# Si: Idealization and Devaluation



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

I've thought a lot about Si and have concluded that a striking aspect is idealization and devaluation of the sensory. 

Si never sees an object for what it is. Instead it abstracts reality and sensory details, providing it's own lens or perspective of what is real. Essentially, things are either really great... perfect in a sense, or they're disgusting. Things are idealized, and when Si realized they had their blinders on, it's not the same anymore. It's devalued because its lost all of it's flavor.

This also works in reverse. Something can be mundane or even loathsome, but if Si is able to attach something personal of value onto the object, it's angelic and beautiful. 

I myself do this all the time. I can love a song, and then it reminds me of some awful experience and it's just not the same anymore, and I hate it, because all I can associate it with is that awful experience. The magic is gone.

Thoughts? Examples?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Si is a subjective impression of a sensory experience, but rather than that impression being "abstract" I think it is visceral, an almost physical reaction such as liking or loathing


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> Si is a subjective impression of a sensory experience, but rather than that impression being "abstract" I think it is visceral, an almost physical reaction such as liking or loathing


Abstract in this context means subjective.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

ae1905 said:


> Si is a subjective impression of a sensory experience, but rather than that impression being "abstract" I think it is visceral, an almost physical reaction such as liking or loathing


Yes, but it is not black or white. I think it is easy to confuse Si with responses to stimuli, such as those that originate in the amygdala.


----------



## SaintAlia (Jan 6, 2015)

That is an excellent explanation.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Seems correct in how I see Si in other people.


----------



## fuliajulia (Jun 29, 2013)

I can connect to this on a Pi level, it's just so weird how we both abstract and idealize different aspects of reality but can still generally communicate... I find different modes of perception very fascinating (said the INFJ obviously).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Deadly Decorum said:


> Abstract in this context means subjective.


sure, but when you associate ideas or even objects with sensory perceptions that becomes intuition (Ne or Ni) and not subjective sensation...I think Si is the subjective _sensory _feeling associated with objective sensory perception...so "like", "disgust", etc


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

niss said:


> Yes, but it is not black or white. I think it is easy to confuse Si with responses to stimuli, such as those that originate in the amygdala.


the amygdala is part of the brain's pleasure and pain centers but only a part, so I'm not suggesting Si is reptillian, though it does lie closer to the instincts and drives than other functions...this may be why it was Freud, a Si-dom, who developed a theory around drives and instincts


----------



## penny lane (Nov 21, 2011)

Songs are like that with me too.Even names I can come to love a name I once didn't care for at all .Maybe someone uses it that I fell positive toward or a character I like it can work in reverse too a negative experience or someone I have negative feelings toward can tarnish a name for me.

This hasn't happened but a few times but I have had to part with certain clothes I wore and could not wear after a particularly sad event or bad experience the clothing was a reminder of it.

Other things I relate to something that happened. This is only an example but I might like a style of shoes because it reminds me of a happy time and I was wearing that style of shoes.Sounds odd I know but I tend to connect things that seem random but I connect them!lol


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

And this is where I get confused with Si, when does like/dislike towards something become Si or a feeling judgment?

I do find it interesting the attachment to objects people seem to have (attachment of certain significant events to the object). I don't really do this. Yeah there are some objects important but if I lost it I'd be initially disappointed but move on as I'd forget about the object as it's not in my vicinity any more. To attach a bad memory, I don't think I have done this. I guess I'm more interested in what the object could do rather than what it has done.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> sure, but when you associate ideas or even objects with sensory perceptions that becomes intuition (Ne or Ni) and not subjective sensation...I think Si is the subjective _sensory _feeling associated with objective sensory perception...so "like", "disgust", etc


How are sensory perceptions different from sensory feelings? I'll assume by object you mean sensory things. How on earth is that intuitive? Like and disgust doesn't seem like perception to me. That seems like judgement. Perception only tells you what things are... it's just observation. Judgment would tell you what you think or feel about it rather than just provide some observation. It would clarify what you are seeing rather than just state what is or isn't there.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

Deadly Decorum said:


> How are sensory perceptions different from sensory feelings? I'll assume by object you mean sensory things. How on earth is that intuitive? Like and disgust doesn't seem like perception to me. That seems like judgement. Perception only tells you what things are... it's just observation. Judgment would tell you what you think or feel about it rather than just provide some observation. It would clarify what you are seeing rather than just state what is or isn't there.


To me that feeling of disgust is a feeling judgment.


----------



## Aelthwyn (Oct 27, 2010)

I may not be understanding exactly what you mean here, but idealization and devaluation seem like judging function activities; it sounds more like an F thing to me. I don't see a lot of idealization/disgust from my ISTJ mom, and she seems to have less sentimental attachment to things than me as she judges their worth more on usefulness.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Deadly Decorum said:


> How are sensory perceptions different from sensory feelings? I'll assume by object you mean sensory things. How on earth is that intuitive? *Like and disgust doesn't seem like perception to me. That seems like judgement. *Perception only tells you what things are... it's just observation. Judgment would tell you what you think or feel about it rather than just provide some observation. It would clarify what you are seeing rather than just state what is or isn't there.


you wrote:



Deadly Decorum said:


> I've thought a lot about Si and have concluded that a striking aspect is idealization and devaluation of the sensory.
> 
> Si never sees an object for what it is. Instead it abstracts reality and sensory details, providing it's own lens or perspective of what is real. Essentially,* things are either really great... perfect in a sense, or they're disgusting. *Things are idealized, and when Si realized they had their blinders on, it's not the same anymore. It's devalued because its lost all of it's flavor.
> 
> ...


so the idea of "disgust", "love", "hate", like", etc, was yours to begin with

intuitions quite often involve concrete objects, but what makes them intuitions are the _associations _ made _between_ the objects...so "this object is like that object" is the typical form of extroverted intuition...and when you associate your objective perception of an object with another object you are using Ne, not Si

Si is the subjective impression an object makes on you, impressions such as a favorite song, a beautiful sunset, the comfort of home sweet home, etc...there is nothing in the objective perceptions themselves that are "favorite", "beautiful", or "comfortable"--these are qualities you imbue these objective perceptions with...that is Si

but if you also associate a favorite song with something else, such as a place or a memory then, yes, I suppose that is also Si...it's a kind of Ne, only the associations between objects are personal and exist only for you, the subject

I think that is right...thanks for helping me see that


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> sure, but when you associate ideas or even objects with sensory perceptions that becomes intuition (Ne or Ni) and not subjective sensation...I think Si is the subjective _sensory _feeling associated with objective sensory perception...so "like", "disgust", etc



How does your assertion about Si compare with Jung's description of the feeling process?



> The process of recognition can be conceived in essence as comparison and differentiation with the help of memory. When I see a fire, for instance, the light-stimulus conveys to me the idea “fire.” As there are countless memory-images of fire lying ready in my memory, these images enter into combination with the fire-image I have just received, and the process of comparing it with and differentiating it from these memory-images produces the recognition; that is to say, I finally establish in my mind the peculiarity of this particular image. In ordinary speech this process is called thinking.
> 
> *The process of evaluation is different. The fire I see arouses emotional reactions of a pleasant or unpleasant nature, and the memory-images thus stimulated bring with them concomitant emotional phenomena which are known as feeling-tones. In this way an object appears to us as pleasant, desirable, and beautiful, or as unpleasant, disgusting, ugly, and so on. In ordinary speech this process is called feeling.*


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

I've got to be honest. I have the most ridiculous hard time sometimes trying to understand what it is that differentiates Si and Feeling. Si deals with impressions, kind of like "feeling-tones" but I hesitate to use that term. Ha. These Pi functions are so abstract, I have a hard time wrapping my mind around them.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> How does your assertion about Si compare with Jung's description of the feeling process?


