# Socionics Si vs Jung's Si



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> I think Jung was trying to get at the subjective aspect of Si, but the way he interpreted and described this subjectivity does not even remotely resemble how I experience it. Jung seems to think Si sees objects subjectively, but that's not how it works for me. I see objects objectively, but prefer to focus on my internal state which usually has nothing to do with objects. Occasionally I will notice a subjective reaction to an object (ex. a comfortable environment making me feel relaxed), but most of the time there is no reaction.
> 
> Jung and socionics seem to be describing two different kinds of "subjective".
> 
> ...





Silveresque said:


> Pie is just pie. I'm not likely to have any subjective reaction to it, aside from perhaps liking how it tastes.
> 
> Here is my version: "I smell pie. I want pie. *eats pie*"
> 
> My Si isn't really found in how I perceive objects, usually. When I'm experiencing Si, there are no objects. I'm just observing how I physically feel, and it's not in relation to anything else. For example, let's say I'm tired. There is no object, nothing in particular is making me tired, I'm just tired.


Si is still perception and is still perfectly capable of perceiving objective world, it's not like everything Si see are "monsters and fairies". Sometimes pie is just a pie, but for other Si user it can have its subjective element, and when/how/what Si adds to it is situational and unpredictable. There are theories that Si users perceive objective world through Ne, but I didn't read much into this yet, maybe because the idea itself is not particularly appealing to me.

If your internal state has nothing to do with the object then it's hard to pinpoint it as any of the sensing perception functions, because, for both Si and Se, there still should be relations between subject and object, they are just oppositely directed. Being tired or being aware of being tired is definitely not Si, it's just... being human.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

To_august said:


> Being tired or being aware of being tired is definitely not Si, it's just... being human.


I think this is where the enneagram instinct type of Self preservation have been wrongly mixed in.
It would be interesting to contrast an Si dom with Sp last vs one with Sp first.
It seems to me that when Si is performing the duties of the Sp instinct we get the Socionics description.
However Sx and So also has a say in what areas of life Si can be employed.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

hornet said:


> I think this is where the enneagram instinct type of Self preservation have been wrongly mixed in.
> It would be interesting to contrast an Si dom with Sp last vs one with Sp first.
> It seems to me that when Si is performing the duties of the Sp instinct we get the Socionics description.
> However Sx and So also has a say in what areas of life Si can be employed.


I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that Sp had too much Si mixed in. Physical comfort doesn't have much to do with actual self-preservation. I view Sp more along the lines of health, safety, security, survival, and preserving or acquiring resources. This way, Sp can be thought of as independent of functions.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Silveresque said:


> I was under the impression that it was the other way around, that Sp had too much Si mixed in. Physical comfort doesn't have much to do with actual self-preservation. I view Sp more along the lines of health, safety, security, survival, and preserving or acquiring resources. This way, Sp can be thought of as independent of functions.


Really?
I would call discomfort a sign of strain. Strain over time leads to injury.
Getting an injury is hardly in line with self preservation.
I dunno exactly how noticing strain should be more subjective than objective.
It isn't like the nerves in your body have a greater tolerance for sending signals if you have Se over Si.
If Si is more likely to notice it is because it is more prone to notice anything out of the ordinary.
Se is just awash in all the sensations and might just let the discomfort pass by.
Then again Si is just as prone to pretend objective information not being there unless it has a familiar label.
The more I think about it the more bull the Socionics Si start to sound.

Feel free to elaborate on how comfort is tied up directly to the functions.
As of now I don't really see it.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

hornet said:


> Really?
> I would call discomfort a sign of strain. Strain over time leads to injury.


Discomfort doesn't necessarily have anything to do with strain. And I don't actually think about strain and injury when I avoid discomfort. Discomfort is avoided simply because it's uncomfortable. 



> I dunno exactly how noticing strain should be more subjective than objective.
> It isn't like the nerves in your body have a greater tolerance for sending signals if you have Se over Si.
> If Si is more likely to notice it is because it is more prone to notice anything out of the ordinary.
> Se is just awash in all the sensations and might just let the discomfort pass by.


Any internal physical state someone experiences can be considered subjective in the sense that it can't exist without a subject. My physical state doesn't exist outside of me, and it can only be experienced through me. 

Anyone who is strong in Se will also be strong in Si, and vice versa. I don't think it's that Si types notice strain more, necessarily, it's just that they place greater importance on their physical comfort perhaps, because they prefer to direct their sensing perception inward. 



> Then again Si is just as prone to pretend objective information not being there unless it has a familiar label.


What? Why? This sounds too unhealthy to be attributed to any function. o.o


Anyways, if the socionics version of Si were wrong, then I'm not sure if any type would fit me. Did I break socionics? :/


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> @-Ephemeral-
> 
> I don't understand what you mean by "sensory archetypes". Is it similar to prototype theory (Prototype theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)?


Well, in a sense yes but more in the sense that prototype theory seems to be a theory that expounds upon the concept of archetypes. Again, think facial composites:










The sum of each face is the sum of every person of that nationality. It creates an archetype or an ideal that contains every aspect of the face of every woman of that nationality while still not being any of them. This is how Ni works for me for example, except I am not concerned about seeing archetypes in the physical in this way. I wouldn't pay attention to or be aware of that there's some internal sense of Mexican-ness of how every Mexican woman should look like in order to be Mexican. My idea goes more to what's physically removed in that I try to find these archetypes in ideas rather than in the physical. This is why I may for example think of "faith" when I see the Ergo Proxy OP, because it seems to ideationally represent the idea of faith to me. 

