What is Si?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikisocion

Si : harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics

Si : a physically relaxed and comfortable state free of irritants; enjoying the pleasure of the moment

---

Quote:

---

-Si

* the ability to feel interaction of the physical properties of objects in the space.
* tendency toward the comfort and the skill it to create on the large space.
* tendency toward the satisfaction of the physical needs on a scale of society.
* the aesthetics of space.
* ergonomics of space, topographical design.
* tendency toward the new physical sensations: the collectivization of sensations; - the skill to identify, to foresee discomfort, pain, disease, disharmony.
* tendency toward the tactile contact as the method of the collection of information about the physical properties of objects.

---

 

The priority of introverted sensation produces a definite type, which is characterized by certain peculiarities. It is an irrational type, inasmuch as its selection among occurrences is not primarily rational, but is guided rather by what just happens. Whereas, the extraverted sensation-type is determined by the intensity of the objective influence, the introverted type is orientated by the intensity of the subjective sensation-constituent released by the objective stimulus. Obviously, therefore, no sort of proportional relation exists between object and sensation, but something that is apparently quite irregular and arbitrary judging from without, therefore, it is practically impossible to foretell what will make an impression and what will not. If there were present a capacity and readiness for expression in any way commensurate with the strength of sensation, the irrationality of this type would be extremely evident.

This is the case, for instance, when the individual is a creative artist. But, since this is the exception, it usually happens that the characteristic introverted difficulty of expression also conceals his irrationality. On the contrary, he may actually stand out by the very calmness and passivity of his demeanour, or by his rational self-control. This peculiarity, which often leads the superficial judgment astray, is really due to his unrelatedness to objects. Normally the object is not consciously depreciated in the least, but its stimulus is removed from it, because it is immediately replaced by a subjective reaction, which is no longer related to the reality of the object. This, of course, has the same effect as a depreciation of the object.

Such a type can easily make one question why one should exist at all; or why objects in general should have any right to existence, since everything essential happens without the object. This doubt may be justified in extreme cases, though not in the normal, since the objective stimulus is indispensable to his sensation, only it produces something different from what was to be surmised from the external state of affairs. Considered from without, it looks as though the effect of the object did not obtrude itself upon the subject. This impression is so far correct inasmuch as a subjective content does, in fact, intervene from the unconscious, thus snatching away the effect of the object.

This intervention may be so abrupt that the individual appears to shield himself directly from any possible influence of the object. In any aggravated or well-marked case, such a protective guard is also actually present. Even with only a slight reinforcement of the unconscious, the subjective constituent of sensation becomes so alive that it almost completely obscures the objective influence. The results of this are, on the one hand, a feeling of complete depreciation on the part of the object, and, on the other, an illusory conception of reality on the part of the subject, which in morbid cases may even reach the point of a complete inability to discriminate between the real object and the subjective perception.

Although so vital a distinction vanishes completely only in a practically psychotic state, yet long before that point is reached subjective perception may influence thought, feeling, and action to an extreme degree, in spite of the fact that the object is clearly seen in its fullest reality. Whenever the objective influence does succeed in forcing its way into the subject—as the result of particular circumstances of special intensity, or because of a more perfect analogy with the unconscious image—even the normal example of this type is induced to act in accordance with his unconscious model. Such action has an illusory quality in relation to objective reality, and therefore has a very odd and strange character.

It instantly reveals the anti-real subjectivity of the type, But, where the influence of the object does not entirely succeed, it encounters a benevolent neutrality, disclosing little sympathy, yet constantly striving to reassure and adjust. The too-low is raised a little, the too-high is made a little lower; the enthusiastic is damped, the extravagant restrained; and the unusual brought within the 'correct' formula: all this in order to keep the influence of the object within the necessary bounds. Thus, this type becomes an affliction to his circle, just in so far as his entire harmlessness is no longer above suspicion. But, if the latter should be the case, the individual readily becomes a victim to the aggressiveness and ambitions of others. Such men allow themselves to be abused, for which they usually take vengeance at the most unsuitable occasions with redoubled stubbornness and resistance. When there exists no capacity for artistic expression, all impressions sink into the inner depths, whence they hold consciousness under a spell, removing any possibility it might have had of mastering the fascinating impression by means of conscious expression.

Relatively speaking, this type has only archaic possibilities of expression for the disposal of his impressions; thought and feeling are relatively unconscious, and, in so far as they have a certain consciousness, they only serve in the necessary, banal, everyday expressions. Hence as conscious functions, they are wholly unfitted to give any adequate rendering of the subjective perceptions. This type, therefore, is uncommonly inaccessible to an objective understanding and he fares no better in the understanding of himself.

Above all, his development estranges him from the reality of the object, handing him over to his subjective perceptions, which orientate his consciousness in accordance with an archaic reality, although his deficiency in comparative judgment keeps him wholly unaware of this fact. Actually he moves in a mythological world, where men animals, railways, houses, rivers, and mountains appear partly as benevolent deities and partly as malevolent demons. That thus they, appear to him never enters his mind, although their effect upon his judgments and acts can bear no other interpretation. He judges and acts as though he had such powers to deal with; but this begins to strike him only when he discovers that his sensations are totally different from reality. If his tendency is to reason objectively, he will sense this difference as morbid; but if, on the other hand, he remains faithful to his irrationality, and is prepared to grant his sensation reality value, the objective world will appear a mere make-belief and a comedy. Only in extreme cases, however, is this dilemma reached. As a rule, the individual acquiesces in his isolation and in the banality of the reality, which, however, he unconsciously treats archaically.
His unconscious is distinguished chiefly by the repression of intuition, which thereby acquires an extraverted and archaic character.

Whereas true extraverted intuition has a characteristic resourcefulness, and a 'good nose' for every possibility in objective reality, this archaic, extraverted intuition has an amazing flair for every ambiguous, gloomy, dirty, and dangerous possibility in the background of reality. In the presence of this intuition the real and conscious intention of the object has no significance; it will peer behind every possible archaic antecedent of such an intention. It possesses, therefore, something dangerous, something actually undermining, which often stands in most vivid contrast to the gentle benevolence of consciousness.

So long as the individual is not too aloof from the object, the unconscious intuition effects a wholesome compensation to the rather fantastic and over credulous attitude of consciousness. But as soon as the unconscious becomes antagonistic to consciousness, such intuitions come to the surface and expand their nefarious influence: they force themselves compellingly upon the individual, releasing compulsive ideas about objects of the most perverse kind. The neurosis arising from this sequence of events is usually a compulsion neurosis, in which the hysterical characters recede and are obscured by symptoms of exhaustion.

I've been searching for information on the boring function Si and read the passage by Jung only to find that what he's written has barely anything to do with comfort, relaxation, and aesthetics?

So what is Si exactly?

Summary of conversation in the chatbox from various parties regarding Si:

Like any other IE, Si is about a certain orientation through which 'reality' is experienced. It's not directly about relaxation, comfort, or any of that but these can follow as symptoms of Si. if you break Si down into its aspectonics, it comes out as EFD—Explicit Field Dynamics. Explicit referring to what is ostensible, or demonstrable, concrete. Field meaning the information is treated as something subjective or user-dependent, i.e. the user doesn't necessarily perceive it as something separate or objectively apart from them. And Dynamic, which basically means something like monitoring changes or fluctuations, instead of fixed properties. So if you put all that together then, you get something like what you read Jung talking about. Where one's immersed in their subjective relationship with extant physical phenomena. Si valuers seem to place a stronger emphasis on maintaining a balance between themselves and the external physical environment that Se valuers are more inclined to ignore. Homeostasis.

I don't think Si is about "feeling good" persay, or necessarily about aesthetics, good food, being healthy, etc. Those can be products of it yes, but I think identifying it as those things misses the point and is not the fundamental nature of the function. More essentially speaking, I think Si is about vying to achieve stability and constancy in one's environment as a means to maintain the homeostasis of one's inner state. Si creates a sense of immergence with one's physical environment, both inside and outside of the body. This is apparent if you read into the information element composition of Si: EFD - Dynamic External Field. Dynamic refers to perception of changes, External refers to what is physical/tangible/apparent, Field refers to the observer being one with the observed. So what happens here with Si, is that one's self blends seamlessly with the physical environment, and can be treated as one indivisable unit. The desire to maintain a fluid coherence between the self and the environment is the overriding "goal" of Si. Disturbances in the parameters between self and environment are constantly monitored for and fluctuations which produce decoherence between the two and disrupt that seamless flow are considered undesirable from the standpoint of Si.

You can see how that drive for balance between self/environment could lead into symptoms of seeking out comfort, relaxation, etc. Being immersed in something. In a play of music, etc. or something more physical like walking, jogging, hiking. As long as the stream doesn't get cut off. It's in the how of the immersion. Si is a very concrete-oriented immersion. The flow of the senses. Being in sync w/ this. Getting into the zone. Feel the play of your muscles and the well-established rhythm clearing your mind.

Si feeling of going on and on for mile with no ending "it's an amazing feeling, tend to avoid the highs, and avoid over exertion" vs the Se endorphin rush, "pushing myself for the next high, feeling my legs screaming in pain, and pushing through it, just because i want it. Wanting to push the boundaries of whatever i did before and go further/faster else feel unaccomplished and going home in defeat".

Si seems to gravitate towards stability, continuity, constancy in the physical realm with respect to individual's previous sensory experiences. This may be indirectly related to topics like comfort, health, pleasantness and so on, but from what I've observed the propensity to care about these topics seems to be related to being sp-primary or secondary in instinctual stackings more so than it has to do with being Si valuing.



