# A rant on Introverted Sensing (Si doms, please read?)



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

Introverted Sensing (Si).

Introverted Sensing is nothing more, nor less, than a perception function.
It is an exclusive method of receiving and processing information, focused on what 'is'.

I intend the word 'exclusive' to mean, it excludes other information concerned with what 'is'.
Therefore, Si is a narrow and focused perception function – and the information it prefers to concern itself with, is derived directly from something specific that 'is'.

To put this into laymens terms – Si is neutral towards everything that doesn't pique it's interest.

*Example*
To envision Si embodied, imagine a miner. They go to the same mine every day, chipping away, and ignoring everything they unearth that isn't gold or diamonds. To them, _this_ is the mine. The gold, the diamonds, this is what they perceive the mine as being – they see past the literal mine as a hole in the ground and a shittonne of dirt, and are focused on their own perceptions of what the mine is.

Obviously, this links beautifully with Ne – possibilities – the Si type will see the mine as something therefore full of potential, full of this data/information that it is after and seeking to gather – imagine focusing on the gold and diamonds and blatantly ignoring the actual mine for what it [bi]literally[/i] is.
This, is the heart of Si.
*End example*

*Example*
Another way to envision Si, would be to picture it as somebody foraging in the forest – think Stardew Valley – searching for berries, useful pieces of wood, useful rocks, things to create weapons with, sources of food etc – this is Si. Si doesn't care for the forest, it's concerned with how it _perceives_ the forest – which is as a source of useful information. In looking at the forest from the outside, the Si user is focused on it's own subjective impression of the forest – what it means to the Si user – not so much, the forest for what it actually is.

For fear of this turning into the old “can't see the forest for the trees” NvS bullshit we see, understand how crucially important, and creative this is.

Rather than seeing the forest as merely a forest, rather than merely seeing the horseshit “big picture” - the Si type sees potential – in conjunction with their inferior, unadultered Ne, they see potential in the forest.
They see useful information. The perceive the forest in a completely different way, and as something far more, far bigger, far deeper, than simply a _forest_.

I will touch on the effects of Ne and how it works with Si, later in this post.
*End example*

Apply this mentality, to everything – ideas, thoughts, beliefs, people, inanimate objects, animals etc, and you will begin to realise how powerful, and beautiful, Si is – as well as how vastly different it is, to the image we all have in our head of it, as being some 'detail-oriented, tradition-keeping busy-bee worker ant' image.
It is far more than that.


First and foremost, typology is about people – so let's apply this mentality, the heart of Si – to people.

*Example*
The Si type is out and about, at a cafe, writing up another post in their astrology blog and someone catches their eye as they walk in the door – right here, Si zones in not on the person, specifically – rather, how they perceive the person.

So the Si type will perhaps look at the persons clothes, their hair, their shoes, their watch, the colour of their eyes, their mannerisms, their voice, the way they walk etc etc and be more interested in their own subjective impressions of these facets of the person – the person themselves, might as well simply be an 'idea' – Si types have a disconnect from reality in this regard.

The might therefore, wind up thinking the person has a cheap taste in clothing, or maybe they're poor – can't afford better clothes? Might be their upbringing. What's with the hair? It's not the '80s anymore bro, mullets are out. Rolex watch is interesting, doesn't really match how I've perceived him so far - his mannerisms don't really add up either, he's too composed – oh, the voice, that accent – okay, so he's probably from a richer family – people with that posh London accent always are, I guess he's just having a bad day or having some bad times back at home at the moment that would explain the clothes.. you get the picture.

In this example, the focus is on the users perceptions of the person – not the person, as they are, literally. I realise my example here might be tinged with either a feeling style of evaluation, however this is beside the point – I want to get across that Si types aren't particularly interested in reality as it is, per say, rather their own perceptions of it, and it's a very focused and narrow form of perception – note the above example pertains to a person, not the person in context of their surroundings or anything else that's not the person.

Si is interested only, I repeat only, in things that pique it's interest.
It is very, very narrow. 
Anything that doesn't pique the Si types interest is met with neutrality.

..

Si is a concrete sensation function, from Jung himself:



> Concrete sensation never appears in "pure" form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings and thoughts. The concrete sensation of a flower conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc.*
> Concrete sensation is a contaminated reactive phenomenon.
> Sensation is conscious.


