Introverted sensing Si of SEIs vs SLIs

[jason_m]

I find that I can't have the same quality of conversation with SLIs that I do with SEIs; this makes sense if you consider that they are Fe-PoLR, making it difficult for me to connect with them emotionally. The problem is that I try to shift the conversation to sensory issues, and I find that even then I can't connect. For instance, I want to know a good restaurant in my city; they don't seem to be interested in the quality of food, but mostly cost, while I am almost always interested in quality. With SEIs I find that I touch base on most issues; quality is usually important over cost, efficiency etc. as well as other things that are important to me... I want to hear about the new house they bought... once again, the issues go to cost or maybe practical concerns about the electricity... SEIs will go on about the decour and beauty of the neighbourhood which I find pleasant... I find the same issues creeping up again and again...

I'm just curious as to why I can touch base with the Si of SEIs but not SLIs. In other words: are there qualitative differences between their use of functions as well? (Why are two leading functions not always used the same way?) I'm guessing some people here have experience with both types so maybe someone can explain...

[consentingadult]

I find that I can't have the same quality of conversation with SLIs that I do with SEIs; this makes sense if you consider that they are Fe-PoLR, making it difficult for me to connect with them emotionally. The problem is that I try to shift the conversation to sensory issues, and I find that even then I can't connect. For instance, I want to know a good restaurant in my city; they don't seem to be interested in the quality of food, but mostly cost, while I am almost always interested in quality. With SEIs I find that I touch base on most issues; quality is usually important over cost, efficiency etc. as well as other things that are important to me... I want to hear about the new house they bought... once again, the issues go to cost or maybe practical concerns about the electricity... SEIs will go on about the decour and beauty of the neighbourhood which I find pleasant... I find the same issues creeping up again and again...

I'm just curious as to why I can touch base with the Si of SEIs but not SLIs. In other words: are there qualitative differences between their use of functions as well? I'm guessing some people here have experience with both types so maybe someone can explain...

Did you know that Dutch grown tomatoes sold in the Netherlands are of much worse quality than those sold abroad? This is because Dutch culture is mainly Delta, and Deltas typically go for cheap deals, so they couldn't care less if their tomatoes are tasteless waterbombs, especially since they do not know how a good tomato is supposed to taste. Tomatoes don't have to taste good, they just don't have to taste bad!

I personally think Alpha Si is more about comfort creation, whereas Delta Si is more about discomfort avoidance. The difference is subtle (as well as it is ideal typical), but it is there.

Hope this helps.

ETA: I was just thinking: comfort creation and discomfort avoidance also are somewhat related to the concept of gratification. Alphas are more oriented to short term gratification, whic basically comes down to comfort creation attitude towards things that can provide immediate gratification, and a discomfort avoidance attitude towards anything that provide delayed gratification.

With Deltas, it's more or less the other way around.

[Aiss]

one way of looking at it is:
Si+ - expansive, maximizing good
Si- - reducing, minimizing bad

different types of optimization, as described in post above.




another is to ask you if you're 100% sure you aren't biased in typing people SEI based on how well you get on with them and how well they fit your expectations, and then doubt your answer because there's no way you're 100% unbiased.

[The Ineffable]

I'm just curious as to why I can touch base with the Si of SEIs but not SLIs. In other words: are there qualitative differences between their use of functions as well? (Why are two leading functions not always used the same way?) I'm guessing some people here have experience with both types so maybe someone can explain...

Good observation! That's because those qualities are unrelated to Si, but more to Fe in SEI. Pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad paired with Si. I vomited my lungs over this forum insisting that Si is little related to feeling good, seeking comfort and aesthetics, and I specifically compared Alpha SFs to Delta STs, just no one gives a shit. That does not mean Socionics is Alpha-centric or inconsistent, but the herd is (including some Russians).

Si as an Ego function is something else, that type of psyche is what all Si Ego types have in common, nothing more. Some of my explanations:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...066#post754066
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...745#post777745

This is because Dutch culture is mainly Delta, and Deltas typically go for cheap deals, so they couldn't care less if their tomatoes are tasteless waterbombs, especially since they do not know how a good tomato is supposed to taste. Tomatoes don't have to taste good, they just don't have to taste bad!