Here is a picture that attempts to illustrate the difference between Si-Ne and Ni-Se:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2...01116at402.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

Si seems to gravitate towards stability, continuity, constancy in the physical realm with respect to individual's previous sensory experiences. This may be indirectly related to topics like comfort, health, pleasantness and so on, but from what I've observed the propensity to care about these topics seems to be related to being sp-primary or secondary in instinctual stackings more so than it has to do with being Si valuing.



Here is a picture that attempt to illustrate the difference between Si-Ne and Ni-Se:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2...01116at402.png

---

This is an excellent illustration of the differences in the perceiving functions except Si/Ne should also include the immediate future while Ni/Se should include the distant future. It also highlights how Si/Ne and Ni/Se need each other in order to be fully productive because they only produce half the picture on their own.

Si is the in-ward of Se; Se senses the object for what it is in actuality and Si senses their own interpretation of the object. Si may find a rather ordinary woman very beautiful for the person's relation to them rather than their actual beauty or the lack of. This is applies to all senses, not just sight and interpretation of an object for what the person sees. The Si person may interpret a certain sound to be subjectively pleasant and I have often found when this happens, the need for the person to experience the sound over and over again, to delve into themselves when hearing it and at the same time commingling their emotions to the sound as well as dreams, and their personal subjective interpretation; I often find that this happens because the person can't remember, recollect, or paint the sound interpreted through Si exactly how it is in reality or Se because Se is in the Si's subconscious.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

The Si person may interpret a certain sound to be subjectively pleasant and I have often found when this happens, the need for the person to experience the sound over and over again, to delve into themselves when hearing it and at the same time commingling their emotions to the sound as well as dreams, and their personal subjective interpretation; I often find that this happens because the person can't remember, recollect, or paint the sound interpreted through Si exactly how it is in reality or Se because Se is in the Si's subconscious.

---

Yes, I think that's what's going on. I've been listening to this fantastic video about 50 times for the last two days, I just can't get enough, I have to replay it over and over again. Still, I have a hard time remembering the song when I'm not at the computer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Summary of conversation in the chatbox from various parties regarding Si:

Like any other IE, Si is about a certain orientation through which 'reality' is experienced. It's not directly about relaxation, comfort, or any of that but these can follow as symptoms of Si. if you break Si down into its aspectonics, it comes out as EFD—Explicit Field Dynamics. Explicit referring to what is ostensible, or demonstrable, concrete. Field meaning the information is treated as something subjective or user-dependent, i.e. the user doesn't necessarily perceive it as something separate or objectively apart from them. And Dynamic, which basically means something like monitoring changes or fluctuations, instead of fixed properties. So if you put all that together then, you get something like what you read Jung talking about. Where one's immersed in their subjective relationship with extant physical phenomena. Si valuers seem to place a stronger emphasis on maintaining a balance between themselves and the external physical environment that Se valuers are more inclined to ignore. Homeostasis.

I don't think Si is about "feeling good" persay, or necessarily about aesthetics, good food, being healthy, etc. Those can be products of it yes, but I think identifying it as those things misses the point and is not the fundamental nature of the function. More essentially speaking, I think Si is about vying to achieve stability and constancy in one's environment as a means to maintain the homeostasis of one's inner state. Si creates a sense of immergence with one's physical environment, both inside and outside of the body. This is apparent if you read into the information element composition of Si: EFD - Dynamic External Field. Dynamic refers to perception of changes, External refers to what is physical/tangible/apparent, Field refers to the observer being one with the observed. So what happens here with Si, is that one's self blends seamlessly with the physical environment, and can be treated as one indivisable unit. The desire to maintain a fluid coherence between the self and the environment is the overriding "goal" of Si. Disturbances in the parameters between self and environment are constantly monitored for and fluctuations which produce decoherence between the two and disrupt that seamless flow are considered undesirable from the standpoint of Si.

---

:thumbsup: I would add that relation to caretaking is probably caused by Si being aware of explicit dynamics and therefore knowing how to influence them, something Ni often fails at while focusing on too distant implications.

Si as comfort is only good for bad jokes about needing it to feed yourself before you collapse in starvation while in chatbox.

Quote:

---

You can see how that drive for balance between self/environment could lead into symptoms of seeking out comfort, relaxation, etc. Being immersed in something. In a play of music, etc. or something more physical like walking, jogging, hiking. As long as the stream doesn't get cut off. It's in the how of the immersion. Si is a very concrete-oriented immersion. The flow of the senses. Being in sync w/ this. Getting into the zone. Feel the play of your muscles and the well-established rhythm clearing your mind.

Si feeling of going on and on for mile with no ending "it's an amazing feeling, tend to avoid the highs, and avoid over exertion" vs the Se endorphin rush, "pushing myself for the next high, feeling my legs screaming in pain, and pushing through it, just because i want it. Wanting to push the boundaries of whatever i did before and go further/faster else feel unaccomplished and going home in defeat".

---

That gets very specific and in my experience isn't always accurate. There are a lot of Se/Ni people who avoid physical extremes, and there can be Si/Ne types who push their own physical limits. This might be related to other aspects of personality (sp first stacking comes to mind), but I've got the feeling it's more related to life experience rather than originating from inherent personality. Perhaps there's a correlation to socionics, but typing by it isn't a good idea. Unless you're willing to consider Se/Ni are mostly men whereas Si/Ne are mostly women, for example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

... the skill to identify, to foresee discomfort, pain, disease, disharmony

---

This is probably the closest to what is Si about, IMO. It is still a description limited to the physical properties, which is not the case, since Si is a generic IE/function like any other [1]. It is true that Si Egos, because preferring to deal with concrete, tangible things, often use to be practical people, compared to say Intuitves. There is a reason, indeed, since Si deals in a direct manner with consequences in general (not like Ni, "maybe or maybe not") and since physical care (or lack of) may have [2] consequences for any human being, they use to be naturally obliged to it.

Si filters the information that:
- is Fields: rules, concepts, generic, "in theory", not actual; does not refer to certain objects or actual contexts. For instance, if you say "if you run out of fuel, you can't reach your destination" - that's true in general, it is not necessary to be on your way;
- is Dynamic: deals with the interaction of things, not intrinsic properties; synthesis, generally (but not necessarily) development over time.
- is External: concrete, justified, definite, certain and direct - not assumed, imaginary, subjective.

Note that this "certain" is not in an absolute sense, it means that External (Sensing, Logic) information does not deal with the speculative, like the Internal (Intuition, Ethics) does. In the example regarding not reaching your destination without fuel, there often are different possibilities to reach it by other means. But they fall in the realm of Ni, they're undefined and uncertain. Besides, they fall out the scope of "how it's made" - what Si actually deals with. Doing something properly and thinking at the same about alternatives in case of failure is absurd [3].

I wrote more about Si-Ego here: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ifying-Si-Egos. I don't have the time to clarify or correct the text, I could clarify if there's something confusing.
---

[1] - it can deal with any field. Make the difference between this and "anything", since "anything" includes even different type of information. "What if", for instance, is something Si does not process, since it is generated by an Internal IE (Intuition in this case, since it is Irrational/Perceiving, expects change of knowledge).
[2] - I know that when I said "may have" instead of "has" means ignoring Si and giving the upper hand to Ni, but this is how I see reality myself :).
[3] - yet another example when two people have to think about it, and an argument for Duality as a real complementarity between people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

Si seems to gravitate towards stability, continuity, constancy in the physical realm with respect to individual's previous sensory experiences. This may be indirectly related to topics like comfort, health, pleasantness and so on, but from what I've observed the propensity to care about these topics seems to be related to being sp-primary or secondary in instinctual stackings more so than it has to do with being Si valuing.



Here is a picture that attempts to illustrate the difference between Si-Ne and Ni-Se:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2...01116at402.png

---

Can someone explain this to me?
Can someone enhance this with the future?
Thanks

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Like any other IE, Si is about a certain orientation through which 'reality' is experienced. It's not directly about relaxation, comfort, or any of that but these can follow as symptoms of Si. if you break Si down into its aspectonics, it comes out as EFD—Explicit Field Dynamics. Explicit referring to what is ostensible, or demonstrable, concrete. Field meaning the information is treated as something subjective or user-dependent, i.e. the user doesn't necessarily perceive it as something separate or objectively apart from them. And Dynamic, which basically means something like monitoring changes or fluctuations, instead of fixed properties. So if you put all that together then, you get something like what you read Jung talking about. Where one's immersed in their subjective relationship with extant physical phenomena. Si valuers seem to place a stronger emphasis on maintaining a balance between themselves and the external physical environment that Se valuers are more inclined to ignore. Homeostasis.

---

I just read this. This is overal very good, with an exception (bold): in Socionics, Bodies/Fields is not an attitude. This is one instance where Socionics radically differes from Jung's Psychological Types, thing that Aushra explicitly stated [1]. http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...848#post725848

Fields information is indeed subjective [2], however not in respect to being consciously part of oneself, but because it is not based on objects. Mathematics is an example of a field where almost exlusively Fields information is used, almost all about maths is subjective, created by the human mind, but has nothing to do with a certain attitude, or a relationship between a subject and some objects.

In fact, all Fields, Static and Internal information is subjective, one way or another. Static, for instance, even when Bodies and External (Se, Extroverted Sensing), is subjective since it creates properties based on behavior. A running car, objectively, does not have velocity, you just see it moving. One can't purely objectively conclude that a car has sufficient velocity to kill a man, since it had not happened yet (even when what you see is convincing), he has not yet experienced the event. Only Te (Extroverted Logic: Bodies, Dynamic, External), which is limited to facts, processes information purely objective: in our case, after the event happened, you can tell the car was running fast and killed a man.
---

[1] - off-topic: there are however several people on this forum who, although they were forced to acknowledge this fact, simply refuse to conform. Who told you that in the chatbox, if you don't mind?

