# Si = science?



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

DOGSOUP said:


> nobody wants to talk about Cecilia Payne


I know who she is. She was an astronomer right?
I know it from the Cosmos series by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

She had her credtis taken away from her. It was about a kind of spectrum of the stars? Like what material they are of?

Without looking it up.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

By the way everybody I was considering INTJ but I'm going with ENFP now. I've studied the system so much I get lost in my imagination so I've jumped around from INTP to INFP to INFJ and to INTJ but I think I'm ENFP after all. 

And I'm enneagram 8. No one would believe me if I said I'm ENFP 8. I wouldn't believe myself, but my latest findings have led me to being this type. 

As for science, I'm of the opinion its multiple functions coming together to get a clarity that is mutual between opposites. It's an agreed upon solution to opposite ideas. 

So I don't think Si is correlated directly with science. I would still like help in figuring out what exactly Si could be called as a title. Si alone. Thanks.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

DOGSOUP said:


> Purrfessor if you want to get a quick idea of it all you need to do is look at these two pictures, and tell me what do you see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you want compare and contrast? Or just treat them individually? 

Basically in the first picture I see and feel wood. Dry wood. Up for the taking. Just a quiet place in nature free from civilization. 

In the second picture I see a lot thinner forest and wet wood. I'm looking for shelter but not finding any.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

jetser said:


> I know who she is. She was an astronomer right?
> I know it from the Cosmos series by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
> 
> She had her credtis taken away from her. It was about a kind of spectrum of the stars? Like what material they are of?
> ...


Great job!


Purrfessor said:


> Do you want compare and contrast? Or just treat them individually?
> 
> Basically in the first picture I see and feel wood. Dry wood. Up for the taking. Just a quiet place in nature free from civilization.
> 
> In the second picture I see a lot thinner forest and wet wood. I'm looking for shelter but not finding any.


Either is fine! The point here is to illustrate what difference light can have on the atmosphere or sense of the same place.

Artists might see it as a color study; some gamer saw it as the difference between a fun adventure game and a survival horror game - I started wondering, what is makes the first picture inviting and the other more... desolate and dangerous on first impression. This is close to your impression as well, the first image seems to provide you rest and resources, while the other lacks shelter.

My own impression however is... even though I love that low, reddish orange evening light in the first picture, it also reminds me that the night is approaching, fast, so you might not want to linger for too long. And the second image, while it does have that wet foggy atmosphere, the light you see is bright morning light, right before the fog is about to clear, so safe travels. Now I have written about it here, organized the experience to communicate it better, but I don't have to, I can get a sense of it all with just a glance and here I am using that impression to anticipate what is to come - night about to fall, fog about to clear.

You know how people who drive certain cars act noticeably different in traffic? When Jung said "_Actually he lives in a mythological world, where men, animals, locomotives, houses, rivers, and mountains appear either as benevolent deities or as malevolent demons." _ He meant when you have repeatedly ran into bad drivers so much that just the sight of the cars they typically drive is demonic to you lol. This is actually so common, I totally get what he is saying here (in his weirdo way) lmao. See the above pictures again too, where one is _clearly_ more benevolent than the other.

But this is a more obvious example of catching these impressions, something that I think is easier to understand for people. I don't just have impressions of things that I can sense directly but also concepts, which I think formed as a result of me encountering a concept in a certain relation to an image I could perceive well, and then the link between those two things became inseparable. For example. When I think of freedom as a concept, the image of the painting "Liberty leading the People" set in motion comes to mind. It's not a memory of seeing that painting, it's about the impression that painting had on me, the way it represents the concept, now it's in my head permanently lol and you can summon it by mentioning liberation of any sort.

Also I found it interesting when you linked Si with "elaboration", because in the descriptions of Jung and von Franz they seem to imply that if the Si type does not learn to elaborate on their perceptions they are as good as nothing lol (pretty similar to Ni I suppose). But yeah I ignored a lot of it, because when I anticipate something based on impressions it's so _visible_ to me that it's going to happen in a certain way, & here I thought only Ni is given the gift of prophecy. But it seems Si can also be that old soul that has seen the comings and goings of things, time after time.


----------



## puddingcup828 (8 mo ago)

No type or function is specifically tied to science. Te has generally been considered scientific because it‘s about objective truth. And INTP has sometimes been considered unable to deal with rigorous, monotonous experiments. That being said, any type can be a scientist. There are probably scientists from each type, even if some types are more likely to be a scientist. INTP and INTJ are both probably more likely to be a scientist than many other types. Just to name a few: Brian Greene, INTJ. James Hansen, INTP. Neil Degrasse Tyson, ENTP.