That's an interesting connection and in fact a good observation on Delta VS etc (not sure about the Dutch). Note how it actually comes from Fe VS Te, rather than "two versions of Si", Betas are the opposite of Deltas in this respect (if you agree), even more so than Alphas.

The Delta mentality is you eat/use something edible/something that "just works", the better/less tasty issue is not even applicable (talking of the quadra values as a whole, of course). Eating something edible is the way to go for stereotypical Delta, that means the scale of tastiness is eliminated entirely. That "just works" Deltas apply to everything. Alphas are also usually modest when it comes to taste, somewhere between Delta and Beta. In fact I read in a description that ESEs often use second-hand and other cheap things unless they suck too much - and IME no Alpha has a problem is accepting something that others throw away when this is either objectively proper or they like it. Two ESE women I know, although able to spend huge sums for clothes, they are always frequenting second-hand shops and come out with interesting stuff. They answer like "What's the problem? You can find truly good things there". A SEI artist I know, often picks up dumped things (frames, statues, tripods, whatnot) and restores them, then either places them around his home, sells them or uses them as gifts.

I think Teri Horton from the documentary "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" is a perfect such example of ESE (the place in the beginning of the following video is her home!).

---

Concluding: this whole matter is Fe/Te related in the context of Si-Valuing.

[consentingadult]

Concluding: this whole matter is Fe/Te related in the context of Si-Valuing.

I need to think about this. Problem is, that my observations of involve only male SLIs and female SEIs, that doesn't make it any easier.

[Aiss]

I'm just curious as to why I can touch base with the Si of SEIs but not SLIs. In other words: are there qualitative differences between their use of functions as well? (Why are two leading functions not always used the same way?) I'm guessing some people here have experience with both types so maybe someone can explain...

Good observation! That's because those qualities are unrelated to Si, but more to Fe in SEI. Pleasant/unpleasant, good/bad paired with Si. I vomited my lungs over this forum insisting that Si is little related to feeling good, seeking comfort and aesthetics, and I specifically compared Alpha SFs to Delta STs, just no one gives a shit. That does not mean Socionics is Alpha-centric or inconsistent, but the herd is (including some Russians).

Si as an Ego function is something else, that type of psyche is what all Si Ego types have in common, nothing more. Some of my explanations:
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...066#post754066
http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...745#post777745

This is because Dutch culture is mainly Delta, and Deltas typically go for cheap deals, so they couldn't care less if their tomatoes are tasteless waterbombs, especially since they do not know how a good tomato is supposed to taste. Tomatoes don't have to taste good, they just don't have to taste bad!

That's an interesting connection and in fact a good observation on Delta VS etc (not sure about the Dutch). Note how it actually comes from Fe VS Te, rather than "two versions of Si", Betas are the opposite of Deltas in this respect (if you agree), even more so than Alphas.

The Delta mentality is you eat/use something edible/something that "just works", the better/less tasty issue is not even applicable (talking of the quadra values as a whole, of course). Eating something edible is the way to go for stereotypical Delta, that means the scale of tastiness is eliminated entirely. That "just works" Deltas apply to everything. Alphas are also usually modest when it comes to taste, somewhere between Delta and Beta. In fact I read in a description that ESEs often use second-hand and other cheap things unless they suck too much - and IME no Alpha has a problem is accepting something that others throw away when this is either objectively proper or they like it. Two ESE women I know, although able to spend huge sums for clothes, they are always frequenting second-hand shops and come out with interesting stuff. They answer like "What's the problem? You can find truly good things there". A SEI artist I know, often picks up dumped things (frames, statues, tripods, whatnot) and restores them, then either places them around his home, sells them or uses them as gifts.

I think Teri Horton from the documentary "Who the #$&% Is Jackson Pollock?" is a perfect such example of ESE (the place in the beginning of the following video is her home!).

---

Concluding: this whole matter is Fe/Te related in the context of Si-Valuing.

any theory that denies my taste buds exist is not socionics.

therefore, this is no socionics. move on.

[Slacker]

I don't know. I'm Delta and spend extra to get the best tomatoes. Although that might be an Si ds thing than base Si. My husband will eat whatever I put in front of him. He is more about avoiding bad probably I guess.