I'm not in the business of comparing my ideas with Jung's or anyone else's...if Jung happens to agree with me, good for Jung...if not, too bad--it's not my problem if he got it wrong

Si, it seems to me, is a combination of the subjective _impressions _made by objective sensory perceptions and the subjective _associations _those impressions have for the subject...subjective _impressions _can range from the _sensual_, such as a favorite flavor of ice cream, to the _aesthetic_, like the beauty of a sunset, and include anything in between, a good example being the feeling of comfort of home which is a combination of both sensual and aesthetic...subjective _associations _connect objects and experiences by the shared impressions they have for the subject...in this way Si operates like Ne, only Si uses subjective impressions to connect objects, not objective abstract qualities as Ne uses...this is probably the reason Si and Ne are themselves related: they work in a similar way and differ mainly in the introverted-extroverted nature of the connections they make

Si is a subjective form of Ne

the confusion over "like" and "disgust" being feeling judgments arises because emotions are part of the natural reactions we have to our experiences...the way to disambiguate these reactions is to remember that feeling judgments concern matters of _right and wrong_ or _good and bad_...my Si _preference _for a flavor of ice cream is neither good nor bad--_it just is_--so when I say "I like chocolate" I am not passing judgment on chocolate or on people who favor other flavors


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

@_Deadly Decorum_;



Aelthwyn said:


> I may not be understanding exactly what you mean here, but idealization and devaluation seem like judging function activities; it sounds more like an F thing to me. I don't see a lot of idealization/disgust from my ISTJ mom, and she seems to have less sentimental attachment to things than me as she judges their worth more on usefulness.





PaladinX said:


> How does your assertion about Si compare with Jung's description of the feeling process?



My answer to this would be that, if you read Jung's description of Ne, he talks about objects in which the Ne cannot perceive potential or possibility becoming morbid or heavy (my words, but I think they relay his intent) and that the Ne is inclined to cold-bloodedly abandon those things. Se would presumably go cold to anything that it cannot perceive potential experiences or sensation from. 

Now, this might be interpreted as an evaluation, and thus judgment, but it obviously isn't. It is indifference, or detachment. Alienation?

And it is terrifically subjective. It seems perfectly clear to me that Si types are, above all others, the ones that 'like what they like' in the sensory realm.... and that there is only glancing ration objectivity to it. By that I mean that it is not so subjective that the Si type will eat feces or whatever. Nevertheless, the actual stimulus of the object is removed and replaced with the subjective impression that it releases. Thus, the reaction that Si has to things is out of sync with the objective reality.

It is such a smooth and instant and necessary transition from this to evaluation, that it is inextricable. In reality, I'd argue that there is no such thing as PURE Perception or PURE Judgment, at least not in any practical sense in our minds. They are so in tandem as to be utter reliant and based on one another. One cannot isolate Si in the wild, as it were. It is not possible. The best we can hope for in most cases is to observe how Judgment is colored by Si, affected by it, as opposed to by some other Perception quality and thus 'see' Si. 

So, there is an orange. The fruit. Put it in the hand of the Si and they snarl, "I don't like oranges." Really? Who doesn't like oranges? Is this subjectivity of evaluation? No, it is subjectivity of Perception because what the orange IS to them isn't what the orange objectively IS. It is that impression, that subjective impression, that is judged, thus creating a subjective judgment that is not actually the result of subjectivity of judgment. The judgment is entirely objective, but is directed at a subjective impression. 

So, yes, Si can be the direct cause of subjective evaluations, such as disgust (which is, importantly, more of a visceral reaction than a judgment - some things can be repulsive without judgment, such as gore)... and it would be incorrect to attribute this to judgment, and especially incorrect to attribute this to subjectivity of judgment. 

That it is technically attributing evaluation to perception is troubling to us in categorical terms, but it is ultimately unavoidable in practice.


----------



## Ksara (Feb 13, 2014)

@ae1905

Yeah fair enough Jung may be wrong, however shifting the lines in the sand is now actually defining something else. If it's your own theory cool, but you are now describing something else not Si, Fi, etc which are Jung's definitions. It is actually unclear when you speak of those things and don't clearly assert that it's your own theory. Unfortunately 'I think' is too ambiguous to assert such claim. This all just leads to confusion for everyone else who thinks you are discussing the same concept, Jung's cognitive functions, when you are not, and especially confuse those new to the subject trying to first understand Jung's theory.

(Mind you I think I've come across a suggestion that there is a difference between Jung and Myers concept of the cognitive functions, oh and then there's Socionics to throw into the mix to add confusion labelling slightly different concepts with the same labels, who knows what each individual is talking about in context to functions).


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Ksara said:


> @_ae1905_
> 
> Yeah fair enough Jung may be wrong, however shifting the lines in the sand is now actually defining something else. If it's your own theory cool, but you are now describing something else not Si, Fi, etc which are Jung's definitions. It is actually unclear when you speak of those things and don't clearly assert that it's your own theory. Unfortunately 'I think' is too ambiguous to assert such claim. This all just leads to confusion for everyone else who thinks you are discussing the same concept, Jung's cognitive functions, when you are not, and especially confuse those new to the subject trying to first understand Jung's theory.
> 
> (Mind you I think I've come across a suggestion that there is a difference between Jung and Myers concept of the cognitive functions, oh and then there's Socionics to throw into the mix to add confusion labelling slightly different concepts with the same labels, who knows what each individual is talking about in context to functions).


I don't know or care what Jung thought Si is (and by some accounts, Jung was rather obtuse in his own description, showing he himself wasn't clear what it is--I suspect Jung only had a good--though not necessarily correct--idea of what Ni is and tried to guess the other functions based on some idea of symmetry...so he postulated Si because there was a hole in his conception that needed to be filled, and not because he had any idea what it is)

S is sensation and I means "with reference to the subject"...so Si is sensation with reference to the subject, or, the subject's own impressions of sensations...the OP suggested Si is also the subjective associations those impressions evoke, and after thinking about it, I agreed

so Si is actually very much like Ne...both have an element of "abstracting" something from the Se sensation and forming associations based on those abstractions...with Si, the abstractions are the sensual and aesthetic impressions made by Se observations while with Ne the abstractions are some quality _posssessed by _Se objects...Ne connects objects and ideas that share these objective abstractions...Si connects objects and experiences that share these subjective abstractions

there is more truth in the above than Jung probably ever wrote about Si


----------



## giraffegator (Dec 28, 2014)

I'm not sure I can give any examples, but what the OP says is reminiscent of my husband who I've pegged as ISTJ (and he seems to like the descriptions).

And of course with the whole judgement/impression thing, let's not forget that Fi is rational, while Si is irrational. So immediate subjective reactions to stimuli would (I would think) fall into the Si category. My experience of Fi is that I am thinking about the value of things all the time. I'm rationally categorising and organising objects and ideas according to their value. That's not the same as my gut reactions to them - although as someone else pointed out, the reaction affects the judgement and you can't really separate them completely.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ae1905 said:


> I don't know or care what Jung thought Si is (and by some accounts, Jung was rather obtuse in his own description, showing he himself wasn't clear what it is--I suspect Jung only had a good--though not necessarily correct--idea of what Ni is and tried to guess the other functions based on some idea of symmetry...so he postulated Si because there was a hole in his conception that needed to be filled, and not because he had any idea what it is)
> 
> S is sensation and I means "with reference to the subject"...so Si is sensation with reference to the subject, or, the subject's own impressions of sensations...the OP suggested Si is also the subjective associations those impressions evoke, and after thinking about it, I agreed
> 
> ...


Ne, though, would be neither subjective nor abstract. 'Possibilities' are completely participatory (and concrete) perceptions. Ne is the mad scramble for change. Ne mutates objects based on potentials perceived in them. Grabbing clay and manically reforming it with the hands is not an act of abstraction, but of intense engagement. 

It is thus quite close to Se itself, which also grasps hungrily onto the object to use it and push it forward. The difference is that Se seeks for experiences and sensation (to engage the object fully or to leap frog it to greater engagements) while Ne seeks out CHANGE for the sake of change.... not for the sake of sensation or experience. 



Jung said:


> [extraverted intuition] is continually scenting out new possibilities, which he pursues with an equal unconcern both for his own welfare and for that of others, pressing on quite heedless of human considerations, tearing down what has only just been established in his everlasting search for change.


To abstract, or to introvert into the subject, is antithetical to this. 

Though, since Ne is eagerly pulling in all possibilities, it is plausible that this can produce a sort of 'glitch' behavior where seemingly random permutations of something can be easily called to mind. 