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

Me, a medical scientist, and ESTJ:


----------



## Squirt (Jun 2, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> Purrfessor if you want to get a quick idea of it all you need to do is look at these two pictures, and tell me what do you see.


Can I try?

I see two photographs of the same fence at different times of day. The first picture looks like it was taken in late evening on an overcast day. The second picture looks like it was taken in late afternoon on a foggy day. The viewer seems to be facing north or northeast. By the wet conditions and tree species, it appears they are located in the northern hemisphere in a temperate evergreen rainforest during late winter/early spring (most grasses still dead but some returning, fog, red sunset). I was going to say it looks like around where I live, but then I thought maybe there are some other forests like that in Europe or something.... so, I got curious and googled the photographer. It seems he _is _in my neck of the woods, lol. Welp. I have no feelings or impressions beyond curiosity or the impression I might have from elucidating the purpose/motivation the photographer intended. I'm not tempted to spin stories about them or conjure memories of similar places, even as the scene depicts a familiar forest.

The other thought I had was.... why _these _photos, m'lady? What does your interest in these photos say about you? 

On topic: There is no one function that is the "scientist" function. The stereotype labeling of MBTI types isn't to be taken so seriously.


----------



## Joe Black (Apr 1, 2015)

So the scientific methods involve (As a few have mentioned already, but I'm just summarizing)

Observation the world (Using Se)
Observing new patterns and connections (Ne)
Formulating theories & hypotheses (Ni)
Conducting experiments dutifully, methodically, carefully, remembering what went right or wrong (Si Te)
Making sense of the data in a and logical way (Ti)
Arriving to reproducible, factual conclusions (Te)
All that's left is Fe & Fi - Fe might be useful in the psychology or counselling? But psychology still requires scientific methods using the other functions to observe & experiment to arrive to reproducible conclusions. Hence why MBTI is controversially seems "less scientific". However, I would argue that "untrained self diagnosis" is generally prone to inconsistency. Just because people are not 100% successful at self diagnosis on WebDM doesn't mean the medical research is faulty.

Now what's detrimental to scientific methods & discovery is NOT being open minded, or arriving to conclusions before running the experiment. Having biases. Trying to make the experiment achieve the hypothesis. Or that attitude of feeling like a failure if the experiment doesn't prove the hypothesis. The right attitude is that only a failure in conducting the experiment correctly is a failure; finding that a hypothesis isn't true is a success in figuring out how the world doesn't work so you don't have to retread steps, so you're closer to finding the truth. - This happens when there's a lack of divergent perceptual cognitive functions like Se & Ne.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

deafcrossfitter said:


> Me, a medical scientist, and ESTJ:


Doesn't Like all the compartmentalization of facts for example in anatomy feel like Si heavy? Every little thing has a name.


----------



## DOGSOUP (Jan 29, 2016)

Squirt said:


> Can I try?
> 
> I see two photographs of the same fence at different times of day. The first picture looks like it was taken in late evening on an overcast day. The second picture looks like it was taken in late afternoon on a foggy day. The viewer seems to be facing north or northeast. By the wet conditions and tree species, it appears they are located in the northern hemisphere in a temperate evergreen rainforest during late winter/early spring (most grasses still dead but some returning, fog, red sunset). I was going to say it looks like around where I live, but then I thought maybe there are some other forests like that in Europe or something.... so, I got curious and googled the photographer. It seems he _is _in my neck of the woods, lol. Welp. I have no feelings or impressions beyond curiosity or the impression I might have from elucidating the purpose/motivation the photographer intended. I'm not tempted to spin stories about them or conjure memories of similar places, even as the scene depicts a familiar forest.
> 
> The other thought I had was.... why _these _photos, m'lady? What does your interest in these photos say about you?


It says that I'm desperately grasping at straws to illustrate to what impressions can be? Lol. I don't understand how some people just do not seem to get it. Well I will say it took me the longest time to understand someone who actually probably shares my type. It's easy to just see the vacant expression without noticing what's underneath until you see her face is your face and the expression is the exact same, too.

This was very comprehensive, thank you. Our evergreen forests are very rarely that foggy, only in very specific conditions IME. I didn't even consider the photographer, just the viewers (myself included).