You can see how this very clearly ties into the above examples I provided with regards to how I see Si.
For a demonstration of Si, on this very forum, in perfect harmony with all of the above, see this post, simply replace the mine, the forest and the flower, with 'avatar' and everything will click into place:
http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/1180025-tendency-indicative-specific-function.html

Please don't bitch about this link nor target it in any responses, because that would deviate from the topic and I truly only want to highlight Si in this thread and that post is too good an example of it to let slide.

..

With regards to the detail-oriented aspects of Si – this is evidenced throughout all of the above – Si is absolutely concerned with details, however the details it is concerned with, and pays attention to, are highly selective.

They are selective in that it only pays attention to details concerning things it is interested in – which for the most part, probably isn't much at all.

This hyper focus on details related to interests, is the reason Si types are regarded as generally having good memories, or being detail-focused, however to accept this at face value would be a critical error with regards to understanding Si, what it is and how it works.

Consider the above example with the person who walked into the cafe – could the Si type tell you for instance, what other people were doing whilst they were focused on their own perceptions pertaining to the newcomer? Could they tell you how many coffees someone else drank, or even how many sips they themselves took during this period of time? What about recalling literally anything that anybody said? 
Probably a resounding no to all of this, because in these moments where they are focused on an interest, they practically zone the world out.
Absolutely nothing like the aware and present general Sensor stereotype.

..

These impressions, these perceptions, are stored as memories – they have to be, this is the information they are focused on, therefore this is the information they collect and recall in their mind.

It therefore makes sense that the Si type would be able to recall specific information when they recall these perceptions and these impressions – ergo, if asked about the person who came in – they would recall the impressions they were receiving, and then be able to go into detail about what it was they were observing.

It also then, makes sense, that Si types would be observant to, collect, and recall, vibes – or feelings – associated/attached to these impressions – or perhaps the feeling or vibe itself would BE the object of the Si types focus, therefore they could vividly recall the feeling or vibe at a later date.

Consider the same situation with the newcomer – and imagine you get a general uneasy feeling about him, you might not be able to pin-point it.. right here, there are a couple of possibilities, related to Si.

First is that – you have observed something that matches with something else you have perceived in the past – maybe the Rolex watch is identical to that of someone you don't like – without immediately recalling that piece of information, you simply recall the vibe of that impression – so now, in the present moment, the Si type is overlaying a previous impression with reality.
Sounds like magic.

Another possibility is that this situation becomes an impression or vibe that may be recalled at a later date – consider if the newcomer does something to irk you, or make you feel 'off' about him – so later down the track, you notice someone walking that exact same way – you would overlay the impression you had of the newcomer, with the reality you are currently experiencing, and be focused on your own perceptions, rather than the simple fact that this is a different person altogether.


In saying this – now, think about deja vu.
What if deja vu, is connected to Si – what if the moments I outlayed above, where the past is being merged with the present – is Si – it makes perfect, logical sense to me, that this would be how deja vu occurs.

What I've described, would feel like intuition, if you couldn't pinpoint the cause of the uneasiness – consider seeing that person with the same Rolex watch – all you know, is your intuition is telling you.. something is off here, and I can't pinpoint it – but it's not, it's introverted sensing – it's a hyper focus of attention to detail, on something that has piqued your interest in one way or another – and it's focused on a vibe/feeling – I truly believe that Si would work this way – not exclusively related to things it literally observes – I believe feelings and vibes are a part of what can be observed/perceived and therefore – something Si types can recall and pay attention to.

…

With regards to the relationship between Si and Ne – Jung described this as essentially Ne having a darker flavour, when thinking about future possibilities.
I suppose, this is where the 'stuck in the past' stereotype stems from.

I don't see it this way, I read what Jung wrote as more of Si having a dark creativity of sorts – the simple fact is, Si types still look to the future – their inferior Ne just has a less optimistic view about it, than it does in a higher position.

So when people get those hunches, those feelings something bad is about to happen – motherfucker that is DOMINANT SI and INFERIOR NE. It's not Ni.
Negative thoughts about the future, are Si.

Si rummages the forest for berries etc to prepare for the future.
Si mines all the gold and the diamonds to prepare for the future.

It focuses on it's own subjective impressions of things in order to prepare itself for the future – it is an information gathering process and the way it works is it mines the absolute depths of what intrigues it, in order to be better prepared.

Even the example with the newcomer in the cafe – Si is obtaining information, which is may then use at a later date – it's preparing. For what, who knows precisely, but it's gathering and preparing for the dark Ne storm/s that may or may not ever come I.e not having enough food, not having enough money, not enough information, etc.