I've noticed that Ne-Si types however, seem to want to find these kind of archetypes I notice in the world of ideas in the physical. Strong Si users in particular, seem to want to distill experience into something archetype so the taste of apple pie isn't just the apple pie you are eating now, but it is the sum of all apple pies you have eaten in the past as well, and the taste of the current apple pie is simply compared to this archetypal ideal of what apple pies should really taste like in order to be that perfect apple pie. I suppose that's why Si is associated with food in socionics because Si seeks to hone in on experience in this way, trying to perfect experience through repetition which of course when we speak of say, cooking or any other craft or art, is an extremely useful skill to possess because you end up creating a deep-seated sense of sensory ideal of say, the perfect dish and you can then compare everything else you are tasting right now to this dish to see if it lives up to these standards or not. I suppose that's one way of how Si can manifest in Si types. To me the taste of the dish exists in a more objective realm that's linked to the present moment. 

That's why I think people misunderstand Si and Se a lot as just sensation especially when we speak of socionics. Of course anyone can experience themselves as tired or not as I am right now. I am not a machine. I however, do not have a strong archetypal idea of tiredness that I compare my sense of tiredness to or anything like that. Tiredness exists in the present moment and is gauged in the present moment. Hence objective and extroverted and thus also Se. 



> I know some people are very visual thinkers and when they hear the word "dog" for example, an image of whatever type of dog seems most typical to them pops into their head. But the only thing that stands out about my perception is that I focus on my internal states.


That just seems like memory association and I would say that's likely mostly unrelated to cognition in the Jungian sense, anyway. Ni for me would for example be like seeing an image which is not necessarily visual because I am not a visual thinker, but I experience the world through metaphorical stills. A lot of Ni metaphors are known colloquially like when people feel frustrated they say stuff like tearing one's hair off. Of course you aren't literally tearing your hair off but you say it in order to express your frustration. That's an Ni image. Or the idea that when we are in love we are struck by an arrow in the heart. Of course, that's just more how Ni can be more tangibly manifested, and Si must operate in a similar way being Pi but deal with the sensory then, rather than physically removed imagery. 


> Though I did have this thought once:
> 
> 
> 
> But a Se type told me this was Se-Ni, so I don't know.


Didn't seem like Se-Ni to me. 



Silveresque said:


> Pie is just pie. I'm not likely to have any subjective reaction to it, aside from perhaps liking how it tastes.
> 
> Here is my version: "I smell pie. I want pie. *eats pie*"
> 
> ...


The thing about perception though is that it is involuntary in a sense. You simply observe something and not just one's internal physical states but internal qualities of all objects. It doesn't mean you do it all the time, it's not like I always get imagery like the above examples every day or all the time. If you ask me about this computer I'm sitting in front right now I would say it's just that, a computer. 



HFGE said:


> The way he structured his writings is fairly logical and well laid out, plus he kind of ruined his own health by writing all of the books that he did due to his foray into cocaine usage. Also, he doesn't seem to have a very good grasp on introverted intuition and instead seems to just write a bunch of gibberish about it to compensate. Also, what does Augusta have to do with the type of Si that's being described? Most introverted if not all descriptions you read today are written independently of Model A. Plus you're ignoring that Socionics descriptions are based on whatever research comes out of each respective school while Jung wrote his books pretty much by himself so of course Jung's writings are going to be much more biased than the Socionics descriptions.


Sure, but I wasn't arguing for whether I agree with that typing or not. I simply said that your assertion that Jung is an LSI in socionics is incorrect because he is commonly typed as an IEI. 

And my point about Augusta was that her Si is of inferior quality and obviously this will bias her understanding of Si just like you are raising the same argument about Jung. Since Augusta laid the groundwork for socionics every other description will be based off Augusta's description of Si which is why we now have this archetypal idea of Si being associated with food, internal states etc. 

Also, you can argue that since everything is based off Jung then the socionics description of Si is simply just another manifestation of Jungian Si so they are all equally correct or objective.


----------



## d e c a d e n t (Apr 21, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> Discomfort doesn't necessarily have anything to do with strain. And I don't actually think about strain and injury when I avoid discomfort. Discomfort is avoided simply because it's uncomfortable.


Yeah, but we feel that discomfort in the first place because something might be bad for our self, so at an instinctual level... well it makes sense that the sp instinct would focus on that, I think (even if that discomfort isn't actually dangerous, and we're aware of it). Someone with weak Si might be less likely to focus on physical discomfort though. Dunno.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Silveresque said:


> Discomfort doesn't necessarily have anything to do with strain. And I don't actually think about strain and injury when I avoid discomfort. Discomfort is avoided simply because it's uncomfortable.


If you stay too long in any uncomfortable position you will hurt yourself.
I'm sure discomfort is our bodies way of keeping us moving to avoid strain in the long term.
Look into ergonomics if you don't believe me.




> Any internal physical state someone experiences can be considered subjective in the sense that it can't exist without a subject. My physical state doesn't exist outside of me, and it can only be experienced through me.


Well would you consider the impulses of the body of a braindead persons body subjective?
There is hardly anyone home to answer the calls.
In that way the bodys signals must be deemed objective.
Only when we interpret them does the subject enter into the picture.



> Anyone who is strong in Se will also be strong in Si, and vice versa. I don't think it's that Si types notice strain more, necessarily, it's just that they place greater importance on their physical comfort perhaps, because they prefer to direct their sensing perception inward.


That is the question, does Si really have to do with inner body experience.
Then Si would just be the nerves on the inside of the body.
Sounds like a weird way to look at it too me.
I don't think about the functions as real things anyway.
They are abstractions in the subjective realm.
Jung was an introvert. 
Hence none of it is strictly real, but a perspective on an imagined framework.
It feels to me like Socionics are trying to give the functions life so to speak.
Trying bring this framework into reality and identify it's components in reality as it is.
That is where it all shatters into a thousand little pieces, cause that is impossible.
Si does not striktly excist, you can't pinpoint it accurately.
You can infer it as a pattern, a pattern that matches Se objective reality.
On any other level it stops making real sense, that is why MBTI sucks, it is twisted.