TeSi can regiment their Si experience by subjecting a subjective introverted function to logic; black logic, things that are managed.

SiTe can subject their logic to their sensory function; hence the tendency is taking a longer time to do Si than Te

Creating a mirror relations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nowisthetime

Yes, I think that's what's going on. I've been listening to this fantastic video about 50 times for the last two days, I just can't get enough, I have to replay it over and over again. Still, I have a hard time remembering the song when I'm not at the computer.

---

If you were an Se type, you'd register the music and would want to jump to the next experience.

I've been reading this particular page that somebody linked to somewhere. http://forum.socionix.com/topic/51-l...e-functions-i/ . I'm still working on this so I'm not sure what I think of it yet.

"Sensorika of the sensations
************************************************** **********
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+ (short range)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A) the ability to feel the physical properties of the objects of the nearest environment.

B) tendency toward the cosiness and the skill it to create in the limited space.

C) the skill to surround itself by beautiful things.

D) aesthetics and the accordion of object, ergonomics of object.

E) tendency toward the satisfaction of its physical needs (sibaritstvo), the skill to avoid discomfort.

F) memory to the personal physical sensations, the ability to reproduce them.

G) orientation to the information about the close surrounding space, obtained through the well developed sensory organs, directed toward the pleasant sensations, weakening, enjoyment, pleasure.

H) tendency toward the tactile contact: the sensitivity of touchs.

I) health as the collection of the sensations of body.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- (distant distance)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
01) the ability to feel interaction of the physical properties of objects in the space.

02) tendency toward the comfort and the skill it to create on the large space.

03) tendency toward the satisfaction of the physical needs on a scale of society.

04) the aesthetics of space.

05) ergonomics of space, topographical design.

06) tendency toward the new physical sensations: the collectivization of sensations; - the skill to identify, to foresee discomfort, pain, disease, disharmony.

07) tendency toward the tactile contact as the method of the collection of information about the physical properties of objects."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Maritsa33

If you were an Se type, you'd register the music and would want to jump to the next experience.

---

Nah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

Si seems to gravitate towards stability, continuity, constancy in the physical realm with respect to individual's previous sensory experiences. This may be indirectly related to topics like comfort, health, pleasantness and so on, but from what I've observed the propensity to care about these topics seems to be related to being sp-primary or secondary in instinctual stackings more so than it has to do with being Si valuing.

Here is a picture that attempts to illustrate the difference between Si-Ne and Ni-Se:

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2...01116at402.png

---

Interesting picture, this may help me elaborate on what I'm gonna try to explain.

I see Si as a wholistic consolidation of all information (that is seen as relevant) down to a single experiential entity. I've talked about this before, but I find that when I stare off into space my eyes tend to focus on everything at once. All the colors in my environment, the shapes I'm registering, all of it is taken in at once into a fog of sensory input. Of course I can pay attention to specific objects in space, but my impression of it all is highly colored by all the other modes of sensory input happening at once: the ambient lighting of the room, how loud/quiet the environment is, etc. I can't single out an object and focus on the experience of it by itself (even without the presence of blaring distractions). I've tried to do so, and every time I try to single something out I drift into a more cognitive understanding of the thing I'm trying to experience, such as the essence of the thing's purpose or shape. It's as if the more cognitive aspect of my information input mechanism singles out mental extrapolations of objects by themselves (Ne), while simultaneously consolidating all of the physical manifestations of these objects into a haze of sensory input (Si).

This relates pretty well to the picture Siuntal posted: present sensory information is treated as one entity, while the "past" is seen as discrete little blocks. I will say though that calling intuition IEs related to the "past" is a bit of a misnomer, because all they really concern themselves with are, as previously said, mental extrapolations of information being taken in. They're referred to as "internal" because intuition-esque information is not something that is generally present physically within the objects, but rather they are themes or gestalts made via connections in the brain. Anndelise talks about this concept of internally-generated stimulus at length in her video here, starting at about 0:54:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moxoI3ae0G8

Now, if we wanted to explain the functions of Ni/Se in a similar way, all we have to do is take the inverse of what I've explained above: the fog/haze of sensory input becomes a consolidated fog of mental extrapolations (Si into Ni), while the discrete mental connections are transduced into objectified sensory data (Ne into Se).

This whole process may be difficult to grasp first-hand, because I imagine it takes a fair amount of meta-cognition to watch it happening within one's own head. I'd love to hear people's thoughts on what I'm saying, or perhaps other mega-cognitive analyses about someone's own mental processes.

i think Si has certain features of being a big-picture function, but it deals with big-picture stuff that presents itself to people in the most immediate and un-synthetic way. take for example a landscape that you observe from a mountain top. there's tons of details within it and a million individual objects to zoom in on, but there was no act of synthesis in reaching the view. the view presented itself directly to you. THAT is Si.

Interesting responses. And thanks for the nice illustration, siuntal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

That gets very specific and in my experience isn't always accurate. There are a lot of Se/Ni people who avoid physical extremes, and there can be Si/Ne types who push their own physical limits. This might be related to other aspects of personality (sp first stacking comes to mind), but I've got the feeling it's more related to life experience rather than originating from inherent personality.

---

You may be right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

Who told you that in the chatbox, if you don't mind?

---

It'd been a combination of responses, but Ashton had been its main contributor.

Si is probably the function I least understand, despite it being in my ego block. What does it mean to maintain a balance between the self and the environment for instance? What sort of balance, how does it feel like to be balanced or off-balanced and the nature of the environment to be adjusted for, etc I still don't have a clear grasp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labocat

i think Si has certain features of being a big-picture function, but it deals with big-picture stuff that presents itself to people in the most immediate and un-synthetic way. take for example a landscape that you observe from a mountain top. there's tons of details within it and a million individual objects to zoom in on, but there was no act of synthesis in reaching the view. the view presented itself directly to you. THAT is Si.

---

This is pretty similar to what I'm trying to convey, all sensory perceptions (that are considered important) being shrunken down into a single web of input. There's a stark difference between this and what I've observed in Se-valuers: my friend's Se-ESTp mom is completely fascinated with physical forms and shapes and contours etc, and not so much on creating a physical context between objects. My friend, his parents (dad is Ni-INFp), and I, we all went to the De Young Museum a while ago, and the mom felt totally compelled to show me to the roof of the building because of the view. My focus went towards the scope of everything I could see, while she seemed to focus more on the undulations and waves of the building's construction. To her, each physical sensory input is treated as its own consolidated little point, largely removed from the context of everything else around it. Were she to see the same landscape you're describing, she would (and has, from what I've heard) pay attention to the form of each individual mountain, how large it is, what colors she sees on it, etc.

Everything in here is very good. :) You guys made me realize that Si is all about wanting to recreate subjectively pleasurable states of mind. I will listen to my music on the bus(it is usually all techno and trance music), and I will try to make the climax of the song a time when the bus is moving, because the combination of movement, action, and a rush of bass and synth is really amazing.

The thing about caregiving. I just want someone I care about to feel good and happy. I feel like that is my responsibility. :)

Maritsa is right on here:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Martisa

Si may find a rather ordinary woman very beautiful for the person's relation to them rather than their actual beauty or the lack of. This is applies to all senses, not just sight and interpretation of an object for what the person sees. The Si person may interpret a certain sound to be subjectively pleasant and I have often found when this happens, the need for the person to experience the sound over and over again, to delve into themselves when hearing it and at the same time commingling their emotions to the sound as well as dreams, and their personal subjective interpretation; I often find that this happens because the person can't remember, recollect, or paint the sound interpreted through Si exactly how it is in reality or Se because Se is in the Si's subconscious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Director Kam

Everything in here is very good. :) You guys made me realize that Si is all about wanting to recreate subjectively pleasurable states of mind. I will listen to my music on the bus(it is usually all techno and trance music), and I will try to make the climax of the song a time when the bus is moving, because the combination of movement, action, and a rush of bass and synth is really amazing.

---

That sounds so sensual, exact and amazing. :o

Quote:

---

The thing about caregiving. I just want someone I care about to feel good and happy. I feel like that is my responsibility. :)

Maritsa is right on here:

---

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:Si: is getting root canal and smiling.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

This is pretty similar to what I'm trying to convey, all sensory perceptions (that are considered important) being shrunken down into a single web of input. There's a stark difference between this and what I've observed in Se-valuers: my friend's Se-ESTp mom is completely fascinated with physical forms and shapes and contours etc, and not so much on creating a physical context between objects. My friend, his parents (dad is Ni-INFp), and I, we all went to the De Young Museum a while ago, and the mom felt totally compelled to show me to the roof of the building because of the view. My focus went towards the scope of everything I could see, while she seemed to focus more on the undulations and waves of the building's construction. To her, each physical sensory input is treated as its own consolidated little point, largely removed from the context of everything else around it. Were she to see the same landscape you're describing, she would (and has, from what I've heard) pay attention to the form of each individual mountain, how large it is, what colors she sees on it, etc.

---

I agree with this about ESTps and Se; they are affixed by how something looks, and they often describe it's features as they see them or admire them where an Si may take it in at first and absorb themselves into it than try to determine for themselves what qualities they like about the things they were able to take in, which won't be as much as an Se type.

