# Introverted Sensing without Self-preserving Instinct



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

I've noticed that Si types are quite frequently typed as Sp. I found difficulty in my attempt to understand how Si can be seen without the Self-preserving instinct. Because they tend to overlap, I desire insight to isolate the definitions of Sp and Si from each other.

*I am aware that people can be Sp without Si, but is the inverse true?
What do you think are the differences of Sp vs Si?
How would Si-doms act, if they were Sexual or Social types?*


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

This is a great question. It's a glaring area of discrepancy in typology theories. NO ONE has bothered to master both systems and research this stuff. And unfortunately, no one has the answer.

Fuck, we need a Synthesis forum, where users attempt to resolve these things.

When I figure myself out, I may get back to you on this.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

The Typeless Wonder said:


> This is a great question. It's a glaring area of discrepancy in typology theories. NO ONE has bothered to master both systems and research this stuff. And unfortunately, no one has the answer.
> 
> Fuck, we need a Synthesis forum, where users attempt to resolve these things.
> 
> When I figure myself out, I may get back to you on this.


Actually, it's very simple. Si is a mode of perception, of how one experiences the world and what data one derives and prefers to derive from it. Si types are focused on personal (bodily) sensation, and not just how the body experiences but the subjective impressions one has of bodily sensations e.g. the feeling lightning in a room has on you, whether it is comfortable or not, how it harmonizes with other other physical objects in the room:

* *







Augusta on Si said:


> We view an object's internal state as the relationship between events that precondition one another. *This element perceives information about how processes are reflected by one's internal state. This includes the sense of one's own condition and the sensations of people evoked by this interdependence. Interaction in space is nothing more than a reflection of one object in another. Objects reflect in other objects, evoking certain sensations in one another. Such an individual perceives external information in form of sensations evoked by ongoing events. For example, the sensation of pain is essentially the reflection within a person's mind of a relationship between his functioning body and a process occurring in some part of the body that impedes this functioning.*
> 
> When this element of perception is in the leading position, the individual has the ability to change the qualities of the surrounding space and influence the sensations of people within it. He is able to avoid physical discomfort and protect others from it. *This element is defined bby the ability to recreate previously experienced aesthetic sensations. An excellent example is Peter Paul Rubens, who created his paintings not from nature, but from his memory of once experienced aesthetic sensations. By paintings, he sought to evoke in the viewer certain aesthetic experiences. *Such creativity constitutes the recreation of an object that is able to provide other people with aesthetic sensations that were intended by its creator. When an individual of this type is preparing something, he starts from envisioning all the associated qualities that the final product will have.
> 
> These people are able to distinguish previously experienced aesthetic sensations from new ones. They are able to "collect" and remember them. This also presupposes that such individuals are able to contra-position their sensations to those of others, the ability to contend for their fulfillment, and the ability to mold and perfect not only one's own aesthetic tastes and habits, but also those of others. We might say that such individuals have the ability to impose their understanding of aesthetics and comfortable life on other people.





> Si is associated with the ability to internalize sensations and to experience them in full detail.
> 
> *Si focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects.** This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness.* The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.
> 
> ...





Jung on Si said:


> Sensation, which in obedience to its whole nature is concerned with the object and the objective stimulus, also undergoes a considerable modification in the introverted attitude. *It, too, has a subjective factor, for beside the object sensed there stands a sensing subject, who contributes his subjective disposition to the objective stimulus. In the introverted attitude sensation is definitely based upon the subjective portion of perception.* What is meant by this finds its best illustration in the reproduction of objects in art. When, for instance, several painters undertake to paint one and the same landscape, with a sincere attempt to reproduce it faithfully, each painting will none the less differ from the rest, *not merely by virtue of a more or less developed ability, but chiefly because of a different vision; there will even appear in some of the paintings a decided psychic variation, both in general mood and in treatment of colour and form. Such qualities betray a more or less influential cooperation of the subjective factor.* The subjective factor of sensation is essentially the same as in the other functions already spoken of. It is an unconscious disposition, which alters the sense-perception at its very source, thus depriving it of the character of a purely objective influence. In this case, sensation is related primarily to the subject, and only secondarily to the object. How extraordinarily strong the subjective factor can be is shown most clearly in art. The ascendancy of the subjective factor occasionally achieves a complete suppression of the mere influence of the object; but none the less sensation remains sensation, although it has come to be a perception of the subjective factor, and the effect of the object has sunk to the level of a mere stimulant.* Introverted sensation develops in accordance with this subjective direction. A true sense-perception certainly exists, but it always looks as though objects were not so much forcing their way into the subject in their own right as that the subject were seeing things quite differently, or saw quite other things than the rest of mankind. As a matter of fact, the subject perceives the same things as everybody else, only, he never stops at the purely objective effect, but concerns himself with the subjective perception released by the objective stimulus. *Subjective perception differs remarkably from the objective. It is either not found at all in the object, or, at most, merely suggested by it; it can, however, be similar to the sensation of other men, although not immediately derived from the objective behaviour of things. It does not impress one as a mere product of consciousness—it is too genuine for that. But it makes a definite psychic impression, since elements of a higher psychic order are perceptible to it. This order, however, does not coincide with the contents of consciousness. *It is concerned with presuppositions, or dispositions of the collective unconscious, with mythological images, with primal possibilities of ideas. *The character of significance and meaning clings to subjective perception. It says more than the mere image of the object, though naturally only to him for whom the subjective factor has some meaning. To another, a reproduced subjective impression seems to suffer from the defect of possessing insufficient similarity with the object; it seems, therefore, to have failed in its purpose. *Subjective sensation apprehends the background of the physical world rather than its surface. The decisive thing is not the reality of the object, but the reality of the subjective factor, i.e. the primordial images, which in their totality represent a psychic mirror-world. It is a mirror, however, with the peculiar capacity of representing the present contents of consciousness not in their known and customary form but in a certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them. Such a consciousness would see the becoming and the passing of things beside their present and momentary existence, and not only that, but at the same time it would also see that Other, which was before their becoming and will be after their passing hence. To this consciousness the present moment is improbable. *This is, of course, only a simile, of which, however, I had need to give some sort of illustration of the peculiar nature of introverted sensation. *Introverted sensation conveys an image whose effect is not so much to reproduce the object as to throw over it a wrapping whose lustre is derived from age-old subjective experience and the still unborn future event.* Thus, mere sense impression develops into the depth of the meaningful, while extraverted sensation seizes only the momentary and manifest existence of things.
> 
> *The Introverted Sensation Type*
> The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, *the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. *If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident. This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. *Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object.* Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object. This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. *Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception. Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject—as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image—even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character. It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds*. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression. Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, everyday expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.
> ...





