# High vs Low Si



## lunas (Jul 19, 2015)

I didn't see a sticky in this forum for Si, so here goes.

I am having difficulty discerning my MBTI type and am trying to figure out how Si may act in higher positions vs lower positions. I honestly think that my Si is pretty low order. I'm especially interested in knowing how Si may manifest in auxiliary and inferior positions.


----------



## charlie.elliot (Jan 22, 2014)

Well my Si sucks and the way it manifests is that I'm terrible at recognizing sensory things or remembering precise sensory info. I'm constantly describing something, like a building, that I've seen a lot, and having somebody else go "thats not what it looks like at all" and then I'll see it again and realize they were right. Also one time in psych class the professor was having us smell things and guess what the smell was and it was really basic things like cinnamon, but when I smelled the cinnamon I just kept going "cookies! Christmas! family parties! happiness!" etc and never figured out that it was cinnamon.


----------



## BuaKaw (Jul 14, 2015)

I'm not sure how reliable the source is but you should have a look at it. I was able to relate to most of the Dom Si examples. 
Since I'm not able to post links, you'll have to google Funky MBTI Si and click the heading that says "How Si Acts in all 4 Positions".


----------



## SarSedge (May 27, 2015)

BuaKaw said:


> I'm not sure how reliable the source is but you should have a look at it. I was able to relate to most of the Dom Si examples.
> Since I'm not able to post links, you'll have to google Funky MBTI Si and click the heading that says "How Si Acts in all 4 Positions".


How Si Acts in all 4 Positions - Funky MBTI in Fiction

No problem c:


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

Socionics Information Elements: Si

Translated into MBTI, this would mean:

Leading function = Dominant
Creative = Auxiliary
Role Function = Si is your role function if you are an INxJ
Vulnerable Function = Si is your vulnerable function if you are an ENxJ
Suggestive Function = Inferior
Mobilizing Function = Tertiary
Ignoring Function = Si is your ignoring function if you are an ESxP
Demonstrative Function = Si is your demonstrative function if you are an ISxP


----------



## FluffyTheAnarchist (Sep 9, 2013)

SarSedge said:


> How Si Acts in all 4 Positions - Funky MBTI in Fiction


Yep, either inferior or consciously not present. Thanks for the link.


----------



## The Hammer (Aug 24, 2015)

I found the following descriptions from jcal (ISTJ) and EmmaGilbert (ESTJ) very good for describing Si in the dominant and auxiliary positions:

jcal (Si-dom):



> I'm not sure how much the ISTJ perspective differs from other SJs on this, but the vast majority of my time is focused on present and immediate future (they are essentially the same to me... the true "present" only ever exists for a fleeting instant). This typically encompasses the planning and execution of ongoing and immediately upcoming projects/processes.
> 
> I spent relatively little time focused on the long term future. Sometimes the "end-game" for current but long duration projects can pull me further into the future, but it's rarely ever thinking broadly about what the future will bring or how I'd like to shape it.
> 
> ...


EmmaGilbert (Si-Aux):



> In a way, it is a lot like Ni. At a very basic level, that is. They are both introverted perceiving functions, and as such, they both are constantly drawing from an internal storehouse of data. The way my INTJ friend described how Ni works is that he basically sits back and collects facts and details (often through his Se) until Ni can connect all the dots at once giving him that "AHA!" moment. For Si users, it's a slightly different process. We don't see all the little details in the here and now that an Se user would pick up on. We wait to be able to compare to our past experiences. If we have no experience in ___, we're lost.
> 
> A way this manifests itself in me is in how I decide whether a theory that has been presented me is viable. Someone will make some claim, and if it doesn't immediately "trigger" my Si (something I have noticed before but maybe not consciously.. just sort of stored it away), my Te disagrees and says that can't be so. However, often as I'm sitting there thinking about it, I can sift through past memories and experiences where the claim has proven to be true, or at least... where that *could* have been what was going on. I think the delay in Si is simply because it isn't my dominant function. I do not know if Si-doms experience that same problem.
> 
> ...


