn't resemble the concept of group, is an illogical statement. You can't measure the validity of the self based on the formula of the group, they are completely different concepts. The only way to prove if the concept of self exists, is to analyze the properties of self to see if they are logically consistent, as in, you have to prove the logical validity of the system itself.


----------



## reckful

PaladinX said:


> This doesn't prove or disprove anything.
> 
> *The terms abstract and concrete are being used in different ways. Just because an introverted type abstracts from the object into the subject, that doesn't mean that they necessarily have an interest in abstract topics (ie theory).* Your examples of questions that point to a preference for facts or theory still go along with Jung's fundamental paradigm with Sensing types having a general interest in what is (ie facts) and Intuitive types for whence they come / whither they go (ie theory). The difference with E/I is the interest in the thing itself or what was abstracted from it.
> 
> This is how the MBTI defines Se and Si:
> 
> Extraverted Sensing: Acts on concrete data from here and now. Trusts the present, then lets it go.
> 
> Introverted Sensing: Compares present facts and experiences to past experience. Trusts the past. Stores sensory data for future use.
> 
> In both cases, there is an interest in "what is" (ie concrete reality as it were). The distinction between the two is that Se is interested in the concrete here and now as where Si is interested in what has been abstracted into the self, which is why there is an emphasis and trust on Si's own memory and experiences rather than the facts in the moment. *In my opinion, I don't think MBTI has moved away from Jung at all.*


I'm sorry, but the heart of this issue isn't really a reasonable-people-can-disagree matter.

Jung spent more of Psychological Types talking about the personality characteristics he thought extraverts tended to have in common and introverts tended to have in common than he spent talking about all eight of the functions put together — and he loaded up both extraversion and introversion with quite a few characteristics that decades of MBTI (and Big Five) studies have firmly established _don't statistically cluster together_ in real-life people. And among those characteristics was the difference between people who are more interested in the "facts" (extraverts, as Jung saw it) and people who are more interested in "abstractions" and "theories" (introverts, per Jung).

For Jung, the core inner dynamic that caused introversion in the first place involved a projection of negative unconscious contents by the introvert onto the people and things of the external world, which in turn caused the introvert to falsely perceive that those people and things were charged with negative energy (libido), which in turn caused the introvert to feel threatened by those people and things, and fear them, and mount a defense which took the form of, among other things, (1) avoidance, and (2) a process of "abstraction" by which the introvert reduced people and things to their abstract qualities, thereby (as Jung saw it) "withdrawing libido from the object ... to prevent the object from gaining power over him."

In the first chapter, describing the ways in which several of the bitterest doctrinal controversies in the early Christian church reflected the E/I divide, Jung wrote that beneath those controversies "lies the great psychological schism. The one position attaches supreme value and importance to the sensuously perceptible; ... the other maintains that the chief value lies with the abstract and extra-human."

"The man who is oriented to the idea [— i.e., the introvert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of the idea," Jung explained. "But the man who is oriented to the object [— i.e., the extravert —] apprehends and reacts from the standpoint of sensation. For him the abstract is of secondary importance, since what must be thought about things seems to him relatively inessential, while for the former it is just the reverse."

And the same abstract/concrete dichotomy is _also_ reflected in Jung's conceptions of the introverted and extraverted forms of each function, with the introverted form being oriented toward the inner world of abstract ideas, values, etc. and the extraverted form being oriented toward the physical world. For example: As further discussed in this post, Jung described a Te-dom's thinking as "concretistic," and hence overly tied down by the "facts" and "objective data" at the expense of abstract "interpretation" of the facts. (And please note: this was Te-doms without regard to whether they were S-aux or N-aux.) And conversely, and as further described in this post, Jung described Ti-doms as highly abstract thinkers who, as a result, were prone to be overly dismissive of the facts and end up concocting theories that bore no substantial relation to reality. (And please note: this was Ti-doms without regard to whether they were S-aux or N-aux.)

Chapter 8 of Psychological Types was titled, "The Type Problem in Modern Philosophy," and revolved around William James's round-up of "tough-minded" and "tender-minded" philosophers. Jung explained that many of the fundamental differences in their philosophies stemmed from their psychological types, and in particular, _whether they were introverted or extraverted_. As far as Jung was concerned, _extraverted_ philosophers were what he called "empiricists," because they had "the temperament that favours concrete thinking," while _introverted_ philosophers were the "abstract thinkers" who were interested in "abstract ideas" rather than "facts." And I've put three paragraphs from Chapter 8 in the spoiler.


* *






Jung said:


> When the empiricist attributes a resistant substantiality to *his concrete thinking*, from the abstract point of view he is deceiving himself, because substantiality or hardness is a property of external facts and not of empirical thinking. Indeed, the latter [i.e., Te] proves to be singularly feeble and ineffective; *far from holding its own in the face of external facts, it is always running after them and depending on them*, and, in consequence, hardly rises above the level of a purely classifying or descriptive activity. ... *A series of concrete representations conditioned by sensuous perceptions is not exactly what the abstract thinker would call thinking*, but at best only passive apperception. ...
> 
> *The temperament that favours concrete thinking and endows it with substantiality is thus distinguished by a preponderance of sensuously conditioned representations* as contrasted with active apperception, which springs from a subjective act of the will and seeks to organize such representations in accordance with the intentions of a given _idea_. In a word, what counts for this temperament is the _object_: the object is empathized, it leads a quasi-independent existence in the ideational world of the subject, and comprehension follows as a kind of after-thought. *It is therefore an extraverting temperament, for the thinking of the extravert is concretistic.* Its stability lies outside in the empathized object, which is why James calls it "tough." *For anyone who espouses concrete thinking, i.e., the representation of facts, abstract thinking must appear feeble and ineffective, because he measures it by the stability of concrete, sense-bound objects. For the man who is on the side of abstraction, it is not the sensuously determined representation but the abstract idea that is the decisive factor.* ...
> 
> Just as *concrete thinking is dominated and guided by sensuously conditioned representations, abstract thinking is dominated by "irrepresentable" primordial images lacking specific content*. They remain relatively inactive so long as the object is empathized and thus made a determinant of thought. But if the object is not empathized, and loses its dominance over the thinking process, the energy denied to it accumulates in the subject. It is now the subject who is unconsciously empathized; the primordial images are awakened from their slumber and emerge as operative factors in the thinking process, but in irrepresentable form, rather like invisible stage managers behind the scenes. *They are irrepresentable because they lack content, being nothing but activated functional possibilities, and accordingly they seek something to fill them out. They draw the stuff of experience into their empty forms, representing themselves in facts rather than representing facts. They clothe themselves with facts, as it were. Hence they are not, in themselves, a known point d'appui, as is the empirical fact in concrete thinking, but become experienceable only through the unconscious shaping of the stuff of experience.* The empiricist, too, can organize this material and give it shape, but he models it as far as possible on a concrete idea he has built up on the basis of past experience.