(*Edit. I took out the caps locks. They were annoying to me afterwards even though they were a 'joke' at the time. I was grouchy and irritable and hungry when I wrote this. That happens if I drink a cup of coffee without eating anything for breakfast, and then go to the forum and try to write coherently.*)

Sorry, but my response here turned into what's known as a gigantic wall of text. I gave a bunch of examples of very strong negative Si.

I can really relate to the descriptions of society-wide negative Si that I've been reading on the plus and minus sign pages recently, the pages where they talk about proactive and reactive, short-term and long-term versions of the information elements. I can give some specific examples, but be warned, this borders on 'not safe for work.'

There were phases in the past decade when I spent a lot of time researching health issues. I found a few specific topics that I have very strong opinions about, and I feel confident about these opinions, and it's very difficult for other people to change my mind about them, so they seem to be topics that resonate with my Si base function. The emphasis is negative: try to avoid causing harm to something, although there is also the positive side of it, but I focus on that afterwards, after the 'avoid harm' focus.

This was all stuff that I learned about, over years and years, so I wasn't born knowing it. I just tended to acquire knowledge in these fields of interest, and I have very strong confident opinions about this.

Nutrition: I have spent many decades gradually learning things about nutrition. I started reading about it in my late teens. I now have knowledge of things like special diets used to help people with particular problems such as ADHD. I also pay attention to society-wide bad diets, diets that are harmful to large numbers of people in a particular culture. So that resonates with the 'large scale' 'society-wide' description of negative Si. For me personally, the emphasis isn't about 'Let's eat lots of really yummy tasty food and enjoy it,' so it's not a positive, enjoyment-oriented emphasis. Instead the emphasis is 'Let's eat foods that are healthy so that we can avoid the damage caused by bad diets.'

However, when I eat healthy food, I enjoy it. And now I actually don't enjoy eating particular foods that are unhealthy, and I don't really desire them, I just eat them whenever I have to because they're convenient, and right now, I don't have a way of cooking my own food. But the emphasis on 'enjoying the foods' is second. It's still there, though. And I do strongly feel that junk food is not enjoyable (packaged cookies, chips, and crackers, for instance - I hate them!). So I am not completely opposed to the 'enjoy your food' concept. But when I think about this in my mind, the first and most important thing I think about is all the damage caused by bad foods.

Another topic: How to have children. I have several strong opinions in the area of childbirth. (*This is the 'not safe for work' section.*) Again, these are large-scale, society-wide practices that I disapprove of, which occur in particular cultures. I gathered this information over a period of years, and formed strong opinions about it, and it's hard for anyone to change my mind about these opinions by arguing with me - so, again, Si base stuff. The emphasis is on 'avoid doing harm,' and then in the background I can still see the 'sensual enjoyment,' but that is afterwards, after the focus on avoiding harm and inflicting injury.

It's hard to just lump all these issues together without going into detail on all of them. One issue is: preventing harm to the baby, by making sure you eat healthy foods (according to particular diets) so that the children will develop fully while in the womb. Another issue: avoiding drugs, especially while pregnant, and this is an extremely strong opinion, because I've experienced drugs myself - it would be all drugs that you can possibly avoid, no exceptions, unless your life depends on it. That's a huge topic which I never finished ranting about elsewhere. People eating unhealthy diets, and having babies that don't develop fully, or that have deformities caused by 1. malnutrition 2. drugs 3. various chemicals and poisons, is a society-wide harmful cultural practice that I want to avoid doing. -Si. 'Enjoying the foods' is not strongly emphasized, but again it's in there in the background.

Other issues: breastfeeding children instead of bottle feeding. I gathered information about this, again over a period of years, and I knew exactly where I stood on the issue, very quickly, and felt strongly sure about what was right and what was wrong. Other people do not agree with me, or they make exceptions to it or they say that you can do things differently if you do this, or do that, but I myself say, don't make exceptions to it, just find a way to do it no matter what, even if you have to use a 'wet nurse' to do the breastfeeding (getting someone else to nurse the baby, instead of the mother doing it). Bottle-feeding infant formula instead of breastfeeding fits into the category of 'A society-wide harmful health practice that I disapprove of.' Negative Si.

Circumcision: Very strong opinion against it. Society-wide harmful cultural practice that I disapprove of. Time and time again, these strong areas of interest are all Negative Si, don't do something harmful.

Teeth: After researching diets that prevent cavities, and after learning about, and experiencing, the harmful effects of dental fillings, I am completely opposed to getting dental fillings at all. If you get a cavity, you should use the nutritional techniques to deal with it, and you should avoid any type of dental fillings or dental work at all, including orthodontic work, braces, etc, or crowns on the teeth. Avoid doing this society-wide cultural practice with harmful consequences, -Si.

Surgery that removes bodily organs, such as appendectomy, gall bladder removal, and other organs, mastectomies, etc. I am opposed to those things. I'm still learning about this, but I know which direction it's going: avoid having any organs removed, at all costs. For instance I believe that breast cancer patients wrongfully have mastectomies when they don't need them. I don't have personal experience with this, and I also don't yet have enough knowledge to tell people how they ought to prevent and cure cancer. I also know that I strongly dislike chemotherapy, and I'm sure there's something very, very wrong with it, but I don't know the alternatives. But I know the answers that I want to find, even though I have not found them yet. I have a concept in my mind of what answers I need in the future. -Si. Same theme, something bothers me, something that a very large part of the culture is doing that I think is harmful.

Childbirth: Don't give birth in the hospital, do it at home. There are so many things wrong with the way they do it in the hospital. I am always interested in this topic. As always, the emphasis is on avoiding harm, by not doing the society-wide cultural practices - same theme again and again. It's a big topic that I don't have personal experience with, but I already know what I am going to do in the future, whenever that is.

Hairstyling: I have strong opinions about hairstyling too, but they are not the same life-or-death importance as the other topics I listed above. Instead, it's just something that I hate, that I see around me constantly, a feeling of constant frustration and dissatisfaction that never goes away. I hate the way people look. I can't stand the sight of people. I can't stand anybody's hairstyles. It constantly frustrates me that neither men nor women have long hair, and it frustrates me that men don't have beards.

This isn't a 'You will die if you don't style your hair the right way' kind of issue, but instead it's something where I'd like to create an intentional community of people who agreed to styling their hair by my rules. I know that I can't force the rest of the world to go along with it.

Nevertheless, the 'constant frustration' feeling, the constant dissatisfaction about society-wide cultural practices, puts this into the Negative Si category. I've complained for, literally, *decades* about how much I hate the cultural practice of cutting men's hair short. I've been aware of that ever since I was about five years old, no exaggerating. I had crushes on the boys with slightly longer hair, all the way back in kindergarten, because they were more pleasant to look at, and I found the short-haired boys repulsive and unattractive and boring - I always was devastated if a long-haired guy would suddenly cut his hair off.

(Sorry for using such strong language. This is sure to hurt and/or offend people who cut their hair, which is why I always keep quiet about this subject and I never try to change anyone's mind about it anymore. I used to argue about it in the past, and I quickly learned that it's *absolutely futile* trying to get anybody to agree with me about hair. So I don't even try.) Anyway, as always.... Negative Si = society-wide cultural practice that I want people to stop doing, because I believe it's harmful.

So now you have *too much information* about negative Si.

I summarized from these responses the following on Si:

1) The vying to achieve stability and constancy in one's environment as a means to maintain the homeostasis of one's inner state.

2) Sensory perceptions shrunken down into a single web of input: E.g. Scenery hitting you all at once rather than a division into parts, sections, color, and contours. A holistic consolidation of all information (that is seen as relevant) down to a single experiential entity.

3) A recreation of subjectively pleasurable states of mind. Co-mingling of emotions to sound, dreams, personal subjective interpretation. E.g. Listening to certain music, timing particular sections to suit rhythm, etc.

4) Caregiving: Si deals in a direct manner with consequences in general (not like Ni, "maybe or maybe not") and since physical care (or lack of) may have consequences for any human being, Si types are naturally obliged to it.

5) The skill to identify, to foresee discomfort, pain, disease, disharmony.

6) Negative Si = society-wide cultural practice that Si types want people to stop doing, because they believe it to be harmful.


As pointed by Siuntal, the perception of Si as the gravitation towards stability, continuity, and constancy in the physical realm with respect to individual's previous sensory experience is related more to the enneagram sp primary stacking rather than having a connection to Si. The final point on negative Si, I am unable to relate.

I find the idea of Si as a holistic consolidation of sensory input into a single web of input a very interesting view which I've not before heard. I've only returned from a hilltop, where I just stood and enjoyed the scenery, the rustling of the leaves, the feel of the wind on my face, the feel of the cold temperature, all of it in its entire panoramic view hitting me in its entirety. I could have stood there for hours, soaking it all in. The propensity to the re-creation of subjectively pleasurable states of mind may also tie in to this, because particular input and actions (perhaps sequential) may 'trigger' and re-tap Si valuers to the Si flow of memories, hence easily re-entering prior states of mind.

Si caregiving is said to be an indirect result of Si types dealing in a direct manner with consequences, clear links of cause and effect. I personally place a lot of attention to cause-effect dynamics, not so much in the form of physical reaction, but one I have noted to manifest in my writings as a preoccupation with clarity of the sequence of logical thought, in my own and in others. E.g. Assuming X occurred, Y would happen and hence Z. A would not happen because B needs to happen, which depends on C to happen, etc.

Homeostasis, the identification of foreseeing disharmony, etc and its subsequent and gradual adjustment, I can relate in my preference for slow and gradual changes and adjustments as well as preference towards a peaceful and stable equilibrium of moods, though this may also be enneagram related.