Tertiary and Inferior Si would relate to these, but it would have less significance in their cognition.


----------



## lunas (Jul 19, 2015)

charlie.elliot said:


> Well my Si sucks and the way it manifests is that I'm terrible at recognizing sensory things or remembering precise sensory info. I'm constantly describing something, like a building, that I've seen a lot, and having somebody else go "thats not what it looks like at all" and then I'll see it again and realize they were right. Also one time in psych class the professor was having us smell things and guess what the smell was and it was really basic things like cinnamon, but when I smelled the cinnamon I just kept going "cookies! Christmas! family parties! happiness!" etc and never figured out that it was cinnamon.


I can relate to this. I _think_ once I said something about how the buildings on our campus don't have their names written on them, but someone told me that they, in fact, did, despite the fact that I'm there four days a week. If I want to remember things, they have to either be A) interesting to me, or B) I have to make a concentrated effort. A lot of things people tell me goes right in one ear and out the other. I just started a new job, and people keep telling me I did this or that on the system, and I suppose I _must_ have done the thing they're telling me I did because they have the receipts, but I can't recall doing it at all.



BuaKaw said:


> I'm not sure how reliable the source is but you should have a look at it. I was able to relate to most of the Dom Si examples.
> Since I'm not able to post links, you'll have to google Funky MBTI Si and click the heading that says "How Si Acts in all 4 Positions".


Oh, yeah, I love FunkyMBTI  It's where most of my understanding of cognitive functions comes from, haha. The description of Inferior Si in that post is what I relate to the most.




The Hammer said:


> I found the following descriptions from jcal (ISTJ) and EmmaGilbert (ESTJ) very good for describing Si in the dominant and auxiliary positions:
> 
> jcal (Si-dom):
> 
> ...


Thanks for this! I relate to the Aux-Si description far more than I do the Si-dom one. I have a friend who is an ISTJ. We were pretty close this past year, but despite that, I don't believe I function like him at all. This has pretty much convinced me that my Si is definitely lower order, so I guess I'm returning to the xNTP vs ENFP debate with myself again.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

SarSedge said:


> How Si Acts in all 4 Positions - Funky MBTI in Fiction
> 
> No problem c:


This is not a good source. Some of it is Fi ("What is truly important to me?") and other stuff (like the traditions/living the past) are not function related at all.


----------



## lunas (Jul 19, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> This is not a good source. Some of it is Fi ("What is truly important to me?") and other stuff (like the traditions/living the past) are not function related at all.


Thanks for the input! 

Might you have some examples of your own about how Si may manifest? It would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## SarSedge (May 27, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> This is not a good source. Some of it is Fi ("What is truly important to me?") and other stuff (like the traditions/living the past) are not function related at all.


Well, I didn't say it is a good source; I put it up because someone else couldn't. Trying to be helpful, you know. But I do understand your point and agree with you.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

SarSedge said:


> Well, I didn't say it is a good source; I put it up because someone else couldn't. Trying to be helpful, you know. But I do understand your point and agree with you.


I just hope to avoid people typing themselves based on this and then getting wrong idea as to what other types are like ("Dominant Si users love traditions!"). (Not that it is impossible, but it's about as likely as for all the other types, not a defining trait).


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

lunas said:


> Thanks for the input!
> 
> Might you have some examples of your own about how Si may manifest? It would be greatly appreciated.


There are two things I relate to Si: Comfort and security.
This is why Si, unlike Se, values predictability. If you know what is going to happen, you can plan for it and make sure it doesn't negatively affect you. Now we can see why Si users are often said to love routine. By creating a predictable and comfortable routine, you can feel good and at the same time minimize risk to yourself. 