And... we now know that Jung was wrong to associate introversion and an abstract orientation, on the one hand, and extraversion and a concrete orientation, on the other hand. There are abstract extraverts (ENs) and concrete introverts (ISs), and _no significant statistical correlation at all_ between Myers' (statistically supportable) versions of E/I and S/N.

And the competing focuses on "concrete facts" vs. "abstract ideas" that Jung so strongly associated with E/I is not an essentially different concrete/abstract than the concrete/abstract that Myers associated with S/N (as your post suggests). On the contrary. The S/N items on Form G of the MBTI (the one being used when Myers wrote Gifts Differing) included "If you were a teacher, would you rather teach (S) fact courses, or (N) courses involving theory?" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) facts or (N) ideas" and "Which word appeals to you most? (S) concrete or (N) abstract." And there wasn't a single E/I item that had anything remotely resembling a concrete/abstract flavor. And that's equally true of Form M (the current version of the MBTI).

What's more, virtually all the leading MBTI theorists are in agreement with Myers on that — including the ones whose approach is more function-centric than dichotomy-centric. For example:


Lenore Thomson notes that "Sensation gives us an appreciation for objective facts and circumstances, as perceived by the senses, [and] excellent powers of observation," while "Intuition gives us an appreciation for the larger picture or underlying pattern, beyond the reach of the senses," with the result that N's tend to be uninterested in "facts and details."
Linda Berens explains that sensing "is a process of becoming aware of sensory information and often involves responding to that sensory information without any judgment or evaluation of it. ... In the Sensing process, the focus is on the actual experience, the facts and the data," while intuition "is a process of becoming aware of abstract information, like symbols, conceptual patterns, and meanings."
Berens and Nardi associate S with "tangible information" and N with "conceptual information" and specifically associate Ne with "Interpreting situations and relationships" and "becoming aware of patterns, implications and meanings," and Ni with "current perceptions sparking insights into complex situations," "becoming aware of universal meanings and symbols" and "noticing whole patterns or systems."
But if it's _Jung's_ perspective you're talking about, there's no question that, to Jung, whether a person tended to view "facts" or "theories" as of primary importance went to the heart of the E/I divide.

You can find lots more discussion of Jung's association of abstraction with introversion (and being "concretistic" with extraversion) — with lots of lengthy quotes from Psychological Types — in the posts linked to in this post.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

@reckful, just so you have a better understanding of what I'm talking about, when I speak on analyzing the system/concept, and proving validity, I'm speaking specifically about the process of analyzing:



> analysis Translate Button
> [uh-nal-uh-sis]
> noun, plural analyses [uh-nal-uh-seez] (Show IPA)
> 1.
> the separating of any material or abstract entity into its constituent elements (*opposed to synthesis *).
> 
> 2.
> this process as a method of studying the nature of something or of *determining its essential features and their relations*.


Your argument with me, along with all other discussions we previously have had, has been largely one of synthetic nature. So when I speak on validity, Im speaking on actually seeing the relation between the constituent elements of the system, meaning the relation between the properties that make up the system. Not the relationship of the system in reference to other *external* (external of the system at hand) systems, but instead the relationship of all the elements that sum up to form the whole of the system. If their is a problem with the relationship of the elements that sum of the system, then present them, because anything less than that doesnt prove or disprove anything that is relevant to the validity of the system at hand.


----------



## reckful

Shadow Logic said:


> All you did was change the definition of a few words, which inevitably changes the concept, and then blamed Jung's concept on being faulty because it doesn't match up to Myers definition of a totally different concept. This only proves that when Myers was focused on abstraction, it was her definition, rather than Jungs that she was focusing on. *Her concept of abstractions (intuition) is completely different than Jung's concept of abstraction (extracting a portion from the whole)*, because of this her definition of abstraction is incompatible with Jungs definition.


You're very much mistaken about Jung's concept of "abstraction." Do you have a copy of Psychological Types? Chapter 11 is a definitions chapter, and includes a definition of "Abstraction." Fancy that!

Jung explains that "abstraction," in its most general sense, means "the drawing out or singling out of a content ... from a context made up of other elements." But then he goes on to explain that he uses "abstraction" in two more specific ways in Psychological Types. And the first kind of abstraction that he talks about is irrelevant to this discussion, since it involves the differentiation of a function that happens when it's separated from the other functions in the unconscious and brought up into consciousness (e.g., to be someone's dominant function).

It's Jung's _second_ definition of "abstraction" that I've been talking about. He explains that he also uses the word "abstraction" to mean the separation of an "abstract content" or "idea" from a concrete object, and that he associates this kind of abstracting activity with "introversion" — with the opposite (extraverted) kind of activity being "concretism," which he separately defines, explaining that "concretistic" thinking involves "facts" which are "still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception." Jung notes that, "so far as the recognition of facts is concerned [the concretistic] orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the _interpretation_ of facts."

You'll find more in the way of replies to your points in my reply to PaladinX.


----------



## PaladinX

reckful said:


> I'm sorry, but the heart of this issue isn't really a reasonable-people-can-disagree matter.


Well being the irrational type that I am, I disagree. 


In my opinion, you appear to be generalizing the terms and taking them out of context. I even showed you how Se is concrete and Si is abstract based on MBTI's own description of the functions. Please tell me how that was wrong.

Furthermore, just because something is categorically an abstraction does not mean that an individual would necessarily report preferring abstractions. A Ne type may prefer abstract topics, but his or her perception is still bound concretely to the possibilities in the object. 



*Sees possibilities in the external world.* Trusts flashes from the unconscious, which can then be shared with others.
*Scan the environment for new and stimulating ideas* and enthusiastically pursue them with others; search for the most creative and interesting idea.

As you can see from the definition of Ne from MBTI ^ the concreteness of Ne is tied to its reliance on the external world. A world that requires sensation to get to, which as an aside is also why extraverted thinking and feeling are concrete. 



> *Concretism*
> 
> By this term I understand a definite peculiarity of thought and feeling which represents the antithesis to abstraction. The actual meaning of concrete is 'grown together'. A concretely-thought concept is one that has grown together or coalesced with other concepts. Such a concept is not abstract, not isolated, and independently thought, but always impure and related. It is not a differentiated concept, but is still embedded in the sense-conveyed material of perception. *Concretistic thinking moves among exclusively concrete concepts and views; it is constantly related to sensation.* Similarly concretistic feeling is never free from sensuous relatedness.