I myself would like to see different types for the different instinctual stackings, because I've met people who I thought were probably SLI, but, for instance, they like to cover their entire bodies with tattoos and piercings, which is described in either the sexual or social instinctual stacking, and supposedly, the sp/so stacking is 'opposed to tattoos' or 'anti-tattoo' or something like that, which I relate to (I call myself sp/so). The different instinctual stackings could be described as a whole different type of Si.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

I myself would like to see different types for the different instinctual stackings, because I've met people who I thought were probably SLI, but, for instance, they like to cover their entire bodies with tattoos and piercings, which is described in either the sexual or social instinctual stacking, and supposedly, the sp/so stacking is 'opposed to tattoos' or 'anti-tattoo' or something like that, which I relate to (I call myself sp/so). The different instinctual stackings could be described as a whole different type of Si.

---

I agree with this. While I wouldn't say the instinct stacking inherently changes the nature of any IE, it definitely colors them.

Aushra says that it's the perception of being in space, being aware of your physical state in space. That seems concise enough.

Link: http://translate.google.com/translat...f.html&act=url Go to /Library/Model of Information Metabolism

lol

Short Answer:

Filatova on :Si:-dominants:
The main condition for psychological equilibrium is balance, contentedness, and harmony in everything that constitutes a person's surroundings. For a normal life it is extremely important to have equally good physical health and perception of beauty, comfort, and content.

Then she goes on to paint her SEI and SLI descriptions using examples that are rich with this outlook and perception, more than the typical person.

Her descriptions seem like easy and clear tools to find your type, not necessarily forge in detail all the key differences between information elements and their deeper implications, so typing other people isn't always so clear cut and takes some investigation into their lifestyle. It's more practical. I like her Ni descriptions. And so even though I relate to Si somewhat, her outlook requires you to look at all the information elements, I'd have to say I relate to Ni a lot more, and Si isn't something I seek or am impressed by in others. On that note, you know what I mean by making investigations and seeing contradictions through in order to type.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

hmm, so that means I'm not aware of my physical state in space… :thinking:

WTF WHERE AM I

---

If your definition of Si is based on your own take of what Si-polr is about (seems like you treat it as some void of Si capabilities), then the Aushra definition probably doesn't apply.

Si tends to get the short end of the stick and is definitely always thought with the Alpha version in mind when theorized about.

Smilingeyes probably has some substantial material on Si in its various forms, not many other people(even popular Socionists it seems) give Si as much credit as it naturally deserves. One good assertion of his was that Si(and all the other Introvert functions) functions to make systems, specifically systems of behavior.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smilingeyes

All the descriptions so far in this thread about Si are very bad.

The only requirements for something to be Si are:
It must be a system.
It must be something that can be personally manipulated.

Any system that fills those two requirements is Si.

It's possible to do your taxes, to program computers, to win maths competitions, to argue in a court of law, to make accurate budget plans and quite a lot of other things based on Si.

Si has certain advantages and certain problems in these issues, but I suggest you first start by trying to understand what it really is before you go that far.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smilingeyes

There are people here who say Ni = mathematics. People say much worse stuff than that. But you are correct. Si is very much "private sensations", but private concrete, direct sensations as opposed to Ni which is heavily abstract and little influenced by details. Thing is, private sensations can extend far beyond personal hygiene and carpentry. And the suggestion that Si = personal health or something like that, that doesn't even cover carpentry.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smilingeyes

It's possible, though annoying to just read some instructions on how to file taxes, follow those instructions to the letter and notice that one has succeeded in filing taxes while using nothing but Te and Si. If after that, you continue to do the same thing each year, you will at some point stop using the original guide book and do the same thing you've always done with success. And voila, you've just done your taxes with nothing but Si.

It's obviously not for everyone, but realize this: having your taxes be done badly, is a great personal discomfort. It greatly improves my comfort level to do any important thing to the peak of perfection, so that no error, no matter how minuscule remains. Doing taxes = reducing discomfort.

---

The main theme is that from the localized experiential information received from Si, a system of behavior can be perfected and even modified after-the-fact to continuously achieve some result. This can be applied to any process of reality which one could personally manipulate, directly.



There was another excellent post on Si and "flow"(I believe, or something to that effect), by an ISTp here, which I tried to find but failed. I'll post it if I ever do find it. It's not the "Flow/In the Zone" thread though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Si tends to get the short end of the stick and is definitely always thought with the Alpha version in mind when theorized about.

Smilingeyes probably has some substantial material on Si in its various forms, not many other people(even popular Socionists it seems) give Si as much credit as it naturally deserves. One good assertion of his was that Si(and all the other Introvert functions) functions to make systems, specifically systems of behavior.







The main theme is that from the localized experiential information received from Si, a system of behavior can be perfected and even modified after-the-fact to continuously achieve some result. This can be applied to any process of reality which one could personally manipulate, directly.



There was another excellent post on Si and "flow"(I believe, or something to that effect), by an ISTp here, which I tried to find but failed. I'll post it if I ever do find it. It's not the "Flow/In the Zone" thread though.

---

smilingeyes associated any "i" function with systemacy. a really awkward association if you ask me. my thesis is that you end up with something messy whenever you try to interpret i/e in terms of a technical ontological distinction. it's better seen as a subtle qualitative flavor.

Quote:

---

The main theme is that from the localized experiential information received from Si, a system of behavior can be perfected and even modified after-the-fact to continuously achieve some result. This can be applied to any process of reality which one could personally manipulate, directly.

---

Even more, combine this with Detached(Abstract)/Involved and you can understand somewhat what Ni PoLR is. If Si, an Involved Function, deals with systems of behavior that are directly and personally manipulable, on a concrete level, the PoLR of an ESTj could be said as the weakness and even avoidance in dealing with systems of behavior that do not allow direct and personal management of processes, but are to be controlled through hands-off observation and abstract tracking which would require the Detached Ni function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labocat

smilingeyes associated any "i" function with systemacy. a really awkward association if you ask me. my thesis is that you end up with something messy whenever you try to interpret i/e in terms of a technical ontological distinction. it's better seen as a subtle qualitative flavor.

---

Well, maybe it needs refinement but it's clear as daylight the applicability of "systems" to Introvert functions, especially when viewed from the divide of Static/Dynamic.

Quote:

---

Well, maybe it needs refinement but it's clear as daylight the applicability of "systems" to Introvert functions, especially when viewed from the divide of Static/Dynamic.

---

it is not clear at all how "systemacy" applies to Si, Ni or even Fi. and even applied to Ti the interpretation has it's major pitfalls.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

Smilingeyes probably has some substantial material on Si in its various forms, not many other people(even popular Socionists it seems) give Si as much credit as it naturally deserves. One good assertion of his was that Si(and all the other Introvert functions) functions to make systems, specifically systems of behavior.

The main theme is that from the localized experiential information received from Si, a system of behavior can be perfected and even modified after-the-fact to continuously achieve some result. This can be applied to any process of reality which one could personally manipulate, directly.

---

Where are the threads of him explicating these thoughts? I am curious as I have written something along these lines in another thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I think it has more to do with an understanding of the factors behind an occurrence, an awareness of the cause and effect links that comes naturally with experience. Like a tweaking of variables in a formula of sensitivity/what-if analysis, we consider the weight to attribute to different variables. After a sufficient period of time, a very strong and reliable formula forms to reflect reality and hence much capable of prediction. It has more to do with knowledge and experience as well as prior exploration of various possibilities that have determined what works or doesn't, and how much weight/probability to assign to a particular factor/variable/cause.

If I have to assign a function to this, it would probably be Si, or Te combined with Si only because I am so much attuned to this process. It is for this reason that I debunk the whole notion of Ni as the function of prediction, due to their disorientation towards details which disinclines them towards the tediousness required of such a robust prediction system.

Where prediction is concerned, if I am able to grasp most of the variables in a situation (through exposure to many cases where the cause-effect link is observable), it is usually easy to predict how the situation will unfold as long as unexpected situations do not mess it up. Using the example of predicting students' marks for instance, if you can figure out the variables (amount of effort/time put in, level of students' existing knowledge, level of conceptual ability, level and stability of past exam marks, etc), all of this can be used to predict how students will fare, and with marked accuracy after every set of exams with each adjustment to the understanding of a) the students and b) the weight of each factor in the determining of results. In which, each important factor would be monitored and ways found to improve on each important aspect to have the student achieve the maximum possible result.

---

Could this be Si related, or am I wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ashton

no, I was obviously being sarcastic

gimme a better one

---

I'm happy with that definition. It's simple and to the point. Socionics to me is only about what motivates and interests people, what they find uncomfortable vs comfortable when it comes to stimulus they receive from the world. Si-polr is just not focusing on "being aware of your physical state in space" as much as the other IEs. People treat the IEs as if they aren't already defined... In fact if people don't agree with Aushra's definitions, then they probably should call their own IEs differently to avoid mass confusion and miscommunication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by labocat

it is not clear at all how "systemacy" applies to Si, Ni or even Fi. and even applied to Ti the interpretation has it's major pitfalls.

---

What's so problematic about Dynamic systems and Static systems?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Where are the threads of him explicating these thoughts? I am curious as I have written something along these lines in another thread.

---

They should be in the quotes I provided, the links to the original source of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

2) Sensory perceptions shrunken down into a single web of input: E.g. Scenery hitting you all at once rather than a division into parts, sections, color, and contours. A holistic consolidation of all information (that is seen as relevant) down to a single experiential entity.