The downside of this is that strong Si users tend to have difficulty leaving the safety of these routines. This is where the 'stuck in the past' stereotype comes from. Imagine having a routine you can complete at a comfortable pace and then, out of the blue, something tries to interfere with your routine. The disruption is initially met with skepticism. "Will that truly be an improvement over the way I live now?". Of course, if it is proven to help, like a more healthy diet, strong Si users will create a new routine that supports this improvement.

Se users are far more accepting of the new, whether it helps them or not. Things have to be fresh, so to speak.
An example of this would be the recent mobile phone trend. 
Strong Se users will be the people buying a new phone as soon as it's out, because they like getting a new toy to play with. 
Strong Si users tend to stick with their phones until they (the phones, of course) die, because they know how it works and it is a lot cheaper than constantly buying new ones. This is not to say that Si users will not buy the most expensive stuff there is. They are just as likely to do that as Se users. When they do, however, they tend to stick with it for a very long time. 


As for high vs low Si, this is a lot more complicated, because 'low Si' also means 'high Ne', bringing another function into the fray.
I personally have great difficulty separating these two. Socionics might be the best source on this.


I hope this at least helps you a little bit, even though I am unable to help you with the main question. (I am struggling with that myself, type theory is so confusing >.<)


----------



## giorgaros2 (Sep 2, 2014)

i have noticed something interesting about esj vs isj , While esj 's dwell in the past a lot isj's dont care about it and dont have that "reliving past experience " thing that people say is introverted sensing


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

giorgaros2 said:


> i have noticed something interesting about esj vs isj , While esj 's dwell in the past a lot isj's dont care about it and dont have that "reliving past experience " thing that people say is introverted sensing


That has been mostly true in my experience... but I don't really have any other ISJs to compare notes with IRL. However, my wife and brother are ESFJ and my dad is ESTJ, and they all tend to reminisce about the past way more than I ever care to. They also tend to hang on to souvenirs and mementos that I generally have no interest in keeping. What I hold on to are things that I believe can still be useful going forward, whereas they hold on to things (seemingly) for the memories they invoke..


----------



## UnicornRainbowLove (May 8, 2014)

Ninjaws said:


> I just hope to avoid people typing themselves based on this and then getting wrong idea as to what other types are like ("Dominant Si users love traditions!"). (Not that it is impossible, but it's about as likely as for all the other types, not a defining trait).


I find that to be incorrect. Traditionalism is a facet of Sensing within the MBTI step II, and if combined with the letter J you're much more likely to adhere to politeness and social norms to fit in. Having low openness and high conscientiousness (which is the Big Five equivalent of being an SJ) is correlated with conservatism in the colloquial sense. 
Anecdotally I will furthermore attest to find SJs to be much more dogmatic and traditional (in the sense that they don't seek new horizons) compared to other types. 

In conclusion; being very traditional is a good indicator of being an SJ / Si-dom/aux.


----------



## Ninjaws (Jul 10, 2014)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I find that to be incorrect. Traditionalism is a facet of Sensing within the MBTI step II, and if combined with the letter J you're much more likely to adhere to politeness and social norms to fit in. Having low openness and high conscientiousness (which is the Big Five equivalent of being an SJ) is correlated with conservatism in the colloquial sense.
> Anecdotally I will furthermore attest to find SJs to be much more dogmatic and traditional (in the sense that they don't seek new horizons) compared to other types.
> 
> In conclusion; being very traditional is a good indicator of being an SJ / Si-dom/aux.


It depends on what kind of tradition is being referred to. 
Tradition, along the lines of 'sticking with the routine I developed myself and which I know works', fits quite well.
Tradition, along the lines of "My parents and grandparents are all christians, therefore I will become one as well", or "I will celebrate Christmas because that has been customary for a long time", is just stupid, in my opinion.

Walk your own path and discover what works for you personally. Then those preferences will be translated into routines.