> *Introverted Sensation (Si) tunes you in to the chaos, unpredictability, and unknowability of the concrete world, leading you to value whatever few signs you can find that have stable meaning. For example, the stripes of tabby cats might hold a particular meaning for you, and you might come to treasure that. *As an epistemological perspective, Si leads you to view anything from outside a familiar context as dangerous and untrustworthy. You are in tune with the fact that nearly all possibilities lead to destruction. For example, if you're designing an airplane, nearly all combinations of the variables fail. Of the possible combinations of wingspan, wing placement, wing shape, fuselage shape, and so on, there is only a tiny subset that make an aerodynamically workable plane--and then only if you get a whole lot of other things just right, too. All of life is like that, only much more complicated. We live only in the small islands of the world that we've grown up with and are suited to us. And we can't possibly know why these small islands are relatively safe. As an ethical perspective, Si leads you to protect the integrity of the things and signs that we depend on. This usually takes the form of setting up barriers against the unpredictable. For example, saving for a rainy day (hardships come at unpredictable times) or inspecting buildings for fire safety (so people can trust that "being inside a building" is a sign of safety against the elements). Within these barriers, where all is trustworthy and familiar, we can survive and enjoy what is precious to us--for a while.







Self-pres on the other hand, is the idea of survivability being dependable on the physical and the material world e.g. having access to money, food, health, home, physical belongings. It doesn't say anything about how you perceive these things, only that you value these things as important for survival. Socionics Si may for example associate Si with health but it is not so much whether health itself is important to the Si type, as much as the Si type possesses a peculiar ability to track changes in their bodily states; they can sense whether their bodies are healthy or not based on how well their body harmonizes with the rest of the environment. 

Si, as is implied both in the Socionics and Jungian description regarding Ne as the inferior function, is about preservation of the physical world. Si types are highly attuned to the internal physical states of themselves and that of other physical entities and shy away from any outer influence that may, as Jung calls it, undermine the physical state of the physical object and attempt to preserve its "certain sense sub specie aeternitatis, somewhat as a million-year old consciousness might see them". 

It says nothing about Si types having a neurosis pertaining to say, physical health being of outmost importance for survival. An Si type who is sp last, may for example exactly see physical health as a trivial concern because they are already in great possession of how to track their own health; an ISTJ with weak social skills due to inferior Feeling (and in Socionics, Fe PoLR), may for example be much more concerned about the social instinct as their primary neurosis due to their felt sense of inability to form meaningful connection in social space, to be socially recognized, than they are their personal health. Just as one example.

One deals with the perception of reality, another one deals with what aspects of reality that are felt as the most important to survival.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> It says nothing about Si types having a neurosis pertaining to say, physical health being of outmost importance for survival. *An Si type who is sp last, may for example exactly see physical health as a trivial concern because they are already in great possession of how to track their own health;* an ISTJ with weak social skills due to inferior Feeling (and in Socionics, Fe PoLR), may for example be much more concerned about the social instinct as their primary neurosis due to their felt sense of inability to form meaningful connection in social space, to be socially recognized, than they are their personal health. Just as one example.


Are there any real-life examples (e.g. famous people, etc.) that would fit this? I'm pretty much incapable of appreciating theoretical examples.
(Note: in MBTI, the inferior function is the same as Socionic's DS. ISTJ/ISTp would have tertiary Introverted Feeling, not inferior. The PoLR is also not the lowest in the hierarchy. I don't care for MBTI too much. This is just so you know how to translate between Socionics & MBTI.)



> One deals with the perception of reality, another one deals with what aspects of reality that are felt as the most important to survival.


Although they don't influence our motivations nearly as much as Enneagram, the cognitive functions influence our preferences.



Riso & Hudson said:


> "Their [The Self-preserving's] focus of attention naturally goes towards things related to these areas such as clothes, temperature, shopping, decorating, and the like... Self-Pres types tend to be more grounded, practical, serious, and introverted than the other two instinctual types."


Introverted Sensing also has naturally acute attention for such topics.



Augusta said:


> "In contrast to extroverted sensing Se, *Si is related to following one's own needs* instead of focusing on some externally-driven conception of what is necessary to acquire or achieve."


According to this quote by Augusta, it would seem that Si's awareness of their physical needs is coupled with a motivation to _follow_ their needs, therefore blurring the line between it and the Self-pres instinct.

So while you may say:


Entropic said:


> Actually, it's very simple.


...I expect that you'd understand the confusion that @The Typeless Wonder and I experiencing, especially due to the way that Self-pres & Si are described.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> Are there any real-life examples (e.g. famous people, etc.) that would fit this? I'm pretty much incapable of appreciating theoretical examples.


Can't think of any at the moment, since I am not necessarily tracking the instinctual variants of famous people, fictive or real. 



> (Note: in MBTI, the inferior function is the same as Socionic's DS. ISTJ/ISTp would have tertiary Introverted Feeling, not inferior. The PoLR is also not the lowest in the hierarchy. I don't care for MBTI too much. This is just so you know how to translate between Socionics & MBTI.)


Eh? I don't share your view, nor is your assertion about Fi in the ISTJ correct. Jung deemed all the functions aside the dominant and to a degree, auxiliary, as being inferior in that they all possess an inferior character in the psyche. That is what I was referring to when I wrote that Feeling is inferior to the ISTJ, because it is; it possesses an inferior character and is relegated to an inferior psychic role. If I was specifically talking about the inferior function in the ISTJ, I would refer to Ne, not just Feeling as a function without any psychic attitude i.e. introverted/extroverted. 

As you should be aware, I am the one who endorses a particular view of how to translate Socionics and the MBTI wherein I think the same psychic predispositions will result in the same type pattern but understood differently. It is one thing if you are asserting your own opinion on the matter, but another to suggest that you are attempting to correct my understanding as in it being inaccurate or incorrect, when your own assertion regarding the definition of "inferior" in a Jungian context is not accurate in the first place. I do not share your view that an ISTJ in the MBTI has Ne PoLR in Socionics as I think any who self-types as that is mistyped in at least one, if not both, systems, and I will leave it at that.



> Although they don't influence our motivations nearly as much as Enneagram, the cognitive functions influence our preferences.


The cognitive functions do influence our worldview, as do our enneagram types, and in that realm they are not any different. 



> Introverted Sensing also has naturally acute attention for such topics.


They can insofar that they perceive the information through the lens of personal sense-impressions, and to me it sounds like R&H are describing an xSTJ, rather than necessarily self-pres as an instinct. That's the problem when you describe behavior of something, rather than the cognitive focus which belies the behavior. 



> According to this quote by Augusta, it would seem that Si's awareness of their physical needs is coupled with a motivation to _follow_ their needs, therefore blurring the line between it and the Self-pres instinct.


Again, everyone cares about health but is your care neurotic? Do you think it is of outmost importance in order to survive vis-a-vis is your understanding of reality primarily based on subjective sense-impressions? 



> So while you may say:...I expect that you'd understand the confusion that @The Typeless Wonder and I experiencing, especially due to the way that Self-pres & Si are described.


