# Si is The Most Misunderstood Function



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

Okay, perhaps that's a bit of a hyperbole. But it is a misunderstood function, possibly by me as well. There's so more to it than "I remember shit". Of course you'll remember things and use your knowledge in your decision making, unless you're a goldfish or have severe Alzheimer's.

What Si involves is applying a filter to sensory perceptions by relating it to past experiences, and using experience and traditions to view a situation.

But how does this translate into ways in which an Si user may act?

Keirsey had some ideas of how this function translates into the way Si users act, through his theory of the SJ temperament. Some ways the Si function acts involves copious attention to detail, valuing traditions, being wary of strange ideas (especially when its opposite, Ne, is Inferior), a sense of duty, routines, not taking risks, and valuing order in the environment.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Well if you want to understand Si better then you should know that Jung placed traditional values with extraverts. Most notably in the Te and Fe functions. 

The phrase: "attention to detail" is subjective. What detail? Every function pays attention to detail that correlates with their functions. 

Also, "strange ideas" is vague. What is strange to one person isn't going to be strange to another. You can't really define strange, as part of the cognitive functions. 

I would say a "sense of duty" has more to do with how one was raised.

Routines are part of every single person's existence. We all routinely breathe, blink, use our eyes, etc. Humans are built to work most efficiently with routines. We also all "value order in our environment." I doubt anyone has walked into a chaotic restaurant with poor service, ill prepared food, and long waits and thought that was the perfect environment.


----------



## lawof23 (Jul 25, 2014)

I'm not sure it's a competition, but it's never clear to me that Si - say - could be head and shoulders winner in any kind of "most misunderstood" contest in a world where large numbers of people routinely seem to confuse Ni with having magic powers ...

"_When paired with Fe, it means wanting social harmony._"

My experience of what I understand to be Fe is that it 'wants' social harmony. I assume that Si involvement isn't contributing zero, so I wonder what differences would Si-Fe hold up compared with Ni-Fe, for instance. Is there an ISFJ in the house?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Meh, it's not that difficult ... once you get away from the idea that it is memory or adherence to tradition.


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2013)

Okay, I might be way of now, the introverted perceiving functions are the ones I'm most unsure of, but isn't Si about evaluating current situations by comparing them to previous experiences? It stores information and notices when things are "off", like when there's a factual inconsistency, when someone acts strange or when the coffee-table has moved two inches to the left. I was under the impression that it's these kinds of things that Si is responsible for in our psyche, that it provides a certain sense of familiarity with ourselves and our surroundings. 

I also think I remember reading in Jung's description of Si that it's the function most connected to his concept of the "collective unconscious", but I might be confusing Si and Ni here, was a while since I read it...


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Distry said:


> Okay, I might be way of now, the introverted perceiving functions are the ones I'm most unsure of, but isn't Si about evaluating current situations by comparing them to previous experiences?


Yes.



> It stores information


No.



> and notices when things are "off", like when there's a factual inconsistency, when someone acts strange or when the coffee-table has moved two inches to the left.



Yes, but only if that is important to the individual.


----------



## Shade (Oct 11, 2013)

Oki, thanks for clearing it up^^


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Si threads usually go like this (Si is misunderstood, then "well I think Si is associated with X, Y, and Z." Well no, no and no.") So someone may as well begin explaining what it is in depth instead of sitting down and shooting down all the wrong answers without ever answering the question themselves. That way everyone can be on the same page and figure it out.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Si threads usually go like this (Si is misunderstood, then "well I think Si is associated with X, Y, and Z." Well no, no and no.") So someone may as well begin explaining what it is in depth instead of sitting down and shooting down all the wrong answers without ever answering the question themselves. That way everyone can be on the same page and figure it out.


I've typed out an epic sized novel explaining Si, over the years I've been a member. I'm not inclined to repeat myself for people who have already decided what they want to believe. Those who want to know will either search Google for it, or will ask.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Distry said:


> Oki, thanks for clearing it up^^


As I indicated in the post immediately prior to yours, it is not about memory. Other than storing memories, what you posted is correct.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

niss said:


> I've typed out an epic sized novel explaining Si, over the years I've been a member. I'm not inclined to repeat myself for people who have already decided what they want to believe. Those who want to know will either search Google for it, or will ask.


What is your best post on the topic? I will repost it for you as this topic comes up.