I have difficulty seeing how this way of living would be dogmatic, however. Everything can be argued and changed. It has to be an improvement, however.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

UnicornRainbowLove said:


> I find that to be incorrect. Traditionalism is a facet of Sensing within the MBTI step II, and if combined with the letter J you're much more likely to adhere to politeness and social norms to fit in. Having low openness and high conscientiousness (which is the Big Five equivalent of being an SJ) is correlated with conservatism in the colloquial sense.
> Anecdotally I will furthermore attest to find SJs to be much more dogmatic and traditional (in the sense that they don't seek new horizons) compared to other types.
> 
> In conclusion; being very traditional is a good indicator of being an SJ / Si-dom/aux.


As understood by most, @Ninjaws is correct. Traditionalism =/= SJ.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

lunas said:


> I didn't see a sticky in this forum for Si, so here goes.
> 
> I am having difficulty discerning my MBTI type and am trying to figure out how Si may act in higher positions vs lower positions. I honestly think that my Si is pretty low order. I'm especially interested in knowing how Si may manifest in auxiliary and inferior positions.


Si is merely a cognitive function in a theory about personality typing. Like other cognitive functions, to directly equate it with specific behaviors will cause more confusion than it will help. Do not equate it with memory, for we all have good memories when it comes to things that are impacting, or are important to us. Instead, think of it as a preference, or trust, of stored impressions and memories, as a way of interpreting the present.


----------



## lunas (Jul 19, 2015)

Ninjaws said:


> It depends on what kind of tradition is being referred to.
> Tradition, along the lines of 'sticking with the routine I developed myself and which I know works', fits quite well.
> Tradition, along the lines of "My parents and grandparents are all christians, therefore I will become one as well", or "I will celebrate Christmas because that has been customary for a long time", is just stupid, in my opinion.
> 
> ...





Ninjaws said:


> There are two things I relate to Si: Comfort and security.
> This is why Si, unlike Se, values predictability. If you know what is going to happen, you can plan for it and make sure it doesn't negatively affect you. Now we can see why Si users are often said to love routine. By creating a predictable and comfortable routine, you can feel good and at the same time minimize risk to yourself.
> 
> The downside of this is that strong Si users tend to have difficulty leaving the safety of these routines. This is where the 'stuck in the past' stereotype comes from. Imagine having a routine you can complete at a comfortable pace and then, out of the blue, something tries to interfere with your routine. The disruption is initially met with skepticism. "Will that truly be an improvement over the way I live now?". Of course, if it is proven to help, like a more healthy diet, strong Si users will create a new routine that supports this improvement.
> ...


Thanks! Both of these posts sound a lot like my friend who I am about 99% sure is an ISTJ. Honestly, he is pretty 'traditional', but I think that's because the way he was raise has "worked" for him. If he was unhappy with it, I think he would have carved himself out another path. Despite that, he's not dogmatic or close-minded and if you offer him an argument or new way of doing things that makes more sense, he's completely open to it.

I truthfully don't know much about Socionics, but if it might help me understand the cognitive functions better, I am open to it. I do think that my Ne is pretty high, though.



niss said:


> Si is merely a cognitive function in a theory about personality typing. Like other cognitive functions, *to directly equate it with specific behaviors will cause more confusion than it will help.* Do not equate it with memory, for we all have good memories when it comes to things that are impacting, or are important to us. Instead, think of it as a preference, or trust, of stored impressions and memories, as a way of interpreting the present.


I especially like the bolded part. I've seen a lot of people IRL try to tell others they're 'too nice' to be a T, etc, and that line of thinking has always bothered me. It's always been my own opinion that it's probably difficult to truly type someone you don't know that well just based on things like that, because so many people put on a different face depending on where they are and what they're doing.