But again, why would the average individual necessarily make that distinction?




> It's Jung's _second_ definition of "abstraction" that I've been talking about. He explains that he also uses the word "abstraction" to mean the separation of an "abstract content" or "idea" from a concrete object, and that he associates this kind of abstracting activity with "introversion" — with the opposite (extraverted) kind of activity being "concretism," which he separately defines, explaining that "concretistic" thinking involves "facts" which are "still embedded in the material transmitted by sense-perception." Jung notes that, "so far as the recognition of facts is concerned [the concretistic] orientation is naturally of value, but not as regards the _interpretation_ of facts."


If you are relating "ideas" as "abstractions" and are claiming that Myers removed them from Introversion and assigned them to Intuition, then what do you have to say about the following descriptions of introversion from Myers/MBTI?


* *







PaladinX said:


> *Where do you prefer to focus your attention? Where do you get energy?*
> 
> 
> *Extraversion*
> 
> People who prefer Extraversion like to focus on the outer world of people and activity. They direct their energy and attention outward and receive energy from interacting with people and from taking action.
> 
> _Characteristics associated with people who prefer Extraversion:_
> 
> Attuned to external environment
> Prefer to communicate by talking
> Work out ideas by talking them through
> Learn best through doing or discussing
> Have broad interests
> Sociable and expressive
> Readily take initiative in work and relationships
> *Introversion*
> 
> *People who prefer Introversion like to focus on their own inner world of ideas* and experiences. They direct their energy and attention inward and receive energy from reflecting on their thoughts, memories, and feelings.
> 
> _Characteristics associated with people who prefer Introversion:_
> 
> Drawn to inner world
> Prefer to communicate in writing
> Work out ideas by reflecting on them
> Learn best by reflection, mental "practice"
> Focus in depth on their interests
> Private and contained
> Take initiative when the situation or issue is very important to them
> 
> 
> More:
> 
> 
> Taken from Gifts Differing by Isabel Myers:
> 
> 
> *Extraverted Types**Introverted Types*
> 
> The afterthinkers. Cannot understand life until they have lived it.
> 
> 
> The forethinkers. Cannot live life until they understand it.
> 
> 
> Attitude relaxed and confident. They expect the waters to prove shallow, and plunge readily into new and untried experiences.
> 
> 
> Attitude reserved and questioning. They expect the waters to prove deep, and pause to take soundings in the new and untried.
> 
> 
> Minds outwardly directed, interest and attention following objective happenings, primarily those of the immediate environment. Their real world therefore is the outer world of people and things.
> 
> 
> Minds inwardly directed, frequently unaware of the objective environment, interest and attention being engrossed by inner events. *Their real world therefore is the inner world of ideas* and understanding.
> 
> 
> The civilizing genius, the people of action and practical achievement, who go from doing to considering back to doing.
> 
> 
> *The cultural genius, the people of ideas* and abstract invention, who go from considering to doing and back to considering.
> 
> 
> Conduct in essential matters is always governed by objective conditions.
> 
> 
> Conduct in essential matters is always governed by subjective values.
> 
> 
> Spend themselves lavishly upon external claims and conditions which to them constitute life.
> 
> 
> Defend themselves as far as possible against external claims and conditions in favor of the inner life.
> 
> 
> Understandable and accessible, often sociable, more at home in the world of people and things than in the world of ideas.
> 
> 
> Subtle and impenetrable, often taciturn and shy, *more at home in the world of ideas* than in the world of people and things.
> 
> 
> Expansive and less impassioned, they unload their emotions as they go along.
> 
> 
> Intense and passionate, they bottle up their emotions and guard them carefully as high explosives.
> 
> 
> Typical weakness lies in a tendency toward intellectual superficiality, very conspicuous in extreme types.
> 
> 
> Typical weakness lies in a tendency toward impracticality, very conspicuous in extreme types.
> 
> 
> Health and wholesomeness depend upon a reasonable development of balancing introversion.
> 
> 
> Health and wholesomeness depend upon a reasonable development of balancing extraversion.
> 
> 
> Freud
> Darwin
> Roosevelt (both Theodore and Franklin Delano)
> 
> 
> Jung
> Einstein
> Lincoln
> 
> 
> 
> From myersbriggs.org:
> 
> 
> *Extraversion (E)*
> 
> 
> I like getting my energy from active involvement in events and having a lot of different activities. I’m excited when I’m around people and I like to energize other people. I like moving into action and making things happen. I generally feel at home in the world. I often understand a problem better when I can talk out loud about it and hear what others have to say.
> 
> 
> The following statements generally apply to me:*Introversion (I)
> 
> *
> *I like getting my energy from dealing with the ideas*, pictures, memories, and reactions that are inside my head, in my inner world. I often prefer doing things alone or with one or two people I feel comfortable with. I take time to reflect so that I have a clear idea of what I’ll be doing when I decide to act. *Ideas are almost solid things for me.* Sometimes I like the idea of something better than the real thing.
> 
> 
> The following statements generally apply to me:
> 
> I am seen as "outgoing" or as a "people person."
> 
> 
> I am seen as "reflective" or "reserved."
> 
> 
> I feel comfortable in groups and like working in them.
> 
> 
> I feel comfortable being alone and like things I can do on my own.
> 
> 
> I have a wide range of friends and know lots of people.
> 
> 
> I prefer to know just a few people well.
> 
> 
> I sometimes jump too quickly into an activity and don't allow enough time to think it over.
> 
> 
> I sometimes spend too much time reflecting and don't move into action quickly enough.
> 
> 
> Before I start a project, I sometimes forget to stop and get clear on what I want to do and why.
> 
> 
> I sometimes to forget to check with the outside world to see if my ideas really fit the experience.


----------



## beth x

Thread warning: 

Please refrain from becoming personal when discussing these things. It's irritating for others who are simply here to learn. Debate is fine, ad hominem really isn't.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Dezir said:


> I doubt about your last sentence. But yes, in a sense it's memory, Si is past in the same way Ni is future, I described Si few posts above. In case you've already red it, non Si-dom users don't compare the past with the present as much as Si-dom users, that's what makes the difference. I may not look like much, but it has a lot of individualities because of this.


I read about Ni being future. My daughter talks about it like that, but my experience with Ni is not so much future as it trying to piece together patterns from the past for present usage. I have a problem that needs solved. I look at the broken part, or the current situation, and try to solve it. I fiddle with it for a while, trying different things, but what works best for me is to just let it rest for a while--go and do something else, and when I come back to it, the solution is there in my head. 