[The Ineffable]

I don't know. I'm Delta and spend extra to get the best tomatoes. Although that might be an Si ds thing than base Si. My husband will eat whatever I put in front of him. He is more about avoiding bad probably I guess.

That was not his point, I don't remember him saying that Deltas do that. In fact he was talking about that society which obviously comprises of all types. I think you need to revise what a sociotype is, everything is merely an indicative which matters in the context. For instance in a really bad relationship, people will accuse each other of different things, however when they try to pinpoint them - unless there's something obvious like cheating - they are virtually unable to do so. The same goes in a flexible work environment regarding problematic employees. We call it risk when someone jumps off a cliff, we call it risk when someone adventures in a dangerous business, if the latter does not jump off cliffs it doesn't mean he's not risking or their mindsets bear no similarity, but just that you take it too literally.

[ConcreteButterfly]

I find that I can't have the same quality of conversation with SLIs that I do with SEIs; this makes sense if you consider that they are Fe-PoLR, making it difficult for me to connect with them emotionally. The problem is that I try to shift the conversation to sensory issues, and I find that even then I can't connect. For instance, I want to know a good restaurant in my city; they don't seem to be interested in the quality of food, but mostly cost, while I am almost always interested in quality. With SEIs I find that I touch base on most issues; quality is usually important over cost, efficiency etc. as well as other things that are important to me... I want to hear about the new house they bought... once again, the issues go to cost or maybe practical concerns about the electricity... SEIs will go on about the decour and beauty of the neighbourhood which I find pleasant... I find the same issues creeping up again and again...

I'm just curious as to why I can touch base with the Si of SEIs but not SLIs. In other words: are there qualitative differences between their use of functions as well? (Why are two leading functions not always used the same way?) I'm guessing some people here have experience with both types so maybe someone can explain...

It's vs valuing. SEIs will put up with more discomfort for the sake of maintaining a positive group mood, SLIs don't give a damn about the group mood and will abandon ship as soon as an activity becomes unprofitable. With weak Ne, both are apt to miss opportunities for sensual enjoyment but the SEI would more likely go along with others until that opportunity became blatantly obvious, while the SLI would need more factual evidence. This "data collecting" is what SLIs do on a constant basis and it's the main way they find new opportunities to experience sensual pleasure. SEIs have a different approach, they tune into the social atmosphere and learn through the preferences of others.

There is also the fact that SEIs have +Si and SLIs have -Si, so SEIs seek to add to their sensual experience, while SLIs seek to remove all that disturbs it. They therefore expend energy differently; the SEI is somewhat less discriminating, and more willing to gamble on a "low potential" experience. SLIs will occasionally gamble big on what seems to be a sure thing, but the rest of the time are quite conservative.

[Ron Mexico]

It's vs valuing. SEIs will put up with more discomfort for the sake of maintaining a positive group mood, SLIs don't give a damn about the group mood and will abandon ship as soon as an activity becomes unprofitable. With weak Ne, both are apt to miss opportunities for sensual enjoyment but the SEI would more likely go along with others until that opportunity became blatantly obvious, while the SLI would need more factual evidence. This "data collecting" is what SLIs do on a constant basis and it's the main way they find new opportunities to experience sensual pleasure. SEIs have a different approach, they tune into the social atmosphere and learn through the preferences of others.

There is also the fact that SEIs have +Si and SLIs have -Si, so SEIs seek to add to their sensual experience, while SLIs seek to remove all that disturbs it. They therefore expend energy differently; the SEI is somewhat less discriminating, and more willing to gamble on a "low potential" experience. SLIs will occasionally gamble big on what seems to be a sure thing, but the rest of the time are quite conservative.

So what is the difference between Ne data collecting and Si data collecting? Both can be data collectors, or is it more of a Ti vs Te that data collects?

[ConcreteButterfly]

So what is the difference between Ne data collecting and Si data collecting? Both can be data collectors, or is it more of a Ti vs Te that data collects?

Here I was referring to Te, which is in the 2nd position for SLIs and is used intentionally. Te is about names, dates, times, distances, statistical figures, etc. You'll notice many SLIs work in IT, which is partly related to their ability to easily handle large volumes of this kind of data.