Not really? I don't see the problem because if one bothers to really gain a good and deep understanding of Si as a function, you will realize how it is nothing at all related to sp as an instinct.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Dalton said:


> I am aware that people can be Sp without Si, but is the inverse true?


a number of ESFJs are Sp last 2s, 3s and 7s



> What do you think are the differences of Sp vs Si?


Si is more of a set of internal standards about how things are "supposed to be" (though it doesn't have the moralistic bent that so often gets assigned to it)



> How would Si-doms act, if they were Sexual or Social types?[/B]


plenty of SJs (ESJs and ISJs) are 6 So/Sx (captain America is a good example)


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Can't think of any at the moment, since I am not necessarily tracking the instinctual variants of famous people, fictive or real.


-Cries out like in a comic book for a superhero: "Swordsman of Mana, _we need your help!_"-
(And then he gives a superhero as an example :laughing



> Eh? *I don't share your view*, nor is your assertion about Fi in the ISTJ correct. Jung deemed all the functions aside the dominant and to a degree, auxiliary, as being inferior in that they all possess an inferior character in the psyche. That is what I was referring to when I wrote that Feeling is inferior to the ISTJ, because it is; it possesses an inferior character and is relegated to an inferior psychic role. If I was specifically talking about the inferior function in the ISTJ, I would refer to Ne, not just Feeling as a function without any psychic attitude i.e. introverted/extroverted.


*That's not my view, anyway.* As I said, that's how _MBTI_ refers to it. 



> As you should be aware, I am the one who endorses a particular view of how to translate Socionics and the MBTI wherein I think the same psychic predispositions will result in the same type pattern but understood differently. It is one thing if you are asserting your own opinion on the matter, but another to suggest that you are attempting to correct my understanding as in it being inaccurate or incorrect, when your own assertion regarding the definition of "inferior" in a Jungian context is not accurate in the first place. I do not share your view that an ISTJ in the MBTI has Ne PoLR in Socionics as I think any who self-types as that is mistyped in at least one, if not both, systems, and I will leave it at that.


What do you mean by saying that you are "_THE_ one"?
Chill out, boy. You had intentionally used an MBTI shorthand. Therefore, I decided to note that Inferior function, but in an _MBTI context_, has a more specific meaning. If you wished to clear up the misunderstanding, all you had to say was "I meant that it's inferior in the kind of role it plays in the psyche." _One sentence_ would have sufficed, instead of two paragraphs. 



> ...it sounds like R&H are describing an xSTJ, rather than necessarily self-pres as an instinct.


If you agree that their description of Self-pres is foggy, then why do you immediately say afterward that you _can't_ understand the reason for our confusion?


> *Not really?* I don't see the problem because if one bothers to really gain a good and deep understanding of Si as a function, you will realize how it is nothing at all related to sp as an instinct.


This is based on your personal feelings toward the topic (e.g. "if you don't get it, you must be an idiot"), not on reality: When people claim that a concept exists and then fail to concretely and accurately explain it, it's expected that people won't understand.



Swordsman of Mana said:


> a number of ESFJs are Sp last 2s, 3s and 7s


Sorry for not being clear -- I meant to speak of Si-dominants only (since I see aux Si as a tool for the hand of the dominant function).



> Si is more of a set of internal standards about how things are "supposed to be" (though it doesn't have the moralistic bent that so often gets assigned to it)


Perhaps for this misunderstanding, ~43% of self-typed ISTJs on the forum also type as E1? Anyway, "supposed to be" is only one aspect of Introverted Sensing, but I'm asking questions because of my ignorance, and am in no position to really expand on what Si is.



> plenty of SJs (ESJs and ISJs) are 6 So/Sx (captain America is a good example)


I only saw the first film in 2011, so I haven't a fresh memory. Definitely has Si in his defending of what he seems to see as preventing a fall from glorious values (freedom & what-not). Tries to take a role as defender, supposedly the Social 6 archetype. Nevertheless, Social instinct (to me) is finding a niche in society. I think you're right in saying that he's ISTJ 6 Soc, although his naïveté kind of throws me off. After watching movie trailers, there's something that seems fake. Certainly I can hear what he's saying, but I cannot FEEL his motives. Of course, I expect that from Marvel films. Because of that, I'm stuck between Superego types 2 & 6. *I agree with Social Si-dom. *Interesting.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton;14290314
[B said:


> That's not my view, anyway.[/B] As I said, that's how _MBTI_ refers to it.


And I just corrected you on that just referring to the Feeling function being inferior in an ISTJ is a nonsense comment because MBTI does not even deal with the Feeling function in the language I just referred to it as. 



> What do you mean by saying that you are "_THE_ one"?


? I just explained my view, "the one [view]". 



> Chill out, boy. You had intentionally used an MBTI shorthand. Therefore, I decided to note that Inferior function, but in an _MBTI context_, has a more specific meaning. If you wished to clear up the misunderstanding, all you had to say was "I meant that it's inferior in the kind of role it plays in the psyche." _One sentence_ would have sufficed, instead of two paragraphs.


Again, your correction is incorrect and I already explained why. And yes, it was required to make it that lengthy to succintly explain to you why you were _wrong_, and why I personally disagree with your statement and why I take offense with your attempt to correct me, when you are still incorrect in your correction. 



> If you agree that their description of Self-pres is foggy, then why do you immediately say afterward that you _can't_ understand the reason for our confusion?


No, I agreed that *behavioral* descriptions are, which is a view I endorse when it comes to all of typology, which is different from self-pres descriptions that are non-behavioral. 



> This is based on your personal feelings toward the topic (e.g. "if you don't get it, you must be an idiot"), not on reality: When people claim that a concept exists and then fail to concretely and accurately explain it, it's expected that people won't understand.


You asked me a question; I answered it. I never made any claims as to whether you should like or dislike my answer.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> And I just corrected you on that just referring to the Feeling function being inferior in an ISTJ is a nonsense comment because MBTI does not even deal with the Feeling function in the language I just referred to it as.
> 
> Again, your correction is incorrect and I already explained why.


Since we're talking about Myer-Briggs typology, The Myers & Briggs Foundation is the end-all to this pointless argument.
The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The Fourth or Inferior Function
Now sit down and stop antagonizing me.  I clearly said that I don't view things from terms of MBTI, but when you reference "inferior function" while talking about MBTI, it has a very specific meaning for a _single_ function-attitude.



> ? I just explained my view, "the one [view]".


When you say "_the_ one", it indicates uniqueness. I don't understand how your view was unique.



> No, I agreed that *behavioral* descriptions are, which is a view I endorse when it comes to all of typology, which is different from self-pres descriptions that are non-behavioral.


*Can you share (preferably linking or quoting) a description that is not behavioral, yet remains concrete?*



> You asked me a question; I answered it. I never made any claims as to whether you should like or dislike my answer.


Whether I "like it" doesn't affect the fact that your answer fails to acknowledge the obvious. Bad communication lead to misunderstanding. You agree that there is bad communication, yet why do you disagree that it leads to misunderstanding?