I am an INTP and I am CONSTANTLY making connections between things. There is this game I've played where two people are given a word and must blurt out the first thing that comes to mind. You get a point when you blurt out the same thing. I have literally never blurted out the same thing as any partner I have had in this game. Never. I instantly make connections that are far reaching, though coherent. I would not attribute this to Ne, however. My wife is an Ne-dom and she does not do this. Maybe it is an interplay of Si and Ti and Ne? I don't know, but it isn't Ne itself.\


If you ask, "what is my Ne?" the answer is "that part of me that will tear anything down to see it changed, to see what else it could be." Not that part that correlates something as it is to something else as it is. Why would Ne be concerned with this in and of itself? How is this change?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I'm not in the business of comparing my ideas with Jung's or anyone else's...if Jung happens to agree with me, good for Jung...if not, too bad--it's not my problem if he got it wrong


Either you are reading into something or I'm misunderstanding you here. This seems irrelevant and potentially intellectually dishonest.



> Si, it seems to me, is a combination of the subjective _impressions _made by objective sensory perceptions and the subjective _associations _those impressions have for the subject...subjective _impressions _can range from the _sensual_, such as a favorite flavor of ice cream, to the _aesthetic_, like the beauty of a sunset, and include anything in between, a good example being the feeling of comfort of home which is a combination of both sensual and aesthetic...subjective _associations _connect objects and experiences by the shared impressions they have for the subject...in this way Si operates like Ne, only Si uses subjective impressions to connect objects, not objective abstract qualities as Ne uses...this is probably the reason Si and Ne are themselves related: they work in a similar way and differ mainly in the introverted-extroverted nature of the connections they make
> 
> Si is a subjective form of Ne


What is an impression? Is Se not sensual or aesthetic? Are these characteristics unique to Si?




> the confusion over "like" and "disgust" being feeling judgments arises because emotions are part of the natural reactions we have to our experiences...the way to disambiguate these reactions is to remember that feeling judgments concern matters of _right and wrong_ or _good and bad_...my Si _preference _for a flavor of ice cream is neither good nor bad--_it just is_--so when I say "I like chocolate" I am not passing judgment on chocolate or on people who favor other flavors


How do you define "judgment?" I am trying to understand how "I like chocolate" is not a judgment. Can feeling be about whether something is agreeable or not? Or how important something is or not?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Si burger on left, Se burger on right.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Psychopomp said:


> And it is terrifically subjective. It seems perfectly clear to me that Si types are, above all others, the ones that 'like what they like' in the sensory realm.... and that there is only glancing ration objectivity to it. By that I mean that it is not so subjective that the Si type will eat feces or whatever. Nevertheless, the actual stimulus of the object is removed and replaced with the subjective impression that it releases. Thus, the reaction that Si has to things is out of sync with the objective reality.


Assuming Si types are the ones that 'like what they like' is that really Si or the result of a Si type or Si attitude?



> So, yes, Si can be the direct cause of subjective evaluations, such as disgust (which is, importantly, more of a visceral reaction than a judgment - some things can be repulsive without judgment, such as gore)... and it would be incorrect to attribute this to judgment, and especially incorrect to attribute this to subjectivity of judgment.
> 
> That it is technically attributing evaluation to perception is troubling to us in categorical terms, but it is ultimately unavoidable in practice.


Even so, is disgust the realm of Si or is it an affect? Or are you suggesting that Si is affective?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> Ne, though, would be neither subjective nor abstract. 'Possibilities' are completely participatory (and concrete) perceptions. Ne is the mad scramble for change. Ne mutates objects based on potentials perceived in them. Grabbing clay and manically reforming it with the hands is not an act of abstraction, but of intense engagement.
> 
> It is thus quite close to Se itself, which also grasps hungrily onto the object to use it and push it forward. The difference is that Se seeks for experiences and sensation (to engage the object fully or to leap frog it to greater engagements) while Ne seeks out CHANGE for the sake of change.... not for the sake of sensation or experience.


"abstractions" are not necessarily abstract--that's why I put "abstractions" in quotation marks..."to abstract" simply means "to derive from" or "to be removed from"...it doesn't necessarily mean "not concrete"...with Si abstractions, the sensual and aesthetic impressions are concrete experiences...wiht Ne, abstractions may be concrete or truly abstract, the latter especially if Ne is playing with ideas and not with concrete objects


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Either you are reading into something or I'm misunderstanding you here. This seems irrelevant and potentially intellectually dishonest.


I don't care what you think of that



> What is an impression? Is Se not sensual or aesthetic? Are these characteristics unique to Si?


Se: red is a color
Si: red is my _favorite _color

"red" is objective _observation_

"favorite" is subjective _impression_




> How do you define "judgment?" I am trying to understand how "I like chocolate" is not a judgment. Can feeling be about whether something is agreeable or not? Or how important something is or not?


if Fi says "I like animal rights", it doesn't just mean the Fi user prefers "animal rights", it means the Fi user "thinks animals have rights that other people should recognize"

if Si says "I like chocolate ice cream", it means the Si user _prefers _chocolate ice cream, not that the Si user "thinks chocolate ice cream is the best flavor and other people should prefer it, too"


in fact, you will seldom if ever hear Fi say it "likes" a value...rather, it will say it "believes in" a value, or "thinks a value is a _right_"...

likewise, you will seldom if ever hear Si say it "believes in" a flavor, or song, or the comfort of its own home...rather, it will say it "likes" or "loves" a flavor, song, etc

they are two different things


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

I don't know, I relate to that. Viscerally avoiding songs that remind me of a bad time in my life.

There was an interview with Eminem where he said this. 


> All my albums I think, for the most part, pretty much tell where I'm at, you know at each one at that time period, whatever. So this is kinda like, there's a lot of reflecting and things like that back on everything that was happening during that time, you know. And it's kinda like me reflecting on it and getting to the point where I am now with it.


I totally relate to this. I like organizing the songs I listen to according to the year they had the most influence on me. It's like reading a diary of music.



> Se: red is a color
> Si: red is my favorite color


 @ae1905 Could you elaborate on this? It seems very simplistic because it implies that Se types cannot have favorite colors. This is one aspect of MBTI that I really hate. Making basic stuff people do exclusive to certain functions.



> if Fi says "I like animal rights", it doesn't just mean the Fi user prefers "animal rights", it means the Fi user "thinks animals have rights that other people should recognize"
> 
> if Si says "I like chocolate ice cream", it means the Si user prefers chocolate ice cream, not that the Si user "thinks chocolate ice cream is the best flavor and other people should prefer it, too"4
> 
> likewise, you will seldom if ever hear Si say it "believes in" a flavor, or song, or the comfort of its own home...rather, it will say it "likes" or "loves" a flavor, song, etc


Again, I have an issue with the way this is worded. I'm pretty sure nobody actually likes animal rights in that sense, as if it's a toy or flavor of ice cream. That doesn't even make sense. I don't see what this has to do with Fi. 

I like bacon because I like the way it tastes, not because I believe in it. Does that make me Si?


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I don't care what you think of that


So touchy. 





> Se: red is a color
> Si: red is my _favorite _color
> 
> "red" is objective _observation_
> ...


"Red is a color" falls within the realm of reason. It is a categorization. What does your example have to do with Se?

What is an impression? What makes "favorite" an impression? Does Se have nothing to do with sensual or aesthetics?





> if Fi says "I like animal rights", it doesn't just mean the Fi user prefers "animal rights", it means the Fi user "thinks animals have rights that other people should recognize"
> 
> if Si says "I like chocolate ice cream", it means the Si user _prefers _chocolate ice cream, not that the Si user "thinks chocolate ice cream is the best flavor and other people should prefer it, too"
> 
> ...


Yet you you describe it as "thinks" in each case. What makes it a feeling? What are the values of right or wrong based on? So is it a quality of Fi that it believes it should be applied equally to everyone? so it is a judgment applied for everyone? I thought the "I" was "with reference to the subject," no?


----------



## Eris (Nov 6, 2015)

I don't really think types conform to personality disorders, no one here is that cool.