---

I think this probably captures the general essence of it the best since the impression of the stimulus cannot be removed from the stimulus itself. So from this the whole enjoyment thing seems completely out of place since that assumes that the process stop at the immediate sense perception, but it does not. If Si is your function you might taste some food and say this is good, but you still may perceive something completely separate of that food, such as the idea that this particular dish is something that only slobs should enjoy, for example that is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erk

I think this probably captures the general essence of it the best since the impression of the stimulus cannot be removed from the stimulus itself. So from this the whole enjoyment thing seems completely out of place since that assumes that the process stop at the immediate sense perception, but it does not. If Si is your function you might taste some food and say this is good, but you still may perceive something completely separate of that food, such as the idea that this particular dish is something that only slobs should enjoy, for example that is.

---

I agree, though your example feels out of place. You take some food, and it feels good. Yet the food is only part of the whole, the other parts consist of the ambience, the rest of the environment, people, objects, generally everything about it, possibly even your present feelings and feelings of the people surrounding you.

In this sense, no single environment is the same. Which is why Si is said to be so sensitive towards such changes (physical body/environment, level of comfort) because even if a single item is "off", it no longer is the same. Hence the idea that every experience is unique and different. No one thing is the same, everything changes. Another common attribution to Ni and time, yet one which I feel more appropriate to Si (a marked sensitivity to such external differences/changes awakens us to the idea that nothing is the same, and along with it a sense of melancholy and regret at the passage of time. Think Ecclesiastes.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Could this be Si related, or am I wrong?

---

I incline to think it's rather Ni than Si, what you describe... Si is the causal common-sense, so talking about abstractization, a sysnthesis of all these factors, this is actually the way to get detached from it. The difference between Sensing and Intuition [1] is not just "attention to details VS head-in clouds", but it is relying on solid/palpable knowledge, even when (most of the time) it is disparate and inconsistent VS internally synthetizing what you know and get the holistic view. Funny enough, Si types consider the Ni conclusions as counter-intuitive.

We are talking about a N big picture, because there is no big picture, the "whole", when you talk about S functions. You don't need "variables" and formulas to conceive something you already know as unity and makes immediate sense. When you actually need that to understand something that should be obvious, that thing is not real, through the perspective of S. Here I should mention that I believe this is the reason why Ni valuers consider our deeds universally meaningful, giving a subjective importance to our accomplishments, lives, careers, sometimes in a historical or cosmic context, more than merely survive, satisfying our needs, be happy/wealthy and just live your life [2].
---

[1] - because a similar divergence occurs between Se and Ne, regarding the properties of instances.
[2] - like the mere mortals of Alpha and Delta do :).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I agree, though your example feels out of place. You take some food, and it feels good. Yet the food is only part of the whole, the other parts consist of the ambience, the rest of the environment, people, objects, generally everything about it, possibly even your present feelings and feelings of the people surrounding you.

In this sense, no single environment is the same. Which is why Si is said to be so sensitive towards such changes (physical body/environment, level of comfort) because even if a single item is "off", it no longer is the same. Hence the idea that every experience is unique and different. No one thing is the same, everything changes. Another common attribution to Ni and time, yet one which I feel more appropriate to Si (a marked sensitivity to such external differences/changes awakens us to the idea that nothing is the same, and along with it a sense of melancholy and regret at the passage of time. Think Ecclesiastes.)

---

Your feelings would be associated with :Fi:, of course depending on what you mean. You are right everything is constantly changing, which is why :Si: tries to move eveything back to the ideal. Jung says this himself, the too little is raised a bit, too much, lowered somewhat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erk

Your feelings would be associated with :Fi:, of course depending on what you mean. You are right everything is constantly changing, which is why :Si: tries to move eveything back to the ideal. Jung says this himself, the too little is raised a bit, too much, lowered somewhat.

---

How is that? Te is more an idealizing function than Si and both are dynamic. Jung says a few things about Te and idealizing but not about Si.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I agree, though your example feels out of place. You take some food, and it feels good. Yet the food is only part of the whole, the other parts consist of the ambience, the rest of the environment, people, objects, generally everything about it, possibly even your present feelings and feelings of the people surrounding you.

In this sense, no single environment is the same. Which is why Si is said to be so sensitive towards such changes (physical body/environment, level of comfort) because even if a single item is "off", it no longer is the same. Hence the idea that every experience is unique and different. No one thing is the same, everything changes. Another common attribution to Ni and time, yet one which I feel more appropriate to Si (a marked sensitivity to such external differences/changes awakens us to the idea that nothing is the same, and along with it a sense of melancholy and regret at the passage of time. Think Ecclesiastes.)

---

This is pretty much exactly how I see Si working in action. I could simply be speaking from a Holographic-Panoptic cognitive style, but I envision Si, perhaps Pi in general, as heavily steeped in chaos theory, where all the small changes in detail ultimately create noticeable and perhaps stark differences when taken holistically. I envision it like so:

http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/162571m...earth3_516.jpg

Say you have a gravitational field. Let's pretend that all of existence is a complete vacuum, so that the field is completely shapeless and contentless. A satellite is then instantly materialized into this field, causing the gravitational field to conform to this new object. In this case, what determines the shape of the field is entirely dependent on the initial conditions: the satellite's exact shape, its density, its location within the field, etc. So long as you match every initial condition exactly, the gravitational field will retain the exact same shape.

But in reality, this never happens. There are always outside conditions that change gravitational fields. The satellite could move around, or there could be a larger planet distorting the field more and causing the satellite to be in orbit, or there could be asteroids whizzing about in space and smacking into things which further alters the shape of the field by changing the movements of the objects it hits, etc at nauseum. Since it's impossible to recreate two discrete instances in which all initial conditions were met with exact precision, this gravitational field will (in all likelihood) never be exactly the same twice.

Now, to go back to the initial sole-satellite scenario, we can think of the satellite as a representation of one Pe data point, while the gravitational field is the Pi framework that contextualize it. The field is only relevant if there is some previously-existing object to shape it; likewise, Pi information can only have relevancy if there are some external points of data to shape them. So once the Pe planet appears, not only does it reshape the Pi gravity field, but it creates a relationship between both the planet and the satellite via gravitational attraction. So in this sense, it's fair to say that Pi information tends to treat situation as inherently unique in some fashion, because they're solely determined by the exact specifics of everything going on around them.

Ideal might have been a poor choice of word, probably should have said that they try to make it just right instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by poli

Her descriptions seem like easy and clear tools to find your type, not necessarily forge in detail all the key differences between information elements and their deeper implications, so typing other people isn't always so clear cut and takes some investigation into their lifestyle. It's more practical. I like her Ni descriptions. And so even though I relate to Si somewhat, her outlook requires you to look at all the information elements, I'd have to say I relate to Ni a lot more, and Si isn't something I seek or am impressed by in others. On that note, you know what I mean by making investigations and seeing contradictions through in order to type.

---

As per Augusta's definitions, I too would relate to Ni a lot better. Si sounded so terribly useless. I equate an over-concern with comfort and stability as laziness and lack of initiative and ideals, pure and simple. Defined in this manner, many passive Ni leading types could be typed as Si dominants instead.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

I incline to think it's rather Ni than Si, what you describe... Si is the causal common-sense, so talking about abstractization, a sysnthesis of all these factors, this is actually the way to get detached from it. The difference between Sensing and Intuition [1] is not just "attention to details VS head-in clouds", but it is relying on solid/palpable knowledge, even when (most of the time) it is disparate and inconsistent VS internally synthetizing what you know and get the holistic view. Funny enough, Si types consider the Ni conclusions as counter-intuitive.

---

Si is causal common-sense at a low dimensional level. But at 3d or 4d, I would think that it's something very different, as per what I have quoted. The way you defined it implies that Si types are not inclined towards the synthesis of information (which everyone does), and denoting it under the specific realm of Ni, which I disagree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Ineffable

We are talking about a N big picture, because there is no big picture, the "whole", when you talk about S functions. You don't need "variables" and formulas to conceive something you already know as unity and makes immediate sense. When you actually need that to understand something that should be obvious, that thing is not real, through the perspective of S. Here I should mention that I believe this is the reason why Ni valuers consider our deeds universally meaningful, giving a subjective importance to our accomplishments, lives, careers, sometimes in a historical or cosmic context, more than merely survive, satisfying our needs, be happy/wealthy and just live your life [2].

---

No. You attribute too much to Ni and too little to Si. Si+Te also differs from Si+Fe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erk

Your feelings would be associated with :Fi:, of course depending on what you mean. You are right everything is constantly changing, which is why tries to move eveything back to the ideal making it just right. Jung says this himself, the too little is raised a bit, too much, lowered somewhat.

---

The adjustment to the subjective perception of what is just right would do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Galen

This is pretty much exactly how I see Si working in action. I could simply be speaking from a Holographic-Panoptic cognitive style, but I envision Si, perhaps Pi in general, as heavily steeped in chaos theory, where all the small changes in detail ultimately create noticeable and perhaps stark differences when taken holistically. I envision it like so:

http://www.ws5.com/spacetime/162571m...earth3_516.jpg

Say you have a gravitational field. Let's pretend that all of existence is a complete vacuum, so that the field is completely shapeless and contentless. A satellite is then instantly materialized into this field, causing the gravitational field to conform to this new object. In this case, what determines the shape of the field is entirely dependent on the initial conditions: the satellite's exact shape, its density, its location within the field, etc. So long as you match every initial condition exactly, the gravitational field will retain the exact same shape.

But in reality, this never happens. There are always outside conditions that change gravitational fields. The satellite could move around, or there could be a larger planet distorting the field more and causing the satellite to be in orbit, or there could be asteroids whizzing about in space and smacking into things which further alters the shape of the field by changing the movements of the objects it hits, etc at nauseum. Since it's impossible to recreate two discrete instances in which all initial conditions were met with exact precision, this gravitational field will (in all likelihood) never be exactly the same twice.