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> Since we're talking about Myer-Briggs typology, The Myers & Briggs Foundation is the end-all to this pointless argument.
> The Myers & Briggs Foundation - The Fourth or Inferior Function
> Now sit down and stop antagonizing me.  I clearly said that I don't view things from terms of MBTI, but when you reference "inferior function" while talking about MBTI, it has a very specific meaning for a _single_ function-attitude.


-_-

You are really being obtuse and nitpicky on purpose. Learn to read the context. The context was clearly Jung, because I didn't go and quote a bunch of MBTI definitions of Si either, did I? No, I quoted Jung, Augusta, a random quote from Wikisocion, Lenore Thomson, with Lenore the only one being a clear MBTI theorist. You just don't write "inferior Feeling" in the MBTI. It is again an entirely nonsensical thing to state. Therefore, unless you are going to argue that what I wrote is nonsensical, the context in which I stated it must mean something _else_ and I also clearly provided the context for what I stated, so now shush. 



> When you say "_the_ one", it indicates uniqueness. I don't understand how your view was unique.


It is clearly unique to me. I did not speak for anyone else but my own perspective. 



> *Can you share (preferably linking or quoting) a description that is not behavioral, yet remains concrete?*


Why must it be concrete? 



> Whether I "like it" doesn't affect the fact that your answer fails to acknowledge the obvious. Bad communication lead to misunderstanding. You agree that there is bad communication, yet why do you disagree that it leads to misunderstanding?


No, this is not about acknowledging bad communication. I simply stated that I did not see a problem and that I agreed with your assertion.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> You are really being obtuse and nitpicky on purpose. Learn to read the context. The context was clearly Jung, because I didn't go and quote a bunch of MBTI definitions of Si either, did I? No, I quoted Jung, Augusta, a random quote from Wikisocion, Lenore Thomson, with Lenore the only one being a clear MBTI theorist. You just don't write "inferior Feeling" in the MBTI. It is again an entirely nonsensical thing to state. Therefore, unless you are going to argue that what I wrote is nonsensical, the context in which I stated it must mean something _else_ and I also clearly provided the context for what I stated, so now shush.


The context was that you were clearly comparing MBTI's "inferior" with Socionics PoLR. I don't see any justification for your argumentativeness. I wasn't trying to "show you up" or anything. I was merely clarifying the language. 



> It is clearly unique to me. I did not speak for anyone else but my own perspective.


Speaking for yourself doesn't make you view unique.



Entropic said:


> Dalton said:
> 
> 
> > Can you share (preferably linking or quoting) a description that is not behavioral, yet remains concrete?
> ...


Because I value objective reality labelled in an organized manner, just as any Gamma type would.... So I'll ask again: Can you share (preferably linking or quoting) a description that is not behavioral, yet remains concrete?


----------



## Lord Bullingdon (Aug 9, 2014)

Entropic said:


> Actually, it's very simple. Si is a mode of perception, of how one experiences the world and what data one derives and prefers to derive from it. Si types are focused on personal (bodily) sensation, and not just how the body experiences but the subjective impressions one has of bodily sensations e.g. the feeling lightning in a room has on you, whether it is comfortable or not, how it harmonizes with other other physical objects in the room:
> 
> ...
> 
> One deals with the perception of reality, another one deals with what aspects of reality that are felt as the most important to survival.


Unfortunately, though, most of what you read doesn't actually make these distinctions. Or people don't know how to distinguish when they read it.

I think you should create some sort of guide or descriptions here. Somebody has to do this, and I haven't mastered the functions yet, so that leaves me out.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> The context was that you were clearly comparing MBTI's "inferior" with Socionics PoLR. I don't see any justification for your argumentativeness. I wasn't trying to "show you up" or anything. I was merely clarifying the language.


Do you know why it is comparable? Because Fe PoLR in socionics still possesses the nature and characteristic of a function that has an inferior quality i.e. poor dimensionality and relegated to a lower dimension of the psyche. For an xLI, this is true for both Fe and Fi, where Fi is just somewhat greater in dimensionality and is valued, whereas Fe is not. When I state that the Feeling function is inferior, I mean the entire feeling function i.e. _both_ its introverted and extroverted counterpart meaning _both_ Fi _and_ Fi. You are _not_ clarifying; you are obscuring. Note the language I used, referring to the Feeling function with a capital F. That is the key part for you to understand I do not just mean Fi or Fe, but I mean both of them. 



> Speaking for yourself doesn't make you view unique.


It is unique to me. What is difficult to understand about that? It means I represent my opinion only. 



> Because I value objective reality labelled in an organized manner, just as any Gamma type would.... So I'll ask again: Can you share (preferably linking or quoting) a description that is not behavioral, yet remains concrete?


Again, you need to define and distinguish why it must be concrete and what concrete is, before I can actually show you such a source. If you, being such a gamma and who values Te in your ego, should it not be in your power and ability to procure such information on your own?



The Typeless Wonder said:


> Unfortunately, though, most of what you read doesn't actually make these distinctions. Or people don't know how to distinguish when they read it.
> 
> I think you should create some sort of guide or descriptions here. Somebody has to do this, and I haven't mastered the functions yet, so that leaves me out.


I could or I could not. The question is whether I feel it is worth my time to do such an overhaul since it means the original sticky would have to be edited and modified.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Again, you need to define and distinguish why it must be concrete and what concrete is, before I can actually show you such a source. If you, being such a gamma and who values Te in your ego, should it not be in your power and ability to procure such information on your own?


_As I said_, I've looked around and have not found anything satisfactory. If you want to put me in a roundabout, then you're not invited to post in this thread.

If you continue these passive-aggressive and unwarranted attempts to bully me, I'll ask the mods for a separation agreement.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Dalton said:


> _As I said_, I've looked around and have not found anything satisfactory. If you want to put me in a roundabout, then you're not invited to post in this thread.
> 
> If you continue these passive-aggressive and unwarranted attempts to bully me, I'll ask the mods for a separation agreement.


Again, I already asked you the criteria of how I can help you. Failure to live up to that, and I cannot help you. That's pretty simple. And don't pull that little spiel on me now; you were the one who brought up your type in order to justify yourself, I did not. I merely chose to comment that you, if you are such a gamma, should also possess the ability to produce such information on your own or in the very least be able to offer the basic definition I need in order to help satisfy the condition that is required for me to help you. 

And I couldn't care less if you are going to ask the mods to have a separation agreement or not, lol. Is that your attempt to threaten me? Again, either you provide me the information of which I asked of you or you do not. If you do not, I cannot help you any further. It's that simple.


----------



## Dalton (Jun 10, 2013)

Entropic said:


> Again, I already asked you the criteria of how I can help you. Failure to live up to that, and I cannot help you. That's pretty simple. And don't pull that little spiel on me now; you were the one who brought up your type in order to justify yourself, I did not. I merely chose to comment that you, if you are such a gamma, should also possess the ability to produce such information on your own or in the very least be able to offer the basic definition I need in order to help satisfy the condition that is required for me to help you.
> ...
> Again, either you provide me the information of which I asked of you or you do not. If you do not, I cannot help you any further. It's that simple.