I think that when Ni is in the dominant position, it's working all the time, and gives the impression of being future-orientated, but the reality is that it is building on the patterns from the past, not in the same way Si does, focusing on the details of past events or the reality of past events, but on disconnected and interconnected movements between past events, or snapshots of various elements from the past. It's not deja vu, but a sudden snap of how things should be. I like to think of Si as "ought to". This is how we "ought to" do things, because it is what has always worked, and Ni is "should do" as in, you "should do" this, because it's better than what you are doing now. The reality is that Si types are really good at organizing things, and covering all the contingencies, due to the interplay between their Si and Ne whereby they extrapolate from the past, but Ni types are really good at solving problems with no direct precedent, because they see the patterns from the past, and interpolate from the past. Ni then uses Se to bring to life those patterns in the present. I think that Si types see it all as a continuum, while Ni types see it all as episodic--from one break-through to the next. But this is just my interpretation as an observer, and a weak Ni-type. ;-)

Personally, I think that Ne types are the most capable of being forward thinking. But I may be biased (my wife). ;-) But I see them as looking at the many possibilities that exist and could exist. It's the breaking out to the many that makes me think of them as forward looking. They aren't thinking in just one direction, but many possibilities, and it is up to them as to how many they actually try. I get the impression that, to them, Si is just the stool to stand on while reaching the cookies on the top shelf. Hm... 

Si for the SJ type--the solid rock on which to build your home.
Si for the NP type--the stool on which to stand to reach the cookie jar
Si for the SP type--the rope around the ankle
Si for the NJ type--?? The same as for SPs? Oh, I got it, the veil that obscures the vision??? I don't know. I'm making this last one up. ;-)

And all the above is just the wild speculation of a raving mad man. Ignore at your own peril. :crazy:


----------



## To_august

Dezir said:


> Yes because Si was his demonic function, being an INFJ out of all the 8 cognitive function, Si was his least prefered. MBTI proves this with studies, something Jung couldn't do. It my not be an existing material thing but it's manifestations are in the existing material thing.


This is debatable 'cause Jung identified himself with introversion and thinking and never with feeling in any orientation. I believe he was IxTP. INTJ is possible too, as he provided a very profound Ni description.
Jung didn't get his descriptions out of nothing. He observed his patients, saw some patterns and as a result defined introversion, intuition, thinking etc.. These were _his _concepts of a function Z based on _his _observations. If MBTI practitioners conducted studies and found out that function Z is something different from the initial definition, then we can't prove that they observed the same thing as Jung did in the first place, hence we can't prove whether it was function Z or something else that they observed.



> MBTI is not the sole authority in the realm of typology but it's not authority that matters but evidence. Authority doesn't show the truth, real evidence do.


I didn't refer to authority in that sense, but meant _variety_ - existence of different typology systems, in the framework of which different studies are conducted. Results of such studies can be not in line with MBTI, or Jung, or with each other, or with anything else. 
Still don't totally understand which 'real evidence' you mean.



> "Then again, one can't prove that their concept is better or closer to depicting the truth by altering the concept in question in the first place" why ?


Because it is not the same concept anymore. E.g., somebody observed certain thing, defined it as multicoloured optical phenomenon appearing in the sky caused by reflection of light and named it rainbow, and then another person comes and tells that rainbow is in fact black and white and caused by CO2 emissions. The conclusion is that most probably these two people are talking about two different phenomena. The second person altered the concept of the first one, thus making it a different concept.



> I also think this is kind of disorganised but it has it's benefits. An INTJ is more similar to an ENTJ than an INTP, discerning types by their first function would be rather confusing when you're claiming that an INTp is more similar to an ENTj than to an ENTp.


I agree that it is more convenient, but it causes confusion I think. ENTJ is a judging dominant type while INTJ is a perceiving dominant type which is an important distinction, but both are "J"s in MBTI.



> I doubt about your last sentence. But yes, in a sense it's memory, Si is past in the same way Ni is future, I described Si few posts above. In case you've already red it, non Si-dom users don't compare the past with the present as much as Si-dom users, that's what makes the difference. I may not look like much, but it has a lot of individualities because of this.


I think this is simplification on the part of MBTI in terms of Ni/Si as future/past. As long as Ni is visionary, having conceptual future insights, to balance the model out Si is supposed to be past oriented. But in reality I think both Pi functions are sensitive to changes over time and are future oriented to a degree. They just choose different kind of information as a source for such understanding.



> flying fire-breathing dragons instead of cars ? where did you get that from ?


It was reference to this:


Jung said:


> _Actually he _[Si-dom]_ lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. _





> Here are some existing material examples, if you:
> 
> Are not productive or hardworking.
> Do not learn easily from your mistakes.
> Never ask someone else to prove something they say.
> Open up to people about your innermost feelings regulary.
> Are not serious.
> 
> Then you aren't an ISTJ.


These are behaviours and behaviour =/= cognition. It's more important to know _why _somebody behaves certain way. The _reasons _behind behaviour can tell something about person's cognitive preferences, not the behaviour itself.


----------



## Serpent

I think one way to spot an Si dominant user is to gauge their reaction to disorder in the environment, at least from my experience. For instance, my father would see a puddle of water on the ground and literally freak out, talking about how anyone could get injured and the like. Similarly, I won an iPad on a raffle draw and on coming home, casually placed it on the top of a cabinet. My father saw it and immediately suggested that I buy a tablet cover to protect it from falling down and breaking, lol. That was his first thought when he saw the iPad. Finally, I'm not fully sure if this is related to Si, but the obsessive tendency to promote order in the environment. Everything has a place. If they see any object lying somewhere it shouldn't, they will not hesitate to bring the object back to its "default" position. They almost look like robots when they do this, as if they're programmed to preserve order in surroundings. I don't quite believe it's OCD.


----------



## Modal Soul

please continue to take things personally and hurl insults at each other!


----------



## Serpent

Adding to my previous post, I find it hard to understand why they try to maintain their surroundings in order. It's going to get messy again, eventually. What's the point? Our house is not a museum.


----------



## Dezir

To_august said:


> This is debatable 'cause Jung identified himself with introversion and thinking and never with feeling in any orientation. I believe he was IxTP. INTJ is possible too, as he provided a very profound Ni description.
> Jung didn't get his descriptions out of nothing. He observed his patients, saw some patterns and as a result defined introversion, intuition, thinking etc.. These were _his _concepts of a function Z based on _his _observations. If MBTI practitioners conducted studies and found out that function Z is something different from the initial definition, then we can't prove that they observed the same thing as Jung did in the first place, hence we can't prove whether it was function Z or something else that they observed.


Ok, are we going to swich from 'Si si MBTI or Jung' to 'Was Jung an INFJ or not' ? MBTI's studies started from Jung, so they don't have differnt foundations. If Jung discribed Z as X and then MBTI later found out based on real evidence that Z is actually Y then which one is wrong ?