----------



## Satan Claus (Aug 6, 2013)

niss said:


> I've typed out an epic sized novel explaining Si, over the years I've been a member. I'm not inclined to repeat myself for people who have already decided what they want to believe. Those who want to know will either search Google for it, or will ask.


Do you have a link to it? I'd love to hear what Si is like from someone who's an actual Si dom.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

PaladinX said:


> What is your best post on the topic? I will repost it for you as this topic comes up.





Satan Claus said:


> Do you have a link to it? I'd love to hear what Si is like from someone who's an actual Si dom.


It's not in one location, but is scattered all over this site. I guess I should spend the time to compile it into something more concise and coherent.

https://www.google.com/webhp?source..."niss"+"Si"+site:Personalitycafe.com&start=10


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> Si threads usually go like this (Si is misunderstood, then "well I think Si is associated with X, Y, and Z." Well no, no and no.") So someone may as well begin explaining what it is in depth instead of sitting down and shooting down all the wrong answers without ever answering the question themselves. That way everyone can be on the same page and figure it out.


I merely responded to the op who said Si is the Most misunderstood function, and then proceeded to add more misunderstanding to it. 

I think the basic make-up of Si is this: It perceives objects/information, reorients it subjectively (by way of seeing images or references to known objects), relates to it in a tangible way (senses), and then identifies it.


----------



## incision (May 23, 2010)

Si strikes me as a 'tried and true' function where it concretely and in explicit detail, compares present to 'accepted' past, whether paradigms or experiential. It warehouses and compares.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

niss said:


> It's not in one location, but is scattered all over this site. I guess I should spend the time to compile it into something more concise and coherent.
> 
> https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=%22niss%22+%22Si%22+site%3APersonalitycafe.com&start=10


That would be great! And then if you put it in a new thread I will be sure to link it when these Si topics come up.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

I understand Si as storing data and information into the unconscious, selectively and subjectively. Si-users recall past experience when situations remind him of it. An Si-user notices that the soup in this restaurant tastes different from the same dish in another one, but he may not remember how the soup actually tastes in that restaurant, during that moment or every day. But still, it's another form of memory to me. Si is also about utilizing memory, and have a preference and reliance on past experience, comparing present with the past.

I agree that everyone has memory, but I have a really bad one. It's still hard for me to think of Si as _not _about memory when it's about comparing the present with the past.

I notices that SJs' posts tend to say a lot of details and thus feel very linear and literal to me. Also seems that they need all the details.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

Kathy Kane said:


> I merely responded to the op who said Si is the Most misunderstood function, and then proceeded to add more misunderstanding to it.
> 
> I think the basic make-up of Si is this: It perceives objects/information, reorients it subjectively (by way of seeing images or references to known objects), relates to it in a tangible way (senses), and then identifies it.


But here's my point. I'm not saying the op is right about those misunderstandings. But once there is a misunderstanding, people will just go and start from stratch again. Your definition of Si is most likely accurate and well studied, but in my understanding, that is stripping it down, down to exactly what we know by definition. Sensation/introversion, your definition pretty much put those two into the formula and spit it out the answer, which again is not wrong. But we could do that with every function, we do it when we want that base understanding of what these symbols mean. But at least from what I see around the forum, people will try to apply a function to a thought process or behavior or even a belief. Not necessarily to mean the two things equate. But the example of Te vs Ti. People will say "understanding this difference between rationalism and empiricism can help distinguishing between these two functions". Now there's no guarantee that one user will always harbor that belief about knowledge just because it's their function and that matches with that belief. But that's the difference I'm trying to point out, rarely will someone just say "Te makes judgements about the external reality, Ti does it inwardly" we don't leave it at that. It's true, but people will go on to say "here's an analogy or here's an example that illustrates this." From what I remember viewing Si threads, it's mostly "back to the basics" every time. Just so no one can be incorrect. We need to stay safe and stick to the solid definition. No if we want to understand it better, I think someone who knows or at least thinks they know what they are talking about to come in and say "look everyone, here's an example of Si or here's an analogy to help us better understand, here's how it may contrast with Se or this or that." It may be misunderstood and that's why no one is saying it. I don't know if that's why no one is trying to reach out and make these suggestions. The common descriptions/stereotypes such as those in the OP are being rejected but if those descriptions are inaccurate or unhelpful, what can I rely on if I want to try understanding this function? If it has nothing to do with tradition or comfort, what the heck does it have to do with? There just a plain (suffice to say very abstract) definition for this function? It may just be me but (insert Jung speak here) untranslated isn't really describing anything sufficiently for me to go around and say "I think I can relate this concept with Si to better understand it or give it a sort of analogy.)