Now, to go back to the initial sole-satellite scenario, we can think of the satellite as a representation of one Pe data point, while the gravitational field is the Pi framework that contextualize it. The field is only relevant if there is some previously-existing object to shape it; likewise, Pi information can only have relevancy if there are some external points of data to shape them. So once the Pe planet appears, not only does it reshape the Pi gravity field, but it creates a relationship between both the planet and the satellite via gravitational attraction. So in this sense, it's fair to say that Pi information tends to treat situation as inherently unique in some fashion, because they're solely determined by the exact specifics of everything going on around them.

---

Very nice, Galen! :D

I'd always been fascinated by the chaos theory, the butterfly effect, sensitivity to initial conditions. How amazing it is the way one single detail that isn't in place/additional details affect the end result in startling ways. I think I try to monitor every action and reaction. The extent that one thing affects another into an entire chain of cause and effects, affecting and sizzling off in so many different directions, it's just... Wow, beautiful.

Consequently, I tend to think about tipping points a lot, the point of collapse, on proper timing, etc. and doing a lot of close monitoring, waiting for these line-up of events or slotting my own actions in at particular points. Events can be "tipped" into different directions at these crucial moments, dangers allayed or aroused, etc. It is extremely exciting, when you get into the feel of the dynamics, especially when there is cause for intervention and you know just how crucial your actions are during these moments. Si is not just all boring comfort and relaxation. Might be so in Alpha with all the Fe, but keep it out of Delta.

This thread is nutty.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

This thread is nutty.

---

http://images.crestock.com/1660000-1...1664178-xs.jpg

Now it's nutty. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis

http://images.crestock.com/1660000-1...1664178-xs.jpg

Now it's nutty. :D

---

Ahem... we're having a serious discussion here.

:Gives stern look:

;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryene Astraelis

Now it's nutty. :D

---

Now it is a hard nut to crack :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Ahem... we're having a serious discussion here.

---

We have to continue serious discussion about the word "mistyped" some day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

We have to continue serious discussion about the word "mistyped" some day.

---

I will oblige you. Some day.

But for now, let us return to the Si matter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I will oblige you. Some day.

But for now, let us return to the Si matter.

---

Alright, is there a magical way you relate more to Ni than Si and still keep to remain TeSi?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Alright, is there a magical way you relate more to Ni than Si and still keep to remain TeSi?

---

The simple answer is that Si is more than the stereotypical comfort, relaxation, and physical awareness it is usually attributed to be. And that Ni has less to do with prediction, mysticism, and time than what it is usually attributable to. We're trying to figure out the whys and hows behind this, the differences between Alpha and Delta Si, and to discern the actual nature of these functions (Si being the focus in this thread) and possibly come up with a definition all of us can agree with, as idealistic as this may sound.

You are welcome to provide your insights into the matter, but this thread isn't about my type and we shouldn't turn it into a discussion on one. I may oblige you with a type thread some day, just to have you stop focusing attention onto my person, but not yet. All in good time, so don't hurry me nor will there be any need for reminder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

The simple answer is that Si is more than the stereotypical comfort, relaxation, and physical awareness it is usually attributed to be. And that Ni has less to do with prediction, mysticism, and time than what it is usually attributable to. We're trying to figure out the whys and hows behind this, the differences between Alpha and Delta Si, and to discern the actual nature of these functions (Si being the focus in this thread) and possibly come up with a definition all of us can agree with, as idealistic as this may sound.

---

I do not want to know what Si or Ni is and I'm not some theoretician nor idealist to invent new concepts out of thin air. Reality is where it is at, at least for me, don't know about you. Anyway, good job on making simple complex. Lemme get this straight. You want to come up with a new definition of Si as opposed to the one proposed by socionics, is this correct?

Quote:

---

I may oblige you with a type thread some day, just to have you stop focusing attention onto my person, but not yet.

---

Ehh, I blame it on sx stacking, I think. It's all I know, no hard feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Si is causal common-sense at a low dimensional level. But at 3d or 4d, I would think that it's something very different, as per what I have quoted. The way you defined it implies that Si types are not inclined towards the synthesis of information (which everyone does), and denoting it under the specific realm of Ni, which I disagree.


No. You attribute too much to Ni and too little to Si. Si+Te also differs from Si+Fe.

---

Misattribution is common mistake, yeah.

Quote:

---

I'd always been fascinated by the chaos theory, the butterfly effect, sensitivity to initial conditions. How amazing it is the way one single detail that isn't in place/additional details affect the end result in startling ways. I think I try to monitor every action and reaction. The extent that one thing affects another into an entire chain of cause and effects, affecting and sizzling off in so many different directions, it's just... Wow, beautiful.

Consequently, I tend to think about tipping points a lot, the point of collapse, on proper timing, etc. and doing a lot of close monitoring, waiting for these line-up of events or slotting my own actions in at particular points. Events can be "tipped" into different directions at these crucial moments, dangers allayed or aroused, etc. It is extremely exciting, when you get into the feel of the dynamics, especially when there is cause for intervention and you know just how crucial your actions are during these moments. Si is not just all boring comfort and relaxation. Might be so in Alpha with all the Fe, but keep it out of Delta.

---

Nonetheless, I think you might be committing it yourself here, too. At least the first paragraph sounds strongly Ni >> Si IMO. Butterfly effect is precisely about how you can't control all the variables, can't include this metaphorical butterfly in exact calculations, hence introducing chaos, even if it comes down to a single detail that distorts everything. Si is more about direct tracing, regardless of whether causes can be described as "details" or not. Hence Si egos (especially Si-creatives in my experience) tendency to not include butterfly-like causes in their consideration, which leads to overplanning issues. Ni is more about awareness of those effects, without attempting to exactly define them, potentially failing when direct focus and precision is necessary.

None of which of course makes interest in chaos theory, or any other theory for this matter, impossible. Just look at socionics crowd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

I do not want to know what Si or Ni is and I'm not some theoretician nor idealist to invent new concepts out of thin air. Reality is where it is at, at least for me, don't know about you. Anyway, good job on making simple complex. Lemme get this straight. You want to come up with a new definition of Si as opposed to the one proposed by socionics, is this correct?

---

Not exactly. It's a matter of exploration and expansion of the simple, to gain a better understanding of the reasoning behind it. An examination into the nature of the function is essential, especially since these definitions are what we use in typing people. Using Augusta's definitions for instance would make me LIE, and my intertype relations do not at all match up. I've known a couple of LIEs in my life and we vastly differ in our approach in viewing and managing matters. Intertype relations is what makes socionics different from MBTI, Big 5, DISC, etc. so I'm inclined to place more weight into my present typing of Delta, where my intertype relations actually make sense, than in another quadra where it doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Absurd

Ehh, I blame it on sx stacking, I think. It's all I know, no hard feelings.

---

Sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

Misattribution is common mistake, yeah.

Nonetheless, I think you might be committing it yourself here, too.

---

I call it rocking the boat.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

At least the first paragraph sounds strongly Ni >> Si IMO. Butterfly effect is precisely about how you can't control all the variables, can't include this metaphorical butterfly in exact calculations, hence introducing chaos, even if it comes down to a single detail that distorts everything. Si is more about direct tracing, regardless of whether causes can be described as "details" or not. Hence Si egos (especially Si-creatives in my experience) tendency to not include butterfly-like causes in their consideration, which leads to overplanning issues. Ni is more about awareness of those effects, without attempting to exactly define them, potentially failing when direct focus and precision is necessary.

---

Yes. My mind wants control of all these variables, what some may call a PoLR fixation. I strive for this precision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aiss

None of which of course makes interest in chaos theory, or any other theory for this matter, impossible. Just look at socionics crowd.

---

Yes. Like symbolism, both Ne and Ni valuing types have interest in it, but on differing aspects. The question is what, why, and how.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Yes. My mind wants control of all these variables, what some may call a PoLR fixation. I strive for this precision.

---

Yeah. That's why I think butterfly effect fits Ni much more accurately, since dealing with it seems to be a weakness of Si. Although if we were to compare Si to homeostasis and Ni to homeorhesis, it might fit more with Si. However, it's not like they deal with completely different system, but rather model it in a different way, and it seems to me on a purely experiential basis that dealing with imprecise influences is better taken care of by Ni approach.

BTW you asked in your other thread for examples where Ni comes in useful. I couldn't really think of a particular example, but this sort of thing is what I meant.


EDIT: on second thought, depending on what aspect you focus on, "butterfly effect" can be an apt descriptor for both Si & Ni focus. That unfortunately means it doesn't really work to differentiate them for this reason, unless contrasted specifically.

Applied to Si, it would be about precision of initial conditions. Homeostasis means all initial conditions are crucial.
Applied to Ni, it would be about disproportional effect. That is, what kind of influence it has. An apparent butterfly can have more influence than its scale would make you think. Homeorhesis means this impact on trajectory is crucial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

Using Augusta's definitions for instance would make me LIE, and my intertype relations do not at all match up. I've known a couple of LIEs in my life and we vastly differ in our approach in viewing and managing matters.

---

Hehe, well then, you've got a problem. Time to come up with a completely different set of functions to just to suit your needs.

Quote:

---

Intertype relations is what makes socionics different from MBTI, Big 5, DISC, etc.

---

No shit mate.

Quote:

---

so I'm inclined to place more weight into my present typing of Delta, where my intertype relations actually make sense, than in another quadra where it doesn't.

