Si

[Joy]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:201b702d36]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

[Logos]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:3efc4d7a7e]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

And for the ESTj and ISTp?

[Joy]

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

And for the ESTj and ISTp?

There's overlap in usage, but Si and Te are still two entirely different functions/information elements.

[Joy]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:f24a48700f]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

IMO:
"connections between components" Ti (Te would be energy transfer between gears).
Si observes not the processes. i know what you mean - you are thinking of dynamic aspect of Si. i wouldn't even focus on this aspect. it only confuses things. i think the best way to describe it is to say Si is a judging S function and Se is perceiving S. judging S in that it e.g. combines some S static reality data and makes conclusions e.g. that a person is healthy or the picture looks nice or whatever.

You are definitely Static.

Anyways... it is not possible to understand any of the information elements/aspects if you just totally leave out part of it. Saying that part of an information element only confuses things means you do not understand that information element.

There is no "judging" irrational function. Conclusions are not Si, though Si can play a part in coming to conclusions. And "the picture looks nice" could be a number things.

[Joy]

"connections between components" Ti

All introverted information elements/aspects are about "connections". "Components" could be an external (S or T) thing, depending on what you mean.

(Te would be energy transfer between gears).

I have no idea what you're talking about with this one, but I don't want to talk about it in this thread.

Si observes not the processes.

I don't follow.

[Joy]

omg

[Joy]

You're proving it for me.

[Joy]

All introverted information elements/aspects are about "connections". "Components" could be an external (S or T) thing, depending on what you mean.

how are they about connections? that's what someone might have said, but without understanding the material there is always some gibberish.

i think the reality is just reality. it's how we perceive it that matters, so i wouldn't venture saying an electron is Si or the magnetic field is Te or whatever.

Extroverted information elements are about something in and of itself. Introverted information elements are about connections/relationships. If you want to know why the theory was written as such, ask Augusta.

[Joy]

Believe? Prove? Guarantee? What's with all of these absolutes? It's a theory, and if you're going to study the theory you need to assume that the basics are "true" for the sake of the theory itself. That doesn't mean you have to BELIEVE that the theory is true or proven.

External vs. Internal, Static vs. Dynamic, and Objects vs. Fields are the very basis of information aspects/elements, which are the very basis of Socionics. Question the validity of Socionics all you like, but unless the thread is about whether or not you "believe" in Socionics, you need to assume that it's true for the sake of conversation in order to really discuss it. I refuse to debate the validity of Socionics itself during a conversation about Socionics (unless that's what the conversation is about).

[Joy]

what you're saying sounds like dramatising things for the sake of winning an argument. let's be objective.

No, I'm not dramatizing. Yes, I'm making a point in a somewhat strong way, but it's not for the sake of dramatization. It's because I want you to get it.

you said that we must assume things. you are very abstract. what are you referring to?

If we're going to talk about dragons, whether we believe they exist or not we have to agree on their defining characteristics in order to communicate. If you try to tell me that dragons don't breathe fire, I'm going to tell you if whatever you're talking about doesn't breathe fire, then we are not talking about the same thing. If you want to talk about dragons, then talk about dragons. If you don't, don't refer to whatever it is that you are talking about as dragons.

My point is that in Socionics, External vs. Internal, Static vs. Dynamic, and Objects vs. Fields DEFINE information aspects/elements. You can't be like "I don't believe in static/dynamic" and expect me to continue conversing with you as though we're talking about the same thing (in this case, Socionics).

also, you said that the internal etc. are bases for IMEs. how is not their actual realworld "fillings" not the basis and the stuff is just some abstract conceptualizing?

The theory was developed based on irl observations. The theory itself is abstract conceptualization.

[aestrivex]

this is completely insane.

[Joy]

This or the other stuff?

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:c034abbd92]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

[aestrivex]

yes, that.

[Joy]

oh?

[aestrivex]

in short, it makes Si sound like its not a sensory function. the following assumption:

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.

makes no sense at all.


your examples make zero sense. the first one has nothing to do with "connections between obsevable processes" but rather with the extremely simple area of recognizing the physical states of others. the latter one, involving gears, sounds far more like Ni, and i'm frankly not sure what you were trying to demonstrate with it.

the whole thing is so totally off the wall that i can't even begin to understand how it could have been observed in actual people, as you claim. it's obviously got it's roots in " = internal dynamics of objects" (i think that's correct, but i don't care to check.)