I remembered these pictures because someone made that survival horror game comment about the second one. And yeah I totally see that with the cold fog and everything. But then the light is wrong. People should have more of an "old" fear of a setting sun and what follows, not in bright daylight... right? I swear these games reprogram our youngsters somehow, they won't make it through the night


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

Purrfessor said:


> Doesn't Like all the compartmentalization of facts for example in anatomy feel like Si heavy? Every little thing has a name.


this is in the realm of T (and judgment in general) more than perception
judgment is what categorizes, sorts, measures, compares etc


----------



## deafcrossfitter (Nov 30, 2019)

Purrfessor said:


> Doesn't Like all the compartmentalization of facts for example in anatomy feel like Si heavy? Every little thing has a name.


Its nice because I compare new results to previously absorbed knowledge. 

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

DOGSOUP said:


> But yeah I was immediately thinking about all the overlooked people working the background, or worse, someone else taking the credit for their work.


Yea, even regarding Einstein and his theories, according to my knowledge (If my memory is right) Swarzchild was actually the one who spotted out from relativistic theory that it's possible that there exist points in spacetime which don't output any information (later called black holes). 

Many other examples like that, but people forget it, assign all achievements to one person and then wonder this person has to be type X bc other types couldn't come to that - but it's all mostly teamwork.

I've seen it's being said that even a genius can't foresee too well how stock market changes but a big enough group of ordinary people from street can do it pretty well - so combined thinking is the key


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Purrfessor said:


> By the way everybody I was considering INTJ but I'm going with ENFP now. I've studied the system so much I get lost in my imagination so I've jumped around from INTP to INFP to INFJ and to INTJ but I think I'm ENFP after all.


What made you change your mind about the type? Asking bc it might help others who might doubt their type or might not see their type correctly (gone through the same by myself)


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Purrfessor said:


> Doesn't Like all the compartmentalization of facts for example in anatomy feel like Si heavy? Every little thing has a name.


No, it's judger's attitude whether it's F or T  I think this is exactly where it often messed up what's perception and whats judging 

Judging isn't necessarily acting or decision making, it's distinct way to experience world and information such way


----------



## Drecon (Jun 20, 2016)

People misunderstand science (even many people who aim to be scientists later). 

Most of science is about data collection, reproduction of the same boring experiments and very precise definitions and writing down things in a precise manner. 

Yes, the core of science is very much Si. 

That said, science is more than that, and the things that many people find most interesting in science is the Ne-stuff and the Ni-stuff. As with anything, more functions get to be involved as things get more complex. Science needs a very wide set of functions in practice.


----------



## Purrfessor (Jul 30, 2013)

tarmonk said:


> What made you change your mind about the type? Asking bc it might help others who might doubt their type or might not see their type correctly (gone through the same by myself)


I actually don't have a conclusion as to my type. I'm either INTP INFP ENFP ENTP INTJ or INFJ. yeah. Going with INTP/INFP for now. 

The thing is I think I'm an obvious introvert. However I have schizoaffective disorder. Depression, isolation, paranoia - maybe all that just gives me the appearance of an introvert! 

Really studying the Ti vs Fi stuff now cuz that'll help narrow down my type if I can figure out which I prefer and which is in my shadow. Again, I have schizo so my shadow IS in my conscious bubble. Hard to separate. But I'm trying.... meditating a BUNCH.


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Purrfessor said:


> Really studying the Ti vs Fi stuff now cuz that'll help narrow down my type if I can figure out which I prefer and which is in my shadow.


I'd suggest to try to make difference between F and T in general, that might help. It's a huge difference in mindset. But those e and i only create mess to understand it, they don't help.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

tarmonk said:


> Yea, even regarding Einstein and his theories, according to my knowledge (If my memory is right) Swarzchild was actually the one who spotted out from relativistic theory that it's possible that there exist points in spacetime which don't output any information (later called black holes).
> 
> Many other examples like that, but people forget it, assign all achievements to one person and then wonder this person has to be type X bc other types couldn't come to that - but it's all mostly teamwork.
> 
> I've seen it's being said that even a genius can't foresee too well how stock market changes but a big enough group of ordinary people from street can do it pretty well - so combined thinking is the key


Schwarzild solved Einstein's equations, and he was also likely NP anyways, so...

but I don't think anyone is arguing science isn't related to past understanding but that that different mindsets are more equipped to do certain things better, which is true
combined thinking can mislead greatly as well - so it's not about that


----------



## tarmonk (Nov 21, 2017)

Red Panda said:


> different mindsets are more equipped to do certain things better, which is true


Yes, this would be very hard to argue, so I wouldn't even try it  Maybe mbti should emphasize this aspect more?


----------