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I am, in fact, a goldfish.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

I get that Si involves matching new experiences to past ones. In my first post, I was thinking of ways in which matching new experiences manifests in how an Si user (particularly when it's a high ranking function) understands and acts in situations. A lot of what I mentioned in my first post has the common theme of relating to experience.

By the way, I tweaked some of what I wrote in my original post in order to better show what I was trying to do.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

If it is, it's probably cause so many NJs are in type discussions and they don't understand the first thing about it from firsthand experience.

Case in point, half my understanding of Si comes from listening closely to people who identify with ISTJ.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

This thread is almost a self-demonstrating thread. I make a hyperbole claiming the function is "the most misunderstood", then we argue over what the function actually is, thus proving that Si is misunderstood.

I love irony.


----------



## Kebachi (May 27, 2014)

tangosthenes said:


> I am, in fact, a goldfish.


Me too buu. The only sign that I have something of a functional memory is the simple fact that I can at the very least remember that I don't have a memory.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

What I'm concerned about at the moment is that, though I did understand what Si was in the first place, I didn't give the definition when I first made this thread. I assumed that everyone knew what the definition was, and I wanted to go further into some of its implications.

The changes were made to the original post to make my intended purpose clear, but with 18 posts since then it's difficult to undo the damage, since I already made a fool of myself. _Wonderful._ And yet I still got three thanks for my original post for some reason.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> But here's my point. I'm not saying the op is right about those misunderstandings. But once there is a misunderstanding, people will just go and start from stratch again. Your definition of Si is most likely accurate and well studied, but in my understanding, that is stripping it down, down to exactly what we know by definition. Sensation/introversion, your definition pretty much put those two into the formula and spit it out the answer, which again is not wrong. But we could do that with every function, we do it when we want that base understanding of what these symbols mean. But at least from what I see around the forum, people will try to apply a function to a thought process or behavior or even a belief. Not necessarily to mean the two things equate. But the example of Te vs Ti. People will say "understanding this difference between rationalism and empiricism can help distinguishing between these two functions". Now there's no guarantee that one user will always harbor that belief about knowledge just because it's their function and that matches with that belief. But that's the difference I'm trying to point out, rarely will someone just say "Te makes judgements about the external reality, Ti does it inwardly" we don't leave it at that. It's true, but people will go on to say "here's an analogy or here's an example that illustrates this." From what I remember viewing Si threads, it's mostly "back to the basics" every time. Just so no one can be incorrect. We need to stay safe and stick to the solid definition. No if we want to understand it better, I think someone who knows or at least thinks they know what they are talking about to come in and say "look everyone, here's an example of Si or here's an analogy to help us better understand, here's how it may contrast with Se or this or that." It may be misunderstood and that's why no one is saying it. I don't know if that's why no one is trying to reach out and make these suggestions. The common descriptions/stereotypes such as those in the OP are being rejected but if those descriptions are inaccurate or unhelpful, what can I rely on if I want to try understanding this function? If it has nothing to do with tradition or comfort, what the heck does it have to do with? There just a plain (suffice to say very abstract) definition for this function? It may just be me but (insert Jung speak here) untranslated isn't really describing anything sufficiently for me to go around and say "I think I can relate this concept with Si to better understand it or give it a sort of analogy.)


All that seems to boil down to wanting examples. So say an Si top user sees an unknown insect. He observes the insect, reorients it to subjective experiences. Maybe a similar looking insect stung him once and he sees an image of a bug bite. Then he relates tangible information to it size, shape, color, feel, etc. And he identifies it as a species of wasp. 

An example of something more abstract: A top Si user sees a couple in a relationship. He observe the couple, reorients it to a subjective experience. His gf made him watch the _Notebook_ once and he sees an image of an old couple sitting together. Then he relates tangible information to the couple's interactions, conversations, touches, etc. And he identifies them as being in love.

Of course that is devoid of the other functions, but I think if we do break it down to the most definitive terms it may be more clear if someone uses it.

You are right that I could break all the functions down in a similar way. In fact, Ni is the exact same thing, except relating objects to intangible (intuitive) information. It could be the Te in me, but I find it to be a decent method.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

niss said:


> I've typed out an epic sized novel explaining Si, over the years I've been a member. I'm not inclined to repeat myself for people who have already decided what they want to believe. Those who want to know will either search Google for it, or will ask.