Si data collecting is more about sensory impressions, the feel of objects, the sounds of voices, the colors of clothing, that kind of thing. Si bases don't do this intentionally, it happens on its own depending on the nature of their hidden agenda. SLIs can have exceptional memories for sensations of things they like, SEIs for things they clearly understand.

Ne data collecting can also be done and is used by EIIs and LIIs in much the same way as SLIs use Te. Ne is about the concepts between points of data, the matrix that holds them together so to speak. EIIs try to find a matrix that aligns with their ethical values , LIIs with their logical reasoning (LIIs use "emotional" data points aka as opposed to ).

[Olduvai]

IThere is also the fact that SEIs have +Si and SLIs have -Si, so SEIs seek to add to their sensual experience, while SLIs seek to remove all that disturbs it. They therefore expend energy differently; the SEI is somewhat less discriminating, and more willing to gamble on a "low potential" experience. SLIs will occasionally gamble big on what seems to be a sure thing, but the rest of the time are quite conservative.

I'm gonna quote xerx here:

The terms " + " and " - " don't exist, they don't mean anything. They're just a notation -- a shorthand -- used to represent Gulenko's function descriptions.

You're trying to decipher deep meaning from a notation. You might as well try to gain insight about a person from their phone number. ​

[Ron Mexico]

Here I was referring to Te, which is in the 2nd position for SLIs and is used intentionally. Te is about names, dates, times, distances, statistical figures, etc. You'll notice many SLIs work in IT, which is partly related to their ability to easily handle large volumes of this kind of data.

Si data collecting is more about sensory impressions, the feel of objects, the sounds of voices, the colors of clothing, that kind of thing. Si bases don't do this intentionally, it happens on its own depending on the nature of their hidden agenda. SLIs can have exceptional memories for sensations of things they like, SEIs for things they clearly understand.

Ne data collecting can also be done and is used by EIIs and LIIs in much the same way as SLIs use Te. Ne is about the concepts between points of data, the matrix that holds them together so to speak. EIIs try to find a matrix that aligns with their ethical values , LIIs with their logical reasoning (LIIs use "emotional" data points aka as opposed to ).

So with an ILE with Te in their Id block, how is that manifested? I have a tendency to remember random statistical facts such as populations, state capitals, historic dates, etc. for a reason I do not understand.

[Olduvai]

Si data collecting is more about sensory impressions, the feel of objects, the sounds of voices, the colors of clothing, that kind of thing. Si bases don't do this intentionally, it happens on its own depending on the nature of their hidden agenda. SLIs can have exceptional memories for sensations of things they like, SEIs for things they clearly understand.

an object's texture, a voice's timbre, and a shirt's color are all explicit and static properties of objects; you're talking about Se, not Si

[ConcreteButterfly]

an object's texture, a voice's timbre, and a shirt's color are all explicit and static properties of objects; you're talking about Se, not Si

you're right. I should have clarified: it's how those Se elements affect one's nervous system that are collected, not the Se elements themselves. Si data collection means taking in the Se texture, timbre, color of something, etc. as innervations produced in one's body and storing them away.

[Olduvai]

you're right. I should have clarified: it's how those Se elements affect one's nervous system that are collected, not the Se elements themselves. Si data collection means taking in the Se texture, timbre, color of something, etc. as innervations produced in one's body and storing them away.

other than via innervations produced in one's own body, how might things like texture, timbre, and color be taken in?

[ConcreteButterfly]

other than via innervations produced in one's own body, how might things like texture, timbre, and color be taken in?

They can be taken in as symbols . One registers the texture, timbre, etc. of something and creates a mirror image of it, and stores that away. Naturally, innervations are produced from the object too but these aren't held onto, they pass through the person's body like a wave and only the symbolic image of the thing is retained. Basically the person doesn't pay attention to these innervations and instead focuses on a derived symbol.

[Olduvai]

They can be taken in as symbols . One registers the texture, timbre, etc. of something and creates a mirror image of it, and stores that away. Naturally, innervations are produced from the object too but these aren't held onto, they pass through the person's body like a wave and only the symbolic image of the thing is retained. Basically the person doesn't pay attention to these innervations and instead focuses on a derived symbol.

but isn't every cognitive act "innervations produced in one's own body"?

[ConcreteButterfly]

but isn't every cognitive act "innervations produced in one's own body"?

