# Could people with a Si using type describe Si



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Hello,

If you are a member of a type which uses Si, could you describe Si or describe your experience with Si?

Or alternatively -

Lets play spot and correct the error based on contrasting it to your experience. Here are a set of deliberately erroneous statements designed for you to correct and point out how they are wrong by pointing out how Si actually behaves, and thus give you an opportunity to teach us whatever points you raise:

Si will cause you to blindly following authority.
Si will cause you to blindly blindly adhering to tradition.
Si will cause you to disregarding unfamiliar possibilities.
Si will cause you to become interested in what to do rather than why something works.
Si will cause you to avoiding innovation.
Si will cause you to live in the past.
Si will cause you to ignore the faults in the current system and instead defend it.


----------



## bearotter (Aug 10, 2012)

Yeah, so half of all this is ridiculous convolution with judgment functions (as it looks like you already know).

I think nostalgia can cause someone to live in the past, but one could remember feelings more intensely than sensations.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

I strongly agree with you!
I think that's pretty much bullshit, Si associate things of your past experiences it doesn't has anything to do with following authority or respecting traditions, i use a lot of Si being it my 2nd function or perhaps 3rd and i'm 50/50 with traditions, like pretty much everyone else, i don't believe even those who say uh i'm so progressive that don't act following some tradition in his life. It's so obvious that i'm crying right now xD.
About innovation, HA! let me show you this: https://soundcloud.com/atrasalviejo56/the-old-lady listen the whole thing and if you think that's pretty conventional, well take one more listening, do you think i'm following traditions or rules there?, well of course i'm following an 4/4 rythm and some chords are not blabalbla but the general idea there is pretty unconventional. So with so much proof put there to make you theory drown on oil waters, let me say that Si 1st or 2nd doesn't mean that we have to be the Popes or Mother Teresa.

I think of Si more like a tool that helps you to compare/mix different situations, ideas, concepts, etc, i use lot of Ne-Si/Si-Ne so it works for me that way.


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

_Right now, the only thing preventing me from identifying myself as an ENTP is my relationship with Si. I know I'm an extrovert (albeit, a socially awkward/anxious one) because I definitely get energized by social interaction and the external world. Now, a few years ago, I was suffering from severe depression. I had made some bad decisions and I regreted them. These are the characeteristics I exhibited during that phase.
_

_

- Getting nostalgic about the past
- Rationalizing why the past is better than the present
- Rejecting new people and changes
- Refusing to part with old furniture and objects in your residence

I became a sad ISFJ (not ISTJ, I can't imagine them being sad about saying goodbye to your old fridge).

First of all, this stage of depression took place right after a time which can possibly be regarded as the best time of my life till now. What shook me into depression was a significant series of changes for the worse. Perhaps, this can explain why I suddenly became skeptical about the present and sentimental about the past. Anyway, I'm still doubtful that an Ne-dom, even under hellacious stress, would display such tendencies. So, the question is, am I an ENTP with decent Si? 

Normally, I use Si to make random references to the past or when I'm sentimentally reminiscing about my past. Also, I have a tendency to abandon things whenever I feel they're almost complete, neglect to review my assignments and essays, overlook details and nuances. Amusingly, I also tend to overlook grammatical errors in my own compositions even thought I'm ruthless about pointing them out. This is inferior Si, right?

_

What say you?


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Virtually none of the stereotypical behaviors associated with Si have ever rung true to me... in fact, hearing them often pisses me off.

As simply as I can explain it, for me Si is used as a top level, real-time triage system for parsing incoming information and experiences:
Does this new information/experience/sensation match up with what I've experienced previously?
​• Yes... fine, move on ​• No... set aside for additional investigation​
That's it. It does NOT mean that new and unfamiliar experiences/thoughts/ideas/sensations are rejected prima facie. It does NOT mean that I never question the status quo. It does NOT mean that the familiar stuff automatically gives me the warm and fuzzies (I'm familiar with bad things, too). All it means is that new experiences that don't match up to past ones are immediately flagged so that a determination can be made as to why it's different and whether that's good, bad or just... different. 