For a time I believed myself an Si dom, some online tests & descriptions reinforced that belief.
At another thread I described my interpretation of Si, but you informed me that I was incorrect.

Gotta say that online descriptions of Si are kinda confusing out there, maybe you'd be gracious enough to point a less knowledgeable individual in the right direction. I'm not requesting you to conduct research, merely drop an authors name or book title would be appreciated.


********************************************************
Edit: Doesn't this comment offer a very good description of Si?

*Si, or introverted Sensing, is dominant for ISxJ, secondary for ESxJ, tertiary for INxP and inferior for ENxP. It's related to Se in that it deals with sensory experience, but rather than constantly scan for everything about what's going on now, it relies on internalizing those experiences into an extremely detailed internal map of highly vivid *memories* of those past sensory experiences. This dependence on reliving past experience and using it as a guide for the present leads to an extremely good memory for detail, and a general attitude that going with what we know for sure from having experienced it before is usually best.

Si is the opposite of Ne because rather than relate new information to some larger external, constantly changing pattern, it tries to relate all new information to something it already knows, some sensory data that it's absorbed from its past experiences. This leads to the classic Ne vs. Si battle: Ne wants to try something new just for the sake of doing something different and finding something interesting; Si wants to stick to what we've done before because its vivid memories of direct experience allow us to relate the new information to that past information we've already absorbed.

It's a common misconception that Si users are traditionalists on principle. In my experience, many older Si users (xSxJ types have Si as dom/secondary) are traditionalists because the only source of information they had was their parents and the traditions they were raised with, but these days many younger SJs are much less traditionalist in nature because information is so much more freely available than it was just a few generations ago. Si is not into tradition just for the sake of tradition; it just likes to relate new information to something it already knows. Rules and traditions can be a convenient way to do this, but it's a mistake to believe that Si always leads to traditionalism for its own sake.

Si also does some really cool stuff like perfect pitch...I have one ISFJ friend (Si dominant) who can tap into his past sensations of what a particular note sounded like and use it to identify some note he hears now as a G#. That's amazing to me...as an Ne dom I only understand notes in terms of their relationship to other notes in a larger pattern; Josh just taps right into his detailed sensory memory and can identify the note by remembering what it sounded like before, on its own.

Si doms like to collect objects and facts that evoke pleasurable memories from the past. An Si who's into history will collect books, photos, stamps, etc...an Si who's into music will collect instruments, sheet music, photos of concerts, and so on. Many Si types love scrapbooking because looking back at those old photos evokes those powerful, highly detailed sensory experiences from the past.

On a more morbid note, Dexter (from the TV series "Dexter") is probably ISTJ. He collects blood slides because they evoke the detailed memories of his most enjoyable murder experiences from the past. =/

*http://personalitycafe.com/cognitiv...ptions-each-function-attitude.html#post487870


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Perception of physical sensations... no wait. Dirty hedonists! that should clear things up.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

The_Wanderer said:


> Perception of physical sensations... no wait. Dirty hedonists! that should clear things up.


"Dirty hedonists" is more like stereotypical Se. Se is much more in the moment than Si, and involves searching for new sensations. I understand Se well, since it's my Auxiliary function.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Attunement to comfort and pleasure - as well as a need for harmony with their surrounding environment - is an Si thing more than an Se thing. Si internalizes physical sensations, like all introverted functions it's subjective.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

@stargazing grasshopper That's the sort of thing I was looking for.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

That's a very in-depth accurate description of Si. It also makes a good point, that traditionalism does not stem from Si. It mostly seems to come from Fe and Te. 

I'm still amused by this Ne vs Si thing, they don't oppose each other so much as work together, even if one is much more influential than the other. Ni is what Si doesn't work with, as they fill the same role in a person: subjective perception. If Si is Hedonism, then Ni is Asceticism.



Small Will said:


> "Dirty hedonists" is more like stereotypical Se. Se is much more in the moment than Si, and involves searching for new sensations. I understand Se well, since it's my Auxiliary function.


Seeking comfort and pleasure is an Si thing, for example the internal sensations of things like food, wine, etc. Se is more about objective experience of the world, you're correct there. It's also more forceful; Se is less about attuning to the physical world and more influencing and bending the physical world to achieve what one wants. If that makes sense.