Ti-blather theory is nice, now make it have ANY sort of resemblance with physical state and i'll think about it.

[Joy]

It applies to my three examples. (And I don't understand how it makes Si sound like it's not a sensory function?)

[Joy]

How would you describe Si, niffweed?

[aestrivex]

It applies to my three examples. (And I don't understand how it makes Si sound like it's not a sensory function?)

sorry. my post was really not very thorough, so i edited it. look at it again.

[aestrivex]

How would you describe Si, niffweed?

Si is very simple: attention to internal physical states and demands

(ie, the classic examples of "i'm hungry" or "i'm cold." or, very relevant to socionics, "that person looks like he/she is hungry.")



this is obviously not the entire extent of Si, but when you stop considering why something has some relation to internal physical demands, you have completely missed the point.

[Joy]

your examples make zero sense. the first one has nothing to do with "connections between obsevable processes"

Again, when discussing Si, "readily observable" means "immediately apparent". For example, as an information element: If your back hurts, it's "immediately apparent" to you. Feeling pain requires no abstraction or ability to understand the abstract.

but rather with the extremely simple area of recognizing the physical states of others.

Others?

the latter one, involving gears, sounds far more like Ni, and i'm frankly not sure what you were trying to demonstrate with it.

What's abstract about the physical process of one gear turning another?

(btw, how many Ni mechanics have you known? How many Si mechanics have you known?)

the whole thing is so totally off the wall that i can't even begin to understand how it could have been observed in actual people, as you claim.

I'm not sure I know what you're referring to.

it's obviously got it's roots in " = internal dynamics of objects" (i think that's correct, but i don't care to check.)

It took a little bit of effort to understand (and I'm still learning to understand it better), but Socionics makes a hell of a lot more sense once you do understand information elements/aspects. (It's external dynamics of fields, btw. )

Ti-blather theory is nice, now make it have ANY sort of resemblance with physical state and i'll think about it.

Si isn't about physical state (Se is), it's about physical processes... or more specifically, how physical processes are connected.

A cat is experiencing hunger and decides to hunt down, kill, and eat a mouse. The Si connections are between the cat and feeling hungry (I am still pondering this particular aspect of Si though), feeling hungry and feeling an instinct to eat, needing to eat and hunting a mouse, and killing a mouse and eating it.

Si is also used for care giving. This is because Si isn't just about how one feels. It's about understanding the physical processes that take place and how they're related to each other. Example: I notice that my child is shivering while playing outside, so I offer him a coat. If he is still shivering after he puts on a coat, I may tell him he should come inside. Once he's inside I may offer him some warm soup or hot chocolate. The Si connections are between my child being cold and shivering, putting on a coat and being a little warmer, still being cold and continuing to shiver, leaving the cold and going inside where it's warm, drinking/eating something warm and warming up more quickly. Notice that I'm not the one experiencing most of these things. It doesn't matter though because if I'm the one who sees those connections, it's my Si (as an information element) that is driving me to care for my child.

(another example to follow)

[Joy]

How would you describe Si, niffweed?

Si is very simple: attention to internal physical states and demands

(ie, the classic examples of "i'm hungry" or "i'm cold." or, very relevant to socionics, "that person looks like he/she is hungry.")



this is obviously not the entire extent of Si, but when you stop considering why something has some relation to internal physical demands, you have completely missed the point.

I believe my last post answers this. Let me know if I'm wrong.

[aestrivex]

your examples make zero sense. the first one has nothing to do with "connections between obsevable processes"

Again, when discussing Si, "readily observable" means "immediately apparent". For example, as an information element: If your back hurts, it's "immediately apparent" to you. Feeling pain requires no abstraction or ability to understand the abstract.

???

What's abstract about the physical process of one gear turning another?

the sequence of one gear leading to another is certainly abstract.

