# Si, Introverted Sensation, External dynamics of fields



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

@Typhon

Define eight kinds of information, and then squeeze eight sets of cognitive processes into those definitions. That is what Aushra (and other socionists) tried to do. Mission impossible!


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> There are many reasons (see my other threads regarding this). For example, Socionists assume that _anything_ in mathematics is about L (Ti), so their accountants (i.e. the profession) are LSI and SLE. But we know that ISTJ is the typical accountant. Does LF or FL correspond to SiTe? No, of course not! Another example is Socionics S (Si), which they claim is related to 'the taste of chocolate' (qualia). No, that is Se.


See, if ISTJ is the accountant and LSI is the accountant, maybe this is not a coincidence.....

Taste can affect you subjectively, too, so then it can be Si, by Jung too. It does have a Se component, sure.


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> See, if ISTJ is the accountant and LSI is the accountant, maybe this is not a coincidence.....
> 
> Taste can affect you subjectively, too, so then it can be Si, by Jung too. It does have a Se component, sure.


SSS's argument is that accounting is mainly about counting, which is exclusively about Ti according to them, so LSI and SLE (as well as ILE and LII, but they would get bored) are best suited to work as an accountant (i.e. strong, mental Ti).

There are many problems with their definitions of the IM elements (even though I am less skeptical of their Si and Se nowadays), especially since they define information itself as something that needs a subject.


----------



## Blue Ribbon (Sep 4, 2016)

I agree with the Socionics description - Si is about the perception of sensations while Se is about sensations. 

This is how I see it: Both Si and Se are about sensations with the only difference being that Si is subjective. So, while an Se user sees reality for what it is, Si users relate that to them. An Se user might say, 'this is good' while an Si user says 'this is good for me.' I think this is why Si is associated with memory because it's all about how the thing feels to the user. They tend to remember how something was perceived by them. 'I liked it last time, so I guess I'll like it now.' It's also probably why they are resistant to the idea of change. Se, on the other hand, is about whether something is good or not, period. I don't think they associate the external environment with themselves. They see how something 'truly' is. 

This, I suppose is why I've never had an Si dominant tell me that my taste in something is weird or strange. I might wear a strange looking dress and if I tell the Si user that I like it, they kind of understand. Se users have often pointed out that it's strange and that I shouldn't wear it. I can't give a more detailed answer because I'm not very good at using either of these functions.

EDIT: I don't completely agree with the Socionics description, but I think it's definitely more accurate than MBTI. But I think in general, people experience the different functions differently and there isn't really an accurate way of portraying them. That's my opinion, though.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Let us take a metaperspective on this.
8 POVs battling for supremacy.
Every take on the POVs themself is a part of the whole trying to understand the whole alone on it's own.
That is a huge contradiction.
Every POV feels that it is the only real perspective.
Yet science teaches us that we cannot know what reality is really like.
After all even our sense impressions are just electrical signals sent to the brain.
It doesn't matter if we take a subjective or objective stance towards these.

So trying to figure out if any systems take on the jungian theory is correct becomes a rather futile project.
I don't know exactly what reasoning Myers or the Socionics founder used to come up with their divergent definition.
But I have read Jungs reasoning on his definition.
Given that the two other seem to be just copies of the original,
I find it hard to accept them as more correct.

I find it more useful to look at the phenomena they describe and try to understand that 
rather than just dig myself down in semantics.
When I look around me, I continuosly find individuals that excibit the hallmarks of Si.
They order their lives to preserve their subjective take on sensation and try to eliminate any disturbances.
This series is a good illustration of many of the finer points as it makes fun of that way of looking at life.
Arguably it makes fun of other perspectives also, but it brings the phenomena in question into clear view.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> SSS's argument is that accounting is mainly about counting, which is exclusively about Ti according to them, so LSI and SLE (as well as ILE and LII, but they would get bored) are best suited to work as an accountant (i.e. strong, mental Ti).
> 
> There are many problems with their definitions of the IM elements (even though I am less skeptical of their Si and Se nowadays), especially since they define information itself as something that needs a subject.


OK that's stupid equating Ti with counting. :laughing:

What do you mean by the last part about information defined as something needing a subject?




Blue Ribbon said:


> I agree with the Socionics description - Si is about the perception of sensations while Se is about sensations.
> 
> This is how I see it: Both Si and Se are about sensations with the only difference being that Si is subjective. So, while an Se user sees reality for what it is, Si users relate that to them.


No, Socionics's Si type doesn't simply look at how something affects them but how any object affects another object from the pov of Sensation. This is a much wider area for cognition and it makes more sense too. 




> An Se user might say, 'this is good' while an Si user says 'this is good for me.' I think this is why Si is associated with memory because it's all about how the thing feels to the user. They tend to remember how something was perceived by them. 'I liked it last time, so I guess I'll like it now.' It's also probably why they are resistant to the idea of change. Se, on the other hand, is about whether something is good or not, period. I don't think they associate the external environment with themselves. They see how something 'truly' is.


Socionics's Si-base is not actively resistant to change - they are Ne dual seeking. This is more in line with Jung's version too, actually (at least if going by Jung's immediate students). MBTI's Si is weird. It should not be associated with memory, at all. 

I agree that Se is objective, it being extraverted.




> This, I suppose is why I've never had an Si dominant tell me that my taste in something is weird or strange. I might wear a strange looking dress and if I tell the Si user that I like it, they kind of understand. Se users have often pointed out that it's strange and that I shouldn't wear it. I can't give a more detailed answer because I'm not very good at using either of these functions.


I don't criticize such things unsolicited. I think it would be rude without being all that constructive either. To myself I would think by default that yeah it's weird/strange, but I would not interfere if it's not very important, like, if you go to a business meeting in completely the wrong clothes. 

I will give more refined help too beyond these emergencies - but only if I'm asked to give my opinion or if the person is close to me. Even then I don't want to criticize such stuff in a rude way. I don't know why, just instinct in me or something.

Then if someone tells me they like it and it's still not some important situation where you must fit your clothes - or whatever other things about yourself - to the situation in a more standardized way, I would not really mind. It's their own business then. (I'm assuming here that it's not some extremely crazy stuff...) But if it's an important situation then there are more objectively important things than them personally liking that piece of clothing. 

I'm Se>Si in Socionics... not necessarily in MBTI, depending on which MBTI version you go with . In Socionics, I still have Si too, just in a devalued block. 

So overall I don't think that it is as simple a correlation as "Se always claiming out loud that it's weird and Si being always accepting".


----------



## Tellus (Dec 30, 2012)

myst91 said:


> What do you mean by the last part about information defined as something needing a subject?


There is no information outside of the minds of people according to SSS. Something/someone needs to inform someone. The problem is that they have to redefine the general definition of information, otherwise there will be lots of contradictions.


----------



## myst91 (Sep 9, 2014)

Tellus said:


> There is no information outside of the minds of people according to SSS. Something/someone needs to inform someone. The problem is that they have to redefine the general definition of information, otherwise there will be lots of contradictions.


This would be true of mental information specifically - the kind that only the human brain creates.


----------