It seems to me that a good analogy would be an automated address checker at a mail or parcel processing facility. Scanners rapidly read incoming parcels to make sure they have recognizable addresses... those that do are passed on in the system. Those that don't are pulled off the line for additional checking. It doesn't mean that they are necessarily rejected... they just require additional processing.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> I strongly agree with you!
> I think that's pretty much bullshit, Si associate things of your past experiences it doesn't has anything to do with following authority or respecting traditions, i use a lot of Si being it my 2nd function or perhaps 3rd and i'm 50/50 with traditions, like pretty much everyone else, i don't believe even those who say uh i'm so progressive that don't act following some tradition in his life. It's so obvious that i'm crying right now xD.
> About innovation, HA! let me show you this: https://soundcloud.com/atrasalviejo56/the-old-lady listen the whole thing and if you think that's pretty conventional, well take one more listening, do you think i'm following traditions or rules there?, well of course i'm following an 4/4 rythm and some chords are not blabalbla but the general idea there is pretty unconventional. So with so much proof put there to make you theory drown on oil waters, let me say that Si 1st or 2nd doesn't mean that we have to be the Popes or Mother Teresa.
> 
> I think of Si more like a tool that helps you to compare/mix different situations, ideas, concepts, etc, i use lot of Ne-Si/Si-Ne so it works for me that way.


What traditions are you talking about? I'm curious because I'd say I don't follow "traditions," I just do things that need to be done, change things that need to be changed, try to change things that need to be done but also need to be changed. Are you saying that people don't have traditions for their own sake or are you saying everyone follows some tradition or another for no reason?


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> What traditions are you talking about? I'm curious because I'd say I don't follow "traditions," I just do things that need to be done, change things that need to be changed, try to change things that need to be done but also need to be changed. Are you saying that people don't have traditions for their own sake or are you saying everyone follows some tradition or another for no reason?


With traditions I mean anything that is proved to be a safe way of doing things and i could be perfectly wrong. Even if they don't want to, society imposes them it from the very birth, a little example: having friends could be a tradition cause people say to live in society is important, well of course it is, then it's a tradition you must follow, but what if instead of societies people had lived by itself since a.C millenia, then probably i wouldn't be typing right now here, or maybe yes. That's what i meant when i said tradition but i'm not smart enough and i just like to throw things out of my mind.
I'm derailing myself from my point.
People often spoke as if SFJs were sheeps/priests/parents and it's unfair, now things have changed especially in the major cities all over the world, even the most "conservative" people can be now very "progressive". It is as if the term SFJ be associated with some kind of sect, looking for domination or control over others. See how every parent is an ESFJ. :ninja:


----------



## Olmed3011 (Oct 4, 2010)

default settings said:


> Si will cause you to blindly following authority.
> Si will cause you to blindly blindly adhering to tradition.
> Si will cause you to disregarding unfamiliar possibilities.
> Si will cause you to become interested in what to do rather than why something works.
> ...


Wow..how did you do that?? You just summed up pretty much everything I do not stand for..:tongue::wink:


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> With traditions I mean anything that is proved to be a safe way of doing things and i could be perfectly wrong. Even if they don't want to, society imposes them it from the very birth, a little example: having friends could be a tradition cause people say to live in society is important, well of course it is, then it's a tradition you must follow, but what if instead of societies people had lived by itself since a.C millenia, then probably i wouldn't be typing right now here, or maybe yes. That's what i meant when i said tradition but i'm not smart enough and i just like to throw things out of my mind.
> I'm derailing myself from my point.
> People often spoke as if SFJs were sheeps/priests/parents and it's unfair, now things have changed especially in the major cities all over the world, even the most "conservative" people can be now very "progressive". It is as if the term SFJ be associated with some kind of sect, looking for domination or control over others. See how every parent is an ESFJ. :ninja:


I suppose the follow up question is... when somebody suggests a way to do things differently, in a tradition, is it changed if it's better?


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I suppose the follow up question is... when somebody suggests a way to do things differently, in a tradition, is it changed if it's better?


Yes... eventually. What you will likely not ever get from an ISTJ is to see them presented with something new/different and _immediately_ follow that path. Our Si immediately alerts us that it's new/different and needs further analysis. Our intuition is typically week so we won't jump to any immediate judgement (we actually might HAVE that flash of insight, but we hardly ever TRUST them and always want to make a more logical analysis before we commit to our own intuitive insights). However, if you let us think things through, especially how it will effect all the other things in our lives/environments, we can and will readily accept and even champion change if we see the practical/logical benefit.