Yes, in a way, but with it's a step removed. Say Bob is holding an apple. The color, texture, weight of the apple are picked up through through his senses and produce a specific set of innervations. With , you focus on these sensations. With , there's a secondary process going on, the innervations produce another set of "innervations" in the visual part of the brain which are outputted as a series of mental images of (or related to) the apple. This symbolizing provokes its own set of innervations and THAT is what the user focuses on. And this can happen quite a while after the direct experience of the apple.

[Olduvai]

The color, texture, weight of the apple are picked up through through his senses and produce a specific set of innervations. With , you focus on these sensations.

but the color, the texture, and the weight of the apple are the innervations; focusing on them just means you're focusing on the explicit and static properties of objects, which is Se

With , there's a secondary process going on, the innervations produce another set of "innervations" in the visual part of the brain which are outputted as a series of mental images of (or related to) the apple. This symbolizing provokes its own set of innervations and THAT is what the user focuses on. And this can happen quite a while after the direct experience of the apple.

this is interesting; I think all introverted functions involve a "secondary process":

So basically, "explicit" information originates from the "environment". It is what we immediately detect via our sensory organs. It requires no further thought or contemplation; it is "just there". "Implicit" information originates from an "operation" in the brain. It is the result of a "calculation" or a "transformation" that the function performs. It then seems reasonable to think that a person with an "explicit" primary function would seem to be "more focused on their environment" than a person with an "implicit" primary function, who would seem to be "more focused on their thought processes". Hence "extroversion" and "introversion".

[ConcreteButterfly]

but the color, the texture, and the weight of the apple are the innervations; focusing on them just means you're focusing on the explicit and static properties of objects, which is Se

hmm you may be right. Perhaps Si differs from Se then by compounding the immediate innervations produced by the object with additional ones produced by one's memory of the object (or related objects). So if Bob enjoyed the sensation of eating an apple once before, seeing it again would trigger those warm memories and produce a corresponding set of innervations that run alongside the original ones, even if he doesn't eat it this time. It would seem as though the apple is producing an amplified innervation, but in reality another process is happening, one perhaps much more intense than the first.

And I agree, all introverted functions seem to involve a "Secondary process". It's as though they are accumulative in nature, building from a storehouse of information, as opposed to the "reseting" nature of the extroverted functions. New information seems to go through this storehouse and produce an additional reaction.

[Olduvai]

hmm you may be right. Perhaps Si differs from Se then by compounding the immediate innervations produced by the object with additional ones produced by one's memory of the object (or related objects). So if Bob enjoyed the sensation of eating an apple once before, seeing it again would trigger those warm memories and produce a corresponding set of innervations that run alongside the original ones, even if he doesn't eat it this time. It would seem as though the apple is producing an amplified innervation, but in reality another process is happening, one perhaps much more intense than the first, and that's probably what the focuses on.

And I agree, all introverted functions seem to involve a "Secondary process". It's as though they are accumulative in nature, building from a storehouse of information, as opposed to the "reseting" nature of the extroverted functions. New information seems to go through this storehouse and produce an additional reaction.

I personally think Si is completely different from what we traditionally think of as "sensation"; this is how I've got it defined:

"Si" = "Implicit Field Dynamics"

'effect on conditions', 'how conditions will change', 'what developments will occur'"

and I really like your notion of a "storehouse of information" for introverted functions; Soupman has described introverts as having a "theme of analysis" that "colours their worldview":

With introversion defined as a theme of analysis that colours a person's worldview, introverts quasi similarly desire stability in their lead introverted function, so they have a conservative attitude to the information inline with their model of analysis. Therefore the need to work with fledged ideas, that have sense and credibility to them, before they decide to test how they best apply to the objective world.
Extroverts only care about fledged objective information so they don't care about starting with a model, like introverts.

I've noticed that others don't have a core model, a theme of analysis that colours their worldview so when expressing their ideas, they present their ideas as simply the most important details that are viable for the given situation. I know everyone does demonstrate this objectivity, important details for the given situation they analyse, but the peculiar thing I've noticed is that for some people, their intellectual world largely has no ''colouring theme'' of context, but rather they just have a library of important details than govern the understanding of a particular issue, situation; they never have a consistent ''coloured themes'' but rather they create many to appease what ever situation they have.