*I want to have neutral conversations through which I can learn, yet you continue to badger me about things that I've already already answered you.
*
I said "Concrete" (existing in a material or physical form; real or solid; not abstract; specific; definite).
I also said "I value objective reality labelled in an organized manner."

Whether I possess the ability to create my own definition of Si & Sp is not relevant to my question. I was asking if you knew of concrete definitions (e.g. that would appeal to a Gamma type). It was a simple request, and yet you ignored me and continue to insist that I never provided "the criteria of how I can help you".



> And I couldn't care less if you are going to ask the mods to have a separation agreement or not, lol. Is that your attempt to threaten me?


I thought it would be respectable to warn you before I made my decision so that you could decide whether you wanted to make amends or continue treating me with rudeness. _You followed me to a thread where I had revealed my suicidal ideations and then proceeded to try to bully me some more._ What I'm saying isn't "an attempt to threaten you". It was an olive branch, hoping that perhaps you might realize "oh wait, perhaps I'm doing something that might not be entirely appropriate," instead of forcing my hand.

I am awaiting a response from a mod.
_*Please stop posting in my thread.

*_Now, to all others, continue as you would. :dry:


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

[No message]


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Entropic said:


> Why must it be concrete?


Because, unless we can match theory up with _*reality *_it's pretty much useless. I, like Dalton, want to be able to *apply *these ideas to see how they might be used. Concrete data is more objective than anecdotes, and can be analysed to determine underlying patterns.

This is why I am always emphasizing the need to separate the objective from subjective, _especially _when it comes to Enneagram. Unfortunately, this seems to be incredibly difficult, due to the subjective nature of it all. It get's even more confusing with the overlaps between different systems (Socionics, MBTI, instincts, etc). I too would like to see some kind of synthesis; I think a lot of it needs to be simplified. It's way too messy, atm... a clusterfuck of confusion.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> Because, unless we can match theory up with _*reality *_it's pretty much useless.


Again, you do realize there are many ways to do that? Many ways to imply it? First however, one needs to understand the theoretical essence of something, since again, behavior does not always indicate the underlying core of what is as much as it is a direct manifestation of what is. 



> I, like Dalton, want to be able to *apply *these ideas to see how they might be used. Concrete data is more objective than anecdotes, and can be analysed to determine underlying patterns.


How are anecdotes any less concrete if they deal with very specific examples of how something is like? "Concrete data" is again an extremely nebulous concept to use. What _is_ concrete data in this context? One can very well argue that anecdotes fall under the definition of what is concrete data, thus, you just nullified your own point. 



> This is why I am always emphasizing the need to separate the objective from subjective, _especially _when it comes to Enneagram. Unfortunately, this seems to be incredibly difficult, due to the subjective nature of it all. It get's even more confusing with the overlaps between different systems (Socionics, MBTI, instincts, etc). I too would like to see some kind of synthesis; I think a lot of it needs to be simplified. It's way too messy, atm... a clusterfuck of confusion.


What is even the difference between subjective and objective, here? The issue isn't lack of synthesis, but the issue is that certain ideas are clearly lacking in delineation. That's very different. Things get simplified when you can clearly delineate concepts apart so you actually know what is what.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

@_Entropic_

I'm off to work so I'll have to get back to you later



EDIT:

@_Entropic_

This feels like deja vu. We've been here before, arguing almost exactly the same thing (i.e. "concrete evidence/data".) It's quite clear that we do not agree on this matter and that we both process information very differently. Chances are we are not going to see eye-to-eye because our perspectives are so different. This feels like yet _another _fruitless debate and pointless derail. I'm done here.


----------



## cinnabun (Apr 11, 2011)

Why does everything need to be a drama? Can people not discuss things without being aggressive about it?
@Dalton solid points, I agree. Good job!


----------



## General Lee Awesome (Sep 28, 2014)

I am definitely a Si user who cares about self preservation xD safety first


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> @_Entropic_
> 
> I'm off to work so I'll have to get back to you later
> 
> ...


That is an extreme lazy copout of you, I have to say. I don't at all think it is a matter of processing information differently, but that you are refusing a certain level of abstraction and how to intellectually engage a subject. If anything it strikes me as lazy, not willing to understand it beyond a certain abstract point and then blaming it on differences of information processing.

You had your chance to make a point here and actually offer a definition that is workable, but you chose not to. That is on you, not me.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Entropic said:


> That is an extreme* lazy* copout of you, I have to say. I don't at all think it is a matter of processing information differently, *but that you are refusing a certain level of abstraction and how to intellectually engage a subjec*t. If anything it strikes me as *lazy*, not willing to understand it beyond a certain abstract point and then blaming it on differences of information processing.
> 
> You had your chance to make a point here and actually offer a definition that is workable, but you chose not to. That is on you, not me.


So, basically, all you're really doing here is trying to insult me again? Implying that I'm (in bold) lazy, and that (because I type as Se-dominant), I am unable to understand abstract subjects and intellectually engage in a discussion?

Yeah. I think that's a load of BS, personally. A rather feeble attempt at trying to mock and patronize me, as per usual. :dry:

If you have nothing helpful or useful to contribute to the conversation, I suggest you move on.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

My interpretation is that introverted sensing is a perceiving function which is primarily responsible for comparing new experiences against previous experiences that we've stored & memory really isn't notably connected with Si.
Anyhow the only times that I can claim to be aware of Si in the moment is when I'm experiencing something that just feels wrong because although the activity may be quite familiar, the details of the experience don't align with what I'm expecting things to be. I think that when a dangerous experience triggers my internal alarm indicating that the situation isn't right, the hair upon the back of my neck stands up to warn me. I think that during those situations my Si function is frantically searching for a solution & it's those times that I experience a false sense of deja vu.

Lately I've been thinking it's extremely unlikely that I've near equal Si & Ni, one solution I've considered is that maybe under stress the Ne function kicks in to assist Si of quickly making sense of the situation. Maybe during those moments I'm confusing a possible Si/Ne interface as being Ni.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Kintsugi said:


> So, basically, all you're really doing here is trying to insult me again? Implying that I'm (in bold) lazy, and that (because I type as Se-dominant), I am unable to understand abstract subjects and intellectually engage in a discussion?
> 
> Yeah. I think that's a load of BS, personally. A rather feeble attempt at trying to mock and patronize me, as per usual. :dry:
> 
> If you have nothing helpful or useful to contribute to the conversation, I suggest you move on.