When I say "eventually" and "give us time", I don't necessarily mean come back in weeks or months... it could be just be minutes or hours. What you don't ever really want to do is present an ISTJ with something new and expect them to instantly agree. If you put an ISTJ on the spot and pressure us to make make a decision without at least some time to reflect on it, then you will most likely see us stand on the side of "tradition", because we know it is "safe". The alternative is "unsafe" by default (even if we might immediately see _potential_ benefits) until we have our chance to do our due diligence.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

jcal said:


> Yes... eventually. What you will likely not ever get from an ISTJ is to see them presented with something new/different and immediately follow that path. Our Si immediately alerts us that it's new/different and needs further analysis. Our intuition is typically week so we won't jump to any immediate judgement (we actually might HAVE that flash of insight, but we hardly ever TRUST them and always want to make a more logical analysis before we commit to our own intuitive insights). However, if you let us think things through, especially how it will effect all the other things in our lives/environments, we can and will readily accept and even champion change if we see the practical/logical benefit.
> 
> When I say "eventually" and "give us time", I do not necessarily mean come back in weeks or months... it could be just be minutes or hours. What you don't want to do is present an ISTJ with something new and expect them to immediately agree. If put an ISTJ on the spot and pressure us to make make a decision without at least some time to reflect on it, then you will most likely see us stand on the side of "tradition", because we know it is "safe". The alternative is "unsafe" by default (even if we might immediately see potential benefits) until we have our chance to do our due diligence.


I was more asking for donutgalatico's definition so I could get a handle on what they were exactly saying... but this is interesting too.

And I have to say that I'm the same way. I examine information critically, the main thing is just that I was curious if some things are raised on a pedestal that prevents them from being changed even if they are more harm than good. Maybe these are things of non-practical benefit. One of the things that weirds me out the most is learning about "culture" and how certain things are simply "done." Like parades, holidays, no shave november, putting down the toilet seat, blah blah, for examples that apply to the United States. Hmm... I'm thinking about it and it seems like a lot of practical things that are rarely challenged are that way because they are in systems designed to be modified from the top-down, but then nobody modifies them.

There is something to this thread...


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I suppose the follow up question is... when somebody suggests a way to do things differently, in a tradition, is it changed if it's better?


People fear the new, even the most open-minded person may fear change, even if it's a 100% proved to be reliable. It is like being in your mother's womb, the world outside offers a much better chance (this is debatable xd) but when you are inside you are comfortable and that's what counts, is it really worth to try out something if we're good this way. I think the thing is a matter of attitude not of birth, you can impose the desire to change but it will only come from your own values or needs. 
Sense of security depends on the individual needs and not on a myeer briggs type i guess.
What occurs is that we make little decisions over an stablished frame so imo the word tradition is kinda out of tune in this typology thing, kinda like this: you're gonna come with a new dvd blu-ray format that will be 10 times cheaper and 10 better quality but it'll only gonna work in your bathroom everyone will go fuck no, i want to see this thing sitting in my room with my familily or alone in my room with my pc next to me, not buying it, every one always has a tradition over their shoulders and it is human. Then, of course, comes all the machinery brainwashing our heads making us believe that we need to see plasma-3d-tv on our bathrooms but that's another thing.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> People fear the new, even the most open-minded person may fear change, even if it's a 100% proved to be reliable. It is like being in your mother's womb, the world outside offers a much better chance (this is debatable xd) but when you are inside you are comfortable and that's what counts, is it really worth to try out something if we're good this way. I think the thing is a matter of attitude not of birth, you can impose the desire to change but it will only come from your own values or needs.
> Sense of security depends on the individual needs and not on a myeer briggs type i guess.
> What occurs is that we make little decisions over an stablished frame so imo the word tradition is kinda out of tune in this typology thing, kinda like this: you're gonna come with a new dvd blu-ray format that will be 10 times cheaper and 10 better quality but it'll only gonna work in your bathroom everyone will go fuck no, i want to see this thing sitting in my room with my familily or alone in my room with my pc next to me, not buying it, every one always has a tradition over their shoulders and it is human. Then, of course, comes all the machinery brainwashing our heads making us believe that we need to see plasma-3d-tv on our bathrooms but that's another thing.