I think there is a lot of confusion of what Jung was about.
His interpretations can only really work when the principles he outlined are followed.
He stated so himself in the beginning of PT.
Yet people run around trying to treat his work as a perfect map of the human mind.
Of course me saying this from my own stance is only revolting to seeing my own
valued position being violated, and yet again I'm managed to get embroiled in
a type battle with no possible resolution.
So me saying there is confusion, only amounts to me pointing to my own valued POV.
A POV that automatically tramples on the POV of certain other types.
It doesn't help for me to be more clear, as that is just me driving the spike further in.
In fact the only thing that really helps is being really vague.
But how fun is that?
So here I stand, torture people mentally for fun or pretend everything is fine and dandy like a bore.




> What? Why? This sounds too unhealthy to be attributed to any function. o.o


Well obviously any interpretation I make of my shadow is bound to come out negative.
It is a psychic must, I cannot in good faith asign value to it.



> Anyways, if the socionics version of Si were wrong, then I'm sure if any type would fit me. Did I break socionics? :/


Well if you did it was only in your own mind you broke it.
It keeps working just as well for a lot of other people.
For me such frameworks are really just a dime a dozen, 
if one don't work it can easily be modified in the minds eye to work anyway.

I hope all this rambling serves some positive purpose.
If only for entertainment, I'll take what I can get.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Sure, but I wasn't arguing for whether I agree with that typing or not. I simply said that your assertion that Jung is an LSI in socionics is incorrect because he is commonly typed as an IEI.
> 
> And my point about Augusta was that her Si is of inferior quality and obviously this will bias her understanding of Si just like you are raising the same argument about Jung. Since Augusta laid the groundwork for socionics every other description will be based off Augusta's description of Si which is why we now have this archetypal idea of Si being associated with food, internal states etc.
> 
> Also, you can argue that since everything is based off Jung then the socionics description of Si is simply just another manifestation of Jungian Si so they are all equally correct or objective.


I've seen Jung commonly typed as LSI which makes much more sense than IEI, personally.

Dude, Augusta has nothing to do with introverted sensing descriptions that reach the West. Her protoges are the ones writing the descriptions these days and they're based on observational data, not a theoretical model. You're making a rather specious argument.

Yeah you can argue all you want but that doesn't change the fact that Jung can only see Ne/Si through the veil of Se/Ni. That taints his descriptions immensely and is reason enough alone to discard them in favor of modern observational evidence. Not to mention he places Ne on some absurd pedestal and makes Ti and Se seem like the elements that everyone should have as their main two elements. Yes, I can say Jung's descriptions are pretty much outdated nowadays due to horrendous bias and well, just not being as good as modern interpretations. Jung isn't god and is as fallible as anyone else; he pioneered archetypes in the West, was friends was Freud and that's pretty much sums up his academic accomplishments.

At any rate, I've stopped reading this thread and I likely won't be responding to anymore replies.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Well, in a sense yes but more in the sense that prototype theory seems to be a theory that expounds upon the concept of archetypes. Again, think facial composites:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Hmm, I definitely don't relate to this at all.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

hornet said:


> If you stay too long in any uncomfortable position you will hurt yourself.
> I'm sure discomfort is our bodies way of keeping us moving to avoid strain in the long term.
> Look into ergonomics if you don't believe me.


I already know this and it doesn't refute the point I was making. 



> Well would you consider the impulses of the body of a braindead persons body subjective?
> There is hardly anyone home to answer the calls.
> In that way the bodys signals must be deemed objective.
> Only when we interpret them does the subject enter into the picture.


Anything can be turned into objective data, including the fact that a person has a certain subjective interpretation.



> Well if you did it was only in your own mind you broke it.
> It keeps working just as well for a lot of other people.
> For me such frameworks are really just a dime a dozen,
> if one don't work it can easily be modified in the minds eye to work anyway.


I disagree. The fact that socionics doesn't work for me (if it's true that it doesn't) isn't simply all in my head. If there truly is no type that fits me adequately, then it's an objective fact and implies that while most people are able to find a socionics type, not everyone has a type. And I don't believe in modifying frameworks subjectively to make them fit.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

Silveresque said:


> I already know this and it doesn't refute the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...












Look an impasse.
How shocking...:shocked:
I was so sure the resolution was around the corner.:dry:


----------



## AST (Oct 1, 2013)

Silveresque said:


> I already know this and it doesn't refute the point I was making.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Or, alternatively, there is something off with the interpretations of the framework.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

HFGE said:


> Yeah you can argue all you want but that doesn't change the fact that Jung can only see Ne/Si through the veil of Se/Ni. That taints his descriptions immensely and is reason enough alone to discard them in favor of modern observational evidence.


I don't know if you are going to reply since you've stated you don't intend to keep on reading this thread (why?) but what do you mean by "observational evidence"? That expression seems to make no sense in the context of this typology. Cognitive functions are human constructs that are supposed to represent patterns in cognition, universal to all humans. It doesn't make sense to me to speak of observational when this whole thing was conceived as something entirely non-physical, even if it may have a certain biological origin that we don't know about. Or evidence, evidence of what? If you begin tying cognitive functions to concrete manifestations you are essentially beginning to study a different object, you are creating a different definition from Jung's. Yet I don't think that's socionics' intention anyway because there's still a tendency to formulate IEs as abstractions of reality, for example, through the reduced definitions like "internal statics of objects" which attempt to represent a reality greater than a specific concrete manifestation. I think there is value in both socionics' and MBTI's interpretation of the cognitive functions because they offer a few _hints_of what to look for that make these abstractions easier to identify in reality.


----------



## ThatOneWeirdGuy (Nov 22, 2012)

-Ephemeral- said:


> It was more of a factual statement honestly. Te vs Fe...