----------



## pucks (Sep 8, 2015)

Ksara said:


> @ae1905
> 
> Yeah fair enough Jung may be wrong.


should've just ended the post here


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Quentyn said:


> Again, I have an issue with the way this is worded.* I'm pretty sure nobody actually likes animal rights in that sense, as if it's a toy or flavor of ice cream*. That doesn't even make sense. I don't see what this has to do with Fi.
> 
> I like bacon because I like the way it tastes, not because I believe in it. Does that make me Si?


why did you omit this in your citation?



ae1905 said:


> in fact, *you will seldom if ever hear Fi say it "likes" a value*...rather, it will say it "believes in" a value, or "thinks a value is a _right_"...



ppl don't usually say they "like animal rights" because animal rights are a matter of_ moral values_ on which one makes _value judgments of right or wrong_...a flavor of ice cream or a favorite song, otoh, do not usually concern moral values and are simply a matter of _personal preference_ based on the sensual or aesthetic or even emotional impression they have for the subject

that was my point

the distinction is the underlying subjective reaction or impression...if it is sensual, aesthetic, or emotional w/o any moral content then it is Si...if it is a value that you would impute to others and wish they would share, then it is a moral sentiment and is Fi


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

@ae1905 Okay, but do you still think your distinction between Se and Si based on how they see color is valid?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Quentyn said:


> @_ae1905_ Could you elaborate on this? It seems very simplistic because it implies that Se types cannot have favorite colors. This is one aspect of MBTI that I really hate. Making basic stuff people do exclusive to certain functions.
> 
> I like bacon because I like the way it tastes, not because I believe in it. Does that make me Si?





PaladinX said:


> What is an impression? What makes "favorite" an impression? Does Se have nothing to do with sensual or aesthetics?


yes, if you like bacon because of the way it tastes, that is Si...you have all 8 functions and use them, some better than others

Se normally scans its environment _observing _the objects therein and their mutual relations...this is _objective _in the sense Se sees what is actually there and it is _observing _because nothing in its environment impresses itself on Se--Se is simply _aware _of its environment...that environment can, however, make an impression on Se...this happens when it notices something which it recognizes an _opportunity_..._this opportunity is an Se impression,_ and will usually be objective since they are actual relations in the environment...however, there will often be a subjective element at work when the opportunities satisfy subjective preferences...so, a simple example is Se walking down the street and noticing an ice cream truck up ahead...it immediately recognizes the opportunity to get ice cream...this is a Se impression--the opportunity to get ice cream stands out in Se's environment...but there is a subjective element at work here since Se wouldn't act on this opportunity unless it happened to like ice cream...so Si here informs Se in its choice of opportunity to pursue...of course, Si isn't the only function that can influence Se...any of the other functions can operate in a similar way


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

sassafrassthelioness said:


> I'm not sure I can give any examples, but what the OP says is reminiscent of my husband who I've pegged as ISTJ (and he seems to like the descriptions).
> 
> And of course with the whole judgement/impression thing, let's not forget that Fi is rational, while Si is irrational. So immediate subjective reactions to stimuli would (I would think) fall into the Si category. My experience of Fi is that I am thinking about the value of things all the time. I'm rationally categorising and organising objects and ideas according to their value. That's not the same as my gut reactions to them - although as someone else pointed out, the reaction affects the judgement and you can't really separate them completely.


I would agree to this that the like or dislike reaction to something is irrational and does not necessarily apply to Fi. However, I don't think it's Si either. The fundamental principle of feeling determines whether something is agreeable or not. I think these examples of "like" and "disgust" adhere to that principle. The fundamental principle of sensation is to establish what is actually present. However, there are more states than simply Fi/Si. There is undirected/passive/subconscious feeling. There is affects (emotions) which are a blend of sensation and feeling.

I see where ae1905 is going and in a way I agree with him. Jung described abstract sensation as aesthetic, which according to wikipedia is a sensory-emotional kind of "judgment." Jung also described Se as aesthetic. So it seems related to sensation in general, I still don't see how it's specific to Si or if it is even attitude/type related. Everybody likes/is disgusted by foods/smells/etc. What makes it unique to Si?


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> So touchy.


so manipulative--and dodgy

entps 



> "Red is a color" falls within the realm of reason. It is a categorization. What does your example have to do with Se?


Se _observes _the color red

Si _likes _the color red



> What is an impression? What makes "favorite" an impression? Does Se have nothing to do with sensual or aesthetics?


a subjective impression, such as "favorite", is a _bias _present in the subject and not in the object...there is nothing "favorite" in the color red...it is the subject who makes red a "favorite" color...that is the _impression_ red makes on him

Se _is _concerned with aesthetics and the sensual, but in their _objective _qualities..."a sweater feels _soft_" is an Se _observation_..."I love soft sweaters" is a Si _preference_

of course, a Se user has Si and will therefore also have personal preferences, such as a fondness for soft sweaters



> Yet you you describe it as "thinks" in each case. What makes it a feeling? What are the values of right or wrong based on? So is it a quality of Fi that it believes it should be applied equally to everyone? so it is a judgment applied for everyone? I thought the "I" was "with reference to the subject," no?


yes, I is "with reference to the subject" meaning its _truth value *is judged by the subject on its own terms*_...BUT its _application _is not necessarily confined to the subject...indeed, both Fi and Ti believe its truths are _universal_ and apply to others and to the world at large

judgments are claims about the truth or moral value of _objects _(incl objective rel'ns between objects)_..._these claims may or may not be factual_--_indeed they are often just _opinion _since evidence to support them aren't known or don't exist

preferences are _factual statements about the subject_, and unless the subject is lying, are always taken to be true (factual) on face value


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

Quentyn said:


> @_ae1905_ Okay, but do you still think your distinction between Se and Si based on how they see color is valid?


of course I do


----------



## Serpent (Aug 6, 2015)

ae1905 said:


> of course I do


You make it sound like Se types don't have personal preferences which is absurd. 

Nevermind, you address this in your previous post so, what's your point? You talk about how Si is the function concerned with personal preferences and impressions and then just casually say, oh yes, Se users have Si too, kind of invalidating everything you said before because there's no definite conclusion. You keep associating liking a color with Si which I'm having a hard time believing because liking a color is something everyone relates to. Maybe Si is about why you like a color but liking a color per se? I don't see it. Also, if someone likes a color, then obviously he has observed it as well. Yet you make a distinction between observing and liking.

I feel like you're going way too deep into this, deconstructing or analyzing pretty much everything and rearranging them into boxes based on typology.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> so manipulative--and dodgy
> 
> entps


Then I think you are reading into something again. From my standpoint I've been straightforward and genuine.  I usually am. Though many people seem to think I'm up to something. It's one of the reasons why I adopted the devil's advocate pic to my signature. It is usually where I am coming from. Is there a bias because I have an ENTP label under my name? Would you proclaim the same thing if I had ISTP under my name, as I used to, or INFJ before that? Or maybe whatever seems off about my approach is due to Asperger's Syndrome? Other? Hmm... I dunno. *shrugs*

EDIT: In case my intentions are unclear, I am merely thinking out loud.



> Se _observes _the color red
> 
> Si _likes _the color red


Thanks for clarifying. This makes more sense.



> a subjective impression, such as "favorite", is a _bias _present in the subject and not in the object...there is nothing "favorite" in the color red...it is the subject who makes red a "favorite" color...that is the _impression_ red makes on him
> 
> Se _is _concerned with aesthetics and the sensual, but in their _objective _qualities..."a sweater feels _soft_" is an Se _observation_..."I love soft sweaters" is a Si _preference_
> 
> of course, a Se user has Si and will therefore also have personal preferences, such as a fondness for soft sweaters


Yeah I see what you are saying. I am still on the fence about it. I brought up a similar theory once upon a time. http://personalitycafe.com/cognitive-functions/174490-take-introverted-sensation.html I'm not sure how "like" or "disgust" fits into it but it is along the same lines as what you are describing, I think.



> yes, I is "with reference to the subject" meaning its _truth value *is judged by the subject on its own terms*_...BUT its _application _is not necessarily confined to the subject...indeed, both Fi and Ti believe its truths are _universal_ and apply to others and to the world at large


I've noticed. 

With that said, shouldn't Si have a sort of universal quality about it?