I mean... you could make the bathroom comfortable if the DVD player was that good.


----------



## VoodooDolls (Jul 30, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I mean... you could make the bathroom comfortable if the DVD player was that good.


hahah i promise i tried.


----------



## Moss Icon (Mar 29, 2011)

ScarrDragon said:


> _
> - Getting nostalgic about the past
> - Rationalizing why the past is better than the present
> - Rejecting new people and changes
> ...



This all sounds about right to me.


Remember that Si is an Introverted means of processing information. It is not a Judging function, and it is not directed outwards. A lot of the bullet points listed in the OP concern Judging, and how one orders/makes decision about their external world. Si isn't related to any of that.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

jcal said:


> Yes... eventually. What you will likely not ever get from an ISTJ is to see them presented with something new/different and immediately follow that path. Our Si immediately alerts us that it's new/different and needs further analysis. Our intuition is typically week so we won't jump to any immediate judgement (we actually might HAVE that flash of insight, but we hardly ever TRUST them and always want to make a more logical analysis before we commit to our own intuitive insights). However, if you let us think things through, especially how it will effect all the other things in our lives/environments, we can and will readily accept and even champion change if we see the practical/logical benefit.
> 
> When I say "eventually" and "give us time", I do not necessarily mean come back in weeks or months... it could be just be minutes or hours. What you don't want to do is present an ISTJ with something new and expect them to immediately agree. If put an ISTJ on the spot and pressure us to make make a decision without at least some time to reflect on it, then you will most likely see us stand on the side of "tradition", because we know it is "safe". The alternative is "unsafe" by default (even if we might immediately see potential benefits) until we have our chance to do our due diligence.


For the heck of it, If I compare this to what I get leading with Ni, it also takes me time to embrace something new. The difference is that - depending on the apparent credibility of the idea - I'll temporarily accept the possibility that the idea is solid and then test it against reality, to see if it sticks.

Which can be a long process because my Se is naturally weak, so like your intuition, I'm wary of it. And to outsiders, it can look like I'm embracing the idea wholeheartedly without question because I'm so private with my process.

For example, if someone recommends a TV show, I might watch an episode as part of my process to decide if interested. Which looks, on the surface, like I'm embracing the suggestion, when I may never get past the first episode.

Curious to know if any of what I've said is not actually a "difference" to you. I can only imagine the perspective of Si, at best.


----------



## monemi (Jun 24, 2013)

DonutsGalacticos said:


> People fear the new, even the most open-minded person may fear change, even if it's a 100% proved to be reliable.


Nope. Drives my husband nuts. I don't think I'm open minded. But I'm honestly not bothered by change at all.


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

default settings said:


> Hello,
> 
> If you are a member of a type which uses Si, could you describe Si or describe your experience with Si?
> 
> ...


I'm not going to simply say "All of these things are completely wrong and not related to Si at all". That's because I've noticed a number of Ns on PerC who have a problem with these sorts of behavior and seem to attribute it to people being SJs, which is why it seems like you made this thread. 

The thing is, I do think all of these things have the potential to be related to Si. That's not to say anyone exhibiting these behaviors must be an Si user, nor does it means Si users must exhibit these behaviors. But I do think that unhealthy Si users, particularly Si doms, will often display these, and I think there's potential for there to be a connection. So, I'm going to try to distinguish between how Si could lead to these things compared to how Si would not.



default settings said:


> Si will cause you to blindly following authority.






As an Si dom, I do prefer for there to be a system in place that functions well and consistently. It is my natural preference to have an authority figure that I can trust. I would prefer there to be an authority figure who knows what they're doing and that I don't have to question. I want to be able to trust them even if I don't have all of in the information. I would rather not have things be up in the air and for me to have to figure them out on my own.

So, I think in some situations it could lead to an Si dom blindly trusting authority. If those desires run rampant, they will override the other things important to an Si user.