Another thing I want to add. Se as your Auxiliary means you understand how Se works _as an auxiliary_ due to personal experience. Everyone uses every function in every attitude, you have some personal experience with all functions regardless of whether you consciously recognize it or not.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Small Will said:


> @_stargazing grasshopper_ That's the sort of thing I was looking for.


I heeded Niss' advice & googled (descriptions of introverted sensing).
*Si: Introverted Sensing - Personality Cafe*


You can thank TreeBob (comment #3) for providing a link to the thread.
http://personalitycafe.com/myers-bri...tml#post487870


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

@The Wanderer Actually, enjoying sensory pleasures seems to be common ground for the Sensor function in general. To quote:



simulatedworld said:


> *Se, or extroverted Sensing,* is dominant for ESxP, secondary for ISxP, tertiary for ENxJ and inferior for INxJ. It is the attitude that what is directly apparent in our immediate physical surroundings is the most important thing to go by. Se leads you to follow your gut instincts, pay very close attention to what's going on around you, and respond to things in the moment in whatever way will make the strongest and most immediate guttural, sensory impact on others. Se users are so present-focused that they're often on the cutting edge of new trends because they place so much emphasis on what is current and new. They like to learn things via a hands-on, figure-it-out-by-experimenting-as-you-go, direct experiential approach (in this way they are similar to Ne) but they are more focused on what is immediately tangible than on what their surroundings might be changed into. They usually pay a lot of attention to their physical appearance and are very good with reading body language and using it to immediately size up a person or a situation and respond instinctively. *They can be quite impulsive and prone to overindulgence in sensory pleasures*, but they also know how to work a crowd and they tend to make themselves into reflections of current popular trends--whatever will make an impact.
> 
> Se is the opposite of Ni because it intentionally focuses on the literal surface meaning of exactly what is going on right in front of you right now, whereas Ni tries to ignore that and see the hidden meaning in what is not directly apparent.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Or, if you understand how cognitive function order works, you'll realise that Se types, especially Se auxiliaries, also have strong use of Si. Although that use is unconscious more often than not. There's also the difference to note between impulsion and compulsion. 

Regardless of all those. Your source is just quoting somebody else on this board, not the best way to win me over to your side.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

@The Wanderer I understand perfectly. The reason why there is some crossover between Si and Se - especially when there is a Sensing preference - is because of the shadow functions that lie beneath the surface. For instance, Ti-Se-Ni-Fe has Te-Si-Ne-Fi as its shadow which is drawn upon sub-consciously. Hence both those with a higher Si preference and those with a higher Se preference both enjoying sensory comforts, because Se draws upon the shadow Si.

What really distinguishes the two is the impulsion and compulsion, as you said. Impulsion is Se (external trigger), compulsion is Si (internal trigger).

Which ties in with my previous comment about "dirty hedonists". SPs are usually not as strongly guided by the internal experiential caution as SJs due to Se being on the surface instead of Si. They pursue pleasures on impulse.

Though I stand corrected on quoting from another source as not being a convincing argument.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

Best definitions of Si I have come not from MBTI sites; MBTI doesn't even use cognitive functions for typing, it's all based on dichotomies. One source is JCF and the other Socionics.


----------



## MuChApArAdOx (Jan 24, 2011)

I know in my mind what Si means for me, although like all introverted functions, Si is not only subjective, its abstract. How can one possible describe something they see in images, and the subjectiveness makes it apply to the individual itself, not universally. I know when I'm using my Si, I may be able to draw you a picture, but not a chance can I accurately put it into words. Si like all functions will manifest different depending on the stacking, I don't think it would present itself the same in the Inferior as it would in the dom, so as an ENFP I could be the only person who notices when I'm having a bout of Si. I've always connected well with ISTJ's, ENFP are ISTJ backwards right ? I can't explain what it is about the familiarity, I can only say that I understand and relate with this type.


----------



## The_Wanderer (Jun 13, 2013)

@MuChApArAdOx

You can't explain it because like me you're an ENFP and our Ti blows. We understand shit, but we suck at clarifying our understanding with accurate word-things. :laughing:


----------



## Noir (Jun 20, 2014)

Why is that pretty much everyone feels misunderstood?


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

@Noir Everyone's different - even those within the same type. Obviously typology doesn't aim to explain everything about human psychology.

Unless you're referring to the thread title, which is a hyperbole.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> And that portion bolded is referring to the libido (energy or interest.) It isn't details.
> 
> I doubt we will agree on this issue. I've become clear that he was speaking about interest and not information to memorize.
> 
> ...