(btw, how many Ni mechanics have you known? How many Si mechanics have you known?)

i don't know any mechanics, Ni, Si, or otherwise. regardless of my complete isolation, the fact that more Si people are probably mechanics is more about that they enjoy the physical aspect of the activity (ie using one's hands to produce something practical/emotionally uplifting (simplification)). there are probably Ni people that are mechanics as well.

it's obviously got it's roots in " = internal dynamics of objects" (i think that's correct, but i don't care to check.)

It took a little bit of effort to understand (and I'm still learning to understand it better), but Socionics makes a hell of a lot more sense once you do understand information elements/aspects. (It's external dynamics of fields, btw. )
[/quote]

that is not "understanding of information elements."

Si isn't about physical state (Se is), it's about physical processes... or more specifically, how physical processes are connected.

bull

A cat is experiencing hunger and decides to hunt down, kill, and eat a mouse. The Si connections are between the cat and feeling hungry (I am still pondering this particular aspect of Si though), feeling hungry and feeling an instinct to eat, needing to eat and hunting a mouse, and killing a mouse and eating it.

Si is also used for care giving. This is because Si isn't just about how one feels. It's about understanding the physical processes that take place and how they're related to each other. Example: I notice that my child is shivering while playing outside, so I offer him a coat. If he is still shivering after he puts on a coat, I may tell him he should come inside. Once he's inside I may offer him some warm soup or hot chocolate. The Si connections are between my child being cold and shivering, putting on a coat and being a little warmer, still being cold and continuing to shiver, leaving the cold and going inside where it's warm, drinking/eating something warm and warming up more quickly. Notice that I'm not the one experiencing most of these things. It doesn't matter though because if I'm the one who sees those connections, it's my Si (as an information element) that is driving me to care for my child.

the Si connections as you describe them exist in the form of your attentiveness to his physical state. as a result of this, and of your knowledge that putting on a coat, whatever/etc will improve it, you act accordingly.

[Joy]

your examples make zero sense. the first one has nothing to do with "connections between obsevable processes"

Again, when discussing Si, "readily observable" means "immediately apparent". For example, as an information element: If your back hurts, it's "immediately apparent" to you. Feeling pain requires no abstraction or ability to understand the abstract.

???

What I'd said there was referencing the "internal vs. external" component in information aspects/elements. N and F are internal. S and T are external. This particular component has been the most difficult for me to grasp, and I'm only just now beginning to be able to explain it.

It's easiest to understand internal vs. external when you take that component out of all of the information aspects/elements and match up pairs according to what's left. Ni is what pairs up with Si if you do that, so what "external" means to Si is easiest to understand by comparing Si to Ni.

The primary difference between Si and Ni is that Si is about the physical and Ni is about the abstract (I can expand on this and the rest the components of Si/Ni this if you'd like). So in the case of Si, "external" means "physical".

What's abstract about the physical process of one gear turning another?

the sequence of one gear leading to another is certainly abstract.

I don't understand what's abstract about that.

(btw, how many Ni mechanics have you known? How many Si mechanics have you known?)

i don't know any mechanics, Ni, Si, or otherwise. regardless of my complete isolation, the fact that more Si people are probably mechanics is more about that they enjoy the physical aspect of the activity (ie using one's hands to produce something practical/emotionally uplifting (simplification)). there are probably Ni people that are mechanics as well.

nm

it's obviously got it's roots in " = internal dynamics of objects" (i think that's correct, but i don't care to check.)

It took a little bit of effort to understand (and I'm still learning to understand it better), but Socionics makes a hell of a lot more sense once you do understand information elements/aspects. (It's external dynamics of fields, btw. )

that is not "understanding of information elements."

Then what is? Keep in mind that I've understood the descriptions of each and how they manifest as functions in different types and how those types interact with each other for a long time. Right now I'm diving deeper into the theory, and while it was confusing at first, it now makes more sense than ever.

Si isn't about physical state (Se is), it's about physical processes... or more specifically, how physical processes are connected.

bull

According to what?

A cat is experiencing hunger and decides to hunt down, kill, and eat a mouse. The Si connections are between the cat and feeling hungry (I am still pondering this particular aspect of Si though), feeling hungry and feeling an instinct to eat, needing to eat and hunting a mouse, and killing a mouse and eating it.