However, for me, if I see good reason not to trust an authority figure, I won't follow what they say. Sometimes I will if I disagree with them if I feel my security is at stake. But this doesn't mean that I trust them.



default settings said:


> Si will cause you to blindly blindly adhering to tradition.





Similar to the last one, I prefer for there to be traditions and consistencies. I even create traditions for myself. 

However, again, I won't follow these blindly if I see a problem with them. Again, if an Si dom's desire for comfort overrides this, I can see them blindly adhering to traditions.



default settings said:


> Si will cause you to disregarding unfamiliar possibilities.





Same as the others...I prefer consistency. So, my "default setting" :tongue: is to keep things the same. If I'm happy with them, I will tend to avoid new possibilities. However, if I see a good reason to make a change, I will take it.



default settings said:


> Si will cause you to become interested in what to do rather than why something works.





I am generally more interested in what to do, but that doesn't mean I don't care at all about how things work. It's more of a preference situation. But again, I see how this could happen with an Si dom.



default settings said:


> Si will cause you to avoiding innovation.
> Si will cause you to live in the past.
> Si will cause you to ignore the faults in the current system and instead defend it.





I think these are related to the disregarding new ideas one. If Si dominates too much, these can happen. I think it's because of a natural preference for consistency. But usually an Si user will adopt changes if they feel confident the changes will be an improvement.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

Si will cause you to blindly following authority.
All Si users of reasonable intelligence will want to investigate the validity of the authority they follow. Oftentimes, however, "it works" is sufficient. 




Si will cause you to blindly blindly adhering to tradition.
Si doesn't see a reason to mess with a system that's working in favor of creating a new, unknown, and possibly significantly more terrible (or just bothersome) system. They already spent time getting used to the previous system, they're good at it, there's no compelling reason to switch. this is not "blind".




Si will cause you to disregarding unfamiliar possibilities.
i haven't observed this in Si. they'll listen and appreciate new perspectives. they just need time to absorb them.
if your "unfamiliar possibilities" involve imposing some change on the way Si is living it's life, then refer to the first two points. aka if it's not worth the bother then no, they won't listen.
(Note: All Si users I've met thus far have been reasonably fabulous about stretching themselves to accommodate someone else's needs, so although it's probably not intimately related to the function, it's still worth noting that often included in "worth the bother" is "important to someone they love".
on the other hand, if you're a coworker, then... well, if your ideas have worked before, they'll be more likely to go along with them again)




Si will cause you to become interested in what to do rather than why something works.
With Si down fourth at the bottom of my stack I can't comment with certainty, but the isxj's in my life find plenty of theories etc interesting. i do think there's a bias towards those they feel they can apply, though.




Si will cause you to avoiding innovation.
see previous points

edit: actually going to comment that since Si comes paired with Ne in the lower half of the stack, most Si users actually have a secret desire for safe bursts of excitement in their life. Rather than being crusty, stodgy curmudgeons, Si users can become delightfully enthusiastic about playful new ideas (that don't threaten their well-ordered life, ie "let's take a vacation for two days", not "let's pack up and move to hawaii without any sort of job plan or anything"). 
You just... they need to feel safe, first. And the types of people busily going around bashing SJs are the least likely to have earned an SJ's feeling of trust because they're too busy invalidating the SJ's legitimate concerns and being impatient with the SJ's need for time and confirmation. (plus frankly, people who bash SJs are usually doing so because they resent being called on their flakiness... and "flaky" is another trait that might make an SJ resistant to trusting you)




Si will cause you to live in the past.
no, there's just a certain sense of consistency and an awareness of when it's been breached. Si types do move forward.
Actually, i'm not even sure what this bullet point is trying to say


Si will cause you to ignore the faults in the current system and instead defend it.
Si will cause you to be aware of the strengths in the current system and the faults in the new system, which leads to defending the old system, yes. Just like N makes you "ignore" the faults in your newfangled system and instead defend it. It's just an allocation of risk-management resources.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I suppose the follow up question is... when somebody suggests a way to do things differently, in a tradition, is it changed if it's better?


the problem is that often people proposing changes overlook the actual hidden costs of implementing the change. they're so wide-eyed enthusiastic about the brilliance of their proposed innovation that they overlook what it would mean to pull off in reality. 