----------



## Recede (Nov 23, 2011)

niss said:


> Si is merely a cognitive function in a theory about personality typing. Like other cognitive functions, to directly equate it with specific behaviors will cause more confusion than it will help. Do not equate it with memory, for we all have good memories when it comes to things that are impacting, or are important to us. *Instead, think of it as a preference, or trust, of stored impressions and memories, as a way of interpreting the present.*


How would this work in an Si type who lacks experience? Wouldn't an Si preference also mean having minimal exploration as they prefer to stick with what they are used to, thus acquiring fewer experiences? Also, what are impressions? What is stored if not what actually happened?


----------



## jcal (Oct 31, 2013)

Recede said:


> niss said:
> 
> 
> > ...think of it as a preference, or trust, of stored impressions and memories, as a way of interpreting the present.
> ...



For me, encountering a new situation will tend to make me take pause, giving me time to research, investigate and experiment. Essentially, if I don't have experience, I'll go get me some. That is much preferred to relying on my intuition. I can and typically do see intuited "possibilities", and can even prioritize them as to their likelihood of success, but I tend to use them as suggestions for a direction to take in my concrete investigations... not as a shortcut to some unsubstantiated conclusion. I simply do not trust my intuition enough to make decisions based solely upon it. If I absolutely must (typically due to time constraints preventing my preferred thorough investigation), I can make a decision based on the intuition alone. This has become a bit easier to do with age and maturity, but it has never become truly easy, natural or comfortable to do. It will never be my preference.

Maybe this is stronger in me as a Type 5 ISTJ, but "minimal exploration" has never been how I deal with my environment. My Si generates an insatiable desire to fill its storehouse with new things to make part of it's experiential reference. I'm always curious about everything new I encounter... What is it? What are its characteristics? Is it harmful? Is it useful? Why does it do what it does? How does it do what it does? Even if there is no immediate need for this information, it expands that reference set I use to navigate my world.

I do not... repeat... DO NOT... prefer to stick to what I'm used to. What I'm used to is only a comparative reference for whatever I encounter as new. I actually enjoy investigating new things and new ideas and can readily adopt and endorse them, but they have to be thoroughly vetted first and must meet certain criteria. Primarily, they have to be safe, they have to be demonstrably better, and they must not waste resources. The vetting process also includes anticipation and minimization of unintended collateral consequences... I never want to say, "Gee, I never thought THAT would happen". I understand that, to less patient types, this due diligence can APPEAR to be "feet dragging" or "holding on to the old way", but it's all part of the Si "survival instinct"... which needs to balance potential useful gains against potential harm. Pass the test and I'm on board. Fail the test and I will stand pat... novelty in and of itself holds very little value for me.

Finally... "impression". This may not be the textbook definition but, to me, my stored impressions are indelible, detailed and tightly focused snapshots of previous sensory intake that are linked to objects. No context... no narrative... just "This is what an apple tastes like", "This is what the bark of an oak tree looks like", etc. etc. These impressions become Si's reference for what future encounters with these items SHOULD look/smell/taste/etc. like. When new things match the reference impressions, the new encounter is considered unremarkable and garners little to no conscious attention. If Si subconsciously notices something that doesn't match the stored impression, it issues an alert to my conscious processes so that (primarily) Te can investigate and pass judgment on the newly encountered object.


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Recede said:


> How would this work in an Si type who lacks experience? Wouldn't an Si preference also mean having minimal exploration as they prefer to stick with what they are used to, thus acquiring fewer experiences? Also, what are impressions? What is stored if not what actually happened?


I think @jcal covered this perfectly. If you still have questions after reading what he shared, feel free to ask.


----------



## Amy (Jan 15, 2015)

lunas said:


> I didn't see a sticky in this forum for Si, so here goes.
> 
> I am having difficulty discerning my MBTI type and am trying to figure out how Si may act in higher positions vs lower positions. I honestly think that my Si is pretty low order. I'm especially interested in knowing how Si may manifest in auxiliary and inferior positions.


I know that it is a little tiring (OK, more than a little tiring), but read this: A Little Bit of Personality: The Cognition Process in Stick Figures


----------