> judgments are claims about the truth or moral value of _objects _(incl objective rel'ns between objects)_..._these claims may or may not be factual_--_indeed they are often just _opinion _since evidence to support them aren't known or don't exist
> 
> preferences are _factual statements about the subject_, and unless the subject is lying, are always taken to be true (factual) on face value


I'll have to chew on this a bit.


----------



## ae1905 (Jun 7, 2014)

PaladinX said:


>




I see you dropped the pretense...did I out you, entp?

it's 2015--there's no reason to be ashamed, bro


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ae1905 said:


> I see you dropped the pretense...did I out you, entp?
> 
> it's 2015--there's no reason to be ashamed, bro


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

Hahaha. Oh man. 

Me reading this thread: Oh look! Cool things! 

... Well. That escalated quickly. 

But anyways. @Psychopomp, this is probably kind of unrelated to the original post. But you got me thinking about the nature of Ne. Or more like trying to make sense of the way I think (it often confuses me - mostly because it often feels like a nonsensical way of going about thinking, much to the amusement of both me and my friends). Whether or not it matches up. Also just trying to understand what the heck Jung meant by all these terms. 

Oh gosh. Which means this is going to make no sense. (I'm sorry. Be warned. Unorganized thoughts at their most unorganized.)

I think Ne is if we're thinking about Jung's definition pretty "concrete". From what little I do know. I see things as wholes... I don't like reducing them. I actually kind of hate to. If that's what we mean by "concrete". I have a hard time understanding it like I think Jung meant it. I've also always referred to Ne as being "abstract" - but only insomuch as I've been talking about "ideas". 

You used the example of patriotism which was kind of funny to me. Incidentally, I don't like the idea of "patriotism" - it feels ultimately meaningless. Like a fake term. But I think that stems from my crazy vision for the world (gosh, I always joke around that I'm a weird anarchist hippie) more than other things. And maybe that it is in the end just an idea... I'm sure some of that is Fi-coloured too. 

It's really funny when my INTP friend and I are talking about things. What reminds me of something else is different than what reminds him of something else. Well, at least the ways we go about associating things. I think I do a lot of "associating" (which in my mind is just one thing making me think of something else). But I always think his associations make sense. Because he's always focused on a different aspects of things in the first place. He also tends to focus on... I guess differentiating things from each other. But. I always feel like he is getting something out of it. Or connecting it to something else in a way I wouldn't have thought. I always tell him his way of thinking reminds me of focusing on light patterns and shadow somehow. 

It's like focusing on a _characteristic_ of something, really. Which I don't think I do. At least not like he does. I tend to think about (if I'm focusing on it) what it's _like. _Or maybe I mean to say the ideas that I think of because of it.

To abstract something... is more than just about ideas. It can also mean considering things separate from something else and understand it that way. To isolate. That is not something I do either, I don't think. And Jung had an interesting way of putting it. That I don't think I can quite get my mind around. (Like "thought in itself" - what exactly is meant by that?) 



> When I take an abstract attitude to an object, I do not allow the object to affect me in its totality; I focus my attention to one part of it by excluding all the irrelevant parts. My aim is to disembarrass myself of the object as a singular and unique whole and to abstract only part of this whole.


Whereas we joke around that in my mind "everything is everything". (Haha well, he jokingly told me that. I don't think I fully understand it.)

Anyways. That was an absolute mess of thoughts. Sorry.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

ae1905 said:


> it's funny how this so-called "glitch-behavior" is present in every Ne-dom (except your wife who is most likely ESFP) and Ne-aux...that's some "glitch"....meanwhile, INTPs aren't exactly known for being "seized with the concrete potential of actions they can't resist pursuing in the real world"...but they can sit around all day imagining possibilities, many of them abstract and theoretical


I wanted to stay out of this shitstorm but @Psychopomp himself associates dominant Ne with abstraction here: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...t-does-dominant-ne-look-like.html#post3372110

Then proceeds to state that Ne is not abstract because it's an extraverted function - fair enough, in the Jungian sense of abstract/concrete (he associated abstraction with introversion, not intuition). I can see Psychopomp's point here.

But I agree with you that it's not a glitch, because the connection is NOT random, or it would be a _dis_connection not a connection. Ne is NOT about "random" connections. The connections it 'sees' are not disjointed or unrelated as they would be if they were "random". They may be distant but they are not random. I would suggest that if one is making _truly _"random" connections, that's a sign of inferior N.



ae1905 said:


> @_Psychopomp_
> 
> your wifey example is really no different than "honey, let's move the furniture around", something I've seen Se do many a time...that's not Ne


Yup. That's not a function at all. The garden idea is really something any function/type would come up with, too. It seems silly to me to attribute that to Ne. That would be like saying tasting food is "Se" which I've seen people do on here. No, every type can taste food lol!

I'm beginning to think I have no idea WTF Ne even is. Yes, I've read Jung, at least chapter 10 of Psychological Types. Lenore and Quenk, too. Some Berens. I've read descriptions on this forum too. But every time I think I understand a given function, there's a new piece of information that contradicts my understanding.




Julia Bell said:


> It's like focusing on a _characteristic_ of something, really. Which I don't think I do. At least not like he does. I tend to think about (if I'm focusing on it) what it's _like. _Or maybe I mean to say the ideas that I think of because of it.


Focusing on a characteristic of something could be Si, which would make sense, since he's tertiary Si and you're inferior Si.

What it's _like_, as in what it's _analogous to_? (First thing I thought of)



Julia Bell said:


> To abstract something... is more than just about ideas. It can also mean considering things separate from something else and understand it that way. To isolate. That is not something I do either, I don't think.


That almost sounds like it could be Ti...



Julia Bell said:


> "everything is everything"


haha I like that. It's technically a meaningless sentence but somehow it means a whole lot.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

ketchup said:


> I wanted to stay out of this shitstorm but @_Psychopomp_ himself associates dominant Ne with abstraction here: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...t-does-dominant-ne-look-like.html#post3372110
> 
> Then proceeds to state that Ne is not abstract because it's an extraverted function - fair enough, in the Jungian sense of abstract/concrete (he associated abstraction with introversion, not intuition). I can see Psychopomp's point here.
> 
> ...


Yes, everybody experiences sensation, thinking, feeling, and intuition. What matters is where one typically focuses their interest. Se is more concerned with actualizing, but Ne is more concerned with potential. Typically once that potential is actualized, then the focus is on other possibilities for action and achievement.

From Jung's definition of intuition:

_According to the manner in which intuition is employed, whether directed within in the service of cognition and inner perception or without in the service of action and accomplishment, the introverted and extraverted intuitive types can be differentiated.

_Jung on Ne type:_

Were he able to rest with the actual thing, he would gather the fruit of his labours; yet all too soon must he be running after some fresh possibility, quitting his newly planted field, while others reap the harvest._


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Deadly Decorum said:


> I've thought a lot about Si and have concluded that a striking aspect is idealization and devaluation of the sensory.
> 
> Si never sees an object for what it is. Instead it abstracts reality and sensory details, providing it's own lens or perspective of what is real. Essentially, things are either really great... perfect in a sense, or they're disgusting. Things are idealized, and when Si realized they had their blinders on, it's not the same anymore. It's devalued because its lost all of it's flavor.
> 
> ...


This actual draws an interesting parallel to Ni. Just like how if you associate something with a bad experience you lose your enjoyment of it, I lose my enjoyment of something based on what it represents. I hate rap music for this reason; and I can be very adamant in this respect, that the words, vocals, rhythm, all of it is terrible because it represents a negative part of society (and to address the elephant in room, I don't mean African American subculture, but the objectification of women, drugs, drunkeness, that stuff).


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> This actual draws an interesting parallel to Ni. Just like how if you associate something with a bad experience you lose your enjoyment of it, I lose my enjoyment of something based on what it represents. I hate rap music for this reason; and I can be very adamant in this respect, that the words, vocals, rhythm, all of it is terrible because it represents a negative part of society (and to address the elephant in room, I don't mean African American subculture, but the objectification of women, drugs, drunkeness, that stuff).


Interestingly I care a lot about what things represent myself.

Like I like Nirvana not for the music so much as how it represents punk, doing things not necessarily to say anything or be anything but just because it seems good or right to you, and just the cynicism and questioning of the 90's in general. They're like anti-cool, really, that became cool for trying not to be. I love that.