"this way of doing things is inefficient!"
yes, but the cost of re-training the workers is prohibitive, the interpersonal tensions created by the shift also have an impact on efficiency, the main supplier of the goods would need to shift their standards as well, and the actual benefit isn't _that_ big, except maybe when measured in overall change over 50 years which is making a lot of assumptions.

the thing is, change _always_ has a cost. every chemical reaction has an activation energy, even strongly exothermic ones.

So, in my overextended metaphor, Ne/Ni are around to keep the big picture in view and make sure that high-cost high-energy bonds are replaced with more stable bonds, and Si makes sure that in the grand scheme of reshifting things we don't lose so much energy to relatively useless entropy burn off that the whole system comes to a halt.


edit:
(and the Ne-- especially inexperienced-- will say "but we did think of all these costs".

The thing is, they didn't. There's always hidden costs. There's always unexpected pitfalls. 

Governments always plan these projects to cost 5 million dollars and be completed in 8 years and then end up costing 50 million dollars and being completed in 15 years, during which time the businesses in that area have been destroyed, etc.

Ne/Ni can sometimes have this tendency to live in this abstracted, idealized world where all their theories play out perfectly. In the real world everything is much messier. _Every_ theory falls apart at some level. Things do not run according to the simulation you ran on the computer. 

it works better for the Ne to figure out how to roll out the change in small, low-risk steps. Either that, or make it _really_ likely your change will work plus really clear why the old system _needs_ to be changed (for example, if the company is going under, _healthy_ Si will become much more receptive to new ideas because clearly the old ones ain't working anymore.) (or, on the flip side, if the company is doing swimmingly, and your proposal might do some good and is quite unlikely to do real damage-- aka usually because you just want some resources and not to make a big change to everyone else's lives-- then once again Si will be more willing to go along. But especially if you've been reliable before.)


----------



## teddy564339 (Jun 23, 2010)

@Pelopra

Your understanding of Si may be the strongest I've ever seen by an ENTP member. Definitely one of the strongest I can remember.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

teddy564339 said:


> @_Pelopra_
> 
> Your understanding of Si may be the strongest I've ever seen by an ENTP member. Definitely one of the strongest I can remember.


-blushes-
aw, thanks.

my multiple close relationships with istjs are probably the primary factor behind it.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> the problem is that often people proposing changes overlook the actual hidden costs of implementing the change. they're so wide-eyed enthusiastic about the brilliance of their proposed innovation that they overlook what it would mean to pull off in reality.
> 
> "this way of doing things is inefficient!"
> yes, but the cost of re-training the workers is prohibitive, the interpersonal tensions created by the shift also have an impact on efficiency, the main supplier of the goods would need to shift their standards as well, and the actual benefit isn't _that_ big, except maybe when measured in overall change over 50 years which is making a lot of assumptions.
> ...


You misunderstood my question. When I say tradition, I mean things explicitly labelled as tradition by that person. I have a feeling these sorts of things may be made more likely by Fe.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> You misunderstood my question. When I say tradition, I mean things explicitly labelled as tradition by that person. I have a feeling these sorts of things may be made more likely by Fe.


in that cast there may be emotional/social costs being overlooked... or a difference in definition of 'better"?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> in that cast there may be emotional/social costs being overlooked... or a difference in definition of 'better"?


This is all good for the meta. Deets!


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> This is all good for the meta. Deets!


...deets?


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> ...deets?


The whys, the details, the deep introspection by Si users of why they do things. It can't be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis, it just can't be. Your answer may be consistent in itself, but if that's all Si takes, everyone is an Si dom, because we all have to face up to the costs of reality and react to them. It's just not the right "qualitative" difference.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> The whys, the details, the deep introspection by Si users of why they do things. It can't be reduced to a simple cost-benefit analysis, it just can't be. Your answer may be consistent in itself, but if that's all Si takes, everyone is an Si dom, because we all have to face up to the costs of reality and react to them. It's just not the right "qualitative" difference.


General: Everyone faces up to the costs of reality, but N types are more attuned to the costs of "needlessly" staying the same, and S types are more attuned to the costs of "needless" change. Because Ns see the idea (and what is being missed out on) and S see the implementation (and what it will take).