It had nothing at all to do with your typings, but if you think so, that's on you. My opinion however, on your refusal to engage stands in that I find it as a lazy copout since you wrote it off before you even tried.



stargazing grasshopper said:


> My interpretation is that introverted sensing is a perceiving function which is primarily responsible for comparing new experiences against previous experiences that we've stored & memory really isn't notably connected with Si.
> Anyhow the only times that I can claim to be aware of Si in the moment is when I'm experiencing something that just feels wrong because although the activity may be quite familiar, the details of the experience don't align with what I'm expecting things to be. I think that when a dangerous experience triggers my internal alarm indicating that the situation isn't right, the hair upon the back of my neck stands up to warn me. I think that during those situations my Si function is frantically searching for a solution & it's those times that I experience a false sense of deja vu.
> 
> Lately I've been thinking it's extremely unlikely that I've near equal Si & Ni, one solution I've considered is that maybe under stress the Ne function kicks in to assist Si of quickly making sense of the situation. Maybe during those moments I'm confusing a possible Si/Ne interface as being Ni.


This to me strikes me more as intuition than it does sensation. Si isn't so much about contrast and compare known experience with old patterns, because Si isn't about memory. Si about personal abstract connections associated with physical sensations.


----------



## stargazing grasshopper (Oct 25, 2013)

Entropic said:


> This to me strikes me more as intuition than it does sensation.



I think that I described introverted sensation because it's my perception of unfolding events being somehow seriously off from my expectations. IMHO Si is sounding the alarm when something is noticeably off from previous experiences. The more critical the situation, the quicker that Si passes the ball to Ne or causes me a brainfart sensation.

I think that Dalton would likely have much better luck asking his questions of individuals that are ISTJ/ISFJ.


----------



## beth x (Mar 4, 2010)

Sooooo, any thoughts on Si and Sp?

Stick to topic and breathe before posting. Thanks.


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

A lot of people have already explained it very well, has given me stuff to think on.

The person I've recently started seeing... tests as INFP, but might be ISTJ (I'm aware these types are not generally that hard to tell apart but he's kind of weird, and whatever, same functions). Anyway, he is also an Enneagram 6. Based on stereotypes one might assume he has SP in his stacking but he really, reeeeally doesn't. He's very much SX/SO.

He will notice and interpret his environment... the way lighting affects him, the way things are placed. VERY much so. And in the moment it might affect or bother him. But that is not what motivates his bigger behavioural choices. He's far more driven by his intimate connections to people. He also loves social... activities, and is very conscious of social dynamics and social situations. He's responsible but not particularly concerned with securing resources, like that's just not on his radar as something to constantly incorporate into his life... and he doesn't even take great measure to prevent bodily harm (he can be kinda reckless actually). It's challenged me to remember the differences between perception and motivation...


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Quernus said:


> He will notice and interpret his environment... the way lighting affects him, the way things are placed. VERY much so. And in the moment it might affect or bother him. But that is not what motivates his bigger behavioural choices. He's far more driven by his intimate connections to people. He also loves social... activities, and is very conscious of social dynamics and social situations. He's responsible but not particularly concerned with securing resources, like that's just not on his radar as something to constantly incorporate into his life... and he doesn't even take great measure to prevent bodily harm (he can be kinda reckless actually).* It's challenged me to remember the differences between perception and motivation..*.


This is an interesting contrast to my observations of an ISTJ colleague of mine, who, I believe is sp/sx 6.

He is very much focused on securing resources, his physical comfort, health, etc. We might be sitting together at work and he will comment on a cold draft coming in through a window, and tell me that I should put on a jumper in case I get sick, and that working under such conditions is not ideal, etc. It's also interesting comparing him to another Si-dom I work with, an ISFJ, who I believe maybe be Soc-first. His focus seems to be more outwardly directed (not in terms of introversion/extroversion); and he cares very much about where he stands in social situations/hierarchies. Still, I'm finding it hard to tear apart the difference between Soc-first and Fe-values, as well as Sp-first and Si-dominance.

Recently discovering that I am in fact dating an INTJ 2 has made me rethink my approach to typology, and typing people. In the past I may have thought that an INTJ 2 was an impossible combination, but, as you mention above (in bold), perception and motivations are indeed two completely separate things.


----------



## TurtleQueen (Nov 8, 2014)

I think that it's understandable why there might be an overlap between cognitive functions and motivation. I think that I'm probably sp-last, and my inferior function is Si (I'm an ENFP). It's hard to be motivated by things that you don't even notice, and I don't usually notice sp-related discomfort when I am deeply focused on something else. I tend to notice that kind of discomfort more when I'm already stressed out about other things (usually social), but I hardly ever mention it to people.


----------



## Kitfool (Oct 24, 2012)

probably 90% of the ISFJs I can think of (fictional and real) are sp/so and the rest are so/sp. ISTJs Sp/so or sp/sx. Auxiliary Si users on the other hand would be more likely to be so/sx or sx/so than dominant users, but that still seems like it would be pretty rare.

Maybe we are just mistyping people as Sp because the si can kind of look like sp.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

To be honest, introverted sensing seems to be pretty sexual to me. Like in a dim-light window, soft kisses on the neck. Two soft-framed but intense lovers nibbling at each other sensually. That sort of thing really. In socionics Si is associated with comfort, which I would believe is more of a SX thing to me.


----------



## mushr00m (May 23, 2011)

Why so much attitude earlier? Why do people have to be cocky when explaining a point? It's about educating each other, right? Why does arrogant aggression come into play when educating others, I don't get it, at all. Sorry, it's a common theme, belittling others for attacking reasonable arguments and then further patronising. Quite ridiculous these arguments, anyway they are over now until the banning is lifted and then it will all start again, so petty. The original discussion is interesting though without someone pissing all over a potential opportunity to learn.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Twrankt said:


> To be honest, introverted sensing seems to be pretty sexual to me. Like in a dim-light window, soft kisses on the neck. Two soft-framed but intense lovers nibbling at each other sensually. That sort of thing really. In socionics Si is associated with comfort, which I would believe is more of a SX thing to me.


Si seems sexual, really? I'm intrigued, why...? I like the idea of soft kisses on the neck but I'd much rather _do _it than_ talk _about it. 

How is comfort more Sx? I thought that was linked more to Sp? Admittedly, my understanding/knowledge of instincts is poor so I could be well off here. 



mushr00m said:


> Why so much attitude earlier? Why do people have to be cocky when explaining a point? It's about educating each other, right? Why does arrogant aggression come into play when educating others, I don't get it, at all. Sorry, it's a common theme, belittling others for attacking reasonable arguments and then further patronising. Quite ridiculous these arguments, anyway they are over now until the banning is lifted and then it will all start again, so petty. The original discussion is interesting though without someone pissing all over a potential opportunity to learn.


I agree, it is a shame. I'm at a point now where I refuse to continue conversations with people who are clearly not interested in engaging in an open-minded discussion. Pointless arguments that go around in circles and result in aggressive behavior and personal attacks is not only not worth my time, but it leads nowhere. No one can learn anything from that.


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Anyone up for a real comment on this topic? 

The Short: ego structures in enneagram are different than what type of information you process (functions). Si isn't necessarily about survival; Self Pres doesn't necessarily operate via taking in sensory deviations. The big picture adjectives used to describe Self Pres and Si overlap, but the component mechanisms that drive them do not overlap. 