Not sure what the difference between Si and Ni representation is.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Well I have a lot to read and catch up with as I neglected this thread. Thoughts tomorrow hopefully. 

I think what I meant is being distorted just a bit.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Deadly Decorum said:


> Interestingly I care a lot about what things represent myself.
> 
> Like I like Nirvana not for the music so much as how it represents punk, doing things not necessarily to say anything or be anything but just because it seems good or right to you, and just the cynicism and questioning of the 90's in general. They're like anti-cool, really, that became cool for trying not to be. I love that.
> 
> Not sure what the difference between Si and Ni representation is.


Maybe Si would represent a state of being and Ni would represent an idea? That's all I can really think of off the cuff. I know I tend to fixate in the idea being symbolized, but I don't know about you.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

ae1905 said:


> so the idea of "disgust", "love", "hate", like", etc, was yours to begin with


I can see how I contradicted myself there but I don't think I was clear at all in what I meant. Will explain further.



ae1905 said:


> intuitions quite often involve concrete objects, but what makes them intuitions are the _associations _ made _between_ the objects...so "this object is like that object" is the typical form of extroverted intuition...and when you associate your objective perception of an object with another object you are using Ne, not Si


I don't see how that has to be intuitive? I mean, Si is removing the stimulus of the objective to replace it with something subjective. I know with a lot of Si types they won't particularly enjoy something until they can replace it with a similar thing they liked before. Plus Si in general seems to be a lot about compare/contrast and finding similarities in things.



ae1905 said:


> Si is the subjective impression an object makes on you, impressions such as a favorite song, a beautiful sunset, the comfort of home sweet home, etc...there is nothing in the objective perceptions themselves that are "favorite", "beautiful", or "comfortable"--these are qualities you imbue these objective perceptions with...that is Si


I agree.



ae1905 said:


> but if you also associate a favorite song with something else, such as a place or a memory then, yes, I suppose that is also Si...it's a kind of Ne, only the associations between objects are personal and exist only for you, the subject


Explain how that's Ne? 

Personally I think the dom function is reigned by and closely oriented to the inferior, but that could be wrong and I'm open to critique.
@PaladinX



> The process of evaluation is different. The fire I see arouses emotional reactions of a pleasant or unpleasant nature, and the memory-images thus stimulated bring with them concomitant emotional phenomena which are known as feeling-tones. In this way an object appears to us as pleasant, desirable, and beautiful, or as unpleasant, disgusting, ugly, and so on. In ordinary speech this process is called feeling.


Yeah it sounds like what I explained here was feeling based on that, but I don't think that was intentional. It's hard to explain Si's habit of disregarding or regarding things in general. 



ae1905 said:


> the confusion over "like" and "disgust" being feeling judgments arises because emotions are part of the natural reactions we have to our experiences...the way to disambiguate these reactions is to remember that feeling judgments concern matters of right and wrong or good and bad...my Si preference for a flavor of ice cream is neither good nor bad--it just is--so when I say "I like chocolate" I am not passing judgment on chocolate or on people who favor other flavors


I believe this is what I was trying to express, and failed at doing so.



Psychopomp said:


> It is such a smooth and instant and necessary transition from this to evaluation, that it is inextricable. In reality, I'd argue that there is no such thing as PURE Perception or PURE Judgment, at least not in any practical sense in our minds. They are so in tandem as to be utter reliant and based on one another. One cannot isolate Si in the wild, as it were. It is not possible. The best we can hope for in most cases is to observe how Judgment is colored by Si, affected by it, as opposed to by some other Perception quality and thus 'see' Si.


There's a reason the pure function types Jung depicted were considered rare.

Not like I'm an expert on Jung or anything. Chapter X of Psychological Types is all I have read, FYI. I think it's important to point that out.



Psychopomp said:


> So, there is an orange. The fruit. Put it in the hand of the Si and they snarl, "I don't like oranges." Really? Who doesn't like oranges? Is this subjectivity of evaluation? No, it is subjectivity of Perception because what the orange IS to them isn't what the orange objectively IS. It is that impression, that subjective impression, that is judged, thus creating a subjective judgment that is not actually the result of subjectivity of judgment. The judgment is entirely objective, but is directed at a subjective impression.
> 
> So, yes, Si can be the direct cause of subjective evaluations, such as disgust *(which is, importantly, more of a visceral reaction than a judgment - some things can be repulsive without judgment, such as gore*)... and it would be incorrect to attribute this to judgment, and especially incorrect to attribute this to subjectivity of judgment.


This is exactly what I meant to portray; particularly the bolded. I'm not sure how good of a job I did, since it's possible there was some Fe laced in there, but definitely. So I think @ae1905 was right to say there is a visceral reaction, and that I was wrong to dismiss that. 

It's just automatic... you like or don't like it (or perhaps... it's tasteful/distasteful). Idk, it's hard to explain mostly just because Si in general is hard to explain, but I think you nailed the point I was trying to make perfectly. 

Do you think my example is more of an F example or did it depict Si accurately (even if colored with F)? Regardless I am considering re-wording it. I think tasteful/distasteful are better words.

Still haven't read through all of this (I think I made it to page 4 or 5). This thing exploded.


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

ketchup said:


> I wanted to stay out of this shitstorm but @_Psychopomp_ himself associates dominant Ne with abstraction here: http://personalitycafe.com/myers-br...t-does-dominant-ne-look-like.html#post3372110


That post is just shy of 3 years old. I disagree with myself on a lot of things from then. 


((I'll post replies on this thread, I promise, when I have time.))


----------



## Psychopomp (Oct 3, 2012)

Julia Bell said:


> Hahaha. Oh man.
> 
> Me reading this thread: Oh look! Cool things!
> 
> ...



The distinctness of Ne and Se is that of flinging oneself forward to engage for the sake of engagement. Ne is yanking on someone's arm saying "IMAGINE IT, LET'S GO" (similar to Se, but that the sensory aspect is only incidental). The purer the Ne, the more frantic and present you yank, and the more greedy the urge. If there is one thing that really defined paragons of Ne that I have in mind, it is that urgency.. that frantic engagement. I am sure a fair number of people who are ultimately best described as Ne-dom are not so distinct in this, but nevertheless that is what Ne is. Ne says 'the moment is now', 'this is the turning point'. 

This, of course, is not abstraction at all. It is not sitting down saying 'but this is like this and this is like this'. Some other function must intervene in this. Si, perhaps, Ni perhaps, Ti perhaps? If you aren't racing forward to possibility, it isn't distinctly Ne. 

It is for this reason that I have begun to think that the 'Ne' of most INxP types is not strongly distinguishable as Ne, but is perhaps better classified as just N. 

When you think of Se or Ne, then, it must always be thought of as engagement itself. BEING THERE. 

I've mentioned this before, but perhaps the great paragon of Ne in popular culture today would be Amanda Palmer. 

https://vimeo.com/tramsessions/amandapalmer-ukuleleanthem

I post this song purposefully because at the end of it she rambles off into a series of random stuff. I like it because it is what people tend to associate Ne with, and something we definitely do see in Ne types. Random stuff just bombarding her brain. BUT! in watching that we may overlook that she is doing all this on a bus (engaged, in people's face, in the middle of it), and that the song is actually about. Yes, it jump all over the place. Most people listening to it would walk away thinking "man, her brain just teleports all over the place" but what I see is a person racing toward possibility and toward that place that her unconscious intuition is pushing her. Some holistic sense of the thing. She is clearly a profoundly engaged person, and while we may describe her as a deconstructionist, she does not show any indication of abstraction. It is not "let's disengage and look at this in its pure form, connected with other things in their pure form, as privately interpreted by me." Amanda Palmer is no Kant, no Plato. She doesn't interpret events out of themselves, but rather runs up to them frenetically, grabs them by the hand and says "IMAGINE IT, LET'S GO". This would be strongly extraverted and 'concrete' N. 

One could hear this song and see how it is quite close to Sensation. But profoundly is not. It is not concerned with the sensation so much as the ...................................... intuitive vision that stands next to and just beyond those sensational things. 


?


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

Psychopomp said:


> This, of course, is not abstraction at all. It is not sitting down saying 'but this is like this and this is like this'. Some other function must intervene in this. Si, perhaps, Ni perhaps, Ti perhaps?