Specific:
okay. um, i'm _much_ weaker with sfj specifically, but i'll do my best based off the ones i know. 

SiFe is going to have an ongoing (not conscious) model of social structures, of people's feelings, etc. These are things that tradition, ritual, can play into heavily. When it comes to interaction, for example, there's a lot of standardized rituals that are there to make things run smoother and more pleasantly. Some of this is more complicated sociological social contract type stuff, and it's not necessarily going to be something the SiFe user is going to be able to articulate in words. There's also the messages that people send off constantly, about their intentions and positions and roles, which Fe users in general will be more attuned to. 
It's easier for a Te user to come up with the list of monetary costs that a new project will take, than for the Fe user to explain the strains and tears in the social fabric created by making waves. Fe costs can be much more subtle and long lasting-- like poison, not bombs, they seep into the system and can sometimes be felt only much later. 

This isn't a good example, but it sort of works as a bit of an illustration-- they wanted to stop parents from picking their kids up late from preschool. So they instituted a fine for late pickup. What they discovered was this actually _increased_ late pickup-- where previously parents felt a social pressure to be on time, now they felt that they were "paying" for the overtime so they didn't need to care anymore. Worse, this change did not roll back-- when the school realized what was happening they cancelled the fine, but the social contract had already been broken and wasn't restored. (but probably a better example of this is going to be on the individual behavioral level-- the behavior that gets repeated, seemingly without consequences, until one day the consequences come. the boy who cried wolf.)

an example of where this can play out is religion. N types, NT especially, can sometimes look at religion as almost a mechanistic thing, a system that can be "broken" (ergo, "fixed"). If it doesn't make "sense" it should be improved... The NT will barge in and tromple all over the system, but they're often missing the background-- a whole slew of sociological structures that do have meaning/purpose, that do in fact create something, it's just that the thing being created is not something measurable in NT concepts. There's a relationship to the community, and a relationship to the spiritual force, and a relationship to the self. An NF will have a better instinctive appreciation of what is at stake, but they'll still have that innovating streak-- The SFJ, on the other hand, is going to have an instinctive attachment to the system. They can't always explain it, they can find it very frustrating to have to, but they have a deep gut awareness of what the system is creating and enabling, they're aware of it "working" and feeling "right", and they sense, in a way, its fragility. (obviously not every sfj is religious nor is every NT not). They'll have this with other things as well. SFJ is an instinct towards the way the "organism" works, I think, the back and forth of processes that keeps stuff going. 

Relationships is a key word here, actually-- because tradition, habit, ritual, stability, those things _are_ important in relationships. There is something built by a repeated behavior or pattern of behavior or interaction. And it can be something very valuable, and something very strong-- but, paradoxically, weak, because it is dependent on that pattern continuing. And non Si types won't necessarily see or appreciate that, they won't necessarily realize what they're putting at risk, or they simply won't value it enough.


I'm unsure if anything I said just now was accurate-- if @*teddy564339* can chime in on whether I'm totally off base here that would be great.


----------



## I Kant (Jan 19, 2013)

Olmed3011 said:


> Wow..how did you do that?? You just summed up pretty much everything I do not stand for..:tongue::wink:


I summarized some of the trending arguments from the community.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> General: Everyone faces up to the costs of reality, but N types are more attuned to the costs of "needlessly" staying the same, and S types are more attuned to the costs of "needless" change. Because Ns see the idea (and what is being missed out on) and S see the implementation (and what it will take).
> 
> Specific:
> okay. um, i'm _much_ weaker with sfj specifically, but i'll do my best based off the ones i know.
> ...


ok, sorry, your answers are fine. I am just a little tired of seeing answers that are so fundamentally different from each other but chime in on the same topics. There should be an attempt to group all the different "schools" on this forum together and then have them labelled by -isms, so it's clear what set of assumptions everybody is working with. Gets a little maddening to keep up with.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> ok, sorry, your answers are fine. I am just a little tired of seeing answers that are so fundamentally different from each other but chime in on the same topics. There should be an attempt to group all the different "schools" on this forum together and then have them labelled by -isms, so it's clear what set of assumptions everybody is working with. Gets a little maddening to keep up with.