When someone is saying they are extracting a portion of the object, they mean they are extracting a portion of the object. Libido is the psychic energy that allows this happen. I don't see how you're not understanding this. It literally can't mean anything else. The words "my purpose is to rid myself of the object as a single and unique whole, and to extract only a portion of it" actually means what it is saying, that a portion of the object is getting extracted.

I'm not saying Jung is right, but what he says is what he means. If cognitive functions do exist then by his definition introverted functions extract and bring the extracted portion into themselves, making that a form of memory.

Edit:
Another note:


> my interest does not flow out into the totality, but withdraws itself from the object as a whole, bringing the abstracted portion into myself


He even states right here that along with the interest (libido) that he withdraws from the object, the abstracted portion of the object is also brought into himself.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> When someone is saying they are extracting a portion of the object, they mean they are extracting a portion of the object. Libido is the psychic energy that allows this happen. I don't see how you're not understanding this. It literally can't mean anything else. The words "my purpose is to rid myself of the object as a single and unique whole, and to extract only a portion of it" actually means what it is saying, that a portion of the object is getting extracted.
> 
> I'm not saying Jung is right, but what he says is what he means. If cognitive functions do exist then by his definition introverted functions extract and bring the extracted portion into themselves, making that a form of memory.
> 
> ...


I think that quote makes my case even stronger. The introvert is withdrawing his libido (energy or interest) from the object. After what he perceives (negative libido from the object,) he takes his libido and keeps it to himself. 

I don't think you are correct. Jung isn't talking about extracting details, but perceiving the libido of an object and then either deciding to give interest to it or not.


----------



## nichya (Jul 12, 2014)

Oh well I think it is very well scientifically debated here. To me it is say you step in a room and smell something or see an object that recalls the memories associated with it and you instantly have a flow of feelings and memories, you can't help but being drawn to that mood. The people with you can't understand the sudden change.

I wonder if checking the watch to see the time and then checking it again because you don't remember falls into this?


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I think that quote makes my case even stronger. The introvert is withdrawing his libido (energy or interest) from the object. After what he perceives (negative libido from the object,) he takes his libido and keeps it to himself.
> 
> I don't think you are correct. Jung isn't talking about extracting details, but perceiving the libido of an object and then either deciding to give interest to it or not.


Extracting the abstracted portion of the object into the self is what he is saying. There is a portion of the object being extracted. He is not perceiving libido and deciding to give it interest. The Interest Is the libido and perception isn't introversion. He is extracting the abstracted portion of which his libido is pulling into himself. The libido is the interest not the abstracted portion of the object, he separates the two and you're somehow not seeing that. You're denying that the abstracted portion of the object is a part of the object.

There isn't any further we can take this, I'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Small Will (Aug 21, 2014)

This thread just won't _die_.

Yep, I created a monster.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> Extracting the abstracted portion of the object into the self is what he is saying. There is a portion of the object being extracted. He is not perceiving libido and deciding to give it interest. The Interest Is the libido and perception isn't introversion. He is extracting the abstracted portion of which his libido is pulling into himself. The libido is the interest not the abstracted portion of the object, he separates the two and you're somehow not seeing that. You're denying that the abstracted portion of the object is a part of the object.
> 
> There isn't any further we can take this, I'll just have to agree to disagree.


Let's say that is what he meant. How does extracting one small aspect of the object mean the entire introverted function is memory? That would imply that memory can only contain a fraction of the whole and never actually hold the entire object for recall. That isn't the case for memory at all. If anything, we can hold the majority of the whole object in memory and it's small fractions we forget.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Let's say that is what he meant. How does extracting one small aspect of the object mean the entire introverted function is memory? That would imply that memory can only contain a fraction of the whole and never actually hold the entire object for recall. That isn't the case for memory at all. If anything, we can hold the majority of the whole object in memory and it's small fractions we forget.


I said a few times in this thread that if introversion isn't memory itself, then it definitely is a form of memory, eh re extraversion is not a form of memory nor memory itself. Not only that but remembering the trees from the forest or the forest from the trees is a product of abstraction. Jung also doesn't say that the portion of the object being extracted is small or big, he jus claims that it is a portion that is extracted from the rest of the object (the rest being seen as irrelevant).