Then why was the word "fucking" necessary? I really don't care; it's just that it usually has aggressive connotations and it didn't serve the purpose of getting the information of your factual statement across. 

Unless it was meant to add emotional emphasis, in which case I regretfully inform you that you are a closeted ESE. ;p


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I don't know if you are going to reply since you've stated you don't intend to keep on reading this thread (why?) but what do you mean by "observational evidence"? That expression seems to make no sense in the context of this typology. Cognitive functions are human constructs that are supposed to represent patterns in cognition, universal to all humans. It doesn't make sense to me to speak of observational when this whole thing was conceived as something entirely non-physical, even if it may have a certain biological origin that we don't know about. Or evidence, evidence of what? If you begin tying cognitive functions to concrete manifestations you are essentially beginning to study a different object, you are creating a different definition from Jung's. Yet I don't think that's socionics' intention anyway because there's still a tendency to formulate IEs as abstractions of reality, for example, through the reduced definitions like "internal statics of objects" which attempt to represent a reality greater than a specific concrete manifestation. I think there is value in both socionics' and MBTI's interpretation of the cognitive functions because they offer a few _hints_of what to look for that make these abstractions easier to identify in reality.


Well, one more response.  Anyway, observational evidence means is simply rounding up several people of the same type and observe for common qualia(s) of the type. How do you think the Si = memory, pleasant sensations, etcetc observations were made? They certainly weren't created through hypothesis as there's nothing in Jung's archetypes or Model A that would even lead one to formulate one. The same goes for Ni and all of the other elements.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

hornet said:


> If Si is more likely to notice it is because it is more prone to notice anything out of the ordinary.
> Se is just awash in all the sensations and might just let the discomfort pass by.
> Then again Si is just as prone to pretend objective information not being there unless it has a familiar label.
> The more I think about it the more bull the Socionics Si start to sound.
> ...


I think it's more likely for Si to tag this sensation as subjectively similar to those experienced before and, because of this, dismiss it. It doesn't mean that Si would be objectively right though, which can lead to discomfort, same as with Se. Different paths, same result 

Agree that Enneagram's self-preservation instinct seems very similar to Si, to Socionics' description of Si particularly. It sounds like they try to connect concrete physical experiences and manifestations with functions to make them more appealing and easier for people to understand. But this mixture sound weird at best.

P.S. on archetypes vs. prototypes. Jungian archetypes are original, ideal, all-encompassing images, patterns, forms (or whatever they are), while prototypes are simplified, lacking versions or representations of a broader concept; they posses the most central and defining characteristics of a given concept. In other words archetypes include all possible prototypes, but the latter are just small pieces of archetypes. Maybe once archetypes, connected with sensation, enter consciousness they become something similar to prototypes? I dunno.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

To_august said:


> I think it's *more likely for Si to tag this sensation as subjectively similar to those experienced before and, because of this, dismiss it*. It doesn't mean that Si would be objectively right though, which can lead to discomfort, same as with Se. Different paths, same result


Since Si's focus is on the sensation it makes no sense for it to dismis it.
Unless the sensation is out of the iconic range if you will.
Ne guides Si trough recogniced labels.
*My home* is such a label.
All sensations pertaining to *my home* will be picked up.
Ne being collective, only the icons withing the collective awareness will be observed.
Everything outside of the collective sphere will be glossed over and ignored.
Only the Se and Ni axis can introduce new items into the collective awareness.
To great chagrin and resistance of Si.
Ne does not introduce anything, new it just conflates excisting labels until it becomes something.
Only Ni can trough the symbol infer something totally new and gamechanging from Se.



> Agree that Enneagram's self-preservation instinct seems very similar to Si, to Socionics' description of Si particularly. It sounds like they try to connect concrete physical experiences and manifestations with functions to make them more appealing and easier for people to understand. But this mixture sound weird at best.


Well being based on empirical evidence it is no wonder they observed the instinctual patterns.
They just didn't realize that they where mixing in something that didn't belong in Jungs framework.



> P.S. on archetypes vs. prototypes. Jungian archetypes are original, ideal, all-encompassing images, patterns, forms (or whatever they are), while prototypes are simplified, lacking versions or representations of a broader concept; they posses the most central and defining characteristics of a given concept. In other words archetypes include all possible prototypes, but the latter are just small pieces of archetypes. Maybe once archetypes, connected with sensation, enter consciousness they become something similar to prototypes? I dunno.


Prototype as a sub-archetype.
That was an interesting thought.
Thanks for that.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

Silveresque said:


> Hmm, I definitely don't relate to this at all.


The real question is why you don't though. 



ThatOneWeirdGuy said:


> Then why was the word "fucking" necessary? I really don't care; it's just that it usually has aggressive connotations and it didn't serve the purpose of getting the information of your factual statement across.
> 
> Unless it was meant to add emotional emphasis, in which case I regretfully inform you that you are a closeted ESE. ;p


Because I was adding emotional emphasis in a sarcastic kind of way, whatever. Kind of like "wow that's so fucking funny". And really, you don't want to argue whether I come across aggressively or not because I honestly don't give much of a fuck about that. 



HFGE said:


> I've seen Jung commonly typed as LSI which makes much more sense than IEI, personally.


Which is where? Because the official typing is IEI. 



> Dude, Augusta has nothing to do with introverted sensing descriptions that reach the West.


When we speak about socionics, of course it does. 



> Her protoges are the ones writing the descriptions these days and they're based on observational data, not a theoretical model. You're making a rather specious argument.


Then why aren't you arguing that Jung's proteges such as von Franz have helped to objectify his definitions? The one who's argument is specious is yours for being so obviously subjectively biased. If you are going to apply this kind of reasoning at least do it universally. 



> Yeah you can argue all you want but that doesn't change the fact that Jung can only see Ne/Si through the veil of Se/Ni.