I'd love to hear what school of -ism you think I belong to-- I know I build hypotheses mostly off of my own conjecture/observations (and have clashed hard with some Te users over that...) so it would be interesting to see where my independent trains of thought have coincided with others'.

but yeah, it would be nice if these things could be classified/indexed better....


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> I'd love to hear what school of -ism you think I belong to-- I know I build hypotheses mostly off of my own conjecture/observations (and have clashed hard with some Te users over that...) so it would be interesting to see where my independent trains of thought have coincided with others'.
> 
> but yeah, it would be nice if these things could be classified/indexed better....


The main ism I caught from you was a willingness to keep things top level and not seek psychological explanations. In other words- you prefer to explain things in terms of something else.

And that's something I've been killing myself to figure out how not to do lately lol.

(I believe this may be an Ne-Si axis thing..unable to conceptualize anything not beyond the object...or maybe just Ne or maybe just Si, or perhaps I'm just stupid haha)


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> The main ism I caught from you was a willingness to keep things top level and not seek psychological explanations. In other words- you prefer to explain things in terms of something else.
> 
> And that's something I've been killing myself to figure out how not to do lately lol.
> 
> (I believe this may be an Ne-Si axis thing..unable to conceptualize anything not beyond the object...or maybe just Ne or maybe just Si, or perhaps I'm just stupid haha)


i'm unsure of word meaning in two things you said here.
1. what do you mean by "top level" and not "psychological". what was the psychological thing i was _not_ doing?
2. you've been trying not to do top level, or not to do psychological? placement of not do was ambiguous.

...this has no relationship to main thread topic, i just love hearing observations on how i think, sorry /ego


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> i'm unsure of word meaning in two things you said here.
> 1. what do you mean by "top level" and not "psychological". what was the psychological thing i was _not_ doing?
> 2. you've been trying not to do top level, or not to do psychological? placement of not do was ambiguous.
> 
> ...this has no relationship to main thread topic, i just love hearing observations on how i think, sorry /ego


I have this weird conception that I MUST be able to look at an object and not to have my attention slide off of it. I mean, if I'm looking at all these objects, seeing none of them, but seeing all of them in everything, then what the hell am I actually seeing? But everytime I try, it is impossible to do.

And top-level means that you're sort of puppeteer the information to your goals... not necessarily slaving a particular set of logical rules to explain it all... but intuitively(ahem) choosing a set of rules that shows the vision you have in your mind. 

Psychological-how did people come up with these definitions in the first place? Jung was more of an interpretive approach, but the question I'm wondering about is _is_ there a way to simply know things at a deep level without combining the vast knowledge of your ancestors with the next logical step? I think if anything fills this role it is Ni-and if so, I definitely don't have Ni.

So yeah I apologize for bringing you into the fold of my weird mental experiment.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> I have this weird conception that I MUST be able to look at an object and not to have my attention slide off of it. I mean, if I'm looking at all these objects, seeing none of them, but seeing all of them in everything, then what the hell am I actually seeing? But everytime I try, it is impossible to do.
> 
> And top-level means that you're sort of puppeteer the information to your goals... not necessarily slaving a particular set of logical rules to explain it all... but intuitively(ahem) choosing a set of rules that shows the vision you have in your mind.
> 
> ...


haha i think i understood maybe 35% of what you just wrote. but i'm cool with being brought into the fold of weird mental experiments*, so no worries

* (er, um, not the more manipulative milgram kinds)


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> haha i think i understood maybe 35% of what you just wrote. but i'm cool with being brought into the fold of weird mental experiments*, so no worries
> 
> * (er, um, not the more manipulative milgram kinds)


People often make explicit what they desire most.

...Wow that's creepy. Nvm.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> People often make explicit what they desire most.
> 
> ...Wow that's creepy. Nvm.


-shakes head-

nope, nope, still have no idea what you're saying.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> -shakes head-
> 
> nope, nope, still have no idea what you're saying.


It's probably for the best.


----------



## Pelopra (May 21, 2013)

tangosthenes said:


> It's probably for the best.


i... i guess so?

if you say so.


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

Pelopra said:


> i... i guess so?
> 
> if you say so.


Hey, I don't pretend to understand your avatar, but I still attempt to understand it. The least you can do is understand me! Damn kids.


----------