By real evidence I mean, concrete things we can observe in reality, facts. The sky is blue, that's a fact, India is located in asia, that's a fact, people need food to survive, that's a fact, Jung's Si definition wasn't very accurate, and so on. Facts are proven by reality, theory without studies is only assumed to be true.



To_august said:


> I didn't refer to authority in that sense, but meant _variety_ - existence of different typology systems, in the framework of which different studies are conducted. Results of such studies can be not in line with MBTI, or Jung, or with each other, or with anything else.
> Still don't totally understand which 'real evidence' you mean.


The results of the studies that are in line with reality are true, regarless of being studies made by MBTI, Jung or anything else.



To_august said:


> Because it is not the same concept anymore. E.g., somebody observed certain thing, defined it as multicoloured optical phenomenon appearing in the sky caused by reflection of light and named it rainbow, and then another person comes and tells that rainbow is in fact black and white and caused by CO2 emissions. The conclusion is that most probably these two people are talking about two different phenomena. The second person altered the concept of the first one, thus making it a different concept.


"The conclusion is that most probably these two people are talking about two different phenomena" how do you know ? they might as well be talking about the same thing.



To_august said:


> I agree that it is more convenient, but it causes confusion I think. ENTJ is a judging dominant type while INTJ is a perceiving dominant type which is an important distinction, but both are "J"s in MBTI.


I agree, but I think we must choose the lesser evil. INTp being more similar to ENTj than ENTp would cause even more confusion.



To_august said:


> I think this is simplification on the part of MBTI in terms of Ni/Si as future/past. As long as Ni is visionary, having conceptual future insights, to balance the model out Si is supposed to be past oriented. But in reality I think both Pi functions are sensitive to changes over time and are future oriented to a degree. They just choose different kind of information as a source for such understanding.


Every function is sensitive to change over time, this isn't Pi specific, if Ti gets better data it changes his.. mechanism, if Fi gets better data it may change his values, and so on.

This is just a guess, but I think it's my type that I know were I will be in 10 years while other people don't even know where they want to be in 5 years. I have plans for the future, practical plans not dreams, nobody told me to do so. So _"future oriented to a degree"_ kind of doesn't work out.



To_august said:


> It was reference to this:


I have no idea what he mean. This could basically be the evidence that Jung was an INFJ, no T type would describe something sciencifical that he has to present as being sciencifical in metaphorical forms.



To_august said:


> These are behaviours and behaviour =/= cognition. It's more important to know _why _somebody behaves certain way. The _reasons _behind behaviour can tell something about person's cognitive preferences, not the behaviour itself.


This is exactly the reason why I listed what DOESN'T make you an ISTJ.
You can learn new behavours, but you CAN'T unlearn natural behavours.
An INTP is not bad with people because he has Ti, but because he lacks Fe

_(As a side note, if Jung was an INTP he would've been horrible with people, and I doubt his Fe would be that developed)_

So if you, let's say, do not learn easily from your mistakes then you're not an ISTJ, because it's the same thing as saying if you don't look a lot into the future you're not an INTJ, if you don't have a lot of ideas all the time you're not an ENTP.


----------



## Dezir

ferroequinologist said:


> I read about Ni being future. My daughter talks about it like that, but my experience with Ni is not so much future as it trying to piece together patterns from the past for present usage. I have a problem that needs solved. I look at the broken part, or the current situation, and try to solve it. I fiddle with it for a while, trying different things, but what works best for me is to just let it rest for a while--go and do something else, and when I come back to it, the solution is there in my head.
> 
> I think that when Ni is in the dominant position, it's working all the time, and gives the impression of being future-orientated, but the reality is that it is building on the patterns from the past, not in the same way Si does, focusing on the details of past events or the reality of past events, but on disconnected and interconnected movements between past events, or snapshots of various elements from the past. It's not deja vu, but a sudden snap of how things should be. I like to think of Si as "ought to". This is how we "ought to" do things, because it is what has always worked, and Ni is "should do" as in, you "should do" this, because it's better than what you are doing now. The reality is that Si types are really good at organizing things, and covering all the contingencies, due to the interplay between their Si and Ne whereby they extrapolate from the past, but Ni types are really good at solving problems with no direct precedent, because they see the patterns from the past, and interpolate from the past. Ni then uses Se to bring to life those patterns in the present. I think that Si types see it all as a continuum, while Ni types see it all as episodic--from one break-through to the next. But this is just my interpretation as an observer, and a weak Ni-type. ;-)
> 
> Personally, I think that Ne types are the most capable of being forward thinking. But I may be biased (my wife). ;-) But I see them as looking at the many possibilities that exist and could exist. It's the breaking out to the many that makes me think of them as forward looking. They aren't thinking in just one direction, but many possibilities, and it is up to them as to how many they actually try. I get the impression that, to them, Si is just the stool to stand on while reaching the cookies on the top shelf. Hm...
> 
> Si for the SJ type--the solid rock on which to build your home.
> Si for the NP type--the stool on which to stand to reach the cookie jar
> Si for the SP type--the rope around the ankle
> Si for the NJ type--?? The same as for SPs? Oh, I got it, the veil that obscures the vision??? I don't know. I'm making this last one up. ;-)
> 
> And all the above is just the wild speculation of a raving mad man. Ignore at your own peril. :crazy:


I use to philosophy with one of my friends which is a strong Ne user and he always changes the subject, still philosophical but into something different, while I want to focus on one idea and get to the bottom of it, he wants to explore as many ideas as possible. I tend to narrow my philosophy to a conclusion while he tends to widen his philosophy with more questions, so that could be a difference. Come to think of it, this works very well together, he gives me more ideas while I give him more answers.


----------



## ferroequinologist

Dezir said:


> I agree, but I think we must choose the lesser evil. INTp being more similar to ENTj than ENTp would cause even more confusion.


I think it's more fundamental than that. ENTJ is Te-Ni-Se-Fi, and INTJ is Ni-Te-Fi-Se. INTj is Ti-Ne-Si-Fe. It it is completely opposite ENTJ, jest shares the NTJ letters. Sorry, but this guy, that's confusing. Socionics should have stuck with the LIE, ILI and LII designations, or used the MBTI designations. But whatever powers that be wanted to show that theirs was different from MBTI, so they chose this method.

I see no problem with showing which of the two top functions is extroverted. It is, IMO, a much better compromise than otherwise.

And the truth is, while introverted judging types may be primarily judgers, their judging, being turned on self has a completely different nature from extroverted judgers. And the truth is, in the case of introverts, it is not at all a one-way street like it is with extroverts. This post on personalityjunkie.com probably illustrates it best: Rethinking Judging & Perceiving in IPs & IJs

So, it's not so easy as just saying that IP types should be called IJ, etc.