And same goes for Augusta so your point is again...?



> That taints his descriptions immensely and is reason enough alone to discard them in favor of modern observational evidence.


Please tell what "modern observational evidence" means outside the scope of Jung's own personal observations that are just as true as any other observation in this context.



> Not to mention he places Ne on some absurd pedestal and makes Ti and Se seem like the elements that everyone should have as their main two elements.


Eh, Jung gave Te the most of flak and he hated on all extroversion almost equivocally. 



> Yes, I can say Jung's descriptions are pretty much outdated nowadays due to horrendous bias and well, just not being as good as modern interpretations.


How are modern interpretations better? How can you interpret something of intangible existence that Jung originally defined in a better way without creating a new idea of said interpretation? Can we then actually speak of that they are observing and interpreting the same object anymore? 



> Jung isn't god and is as fallible as anyone else; he pioneered archetypes in the West, was friends was Freud and that's pretty much sums up his academic accomplishments.


lol. Never claimed such a thing. Seems like you just dislike Jung but at least be honest about disliking Jung then, rather than veiling it in such obvious bias. 


> At any rate, I've stopped reading this thread and I likely won't be responding to anymore replies.


lol whatever.

@To_august how does Si work for you seeing that you identify as an ISTJ so I assume you would also find SLI t o be the closest socionics fit?


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

Who would be more disgusted by the smell of a fart?

An Si-dom or Se-dom?

Let's pretend all other factors are equal for the sake of this question (ability to smell, upbringing, etc.)


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

-Ephemeral- said:


> The real question is why you don't though.


That whole sensory archetypes thing and especially facial composites sounds a bit like stereotyping to me. It's also kind of like...why bother reducing sensory information to something other than what it actually is? When I look at a picture I don't think of other pictures that are similar or try to relate it to some archetype. Why would I? 

On the other hand, I organized my music by the type of feeling they produce, based more on how the song sounds and which pattern it fits into than on how it personally makes me feel. Which could relate to sensory archetypes. 

And I experience something where if I look at a lot of images, then later when my mind is at rest, new but similar images start popping into my head automatically. So for example, let's say I look at tons of clothes. Then later images of new clothes that I've never seen before will pop into my head, and some of them look really nice. It's like my subconscious is taking all the sensory information I collected and forming brand new sensory data based on the patterns or archetypes. 

I guess the sensory archetype thing can be fun sometimes, but I don't really care about it unless it serves some other purpose.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

TruthDismantled said:


> Who would be more disgusted by the smell of a fart?
> 
> An Si-dom or Se-dom?
> 
> Let's pretend all other factors are equal for the sake of this question (ability to smell, upbringing, etc.)


By defining these equal factors you will have your answer, since the question goes beyond cognitive functions.
Go now, and sin no more. :tongue:


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

hornet said:


> By defining these equal factors you will have your answer, since the question goes beyond cognitive functions.
> Go now, and sin no more. :tongue:




What does your intuition tell you? Lol, like if you had to decide


----------



## TruthDismantled (Jan 16, 2013)

-Ephemeral- said:


> The real question is why you don't though.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Do you believe that people can be fairly accurately typed from a full body picture?

As in do you believe you could distinguish an Ni/Se user from an Ne/Si user for instance? Or at least an introvert from an extravert?


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

TruthDismantled said:


> What does your intuition tell you? Lol, like if you had to decide


My intuition tells me Si if the equal factor is that the culture views farting negatively.
If it is viewed positively then I doubt that either would be offended.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> Then why aren't you arguing that Jung's proteges such as von Franz have helped to objectify his definitions? The one who's argument is specious is yours for being so obviously subjectively biased. If you are going to apply this kind of reasoning at least do it universally.


When people cite Jung and his definitions, they cite Jung, not his protoges. The same isn't true for Augusta aside for model A for which she receives credit.



> And same goes for Augusta so your point is again...?


Um, the only bias evident for socionics is that there's a definite anti-Fi bias and to a lesser degree Te as well.



> Please tell what "modern observational evidence" means outside the scope of Jung's own personal observations that are just as true as any other observation in this context.


Okay, I suggest you read Jung's books over again then read descriptions to come from research done today and see if Jung's works still holds up.



> Eh, Jung gave Te the most of flak and he hated on all extroversion almost equivocally.


That's a misconception. He wrote a lot of negative things about introverts as well subsequent to his rantish writings about extroverts.



> lol. Never claimed such a thing. Seems like you just dislike Jung but at least be honest about disliking Jung then, rather than veiling it in such obvious bias.


I don't dislike Jung at all. I just think his writings are outdated, especially after reading volumes 2, 9(part1) and 17 of his collected works which are essentially his most important works with regard to personality types today.

I do poke fun at Jung for being "the father of personality types" because the idea has been around for much longer before Jung. I just find the idea absurd that Jung receives the credit for being the pioneer of human archetypes since he wasn't the first to write on such subjects. I suppose his works are simply a product of the sentiment in Europe at the turn of the 20th century (That the past is unimportant, only the strong survive and everything from then on is considered the now or the new).


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HFGE said:


> When people cite Jung and his definitions, they cite Jung, not his protoges. The same isn't true for Augusta aside for model A for which she receives credit.


This would perhaps be a fair argument if socionics and Jung were actually comparable but they are not. It's like arguing apples and oranges. If you compare Jung and Augusta or MBTI and socionics, but not Jung and socionics. 



> Um, the only bias evident for socionics is that there's a definite anti-Fi bias and to a lesser degree Te as well.


I would say that highly depends on the author. Stratiyevskaya has awesome gamma descriptions for example. 



> Okay, I suggest you read Jung's books over again then read descriptions to come from research done today and see if Jung's works still holds up.


Why don't you answer the question instead of telling me to go re-read Jung?



> That's a misconception. He wrote a lot of negative things about introverts as well subsequent to his rantish writings about extroverts.