The Long:

So, the answer to this begins with differentiating a Jungian cognitive function and an enneagram instinctual variant. Because there is very little professional study to differentiate or link the two theories, we're pretty much on our own to do it. Different theories, different facets of personality, so you're comparing colors to textures, so to speak.

Which brings me to, Introverted Sensing/Si. 

The conventional belief of Si is that it involves traditions, rules, physical wellbeing, organization, etc. I know plenty of Si people who have no acknowledgment of tradition, actively break rules, are physically slovenly, and not organized in the slightest so none of these need to be the case for Si people. Generally speaking with a cognitive function, it's what type of information the person most readily takes in that matters. For Si, that kind of information is of a physical/sensory nature (sounds, smells, sights, flavor, texture, color, etc), and the person's subjective record of those sensations (what is familiar, what is visually appealing, what is professional, what is tasty, what is the same/different from before, what is convenient, what sounds rude or friendly, what is clean/dirty, what is comfortable, etc). As a result, Si people are able to pick up, informationally, on physical variations in their environment and base their worldviews around them. To go back to sentence #1, an Si person may find it (subjectively) more comfortable to not follow someone elses' rules and do their own thing. 

Self Preservation instinct, on the other hand, is an ingrained survival technique that pushes one to take care of their needs, especially with their body. They are often concerned with physical wellbeing, comfort, health, nutrition, security, in a way that is specifically funneled through the core type. My personal take on instinct is that it's really, really hard to see just the instinct by itself; it's always attached to core type in a specific combination. 


As a result - when you combine Si and Self Pres, you get someone who is *really* set on making a comfortable, convenient, safe environment, bases their worldview on how to attain it, and fixates on it in the way of their core type. Not only is their informational focus on physical deviation, their hardwired instinct is to guarantee physical wellbeing. My Mom is a Self Pres 2, ISFJ and is a good example of this. Not only does she pick up on who smells bad, when the house is a mess, etc (Si) very easily, she also will bake cookies last minute for your school project, take care of your physical ailments, drive here or there then passive-aggressively expect you to give her some kind of privilege, because Self Pres + 2 leads to doing for others as a way of getting one's needs met. The motive is for getting one's needs met; the informational focus is physical/sensual/logistical. 

An ISFJ, to use the same example, who is, say an Sx/So or So/Sx may not put so much emphasis on doing your school projects or taking your temperature the instant you say you have a headache. This ISFJ will still, as an Si dom, pay close attention to physical re-creation, but it may go into looking sensually attractive, having a good body with the right clothes etc (if you can tell, this is also off a real person, and she is very, very attractive).


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

Figure said:


> Self Preservation instinct, on the other hand, is an ingrained survival technique that pushes one to take care of their needs, especially with their body. They are often concerned with physical wellbeing, comfort, health, nutrition, security, in a way that is specifically funneled through the core type. _*My personal take on instinct is that it's really, really hard to see just the instinct by itself; it's always attached to core type in a specific combination.*_


Interesting, that was very helpful, cheers! ^_^

How does one go about understanding and then identifying these "specific combinations"? 

Any good sources (_are descriptions even reliable_)?


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Kintsugi said:


> This is an interesting contrast to my observations of an ISTJ colleague of mine, who, I believe is sp/sx 6.
> 
> He is very much focused on securing resources, his physical comfort, health, etc. We might be sitting together at work and he will comment on a cold draft coming in through a window, and tell me that I should put on a jumper in case I get sick, and that working under such conditions is not ideal, etc. It's also interesting comparing him to another Si-dom I work with, an ISFJ, who I believe maybe be Soc-first. His focus seems to be more outwardly directed (not in terms of introversion/extroversion); and he cares very much about where he stands in social situations/hierarchies. Still, I'm finding it hard to tear apart the difference between Soc-first and Fe-values, as well as Sp-first and Si-dominance.
> 
> Recently discovering that I am in fact dating an INTJ 2 has made me rethink my approach to typology, and typing people. In the past I may have thought that an INTJ 2 was an impossible combination, but, as you mention above (in bold), perception and motivations are indeed two completely separate things.


Your description here makes me think that I'm not sp first afterall.

Determining my primary motivation is seriously one of the hardest things I've ever done because I feel like I don't relate to any of the three!!!

rawr lol XD XD XD It pisses me off

edit:



Figure said:


> * *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


This post is gold. It should go in like a hall-of-fame or something.


----------



## Sixty Nein (Feb 13, 2011)

Kintsugi said:


> Si seems sexual, really? I'm intrigued, why...? I like the idea of soft kisses on the neck but I'd much rather _do _it than_ talk _about it.
> 
> How is comfort more Sx? I thought that was linked more to Sp? Admittedly, my understanding/knowledge of instincts is poor so I could be well off here.


That comment was made because comfort is a positive sensation, the very same that comes from being inspired from a genius idea to orgasms.

It kind of depends on what sort of definitions you are using though. If you see sexual as a desire to infect something, then yeah it can be kind of a leap, but wanting to splash those sensation impressions onto the world does make for an easy justification for a SX/SO Si dom.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

emberfly said:


> Your description here makes me think that I'm not sp first afterall.
> 
> Determining my primary motivation is seriously one of the hardest things I've ever done because I feel like I don't relate to any of the three!!!
> 
> rawr lol XD XD XD It pisses me off


Honestly, I am just as lost as you are with all of this. I'm not sure my description is much to go by, I was just describing my observations of someone who I _think _might be Sp/Si-dom. 



Twrankt said:


> That comment was made because comfort is a positive sensation, the very same that comes from being inspired from a genius idea to orgasms.
> 
> It kind of depends on what sort of definitions you are using though. If you see sexual as a desire to infect something, then yeah it can be kind of a leap, but wanting to splash those sensation impressions onto the world does make for an easy justification for a SX/SO Si dom.


I'm afraid I don't follow...

Right now my main question is what sources/descriptions are good/reliable, if any. I don't really have much of an opinion on any of the instincts as I know very little about them, other than bits I have read, here and there. I'm going with sx/sp for myself at the moment as this is what people keep telling me I am, as well as my triptype being 7-1-4; but, really, I am uncomfortable with accepting any of this until I have fully understand the core concepts/ideas myself... which includes trying to reconcile my understanding of Enneagram/instincts with other typology systems.

...which is proving to be a headfuck.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Si-dom, who thought to be Sp first. But really I don't relate to any of the three instincts. 

Don't feel to be driven by Sp 'cause I don't put much emphasis on health, comfort, physical safety or food. Don't relate to So as I don't have concernment with position in the group, status or reciprocity. 
The only aspect among instincts that I can associate myself with is Sx's attunement to personal likes and dislikes, inner wishes, desires, and mental stimulation, but on the other hand to things like intimate connection, closeness or gender roles I can't relate at all. In case somebody would try to push me off the cliff I definitely would try to survive so, in the end, Sp kind of makes the most sense.