I want to point out, that having a darker view towards the future, when thinking about possibilities doesn't necessarily mean the Si type is scared of the future, or prefers the past.
They're simply preparing for the worst. This doesn't mean they believe in it, you could almost consider the way Si works, to be something akin to “just in case” - and then that “just in case” information is pulled from at later dates, when it needs to be – when the storm has come, so to speak I.e recalling and overlaying vibes from the past with the present moment – this reflects that the “time has come” for Si to do it's thing. It's spotted something and thought “oh shit, I know about this” and practically transported the Si user into some alternate reality.


..


I would absolutely love to hear from everyone on my thoughts regarding Si, especially Si types like @Stevester and @AllyKat who are confident in their type.
Am I idolising Si and turning it into something it isn't - essentially mystifying it, or am I on the right track?

I'd _vastly_ prefer original thoughts on Si, rather than copy-pastes from whatever shitty typology blog y'all scab your information from.


----------



## Krayfish (Nov 3, 2015)

When you said rant I expected something very negative, but this is actually a very good way to describe Si. I don't think your over idolizing it (this actually sounds like a fairly neutral description of the function). Wherever you did your research seems to be a good source.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

This seem more like an actual description of Si than the usual "Si is bound to tried and tested methods" thing that is said over and over again in forums like this one. 

@my melody, do you have anything to say about Turi's views on Si doms?


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

@Turi I'm trying to figure out how to put this all together. You said in one part that Si types only focus on what interests or stands out to them. But in another part you said Si types are trying to stockpile information and resources so they can be prepared for the future. I guess I'm not sure how the two statements fit together? I mean, when I think of someone stockpiling to prepare for the future, I think of someone who is focused on things that don't interest them personally but are necessary. The former statement is an intrinsically motivated focus and the latter is extrinsically motivated.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Recede they stockpile information that is interesting or stands out to them.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

Turi said:


> @Recede they stockpile information that is interesting or stands out to them.


 But what I mean is what's interesting isn't the same as what's useful for the future.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Recede I think you're misinterpreting what I'm saying.

I'll try to explain - I don't think they stockpile anything intentionally, or consciously, rather it just happens due to the way the perceive the world and then it's useful and is recalled in the future in the fashion I described.


----------



## Reila (Jan 17, 2017)

I would be deeply interested in hearing (reading) the thoughts of those who disagree with Turi's views on Si. Kinda obsessed with knowing more about the function. By the way, Turi, you say you want to highlight Si in this thread. Wouldn't bringing up comparisons with Ni, a function that is often confused with Si, perhaps help clarifying things?


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Hugging Wabbits - Ni already has too much attention imo, I don't want this to turn into another Ni thread.

If I compared it to Ni, that's all the thread would fall into, again, lol.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> Si is a concrete sensation function, from Jung himself:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You've misread Jung.

Jung used "abstract" and "concrete" in two different ways in Psychological Types, and he specifically talks about that in his definition of _Abstraction_. Jung said that a person's unconscious functions tended to be "fused" with each other, and so turning an unconscious function (the default state) into a differentiated, conscious function involved "abstraction" in the sense of _separating it_ from the other functions, at which point it ceased to be a "concrete" function (in the _undifferentiated_ sense).

Here's a more complete version of that quote from your post (from the 1971 _Collected Works_ translation):

A distinction must be made between sensuous or _concrete_ (q.v.) sensation and _abstract_ (q.v.) sensation. The first includes all the above-mentioned forms of sensation, whereas the second is a sensation that is abstracted or separated from the other psychic elements. Concrete sensation never appears in 'pure' form, but is always mixed up with ideas, feelings, thoughts. Abstract sensation is a differentiated kind of perception, which might be termed "aesthetic" in so far as, obeying its own principle, it detaches itself from all contamination with the different elements in the perceived object and from all admixtures of thought and feeling, and thus attains a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation. The concrete sensation of a flower, on the other hand, conveys a perception not only of the flower as such, but also of the stem, leaves, habitat, and so on. It is also instantly mingled with feelings of pleasure or dislike which the sight of the flower evokes, or with simultaneous olfactory perceptions, or with thoughts about its botanical classification, etc. But abstract sensation immediately picks out the most salient sensuous attribute of the flower, its brilliant redness, for instance, and makes this the sole or at least the principal content of consciousness, entirely detached from all other admixtures. Abstract sensation is found chiefly among artists. Like every abstraction, it is a product of functional differentiation (q.v.), and there is nothing primitive about it. The primitive form of a function is always concrete, i.e., contaminated (v. Archaism; Concretism). Concrete sensation is a reactive phenomenon, while abstract sensation, like every abstraction, is always associated with the will (q.v.), i.e., with a sense of direction. The will that is directed to abstract sensation is an expression and application of the aesthetic sensation attitude.​
As Jung viewed things, S would be an unconscious (hence "concrete") function (and hence fused/contaminated with the other unconscious functions) for a type who (1) wasn't an S-dom, and (2) wasn't a J-dom who'd significantly differentiated S for use as their auxiliary function.