Strawman. I never implied anything about what Jung wrote about introverts. I actually agree with that Jung was highly critical against all types. 



> I don't dislike Jung at all. I just think his writings are outdated, especially after reading volumes 2, 9(part1) and 17 of his collected works which are essentially his most important works with regard to personality types today.


But what has that got to do with the rest of your criticism of lacking objectivity? 



> I do poke fun at Jung for being "the father of personality types" because the idea has been around for much longer before Jung. I just find the idea absurd that Jung receives the credit for being the pioneer of human archetypes since he wasn't the first to write on such subjects. I suppose his works are simply a product of the sentiment in Europe at the turn of the 20th century (That the past is unimportant, only the strong survive and everything from then on is considered the now or the new).


Except I never raised such a view and I largely don't care. Of course Jung took inspiration from somewhere else.



TruthDismantled said:


> Do you believe that people can be fairly accurately typed from a full body picture?
> 
> As in do you believe you could distinguish an Ni/Se user from an Ne/Si user for instance? Or at least an introvert from an extravert?


If you are referring to VI, I think VI can help typing but I would never type solely based off VI. Cognition is the study of the mind, not the entire body.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> I would say that highly depends on the author. Stratiyevskaya has awesome gamma descriptions for example.


Well, when socionics was first being introduced in the US, there was a definite anti-Fi bias. That may have changed now.



> Why don't you answer the question instead of telling me to go re-read Jung?


What's more to say? Try reading any books on the Enneagram or even the book on Meyers-Briggs, compare with Jung. Jung's definitions seem archaic by comparison.



> Strawman. I never implied anything about what Jung wrote about introverts. I actually agree with that Jung was highly critical against all types.


Wasn't making an argument but a statement.



> But what has that got to do with the rest of your criticism of lacking objectivity?


If you think that my view that Jung's writings are obsolete is lacking objectivity then so be it. It's not like I don't have opinions.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

HFGE said:


> Well, one more response.  Anyway, observational evidence means is simply rounding up several people of the same type and observe for common qualia(s) of the type. How do you think the Si = memory, pleasant sensations, etcetc observations were made? They certainly weren't created through hypothesis as there's nothing in Jung's archetypes or Model A that would even lead one to formulate one. The same goes for Ni and all of the other elements.


I don't know, do you have a source that explicits exactly how such a definition of Si was reached? In any case, let's assume it happened the way you described it. Those people who were observed had to actually be typed as Si types because otherwise, what would Augusta or Myers and Briggs or their team be observing? They had to choose an object of study and that object was based on Jung's definition of Si. If they didn't start from Jung's ideas then they observed something else that was later, somehow, connected to his ideas. Also, that _is _the same method Jung used, he conceived his theory based on the patterns he observed in people's way of thinking. And he didn't even reduce himself to a particular sample, he attempted to create a universal theory and he drew examples of different types of thinking from philosophy, literature, psychology (if I remember correctly, he begun developing his theory of extroversion and introversion from a desire to reconcile his views with Freud's) and his patients. It's just his observations were not tangible. They are patterns, you can say Si types pay attention to physical sensations or you can say they form sensory archetypes in their minds. And many of the functions, as defined in MBTI or Socionics, are clearly linked to Jung's descriptions, it's just Si is the odd one out. That's what I meant in my previous post when I said MBTI and Socionics try to give something more tangible and easier to identify to cognitive functions/IEs, but my point is those things aren't the functions themselves.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I don't know, do you have a source that explicits exactly how such a definition of Si was reached? In any case, let's assume it happened the way you described it. Those people who were observed had to actually be typed as Si types because otherwise, what would Augusta or Myers and Briggs or their team be observing? They had to choose an object of study and that object was based on Jung's definition of Si. If they didn't start from Jung's ideas then they observed something else that was later, somehow, connected to his ideas. Also, that _is _the same method Jung used, he conceived his theory based on the patterns he observed in people's way of thinking. And he didn't even reduce himself to a particular sample, he attempted to create a universal theory and he drew examples of different types of thinking from philosophy, literature, psychology (if I remember correctly, he begun developing his theory of extroversion and introversion from a desire to reconcile his views with Freud's) and his patients. It's just his observations were not tangible. They are patterns, you can say Si types pay attention to physical sensations or you can say they form sensory archetypes in their minds. And many of the functions, as defined in MBTI or Socionics, are clearly linked to Jung's descriptions, it's just Si is the odd one out. That's what I meant in my previous post when I said MBTI and Socionics try to give something more tangible and easier to identify to cognitive functions/IEs, but my point is those things aren't the functions themselves.


I don't know if you know this or not but Jung based his descriptions on his work as a psychologist, so he had a ton of observations on which to base his writings on. Which is why his writings are so biased because they are of his judgments and his alone.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

HFGE said:


> I don't know if you know this or not but Jung based his descriptions on his work as a psychologist, so he had a ton of observations on which to base his writings on. Which is why his writings are so biased because they are of his judgments and his alone.


I don't disagree, at least if what you've said about his work is true. But I'm kind of missing what the point of this exchange is, what are we trying to arrive at, and you aren't replying to anything I've said either...


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I don't disagree, at least if what you've said about his work is true. But I'm kind of missing what the point of this exchange is, what are we trying to arrive at, and you aren't replying to anything I've said either...


Well okay, I'll paste your previous post here. I'd ask that you use paragraphs though so as to make things easier to read.