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I said a few times in this thread that if introversion isn't memory itself, then it definitely is a form of memory, eh re extraversion is not a form of memory nor memory itself. Not only that but remembering the trees from the forest or the forest from the trees is a product of abstraction. Jung also doesn't say that the portion of the object being extracted is small or big, he jus claims that it is a portion that is extracted from the rest of the object (the rest being seen as irrelevant).


Another way to look at is to take his words literally: Every person extracts a portion of the objective whole body of air into ourselves, only utilizing the relative piece of it for our lungs to breath. We don't store and retrieve every breath we take. We also extract portions of liquid from the whole and bring it into ourselves. We don't memorize that either. 

I think you're definition is a subjective one. When memory is used in a description, people think of the traditional definition. Things like recalling childhood experiences, or remembering dates and trivia. That is different than using your one form of memory, which is arbitrary. Plus, your definition would be for all the introverted functions, not just Si where everyone places memory.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> Another way to look at is to take his words literally: Every person extracts a portion of the objective whole body of air into ourselves, only utilizing the relative piece of it for our lungs to breath. We don't store and retrieve every breath we take. We also extract portions of liquid from the whole and bring it into ourselves. We don't memorize that either.
> 
> I think you're definition is a subjective one. When memory is used in a description, people think of the traditional definition. Things like recalling childhood experiences, or remembering dates and trivia. That is different than using your one form of memory, which is arbitrary. Plus, your definition would be for all the introverted functions, not just Si where everyone places memory.


I would say I better define memory. You are right that people would attribute memory to childhood experiences, remembering dates, trivia and what not but there is more to memory than that. If I can recall information of any type, then that would also be memory. If I can remember that 2+2=4 then I am also using memory. If I can recall how a situation made me think, then I am also using memory. Memory is all that can/could be remembered or accessed from the unconscious in the present/future. 

Si by my definition, like all introverted functions, would be a form of memory but Si I'd the form of memory that has a focus on sensory data that was abstracted from previous situations, events, or objects.


----------



## Kathy Kane (Dec 3, 2013)

Shadow Logic said:


> I would say I better define memory. You are right that people would attribute memory to childhood experiences, remembering dates, trivia and what not but there is more to memory than that. If I can recall information of any type, then that would also be memory. If I can remember that 2+2=4 then I am also using memory. If I can recall how a situation made me think, then I am also using memory. Memory is all that can/could be remembered or accessed from the unconscious in the present/future.
> 
> Si by my definition, like all introverted functions, would be a form of memory but Si I'd the form of memory that has a focus on sensory data that was abstracted from previous situations, events, or objects.


I would say the cognitive functions utilize our memory, but I would never say the introverted functions are our memory. I don't know if you are still basing this off of Jung's theory or not, but he said we extract relevant information. Everyone has stored tons of irrelevant information into their memory. I think the cognitive functions pull data from memory for identification and judgement. Along the way things are stored and retrieved, but it isn't the introverted functions performing the memory duty. I see no reason why Jung would have neglected to assign memory to the introverted functions, if he thought it was the same thing.


----------



## Deus Absconditus (Feb 27, 2011)

Kathy Kane said:


> I would say the cognitive functions utilize our memory, but I would never say the introverted functions are our memory. I don't know if you are still basing this off of Jung's theory or not, but he said we extract relevant information. Everyone has stored tons of irrelevant information into their memory. I think the cognitive functions pull data from memory for identification and judgement. Along the way things are stored and retrieved, but it isn't the introverted functions performing the memory duty. I see no reason why Jung would have neglected to assign memory to the introverted functions, if he thought it was the same thing.


I don't necessarily disagree. If memory is this overarching concept, then I would consider the introverted functions different forms of memories, in other words the subsets of memory, or direct access to memory. So I can agree that the introverted functions recall these relevant aspects (what they deemed as relevant when extracted from the object) from the pool of memory. My point is that introverted functions has a necessary requirement of dipping into memory, which is why, at the least, I can consider them forms of memory. 

I think, on Jungs behalf, he may have avoided using memory as a determinant because he himself didn't know all the aspects of what memory exactly was mixed with his thoughts that introverted functions weren't all there is to memory. He obviously wanted to paint the picture in the direction where introverted functions worked in tandem with memory, hence the concepts of introverted functions being the guide to the unconscious and the containing the abstraction process. If he were here, or I was there, I wouldn't have allowed him to tip toe around the subject as he did inevitably. That's all speculation though, and sadly we will never know what his thoughts are on the subject so all we can do is decipher his notes and see how they relate to subjects such as memory, objects, and settings etc.


----------