So... the "concrete sensation" characterizations in the part of the paragraph you quoted only apply to types who don't have S as a dominant or auxiliary function. S as an _abstract_ function (in the sense used in that paragraph) is the kind you'd find in someone for whom it was their dominant or auxiliary function — and in that case it would be largely _uncontaminated_ ("attain a degree of purity beyond the reach of concrete sensation") and "aesthetic," and "associated with the will, i.e., with a sense of direction" — as distinguished from the "reactive" _passivity_ of concrete (unconscious) sensation.

Jung didn't think that either of the so-called "perception" functions were strictly passive in their differentiated forms. Discussing Ne in Chapter 10, he said, "Just as sensation, when it is the dominant function, is not a mere reactive process of no further significance for the object, but an activity that seizes and shapes its object, so intuition is not mere perception, or vision, but an active, creative process that puts into the object just as much as it takes out."


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@reckful - thanks for that, I don't read it the same way you do, even after multiple re-reads.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> @reckful - thanks for that, I don't read it the same way you do, even after multiple re-reads.


Although there are certainly aspects of Jung's writing where reasonable readers can have different interpretations, this particular issue really isn't a reasonable-readers-can-disagree thing.

What do you think the "abstract sensation" that he's describing in that definition is?


----------



## Knave (Sep 9, 2017)

I have the same interpretation as @reckful with this particular passage, and feel if reckful has a stance on an issue he's more likely than not to be correct, which of course doesn't guarantee or mean much. After browsing this forum for a few months, that guy comes across as the guru of this forum from my perspective, the most knowledgeable and insightful when it comes to the theory of cognitive functions.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

reckful said:


> Although there are certainly aspects of Jung's writing where reasonable readers can have different interpretations, this particular issue really isn't a reasonable-readers-can-disagree thing.
> 
> What do you think the "abstract sensation" that he's describing in that definition is?


I'm sure this is a trick question, but I read Jungs "abstract sensation", as something related to Se.

To me, it just makes perfect sense that concrete sensation corresponds with Si, and abstract sensation corresponds with Se.
It's just clearly there, to me.

I do obviously have a lot of work to go before I wrap my head around everything, hence why I'm open to suggestions etc - if you've got other places for me to look for information, I'd love to hear them.

I'm only recently diving into Jungs work and currently just have _Psychological Types_, though I'm sure you guessed that already - I'm vastly preferring it, and the definitions etc laid out in that book, over any crap I read elsewhere.

Ultimately I'm seeking to synthesize all of the 'credible' takes on each function and Jungian typology into one single holistic understanding.
Always open to new information.

Abstract sensation as linked to Se, and concrete sensation as linked to Si, makes too much sense in my head.
I'm honestly surprised to find this wasn't the intention?
It's clear as day to me.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@Knave - I respect the input of @reckful as well, very much appreciate how faithful he is to Jungs work, and how he actively seeks to shut down those who seem to stray too far away i.e make shit up ala tertiary functions and dom-tert loops etc.. I still find sometimes, he's off the mark, but I completely understand he's 'off the mark' in relation to where I think 'the mark' is, and that I'm far less experienced than he, or basically anyone else on this forum, is.

Anyway, I don't want the focus on this particular thing to divert the thread, everything else is still solid and I'm keen to hear from Si doms, after all it doesn't matter what Ni doms have to say, this thread is about Si and I'd love to hear from Si dominants to see if they relate, regardless of whether I've misread Jung or not (I don't find this relevant to the point I'm trying to get across in the OP).


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> Abstract sensation as linked to Se, and concrete sensation as linked to Si, makes too much sense in my head.
> I'm honestly surprised to find this wasn't the intention?
> It's clear as day to me.


I'm sorry, but you really couldn't be more confused.

I mentioned at the start of my first post that Jung used "abstract" and "concrete" in two ways in Psychological Types, and explained the meaning that applies to the passage you quoted (from Jung's "Sensation" definition).