Pancreatic Pandora said:


> I don't know, do you have a source that explicits exactly how such a definition of Si was reached? In any case, let's assume it happened the way you described it. Those people who were observed had to actually be typed as Si types because otherwise, what would Augusta or Myers and Briggs or their team be observing? They had to choose an object of study and that object was based on Jung's definition of Si. If they didn't start from Jung's ideas then they observed something else that was later, somehow, connected to his ideas. Also, that _is _the same method Jung used, he conceived his theory based on the patterns he observed in people's way of thinking. And he didn't even reduce himself to a particular sample, he attempted to create a universal theory and he drew examples of different types of thinking from philosophy, literature, psychology (if I remember correctly, he begun developing his theory of extroversion and introversion from a desire to reconcile his views with Freud's) and his patients. It's just his observations were not tangible. They are patterns, you can say Si types pay attention to physical sensations or you can say they form sensory archetypes in their minds. And many of the functions, as defined in MBTI or Socionics, are clearly linked to Jung's descriptions, it's just Si is the odd one out. That's what I meant in my previous post when I said MBTI and Socionics try to give something more tangible and easier to identify to cognitive functions/IEs, but my point is those things aren't the functions themselves.


Well, MBTI was based Jung's archetypes as a means for sorting out military jobs a person would be suited for based on their type. As such, only the dichotomies were used by MBTI and it wasn't until after the war (World War II) when people began to look into the functional elements as well. That's why very little of MBTI functional descriptions line up with Jung's. FWIW, Si, Ni, Ne and Ti in Jung's work are pretty much irrelevant for MBTI descriptions. Socionics adheres more true to Jung than MBTI does.

In any event, MBTI is all about the four dichotomies whereas Socionics focuses more on the information elements and takes cleaned up versions Jung's descriptions and adds it to Model A. That's also likely why MBTI and Socionics are incompatible with one another. MBTI is based on Jung's work but all of the subsequent work was not and diverged wildly from Jung. That's also likely why MBTI circles don't even mention Jung except for in passing.


----------



## Pancreatic Pandora (Aug 16, 2013)

HFGE said:


> Well okay, I'll paste your previous post here. I'd ask that you use paragraphs though so as to make things easier to read.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well, that's factually correct. However, from my point of view and that of a few others, I don't intend to look at the definitions or types simply from the lense of a particular theory but, instead, believe types and the functions to be real phenomenons and that each theory is an attempt at the representation of them.

But yes, some MBTI writings are too removed from Jung's observations, precisely because they are an interpretation of an interpretation, and end up observing a different object, which means it would make no sense to reconcile points of view that are so different.

...But how does any of this mean that more modern definitions/descriptions are more accurate than Jung's?


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

Pancreatic Pandora said:


> Well, that's factually correct. However, from my point of view and that of a few others, I don't intend to look at the definitions or types simply from the lense of a particular theory but, instead, believe types and the functions to be real phenomenons and that each theory is an attempt at the representation of them.
> 
> But yes, some MBTI writings are too removed from Jung's observations, precisely because they are an interpretation of an interpretation, and end up observing a different object, which means it would make no sense to reconcile points of view that are so different.
> 
> ...But how does any of this mean that more modern definitions/descriptions are more accurate than Jung's?


I agree that types and functions are attempting to describe people as they are in reality.

Well, then I suggest you have some reading to do. I'd suggest Volume 6 of Jung's collected works. Then try comparing introverted intuition (Ni) with:

Introverted intuition - Wikisocion

and

Introverted iNtuiting - (Ni)

You'll find that they're only tenuously alike.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HFGE said:


> I agree that types and functions are attempting to describe people as they are in reality.
> 
> Well, then I suggest you have some reading to do. I'd suggest Volume 6 of Jung's collected works. Then try comparing introverted intuition (Ni) with:
> 
> ...


There is always a certain group or type of people who insist on this and I don't know why but this is quite simple to solve:


> Ni generally manifests itself through a lack of direct attention to the world around oneself, and a sense of detachment or freedom from worldly affairs. *This can lead to a highly developed imagination and very unique mental world,* but it can also result in a great deal of laziness and apparent inactivity. *Because the individual gets his or her primary information about the world through imagination,*





> The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused on *fulfilling our vision or dream* of how things will be in the future.
> 
> Using this process, we might rely on a focal device or* symbolic action to predict, enlighten, or transform.*


Notice how the first passage alludes to a sense of an otherwordly experience, and then notice how the second passage keeps mentioning how Ni is focused on symbolic imagery, visions and dreams. They are alluding to the same thing that Jung suggested with how Ni types are the crooks, cranks, mystics etc. 



> [A] person with base Ni may be able to thrive in situations where data are scarce, or where he or she lacks the usual prerequisite experience.





> The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality


These two statements seem to express pretty much a similar idea. 



> The ability to transcend the axis of time and understand the cause and effect relationships that occur is also a feature, sometimes resulting in the ability to accurately predict general future trends and outcomes of certain events.





> The sense of the future and the realizations that come from introverted iNtuiting have a sureness and an imperative quality that seem to demand action and help us stay focused *on fulfilling our vision or dream of how things will be in the future.*
> 
> [...]
> *
> We could find ourselves laying out how the future will unfold based on unseen trends and telling signs.*


Again alluding to the same thing.

With that said, I fucking hate Berens' and Nardi's function definitions and I don't understand why people keep referring to them. I really think they use too much fluff without actually getting to the core matter and in some cases they are really fucking off.


----------



## HFGE (Jul 19, 2014)

-Ephemeral- said:


> There is always a certain group or type of people who insist on this and I don't know why but this is quite simple to solve:
> 
> Notice how the first passage alludes to a sense of an otherwordly experience, and then notice how the second passage keeps mentioning how Ni is focused on symbolic imagery, visions and dreams. They are alluding to the same thing that Jung suggested with how Ni types are the crooks, cranks, mystics etc.These two statements seem to express pretty much a similar idea.
> 
> Again alluding to the same thing.


Well, okay. I just wanted to make sure introverted intuition types didn't disagree and that the IEIs and ILIs were okay with being the artists, seers, cranks and possibly crooks of the Jungian archetypes.