Would Fi also be included in this? 



Psychopomp said:


> One could hear this song and see how it is quite close to Sensation. But profoundly is not. It is not concerned with the sensation so much as the ...................................... intuitive vision that stands next to and just beyond those sensational things.


Might not be what you meant, but I thought of what Jung said about Ne:



> I am now speaking of sensation as the simple and direct sense-reaction, an almost definite physiological and psychic datum. This must be expressly established beforehand, because, if I ask the intuitive how he is [p. 463] orientated, he will speak of things which are quite indistinguishable from sense-perceptions. Frequently he will even make use of the term 'sensation'. He actually has sensations, but he is not guided by them per se, merely using them as directing-points for his distant vision. They are selected by unconscious expectation. Not the strongest sensation, in the physiological sense, obtains the crucial value, but any sensation whatsoever whose value happens to become considerably enhanced by reason of the intuitive's unconscious attitude. In this way it may eventually attain the leading position, appearing to the intuitive's consciousness indistinguishable from a pure sensation. But actually it is not so.


I think people are confused with what is meant by abstraction in Jungian terms because they're used to this definition:



> adjective
> abˈstrakt,ˈabˌstrakt/
> 1.
> existing in thought or as an idea but not having a physical or concrete existence.
> ...


when what Jung meant by abstract was to remove or detach from something. It took me awhile to figure out because that definition is less common.

Also Myers Briggs adds to the confusion, because intuition is labeled as abstract whereas sensing is labeled as concrete. 

I love when Ne types participate in threads; they derail everything.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

KalimofDaybreak said:


> Maybe Si would represent a state of being and Ni would represent an idea? That's all I can really think of off the cuff. I know I tend to fixate in the idea being symbolized, but I don't know about you.


I don't know if it's a symbol so much but I like to think about what certain things represent... like I enjoy Nirvana because they symbolize diy-ethos and authenticity and the cynicism and questioning of the 90's. I really like what Tori Amos said about the 90's:



> It wasn't a defensive generation about the government... the country. It was a questioning generation.


Quoting her is a bit off track; all apologies.

I'm not sure if that's what you mean by symbols, though, or if you experience similar.


----------



## PaladinX (Feb 20, 2013)

Deadly Decorum said:


> Would Fi also be included in this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Despite what some may think, Jung didn't come up with his own arbitrary definitions for the words. His use of abstract and concrete are based upon their latin roots. Concrete comes from 'concretus' which means 'grown together' and abstract from 'abstractus' which means "drawn away."


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

@Psychopomp, thank you. ^_^ I loved the song. It really didn't seem random at all. But it was just imagining... Well, yeah. A what if this? It also seemed slightly wistful though optimistic, and touched on some surprisingly heavy stuff. But it was full of vision. I like it. Reminds me of some Tracy Chapman songs a bit. 

Though you've got me wondering how much I can relate to that. Because, holy cow: 



> It is not sitting down saying 'but this is like this and this is like this'. Some other function must intervene in this


That is me. All the time. Well, maybe that's a stretch. I like to think about things in that sort of way - usually because I'm trying to draw some kind of truth or meaning from stuff, I guess. But I mean that really feels universal and vast. Something that makes it feel, for lack of better word, real. Not fake. It's kind of why I don't like the idea of "patriotism". Some of that is kind of because I can just see a world without it. I do like to think about what it would be if. There was not this concept of "nations", even. Wouldn't it be cool if there weren't? Think of how different stuff would look? (Is this Ne? Is this Fi? Hahaha, is this just me being crazy?) I have thoughts like this all the time, and I kind of have to stop to laugh at myself. I'll think, "Someone had better stop me before I go out traveling across the country just singing folk songs." (I feel like the world would be a really cool place if people just traveled around and brought music or stories with them wherever they go.) I do love Amanda's song. Imagine a world... where we put an instrument in a person's hand instead of a weapon. Imagine a world where we just do things a little bit differently, there are just so many things... 

Okay, actually, on second thought. Maybe I really can relate to that.  Although maybe I can see some Fi too. 

I kind of associated _some_ of that "this is like this" with Ne (well, just the "reminding" bit - what something else would make me think of was just "there", it was just an association, like two ideas with seemingly no relation popping up together in my mind). Perhaps mistakenly.  

Here's another question, now that you've got me thinking about imagining stuff (agh, this might only be loosely related, I'm sorry). 

It's just I also feel a lot of the ideas and things I get lost in and have fun imagining have not much to do with reality per se. But just with the fun of the infinite amount of things I could think up. This feeling that actually, everything could be anything at all.

So I guess my second question would be: does Ne always concern itself with only things that are in the external world? Only trying to mold what's out there? I'm phrasing this question really badly. Because I feel like Ne can kind of be inclined to fantasy too. (Though I do think lots of fantasy and fantasy stories have a more Si-feel. But I'm not really thinking about "stories", but more like just getting lost in the imagining of a world. But it always feels more, ah, how to put it. Wonderland-ish.) 

Some of it's just silly. Example: Wouldn't it be fun to be able to change where you are or how things appear by manipulating your perception? Like imagine being stuck in a nonsensical world. To the sky, the ground is the ceiling of the world. What would it be like to take on that perspective? I used to imagine that just by imagining, I could be standing among the stars with the earth below me. I imagined what it would be like if the stars were flowers. I could pick one I liked and bring it back with me. Wouldn't it be cool if we could do that? ... I would fall a lot, and end back on the ground, because I've only ever had one perspective my entire life. Everyone in such a world would laugh and say how silly that is. 

What about just playing with concepts? Or ideas? Can Ne have to do with that? Or is it not related to anything at all, I wonder? 

Concepts like Nothing, for example. It always made me laugh, thinking about Nothing. It's like a funny joke. I loved thinking about how we had a word for something that just wasn't, so even though it wasn't, language made it sound like it actually was. (Language is so funny like that. Words can be so limiting to explain lacks of things.) I had so much fun with it I wrote a story (it was really bad and I was younger than I was now - it was super ridiculous) about a girl who lives in the land of Nonsense where Nothing makes sense. So of course, that's exactly what she looks for. She tries opening an empty drawer after hearing someone say nothing was in it. It was so fun just playing with it. And of course, in the end, a wise man had to explain to her the joke behind her world and about nothing. That it wasn't. There was Nothing to be found - so actually, she'd already found it. 

The whole thing feels like a play on words. Or maybe meanings. I had similar fun thinking about chaos. I'd imagine chaos as an actual person who could interact with characters... She'd ever remind me that when no one rules and nothing's in order, chaos reigns. She never wanted anyone in power. I know it's dumb, but the idea made me laugh. It was wonderfully contradictory, and yet not. 

Perhaps that has nothing to do with anything at all, though. Maybe having fun with ideas like that and thinking about them is simply how people in general like to think.


----------



## KalimofDaybreak (Aug 6, 2015)

Deadly Decorum said:


> I don't know if it's a symbol so much but I like to think about what certain things represent... like I enjoy Nirvana because they symbolize diy-ethos and authenticity and the cynicism and questioning of the 90's. I really like what Tori Amos said about the 90's:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I guess what I was talking about is that Si idealizes the state of being: it imagines the feel of the 90's style and is enthralled by the beauty (or whatever quality captures the interest) of the image, hence the idea of 'impressions of an object'. Si seems to get caught up in the object itself in one way or another, even though its impressions are abstracted from sense experience. I kind of hesitate to put it like this, because I see myself doing this as well, but that's not really relevant. What I see myself doing more, however, is getting caught up with the idea being symbolized. I might use the sense details to symbolize what's being said behind all of that, but my main focus is on the ideas and perspectives that lie behind their expression. I guess what I'm saying is that Si is more interested in how the style affects them and Ni is more concerned with how the ideas expressed in the style affect them.

I hope that helps. My initial post was written from a smart phone, so I could only write for so long before I needed to tear my hair out.


----------



## counterintuitive (Apr 8, 2011)

Psychopomp said:


> I've mentioned this before, but perhaps the great paragon of Ne in popular culture today would be Amanda Palmer.
> 
> https://vimeo.com/tramsessions/amandapalmer-ukuleleanthem
> 
> ...