At the moment I'm at a crossroads, where not a single one of them seem to be the right one...


----------



## Donovan (Nov 3, 2009)

Figure's post was very well laid out and put a fine distinction between things, but i just wanted to add/expand a little: 


introverted sensation is very likely to be misinterpreted as what we commonly picture, when we think of ISFP's; drawn inward, may have an interest in aesthetics--or at least, they seem to have _their own aesthetic style_/themes that they are drawn to, and may even carry or cultivate a type of atmosphere about them _from_ their own subjective sensory preferences. 

van gogh and brian froud i think, whether they actually are Si-dominants or not, portray what i'm speaking about very well in terms of their artwork. another user on this site--Snail--has her own subjective creations, which could be a number of things (depending on how you split the theory) but in terms of MBTI, we could use it as an example of well-developed tertiary introverted sensing. jung spoke about having an almost emotional response--regardless of the feeling/thinking spectrum--from the outer world, that caused certain facets of sensory data (as the "choosing" is subjective) to be amplified and then projected back onto the world at large, giving it a "tint" of sorts (though not literally "a tint", but just a way of viewing everything differently, because what gains attention from the user is of subjective importance and is moved to the forefront of consciousness, repelling all else). 


i've always taken Sp/all instincts to be (again, like Figure said) more relegated to the core, so it will not always have to do with the body or meeting basic/even luxurious bodily needs and comforts, but for instance with Sp 3 it's in retaining and protecting the sense of self by showing just enough at the right moment to fit said image, but not too much out of fear that the image projected could be greater than the individual, and failure would then ensue. 


so: Sp is more "retaining my sense of self, in whatever way i view ego-death", and Si is more "i see the world completely differently than everyone else" (real, real, overly simplified).


----------



## Figure (Jun 22, 2011)

Kintsugi said:


> Interesting, that was very helpful, cheers! ^_^
> 
> How does one go about understanding and then identifying these "specific combinations"?
> 
> Any good sources (_are descriptions even reliable_)?


A number of the theorists have written about them. Peter O' Hanrahan writes briefly about them, as does Sandra Maitri as-stickied in each type's forum (the link takes you to type 7). Beatrice Chestnut also discusses them in a podcast here. 

Overall, a lot of the subtype descriptions rely on Naranjo and Ichazo, and tend to focus more on how each subtype comes across behaviorally than what goes on inside. I have not personally read Ichazo, and I find Naranjo's writing to be annoying, excessively pessimistic, sometimes full of shit, and at best occasionally on-topic, although when he is on-topic, his content is helpful and generally of a high level of micro detail. O'Hanrahan is straight forward and generally accurate, and Maitri writes in INFJ-ese, which if you understand it is is generally quite good as well. 

The one thing I would say about the subtype descriptions, from experience, is that it was really, really critical to have already identified the way my passion can be tracked to everyday life before putting it with an instinct. Iidentify, first, how your passion manifests. Simply reading the three descriptions and picking one didn't wow me and probably won't wow you either. What did it was thinking, passion of "anger" - what makes me angry? The idiot who cut me off this morning without signaling. The co-worker who uses hard work of others to look like she's doing something when she's doing jack squat. The fact that I bought one thing from Ebay and now receive emails from them every 5 minutes. At that point, I read Maitri's description and realized, indeed, my passion is centered in social standards, not in trying to survive much at all, and not quite _as_ much in what my close people say or do. 

Best to start out with the passion of 7 (gluttony), take note of how you are ___ (gluttonous), then draw the connection to one of the subtypes, using the descriptions to shed light on how you may come across in doing so.


----------



## hal0hal0 (Sep 1, 2012)

Figure said:


> Anyone up for a real comment on this topic aside from the forced fighting in the beginning?
> 
> The Short: ego structures in enneagram are different than what type of information you process (functions). Si isn't necessarily about survival; Self Pres doesn't necessarily operate via taking in sensory deviations. The big picture adjectives used to describe Self Pres and Si overlap, but the component mechanisms that drive them do not overlap.
> 
> ...


This reminds me: You still need to comment on my Pi/Ji/Pe/Je thread.

The bolded is particularly true. The idea that Si-doms are naturally obedient or cogs in the wheel or "toe the line" is a crock of horseshit. My dad is an ISTJ (Soc/Sx 6) and he's more rebellious than I am; he was once inspired by Thoreau's Civil Disobedience in high school to park in the principal's spot and he refused to move out of, uh... principle. He does place great emphasis on the subjective impression of an experience (i.e., memories... but also the concept of experiences themselves); he insists that you should study in a variety of places, because the subjective experience helps you remember, whereas for me, I suppose Se-orientation is inclined to scoff at that notion; more "matter-of-fact" as in: studying is studying, so it doesn't matter where you are or what the ambiance is.

I wonder, though, whether Ni-dominants really do not identify more with Si-dominants than is commonly believed. I know on the INFJ forums, there's this "I don't understand Si at all" which seems odd to me, considering you are both Pi-dominants. I realize one is oriented to the existence of the object itself whereas the other is oriented towards the potentiality of the object, but still... they are both subjective irrational leads.


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

hal0hal0 said:


> I wonder, though, whether Ni-dominants really do not identify more with Si-dominants than is commonly believed. I know on the INFJ forums, there's this "I don't understand Si at all" which seems odd to me, considering you are both Pi-dominants. I realize one is oriented to the existence of the object itself whereas the other is oriented towards the potentiality of the object, but still... they are both subjective irrational leads.


Well it's hard to identify with something that has so much conflicting information about it 

And the stereotypes (which are largely true in my experience) leave me feeling very different from them.


----------



## Kintsugi (May 17, 2011)

hal0hal0 said:


> I wonder, though, whether Ni-dominants really do not identify more with Si-dominants than is commonly believed. I know on the INFJ forums, there's this "I don't understand Si at all" which seems odd to me, considering you are both Pi-dominants. I realize one is oriented to the existence of the object itself whereas the other is oriented towards the potentiality of the object, but still... they are both subjective irrational leads.


I think as @_emberfly_ mentioned, there are issues with conflicting information and confusion arising from the fact that no one seems to be able to agree on one definition of what Si is. I think a lot of the heavily MBTI and Keirsey influenced descriptions describe Si in a way that many people associate with Sp-first; but a lot of Si-dominants find it hard to relate to this at all (let alone Ni-egos), in the same way that I struggle to relate to a lot of the ESFP descriptions. When it comes to definitions of functions I personally prefer to consult either Jung or Socionics. I like the way Model A - Wikisocion describes how each function (whether it's valued or not) operates within the psyche. And, as you have said, Si is not entirely foreign to Ni; to the Ni-dominant Si is the _role function;

_


> When a person is actively using his base function, the role function is essentially turned off. The two cannot both be "on" at the same time, because they represent two opposing approaches to similar things.
> 
> An example of each opposing pair of elements are:
> 
> ...


(Source: Functions - Wikisocion )


----------