----------



## RunForCover07

ferroequinologist said:


> I read about Ni being future. My daughter talks about it like that, but my experience with Ni is not so much future as it trying to piece together patterns from the past for present usage. I have a problem that needs solved. I look at the broken part, or the current situation, and try to solve it. I fiddle with it for a while, trying different things, but what works best for me is to just let it rest for a while--go and do something else, and when I come back to it, the solution is there in my head.
> 
> I think that when Ni is in the dominant position, it's working all the time, and gives the impression of being future-orientated, but the reality is that it is building on the patterns from the past, not in the same way Si does, focusing on the details of past events or the reality of past events, but on disconnected and interconnected movements between past events, or snapshots of various elements from the past. It's not deja vu, but a sudden snap of how things should be. I like to think of Si as "ought to". This is how we "ought to" do things, because it is what has always worked, and Ni is "should do" as in, you "should do" this, because it's better than what you are doing now. The reality is that Si types are really good at organizing things, and covering all the contingencies, due to the interplay between their Si and Ne whereby they extrapolate from the past, but Ni types are really good at solving problems with no direct precedent, because they see the patterns from the past, and interpolate from the past. Ni then uses Se to bring to life those patterns in the present. I think that Si types see it all as a continuum, while Ni types see it all as episodic--from one break-through to the next. But this is just my interpretation as an observer, and a weak Ni-type. ;-)
> 
> Personally, I think that Ne types are the most capable of being forward thinking. But I may be biased (my wife). ;-) But I see them as looking at the many possibilities that exist and could exist. It's the breaking out to the many that makes me think of them as forward looking. They aren't thinking in just one direction, but many possibilities, and it is up to them as to how many they actually try. I get the impression that, to them, Si is just the stool to stand on while reaching the cookies on the top shelf. Hm...
> 
> Si for the SJ type--the solid rock on which to build your home.
> Si for the NP type--the stool on which to stand to reach the cookie jar
> Si for the SP type--the rope around the ankle
> Si for the NJ type--?? The same as for SPs? Oh, I got it, the veil that obscures the vision??? I don't know. I'm making this last one up. ;-)
> 
> And all the above is just the wild speculation of a raving mad man. Ignore at your own peril. :crazy:


As a Ni dominate, I can’t exactly say that Ni deals with past memories and synthesizes these memories together, because sometimes my “visions” come to me out of the blue with a “just knowing”. For example, my ESFP father and I were putting together a pool that he had bought from a garage sale. He couldn’t figure out if the legs of the pool were supposed to tuck under this attached band or on the outside of the band. I imagined the pool put together with the legs tucked under the band and told him they go on the inside of the band. He doubted me and kept saying that he wasn’t sure, which he then wanted to fool around with it until it made sense. I then explained to him, “When you fill the pool with water, the pool is going to expand, so the legs need to tuck under the band in order to contain the legs or else it’s going to collapse once you begin filling it up.” He just couldn’t see it until I Googled a picture of the pool, which of course I was correct. This is clearly a pretty basic example, but ideally I had never put a pool together before, but rather I imagined what would happen if the pool began to fill up with water and how the legs would support the pool.

This process is pretty much what I do all of the time, but it's not always as easy to explain. Although, it's a pretty good example of Ni/Se working together. 



> but what works best for me is to just let it rest for a while--go and do something else, and when I come back to it, the solution is there in my head.


That's your tert Ni. You had to play with it through Se first before your Ni could piece it together. Ni/Se on the other hand, looks at it conceptually and tries to come to a conclusion of what will happen without physically seeing the end result (inferior Se). This is what I think Ni doms mean by things playing in their heads like movies or pictures.


----------



## Potne Theron

Rex Magnus said:


> Adding to my previous post, I find it hard to understand why they try to maintain their surroundings in order. It's going to get messy again, eventually. What's the point? Our house is not a museum.


Is it Si or enneatype 1? What is your fathers's enneagram type?


----------



## CrystallineSheep

I thought the better way to describe Si was relying on previous experiences to understand a new one. Like Se takes in the new experience as something unique or new and Si may try to implement previous information into collecting a new one.


----------



## ferroequinologist

RunForCover07 said:


> As a Ni dominate, I can’t exactly say that Ni deals with past memories and synthesizes these memories together, because sometimes my “visions” come to me out of the blue with a “just knowing”. For example, my ESFP father and I were putting together a pool that he had bought from a garage sale. He couldn’t figure out if the legs of the pool were supposed to tuck under this attached band or on the outside of the band. I imagined the pool put together with the legs tucked under the band and told him they go on the inside of the band. He doubted me and kept saying that he wasn’t sure, which he then wanted to fool around with it until it made sense. I then explained to him, “When you fill the pool with water, the pool is going to expand, so the legs need to tuck under the band in order to contain the legs or else it’s going to collapse once you begin filling it up.” He just couldn’t see it until I Googled a picture of the pool, which of course I was correct. This is clearly a pretty basic example, but ideally I had never put a pool together before, but rather I imagined what would happen if the pool began to fill up with water and how the legs would support the pool.
> 
> This process is pretty much what I do all of the time, but it's not always as easy to explain. Although, it's a pretty good example of Ni/Se working together.


That's an aspect of Ni-Se I tend to forget. I call it the 3D view. I am able to physically see things from multiple perspectives, and put things together in my head. I think this aspect, though, is more spatial, and I don't know if it builds on previous patterns or not. I say that because when I was a little kid, my dad would give me old electronics to take apart, and I enjoyed the challenge. A couple of items I was able to actually fix. There's no way I had years of prior experience--just "guesses". But I do think that over time, we are able to take those patterns we've seen in the past and interpolate them into new things--the pool possibly being an example. 





> That's your tert Ni. You had to play with it through Se first before your Ni could piece it together. Ni/Se on the other hand, looks at it conceptually and tries to come to a conclusion of what will happen without physically seeing the end result (inferior Se). This is what I think Ni doms mean by things playing in their heads like movies or pictures.


Yeah, that's why I mentioned how it works for me. I can only imagine how it would be in the first position--kind of scary from this tert-Ni's perspective.  To me, sometimes Se and Ni are so tightly woven that I don't really know if it is Se just observing and acting, or Ni connecting the dots. I cannot let my Ni get out of hand, however... I _know_ I am weak at predicting or putting the pieces together. I really need to get my physical side active for it to work properly--or get out of the way, and let Ni work its way over time in situations where Se can't help)


----------



## To_august

Rex Magnus said:


> Finally, I'm not fully sure if this is related to Si, but the obsessive tendency to promote order in the environment. Everything has a place. If they see any object lying somewhere it shouldn't, they will not hesitate to bring the object back to its "default" position. They almost look like robots when they do this, as if they're programmed to preserve order in surroundings. I don't quite believe it's OCD.