> With that said, I fucking hate Berens' and Nardi's function definitions and I don't understand why people keep referring to them. I really think they use too much fluff without actually getting to the core matter and in some cases they are really fucking off.


Well, unfortunately I don't have access to Katherine Meyers' and Isabel Briggs' book on the MBTI so unless someone does and can transcribe their definitions verbatim then Berens' and Nardi were all I could find in the net.


----------



## Entropic (Jun 15, 2012)

HFGE said:


> Well, okay. I just wanted to make sure introverted intuition types didn't disagree and that the IEIs and ILIs were okay with being the artists, seers, cranks and possibly crooks of the Jungian archetypes.


Why would you disagree with something that's archetypically true? I'm an artist and a crank. 



> Well, unfortunately I don't have access to Katherine Meyers' and Isabel Briggs' book on the MBTI so unless someone does and can transcribe their definitions verbatim then Berens' and Nardi were all I could find in the net.


It's mostly a personal thing I got with Nardi and Berens. I'm not a fan of Nardi. At all.


----------



## To_august (Oct 13, 2013)

hornet said:


> Since Si's focus is on the sensation it makes no sense for it to dismis it.
> Unless the sensation is out of the iconic range if you will.


I meant that Si is prone to dismiss information in case intensity of the subjective sensation, connected with this information, is within the familiar and safe range. Why pay special attention if it was experienced many times before and it already knows where this sensation will lead and what the result will be? I think such sensations are passing by along with many other ones as a white noise. Si isn't fascinated each time they see the same tree growing near their house, or alternatively, they can be, but then again, it depends on the intensity of subjective reaction not on the object itself.



-Ephemeral- said:


> @_To_august_ how does Si work for you seeing that you identify as an ISTJ so I assume you would also find SLI t o be the closest socionics fit?


My Si experience is pretty much corresponds with what you wrote in post No 16 of this thread. Si tries to get to the archetypal sources and how successful its task happens to be, depends on the intensity of the subjective experience. 
I have to add that it doesn't resemble a conscious process, even if it is such. Maybe its introverted nature and day-to-day use are responsible for this. It's not like I see random car and start consciously searching for resemblances or archetypes or whatever. Random car can pass by without being noticed, or it can be noticed, because there was something about it that stirred my subjective reaction, which is totally unpredictable.

Let's give Si a kick and present it with an unknown tangible object and a quest to lay outlines for understanding what this object is about. It doesn't really matter, but, let's say, it consists of a sphere with round frame and twigs. Si would start searching for subjective impressions of shape, texture, colour similarity and other previous sensory experience in their inner database and then Si dom rationalises through their judging what they found out. Possible result: "It looks exactly like that spaceship I saw in a movie, so that must be is." Of course they can go different way (I'd say it would be more intuitive one), reading into underlying ideas or possibilities, and will come up with that it's some kind of a globe, but the first path would be natural and, in a sense, 'instinctual' for them. And I'm not saying that one result is better then the other or more correct.

In fact, Socionics is the main source of my doubts as its descriptions of Si and SLI are unrelatable and are the reason why I'm hesitant about putting an SLI label on my profile. Sometimes I think that people who observed and defined Socionics' functions in reality observed mixture of Sp instinct and behaviour patterns and then just decided to name it Si. Or perhaps the problem is with me, and Socionics is right about Si, and eather I'm not an Si dom, or manifestations they chose are just different from my experience. General Si description cited in the first post of this thread is overall OK, but when it comes to more detailed descriptions of Si, like as a leading function, I experience dissonance: "ability to recognize internal physical states in others", "understand how these states are reached", "avoid these physical states", "avoidance of discomfort", "receptive to other people sharing feelings of discomfort" - nah, totally not my experience. It's all too concrete and physical, while functions IMO are more of a psychic phenomena. I'm no better at recognising internal physical states than other people, and my understanding doesn't go far beyond comprehension that if it's chilly and you'll turn the heater on you'll feel more comfortable. I just don't get why this should be linked with Si.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

To_august said:


> I meant that Si is prone to dismiss information in case intensity of the subjective sensation, connected with this information, is within the familiar and safe range. Why pay special attention if it was experienced many times before and it already knows where this sensation will lead and what the result will be? I think such sensations are passing by along with many other ones as a white noise. Si isn't fascinated each time they see the same tree growing near their house, or alternatively, they can be, but then again, it depends on the intensity of subjective reaction not on the object itself.


Yes that makes sense.
Not everything will be met with facination.
Intensity of the subjective reaction is a good term.
Si glosses over everything who does not have subjective significance as does all the introverted functions.
Se doesn't gloss over it in the same way.
Se spots it, but it moves on to the next object and the next etc.
If Se didn't have Fi or Ti to capture the attention it would be very scattered, just like Ne.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

To_august said:


> Let's give Si a kick and present it with an unknown tangible object and a quest to lay outlines for understanding what this object is about. It doesn't really matter, but, let's say, it consists of a sphere with round frame and twigs. *Si would start searching for subjective impressions of shape, texture, colour similarity and other previous sensory experience in their inner database and then Si dom rationalises through their judging what they found out. Possible result: "It looks exactly like that spaceship I saw in a movie, so that must be is."* Of course they can go different way (I'd say it would be more intuitive one), reading into underlying ideas or possibilities, and will come up with that it's some kind of a globe, but the first path would be natural and, in a sense, 'instinctual' for them. And I'm not saying that one result is better then the other or more correct.


Doesn't everyone occasionally relate things to things they look like? Especially when they have to describe it to someone else. It might be easier to say "It looks like the spaceship from X movie" than to try to describe every detail. So how can one go from making sensory references, which is something probably everyone does sometimes, to saying they naturally focus on sensory archetypes? How can one tell if they're an Si type, or just doing something everyone does? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything you wrote, I'm just trying to understand this.


----------