This post has single-handledly sealed the deal. I'm not an NP and probably not an ESJ (tertiary Ne) either. I don't even know what Ne is. And yes I have read Chapter 10 of Psychological Types, but no Jung beyond that. I don't know if this song is just not a great example of Ne (I don't see it as "random" at all, it seems quite linear and sequential to me, I'd never think of her as mentally teleporting based on this song), but assuming that it is, I'm definitely mistyped (I was going between NTP/SFJ which share Ne).

If Amanda Palmer is Ne-dominant, then David Draiman (lead singer of Disturbed, commonly typed as ENFP) and Regina Spektor (commonly typed xNFP) are not. Yet I am wholly convinced that David in particular cannot be anything other than Ne-Fi (or possibly Fi-Ne/INFP) so once again my understanding of Ne must be flawed.

I forgot my point somewhere in there (sorry)...




Julia Bell said:


> @_Psychopomp_ , thank you. ^_^ I loved the song. It really didn't seem random at all. But it was just imagining... Well, yeah. A what if this? It also seemed slightly wistful though optimistic, and touched on some surprisingly heavy stuff. But it was full of vision. I like it. Reminds me of some Tracy Chapman songs a bit.
> 
> Though you've got me wondering how much I can relate to that. Because, holy cow:
> 
> ...


That's me all the time too. What things are like. What things are analogous to at a high level. (I'd say that's what gives them meaning, as well.) Although I'm not talking about physical things. And I don't try to come up with these analogues, my brain just automagically pulls them out of thin air. Connecting everything to everything, seeing the parallels, but at a (very) high level. I always thought that was Ne but clearly it's not.

I relate to you (I nearly always do, btw, and I have no Fi; I also relate to your thoughts on the concept of "patriotism" (I mean not the specifics necessarily but the way you think)), but I do not relate to this song. I guess I would have written a song that said something more general(?), like "we should be forces for good instead of forces for bad" and just left it at that. (lol, there's a reason I'm not a songwriter.) The whole song reminds me of a commercial that used to air that asked a question like, "Do (basketball) courts reduce the need for (juvenile) courts?" Basically the same idea, does providing someone a tool to be a force for good (at least good for themselves and neutral to other people, like music or sports) actually reduce evil in the world. I don't particularly care about that question tbh it just struck me as similar.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

PaladinX said:


> Despite what some may think, Jung didn't come up with his own arbitrary definitions for the words. His use of abstract and concrete are based upon their latin roots. Concrete comes from 'concretus' which means 'grown together' and abstract from 'abstractus' which means "drawn away."


Thank you!

I learn so much from this community.


----------



## Jewl (Feb 28, 2012)

ketchup said:


> This post has single-handledly sealed the deal. I'm not an NP and probably not an ESJ (tertiary Ne) either. I don't even know what Ne is. And yes I have read Chapter 10 of Psychological Types, but no Jung beyond that. I don't know if this song is just not a great example of Ne (I don't see it as "random" at all, it seems quite linear and sequential to me, I'd never think of her as mentally teleporting based on this song), but assuming that it is, I'm definitely mistyped (I was going between NTP/SFJ which share Ne).
> 
> If Amanda Palmer is Ne-dominant, then David Draiman (lead singer of Disturbed, commonly typed as ENFP) and Regina Spektor (commonly typed xNFP) are not. Yet I am wholly convinced that David in particular cannot be anything other than Ne-Fi (or possibly Fi-Ne/INFP) so once again my understanding of Ne must be flawed.
> 
> I forgot my point somewhere in there (sorry)...


I looked up some of David's songs. I've no clue what type he is. But his music, especially his lyrics, are so hard and raw and just full of. I don't know. But I wonder if it's more Fi, what you're seeing? As for Regina Spektor, ha. I never quite know what her songs mean, except maybe generally. They seem to mean something deep to her. 



> That's me all the time too. What things are like. What things are analogous to at a high level. (I'd say that's what gives them meaning, as well.) Although I'm not talking about physical things. And I don't try to come up with these analogues, my brain just automagically pulls them out of thin air. Connecting everything to everything, seeing the parallels, but at a (very) high level. I always thought that was Ne but clearly it's not.


Yeah, same. I do it, especially when I'm just... thinking about stuff, I guess. I like to just wonder about things and why they are the way they are. (That's just human.) Ugh, there's no way to describe this. Okay, warning: crazy train of thoughts below. But for example. I was thinking about this poem, Ulysses. I fell in love with it. It's kind of about Odysseus actually who comes back home. But there's another version of the story where he decides to leave everything again for adventure. The author of the poem, Tennyson, may not approve of this choice. But I couldn't find myself caring as I read it. It was too beautiful. 



> I cannot rest from travel: I will drink life to the lees: All the times I have enjoyed greatly, have suffered greatly, both with those that loved me, and alone... For always roaming with a hungry heart much have I seen and known; cities of men and manners, climates, councils, governments... I am a part of all I have met. Yet all experience is an arch wherethro’ gleams that untravelled world whose margin fades for ever and forever when I move. How dull it is to pause, to make an end, to rust unburnished, not to shine in use! As though to breathe were life! Life piled on life were all too little... Little remains: but every hour is saved from that eternal silence, something more, a bringer of new things... And this grey spirit yearning in desire to follow knowledge like a sinking star, beyond the utmost bound of human thought


It really makes me want to go traveling barefoot from place to place, always wondering what is just beyond what I can see. But you know, it reminded me of Woody Guthrie. The folk singer. He traveled from place to place and couldn't stay at home. Something always drove him on. He'd travel, just him and his guitar, and brought people music. Bringing a bit of happiness to people during a time when so many just felt hopeless. 

Both of these things felt similar somehow, made me think of one thing.

... As I began to think of all of this, I thought: when people tell me how they wander, longing to see more, and how it seems they search for something they don't even know... Well, it reminds me of lots of things. It makes me think of the Israelites following God through the wilderness. (Ha, I also like theology. ^_^) Wandering, wondering, questioning, learning, curiosity - they're all such human things. It all feels like waking up in the morning. New things. You don't know what's in store. But you get out of bed. It's hopeful. You do it because you hope to see something beautiful. To stumble upon something worthwhile. You hope for good. If that wasn't there, we wouldn't get out of our beds in the morning and the sunrise would be empty. 

Well, in the end, I connected all of it to theological things as I wondered what makes wondering and wandering so worthwhile. Searching and delighting in finding more, things we can't even imagine - I see this as something that is just deeply true in the way things are. As something that's woven into the fabric of reality, if you will. I can see it in multiple places. In my mind, it reminds me of just how things are - like the movement of the planets, and reminds me of the Trinity, and how everything sometimes feels like it's involved in one big dance, and love. (Those all... are like movement. Somehow.) All of which would make no sense but feel like they point to the same thing in my mind.

... that's kinda how my mind works. 



> I relate to you (I nearly always do, btw, and I have no Fi; I also relate to your thoughts on the concept of "patriotism" (I mean not the specifics necessarily but the way you think)), but I do not relate to this song. I guess I would have written a song that said something more general(?), like "we should be forces for good instead of forces for bad" and just left it at that. (lol, there's a reason I'm not a songwriter.) The whole song reminds me of a commercial that used to air that asked a question like, "Do (basketball) courts reduce the need for (juvenile) courts?" Basically the same idea, does providing someone a tool to be a force for good (at least good for themselves and neutral to other people, like music or sports) actually reduce evil in the world. I don't particularly care about that question tbh it just struck me as similar.


Yeah. Another thing about "nations" and "patriotism" is that... Well, they're made up. So they simply do not feel true. And patriotism just reminds me of war and power and money and kind of awful things. And feels like a reflection of the not so fantastic side of human nature. And... governments. *sigh* [Oh no. Imagine no governments! Gosh, not again. ^_^] 

That's true, it could have been shorter. But I think the point of it may have been more than just "we should be for good". I don't think she really said that. But she was asking the people around her to think of what could be IF. And that's where the excitement truly came from. It's the idea that it could change things that makes it such a delightful song. That's actually kind of the point of it. I think. Haha, I don't know. 

I agree, though, it does seem similar to that commercial you mentioned. 

Do you really not relate to Fi?


----------