I was thinking this is more of a rational thing. I also like order 'cause cluttered environments make me feel uncomfortable and disorganised, but it is order more in a sense of handiness than putting things in a place where they belong. This is something my grandma used to drive me nuts about when I was a kid. Argh. Every single thing was supposed to be at its "proper" place and I was thinking why should I care about proper place and why is it "proper" in the first place, while it's more handy to put this thing somewhere else. Lol.



Dezir said:


> Ok, are we going to swich from 'Si si MBTI or Jung' to 'Was Jung an INFJ or not' ?


I hope we're not. You brought up his type and I'll try to refrain from commenting on this theme further on.



> If Jung discribed Z as X and then MBTI later found out based on real evidence that Z is actually Y then which one is wrong ?
> 
> By real evidence I mean, concrete things we can observe in reality, facts. The sky is blue, that's a fact, India is located in asia, that's a fact, people need food to survive, that's a fact, Jung's Si definition wasn't very accurate, and so on. Facts are proven by reality, theory without studies is only assumed to be true.


Z in that example is not a concrete thing, it is a concept, a certain abstraction of reality defined by Jung. If MBTI says that his Si description is inaccurate, then what did they observe to make such a conclusion, as there were no other reference of what Si is to turn to except Jung's description?



> This is exactly the reason why I listed what DOESN'T make you an ISTJ.
> You can learn new behavours, but you CAN'T unlearn natural behavours.
> An INTP is not bad with people because he has Ti, but because he lacks Fe
> 
> So if you, let's say, do not learn easily from your mistakes then you're not an ISTJ, because it's the same thing as saying if you don't look a lot into the future you're not an INTJ, if you don't have a lot of ideas all the time you're not an ENTP.


They are still behaviours, and cognition is not a set of behaviours. People are more than their types.
If you don't do something it doesn't rule out a possibility to be certain type in any way. Unless we don't search for a reason behind such behaviour we can't tell what it represents in particular.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

To_august said:


> I was thinking this is more of a rational thing. I also like order 'cause cluttered environments make me feel uncomfortable and disorganised, but it is order more in a sense of handiness than putting things in a place where they belong. This is something my grandma used to drive me nuts about when I was a kid. Argh. Every single thing was supposed to be at its "proper" place and I was thinking why should I care about proper place and why is it "proper" in the first place, while it's more handy to put this thing somewhere else. Lol.
> 
> 
> I hope we're not. You brought up his type and I'll try to refrain from commenting on this theme further on.
> 
> 
> *Z in that example is not a concrete thing, it is a concept, a certain abstraction of reality defined by Jung. If MBTI says that his Si description is inaccurate, then what did they observe to make such a conclusion, as there were no other reference of what Si is to turn to except Jung's description?*
> 
> 
> 
> They are still behaviours, and cognition is not a set of behaviours. People are more than their types.
> If you don't do something it doesn't rule out a possibility to be certain type in any way. Unless we don't search for a reason behind such behaviour we can't tell what it represents in particular.


I tried to make the same point earlier. If you are focusing on a concept then you need the concept as representation to even focus on the concept at all. Ignoring the reference and making up your own doesn't prove if the original concept was wrong or not. Its literally impossible to focus on a concept without the reference to the concept.


----------



## Dezir

To_august said:


> Z in that example is not a concrete thing, it is a concept, a certain abstraction of reality defined by Jung. If MBTI says that his Si description is inaccurate, then what did they observe to make such a conclusion, as there were no other reference of what Si is to turn to except Jung's description?


Every concept most have a direct source in the concrete otherwise is invalid. The number "5" is a concept, but it has a direct source in concrete fashon. Same thing goes for that Z.

Jung's description of Si mightn't be wrong, except his Si mightn't be MBTI's Si, Jung believed he was an INTP _(and I don't try to change the subject here)_ therefore his 'Si' description _(Which is Tertiary for INTP, Demonic for INFJ)_ might have actually been a representation of Ni in MBTI.

Anyway, I think we could both agree that 'Si' _(the function alone not the whole individual)_ doesn't see dragons, ISTJ _(As a whole)_ aren't known for being imaginative. And if their dominat function 'Si' was that imaginative, I think pretty much all of them should've been naturally imaginative.



To_august said:


> They are still behaviours, and cognition is not a set of behaviours. People are more than their types.
> If you don't do something it doesn't rule out a possibility to be certain type in any way. Unless we don't search for a reason behind such behaviour we can't tell what it represents in particular.


If there are all behaviours then we could never identify our type, ever. Our types is about tendency, ISTJ definetly have a tendency to do that, they would rather struggle not to do that than to do that, and since these I mentioned are all healthy behaviours I doubt an ISTJ would prefer not doing that.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Where does Jung say Si users are seeing dragons. Im pretty sure you all are talking about this quote:



> Above all, his development alienates him from the reality of the object, leaving him at the mercy of his subjective perceptions, which orient his consciousness to an archaic reality, *although his lack of comparative judgment keeps him wholly unconscious of this fact*. Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons. *That they appear thus to him never enters his head*, though that is just the effect they have on his judgments and actions.


Introversion has a direct connection to the archetypes which give off mythological vibes. If Introverted sensing abstracts sensations into this inner world then the subjective perceptions are going to be influenced by the archetypes and their mythical nature.

What you are all forgetting is the bold,  none of this ever occurs to the Si user
Because they greatly lack comparative judgement. Si users are not conscious of the contents of the unconscious, their conscious to their subjective perception which is influenced by the contents of the unconscious. The focus of the Si user is abstracting sensations, it is not seeing mythological dragons and worlds, they are completely unaware of this aspect of their psyche, and would never comment on it because of their complete unawareness to it. Which makes me think that people didn't read the whole thing but are only focusing on parts rather than the whole.


----------



## Deus Absconditus

Dezir said:


> Every concept most have a direct source in the concrete otherwise is invalid. The number "5" is a concept, but it has a direct source in concrete fashon. Same thing goes for that Z.


And in order to count 5 in the concrete world you would first need to identify the concept of 5. Same goes for Z.



> .If there are all behaviours then we could never identify our type, ever. Our types is about tendency, ISTJ definetly have a tendency to do that, they would rather struggle not to do that than to do that, and since these I mentioned are all healthy behaviours I doubt an ISTJ would prefer not doing that


Cognitive functions are not about behavior, they're about motives and cognitive functioning. Behavior is the side effects of our motives and cognitive functioning. Jung specifically states he studied the persons psyche off of their motives and cognitive functioning, not their effects which would include behavior.