Si is also used for care giving. This is because Si isn't just about how one feels. It's about understanding the physical processes that take place and how they're related to each other. Example: I notice that my child is shivering while playing outside, so I offer him a coat. If he is still shivering after he puts on a coat, I may tell him he should come inside. Once he's inside I may offer him some warm soup or hot chocolate. The Si connections are between my child being cold and shivering, putting on a coat and being a little warmer, still being cold and continuing to shiver, leaving the cold and going inside where it's warm, drinking/eating something warm and warming up more quickly. Notice that I'm not the one experiencing most of these things. It doesn't matter though because if I'm the one who sees those connections, it's my Si (as an information element) that is driving me to care for my child.

the Si connections as you describe them exist in the form of your attentiveness to his physical state. as a result of this, and of your knowledge that putting on a coat, whatever/etc will improve it, you act accordingly.

Yep. That's a manifestation of Si.

[Minde]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:a477b42961]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

So... you're saying that observing definable connections in processes is Si?

[Joy]

hmmm... I guess the most concise way to describe it would be "physical cause and effect relationships".

[Minde]

Ok, amending it to read - Observing physical (definable) cause-and-effect relationships.

So... is that a "yes"?

[Creepy-bg]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

[Joy]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

Ok, amending it to read - Observing physical (definable) cause-and-effect relationships.

So... is that a "yes"?

I have a difficult time with "definable" because most things are definable. Measurable doesn't really work all that well with Si, either. I think "immediately apparent" or "physical" would be the best way to describe it. (Remember that we're contrasting that to Ni.)

[Minde]

I have a difficult time with "definable" because most things are definable. Measurable doesn't really work all that well with Si, either. I think "immediately apparent" or "physical" would be the best way to describe it. (Remember that we're contrasting that to Ni.)

Well-defined vs. not well-defined?

[Joy]

I'm still not sure about the "defined" thing. I see what you mean, but there are other possible meanings for the word that don't work as well.

[Gilly]

hmmm... I guess the most concise way to describe it would be "physical cause and effect relationships".

That works.

[Gilly]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

This is a thread for "T" :wink:

[Minde]

I'm still not sure about the "defined" thing. I see what you mean, but there are other possible meanings for the word that don't work as well.

Yeah, I see what you mean, too. Pretty sure I do, anyway. "Physical" works as good as any, I suppose.

Anyway, what caught my attention about your first post were the words "connections" and "processes".

It made me think of -

"System, noun, 1) a set of connected things or parts forming a complex whole, in particular
- a set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network
- Physiology
- the human or animal body as a whole
[etc.]"

[Joy]

This topic could very easily turn into a debate just about "systems", so I posted my response here instead:

http://the16types.info/forums/viewto...=290346#290346

[implied]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

This is a thread for "T" :wink:

[Ezra]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

Perhaps you'd like to contribute by explaining how Si manifests itself in you, Bionic.

[Joy]

I don't see how any of that has to do with the topic at hand (or even Socionics).

[Joy]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:7c75a2ad46]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

Anyone else?

[Rick]

reading the descriptions of Si in this thread is like reading a description of hot guilt free sex written by a devout Catholic

fail.

Maybe is hard to describe in words in the first place?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uerFZ2Z42nc

[Gilly]

Si is about connections in readily observable processes.
[hr:cf1cf73191]
Being a dynamic information element, Si sees activity. It's about something happening, or "processes". See examples below.

For Si, "readily observable" sometimes means that it's immediately apparent to the person experiencing whatever it is that's going on (though it can also mean "readily observable" as in the example below). If someone is experiencing discomfort because of back pain, that person may be the only one who knows it, but it's still immediately apparent to that individual. In this example, the "connections" are between the person, the pain, and the resulting experience of discomfort.

A person can see those "connections" between other things/people too though. A good example may be the workings of a machine. In this example, it may be easiest to compare and contrast Te and Si. As the gears are turning and the motor is running and whatnot, Te sees the activity of each of these components in and of itself. Si, on the other hand, sees the connections between each of those components, how one gear turns another which is causing something else to happen.

Edited to add: The ability to see these "connections in readily observable processes" is what compels/allows Si types to be good at taking care of people and being attentive to their needs.

Anyone else?

Nope. You win, Joy.