But as it happens, the _other_ way Jung used "abstract" and "concrete" was associated with extraversion and introversion — buuut in the _opposite_ of the way you've associated abstract/concrete with Se and Si.

Jung believed that the _introverted_ form of each function was abstract (in the second way he used "abstract" and "concrete"), and the _extraverted_ form was concrete.

For more on his E/I-related use of "abstract" and "concrete," see this post.

And for a long discussion of why nobody should be trying to associate Jung's off-the-wall descriptions of Si with MBTI SJs, see this post.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@reckful - sorry mate, but I don't read it the same way as you. It simply doesn't make sense the way you interpret it.

To abstract, is to remove the self from the thing i.e remove ones own perception of something, from the thing itself - this would be abstracting, and applied to sensing, this would mean Se is 'abstract sensing' in that it perceives the world as it is, removed from subjective interpretation or impressions.

I'm not sure how you can read it any other way.

Don't take this post as a critique on your integrity, it simply makes no sense, the other way around.
Removing ones own impressions and interpretations from an object i.e abstracting = being left with the object as it is, in it's most pure form - ie, Se.

For the life of me, I can't understand how anyone could interpret this any other way.


----------



## reckful (Jun 19, 2012)

Turi said:


> @reckful - sorry mate, but I don't read it the same way as you. It simply doesn't make sense the way you interpret it.
> 
> To abstract, is to remove the self from the thing i.e remove ones own perception of something, from the thing itself - this would be abstracting, and applied to sensing, this would mean Se is 'abstract sensing' in that it perceives the world as it is, removed from subjective interpretation or impressions.
> 
> ...


We're not talking about _your_ definitions of abstract and concrete, Turi. We're talking about Jung's.

And it's clear you didn't bother to read this post, or work your way through the multiple Jung quotes in it.

Jung viewed Te as so "concretistic" that "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."

And so, not surprisingly, he viewed Ti-doms as the 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. As Jung put it, "But no more than extraverted thinking can wrest a sound empirical concept from concrete facts or create new ones can introverted thinking translate the initial image into an idea adequately adapted to the facts. For, as in the former case the purely empirical accumulation of facts paralyzes thought and smothers their meaning, so in the latter case introverted thinking shows a dangerous tendency to force the facts into the shape of its image, or to ignore them altogether in order to give fantasy free play."

Here's part of his _Abstraction_ definition:

In this work I also associate abstraction with the awareness of the psycho-energic process it involves. When I take an abstract attitude to an object, I do not allow the object to affect me in its totality. ... My aim is to disembarrass myself of the object as a singular and unique whole and to abstract only a portion of this whole. No doubt I am aware of the whole, but I do not immerse myself in this awareness; my interest does not flow into the whole, but draws back from it, pulling the abstracted portion into myself, into my conceptual world, which is already prepared or constellated for the purpose of abstracting a part of the object. ... 'Interest' I conceive as the energy or _libido_ (q.v.) which I bestow on the object as a value, or which the object draws from me, maybe even against my will or unknown to myself. *I visualize the process of abstraction as a withdrawal of libido from the object, as a backflow of value from the object into a subjective, abstract content. For me, therefore, abstraction amounts to an energic devaluation of the object. In other words, abstraction is an introverting movement of libido (v. Introversion).*​


----------



## nablur (Mar 9, 2017)

bro... @Turi .... INTJ, INFJ or ISTJ.. you clearly know what youre talkin about... make up your mind already. lolz.


----------



## Turi (May 9, 2017)

@reckful - thanks I'll do more research, I don't think it actually takes away from the general idea, however - and I already have Si doms contact me (I posted this in a few places) and inform me my thoughts here are perfectly accurate with regards to how their minds work.

Keen to hear from Si doms here too.


----------



## VagrantFarce (Jul 31, 2015)

I like how Socionics characterises Si as "parental" and Ne as "childish" - it creates the impression of someone attending to the small, boring & mundane details that everyone else is constantly overlooking or neglecting.

I see both Si & Ni as "background" functions, so those that inhabit them the most tend to be the ones who live most in the "background" of life.


Ni lives in the background of Se - where one characterises an attitude of colliding with life directly and forcefully, the other characterises an attitude of "pre-determining" collisions and having an "intuition" for things.


Si lives in the background of Ne - where one characterises an attitude of throwing away stagnancy and thinking out of the box, the other characterises an attitude of tending to what is familiar and comfortable.


----------