----------



## KraChZiMan

PaladinX said:


> I can't tell if you are being serious or not. Regardless, MBTI definitely does not directly state or imply those things. Did you even look at the link @_Dezir_ provided.


 listed stereotypes passing along the majority of people who seem to "know it all". It has nothing to do with the theory whatsoever (unless it's somebody's personal theory).

I am not really mad, just, please understand... when I use quotation marks, I am not speaking for myself.




> Can you please cite where Jung has described or implied Se as "experience-based learning?" I'm inclined to call BS on that, but I'm open to being wrong. Si description is wrong because it is an irrational function. Decision-making, ie judgment, well... I think you know which functions do that. Sensing is about "what is" and Feeling is about "whether it is agreeable or not." How do "bad vibes, good vibes" relate to the former over the latter?


Easy: Psychological Types - Wikisocion 

The text in the first link, to my understanding, should summarize a point that Se-types use experiences as guidelines for reaching to their main goals.

Sensation/feeling stuff you describe here is absolutely correct, according to Keirsey-esque definitions. Socionics does not agree with such vulgar "sensing is caveman-style monkey-see-monkey-do" and "feeling function directly equals to anything that has to do with human emotion". This kind of taking-words-literally attitude is very bad, and it shows sensing-types in a bad light. Cognitive functions are much more complicated than that. Socionics was aware of this, and changed thinking to logic, sensing to sensorics and feeling to ethics to prevent people from taking psychological buzzwords literally. 




> How does a Socionics description of Si prove anything about Jung's? All this logically proves is that Socionics doesn't think that Si has anything to do with "experience-based learning, nostalgia and memories." I could equally say Socionics is wrong and provide an MBTI quote to back up my argument assuming that it directly relates to Jung's description. I think it's called an association fallacy? Or maybe something else. I'm not all up on my fallacies. *shrugs*


Fallacy? Oh lol... 

Keirsey and vanilla MBTI is simplified, kiddies version of Jung's theory, while Socionics is not simplified, but an attempt to develop Jung's theory one step further. I can write very, very long essays on the reasons why socionics is suprerior, complete with proof and source, but at this moment, I hope it goes without saying. That's because I assume the users of PerC already know that, and we do not need to go over the reasons and waste bandwidth for that.

Because socionics is not easy to get into, and it's not "hip" enough, there's Keirsey and MBTI for those people! The astrology 2.0, everyone! *thunderous ovations*

Again, no offence intended. People should just really slowly read up about socionics, at least some parts of it. Offence is fully intented only for people who are passionately loathing and ignoring socionics terms, descriptions, definitions and and fully aware that they are doing it!



> I agree. Attitude =/= aptitude. I should make that another quote in my sig!


Thankss :d



> I'd argue that these descriptions are not necessarily congruent with Jung's description. For example, Fe determines whether something is agreeable or not through feeling-tones, which are based on external factors. Not sure that it necessarily has to do with "emotional overtones."


Emotional overtones are very useful piece of information for Fe-types, since Fe is clever understanding and manipulation of emotional overtones in order to influence situations to go along the wished course (easy example: Fe-user personally feels hungry at a long seminar, but asks for a break on behalf of everybody and probably using some general excuse like "let's take time off 5 minutes to process what we have learned so far and rest our eyes"). Maybe emotional overtones is not the right word for it, but that's what I meant anyway.



> You need to separate people from their understanding and actions. Because someone incorrectly understands something does not make them an "utter idiot." In my opinion, the ignorance in that statement is utterly idiotic. I am not saying or implying that you are an idiot for saying it, just that the phrase itself is idiotic. I say dumb shit all the time, doesn't mean I'm dumb. Si _is_ connected to memory in a way, though I agree that it is not synonymous with it.


I understand what you mean, but utter idiot is always a person who is passionately and furiously advancing point of view for the sake of being assertive, gaining ego-boosts, defending some offended/hurtful people etc.

Not understanding correctly is not that bad at all, these people usually learn very much from debating, unlike some people I've met on PerC who can't debate without becoming hurtful, personal, offended and can't stay on the topic with their explanations. 

When I am throwing around insults, I choose very carefully to not target anyone in particular, no names called. I will literally NEVER make attempts to undermine anyone in particular, only figurative, imaginative groups of people. That would be abusive behavior. Using occasional profanity is just a rhetoric to emphasize my point. 

Again, example. Saying that "most people who drive fancy cars are assholes" is not really worth much, and in most contexts people won't be offended by that, because it's arguable what is meant by a fancy car. However, saying "all women are stupid" or "person X is a asshat" is a very direct insult and considered rude.

"Everyone clinging onto irrational belief that _Si is directly linked with memories, nostalgia and experience-based learning"
_-statement also basically demands for someone to directly say the words "yes, Si is most definitely linked to memories and nostalgia" in order to deserve the insult. It's not based on any assumptions.

Just in case, I try to summarize again: 

SUMMARY

Si is about holding on to conventional solutions, trusting already established and working methods. Si is about walking the roads where others have stepped on, because in that way, the amount of unexpected problems occurring is lowered. It may be very tempting to narrow it down to the point that "Si is connected to memory" while it is not. Every mentally healthy person has almost the same capacity for remembering events, people, stuff etc. and nostalgia. It's impossible that psychological wiring can make people more attuned to memories. People use memories and experience very often as a method of learning, solving problems and advancing themselves, and for many different end goals. More responsive to already established and proven methods =/= relying heavily on memories and nostalgia. In that light being shed, saying that Si is memory-related is same as saying that "the distinctive element of chocolate ice cream is that it is sweet".

Chocolate ice cream is distinctively sweet if compared to a pinch of salt. It's not distinctively sweet when compared to strawberry ice cream.

If PaladinX is still bearing with me here with discussion and not turning all emotional and personal, I want to say thanks in advance!! Staying on topic without becoming offended is a merit on its own, truly.


----------



## ferroequinologist

There's a pretty interesting description of Si in this new profile of ISFJs. 

Pierce Presents: ISFJ | CelebrityTypes

Personally, from my perspective, it rings true, and I find his profile both honest and positive. 

And I thought of something. If I had to describe the difference between Se and Si, and experiencing new experiences, I would put it this way. My ISFJ best friend is very keen on new experiences, but his approach is opposite of mine. Whereas I would just jump into a pool of cool water, he wades in, little by little. I'd say that was how we approach new experiences--it's not like he doesn't want to try them, but he is more careful of getting too cold, so he wades in bit by bit. ;-) That's my perspective.


----------