---

Clever.

Quote:

---

Sure.

---

Bold this as well, while responding.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I'd always been fascinated by the chaos theory, the butterfly effect, sensitivity to initial conditions. How amazing it is the way one single detail that isn't in place/additional details affect the end result in startling ways. I think I try to monitor every action and reaction. The extent that one thing affects another into an entire chain of cause and effects, affecting and sizzling off in so many different directions, it's just... Wow, beautiful.

Consequently, I tend to think about tipping points a lot, the point of collapse, on proper timing, etc. and doing a lot of close monitoring, waiting for these line-up of events or slotting my own actions in at particular points. Events can be "tipped" into different directions at these crucial moments, dangers allayed or aroused, etc. It is extremely exciting, when you get into the feel of the dynamics, especially when there is cause for intervention and you know just how crucial your actions are during these moments. Si is not just all boring comfort and relaxation. Might be so in Alpha with all the Fe, but keep it out of Delta.

---

None of this has anything to do with Si. If you're monitoring every action and reaction that just makes you neurotic. Also acting at crucial moments is typically considered the role of Ni. Si is too grounded, and too wrapped up in itself to care about "tipping the scale" so to speak.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

http://img121.imageshack.us/img121/2...01116at402.png

---

Wow, nice. Obviously the past is made up of events and the present is not. Do Se/Nis really see it differently?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Director Abbie

Wow, nice. Obviously the past is made up of events and the present is not. Do Se/Nis really see it differently?

---

This sounds like a gross overgeneralization of what the images are trying to represent. I interpret it that the past and future are simply examples of things that cannot be directly experienced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erk

None of this has anything to do with Si. If you're monitoring every action and reaction that just makes you neurotic. Also acting at crucial moments is typically considered the role of Ni. Si is too grounded, and too wrapped up in itself to care about "tipping the scale" so to speak.

---

No, you can't dismiss the entire thing just like that. That would be equivalent to saying that no Si ego would ever monitor nor take advantage of opportunities, which is ridiculous. Every Si type would get burnt in the stock market if that were the case, nor should they ever get into such markets. Si also doesn't go monitoring every action and reaction, that would be impossible. It is one thing to be aware of and observant of such causal links and another to get all worked up over them (aka neuroticism). Si as being too grounded and wrapped up in reality to want to tip scales is but a stereotype.

Why would they get burned in the stock market? I do not necessarily think that would be the case. Si egos would be less inclined to jump on opportunities if they have not developed, or lack the support in Ne. In fact, their Ne might manifest itself in a form of hyper diligence when looking out for probable trouble. So they might not lose their shirt but they might not make a lot either. This is only one possible case though in many.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Erk

Why would they get burned in the stock market? I do not necessarily think that would be the case. Si egos would be less inclined to jump on opportunities if they have not developed, or lack the support in Ne. In fact, their Ne might manifest itself in a form of hyper diligence when looking out for probable trouble. So they might not lose their shirt but they might not make a lot either. This is only one possible case though in many.

---

That was what came to mind when you point out that Si types are too wrapped up in the present reality to take advantage of opportunities. It isn't type related. The best market players may be Si egos for all we know. This hyper diligence can play out different ways. At its negative end, what you said. At its positive end, an alertness to the right kind of opportunities that could potentially garner them millions when played right.

I still can't put my finger on how Si ties in with Ne as yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I still can't put my finger on how Si ties in with Ne as yet.

---

Well, the way I've seen it play out among some people I know? Ime, an Si person who devalues Ni may not be oriented to the Big Picture in the same way as an Ni-valuer. The whole way the Big Picture is defined seems different, but it's hard for me to understand what those differences are, as I seem to experience them as communication gaps and fundamental misunderstanding.

It seems to me that, oh, let's take an LSE I know v well. He is looking at some kind of Big Picture that has to do with a structure, and fitting occurrences and opportunities as they arise into that structure. (How it looks to ME, not necessarily how he'd define it.) As an Ni-valuer, my input and ideas seemed to deliver to him things that were outside his structure, not the things immediately concerning him. Often these were useless-to-him warnings about things that were not being accounted for that could destabilize the structure. But Ne-valuers, by contrast, seemed better at ignoring all those doomsaying things that came from me and just wresting the more short-term opportunities for what they could deliver to feed into the plan or structure. Adding things as time progressed, step by step, and not calling attention to a need to revise the structure in order to account for outside factors.

YMMV.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoreKill

Well, the way I've seen it play out among some people I know? Ime, an Si person who devalues Ni may not be oriented to the Big Picture in the same way as an Ni-valuer. The whole way the Big Picture is defined seems different, but it's hard for me to understand what those differences are, as I seem to experience them as communication gaps and fundamental misunderstanding.

---

Yeah. I don't really enjoy being slapped the label of not being able to see the Big Picture. It would make sense that Ni valuers view the Big Picture in a manner different from Si valuers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by snoreKill

It seems to me that, oh, let's take an LSE I know v well. He is looking at some kind of Big Picture that has to do with a structure, and fitting occurrences and opportunities as they arise into that structure. (How it looks to ME, not necessarily how he'd define it.) As an Ni-valuer, my input and ideas seemed to deliver to him things that were outside his structure, not the things immediately concerning him. Often these were useless-to-him warnings about things that were not being accounted for that could destabilize the structure. But Ne-valuers, by contrast, seemed better at ignoring all those doomsaying things that came from me and just wresting the more short-term opportunities for what they could deliver to feed into the plan or structure. Adding things as time progressed, step by step, and not calling attention to a need to revise the structure in order to account for outside factors.

---

I think there's something to this. I'm interested in the nature of your input which do not fit into the LSE structure. I do in fact have a structure of sorts in my mind, of how things work, or "should" work rather. Everything should ideally fit reasonably well together, as a whole without too much contradiction (what I call making sense). For this reason, I get irritated by overly ambiguous statements because I can't pinpoint exactly where it fits into my existing system. In which the "wtf are you talking about" syndrome sets in, and I naturally ignore whatever it is as irrelevant (Or call the person stupid, depending on my mood, lol). With the less grounded Alpha Ti types, their structure feels like it's vomited out of thin air if they do not explain their reasoning behind such, and I have difficulty connecting it to my own in a way that makes sense. I struggle to make the connection between ambiguous theory and real-life example to turn it into something that fits and hence is relatively useful.

The more otherworldly and disconnected from "reality" a concept/idea is, the more difficult it is for me to connect it to my own system. Note that this system in my mind is one that is very concrete and one that I am absolutely "CERTAIN" that it works (because it's proven in reality, and hence high probability close to certainty), so I'm not inclined to modify its basic structure in order to accommodate "improbable" data/ideas. Too much modification puts me off balance somehow, and confuses me. It feels as if I'm losing touch with reality, and if it's really bad, I'd lose my bearing and is unable to "function", unable to move, hesitant and inert. This really isn't something I want to experience (because its effects can be really really bad), so if the piece of information isn't extremely relevant/important/probable, I very certainly will not risk it. If you must want me to accommodate it, you have to be able to convince me exactly how relevant/important/probable this information is (say it's happened before when signal X occurred, some brief trend/history/knowledge which I may not have been aware of but have accepted as important, etc. or people who equally buys into my structure deem it important and why (sounds tedious, I know).

The best information to receive is able to fit easily into my structure, if possible the exact spot in the jigsaw so that I could see exactly why it is relevant, know its nature and understand its properties easily and automatically. Time frame is also a matter because if it's too far-off, it'll likely be ignored (perceived as not important yet). I'd like to be alerted when the time has come, then I'll turn my attention to it. There needs to be proper prioritization so that I could deal with it as it comes. Throw me with too much at any one time, and I get confused as heck. "Fuck, what should I do now?!". I'm not able to properly function, if that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

... I'd always been fascinated by the chaos theory, the butterfly effect, sensitivity to initial conditions. How amazing it is the way one single detail that isn't in place/additional details affect the end result in startling ways. I think I try to monitor every action and reaction. The extent that one thing affects another into an entire chain of cause and effects, affecting and sizzling off in so many different directions, it's just... Wow, beautiful.

Consequently, I tend to think about tipping points a lot, the point of collapse, on proper timing, etc. and doing a lot of close monitoring, waiting for these line-up of events or slotting my own actions in at particular points. Events can be "tipped" into different directions at these crucial moments, dangers allayed or aroused, etc. It is extremely exciting, when you get into the feel of the dynamics, especially when there is cause for intervention and you know just how crucial your actions are during these moments. Si is not just all boring comfort and relaxation. Might be so in Alpha with all the Fe, but keep it out of Delta.

---

Sometimes I think you may be SLI. Waiting for events to "line-up", searching for "point of collapse", aiming for just the right timing, distributing your actions in accordance, all of that sounds reminiscent of Vortical-Synergetic cognition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

Sometimes I think you may be SLI. Waiting for events to "line-up", searching for "point of collapse", aiming for just the right timing, distributing your actions in accordance, all of that sounds reminiscent of Vortical-Synergetic cognition.

---

I wonder at that myself. Except that if you want to speak of cognition, Dialectical-Algorithmic seems to work fine too. But I believe that as I continue to expound on my own thought processes, some better clue will emerge eventually.

ETA: I do think though that actual SLIs tend to be more aware and concentrate better on these, but I'll continue to observe. What do you think are the significant differences between the way LSEs and SLIs use Si?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EyeSeeCold

There was another excellent post on Si and "flow"(I believe, or something to that effect), by an ISTp here, which I tried to find but failed. I'll post it if I ever do find it. It's not the "Flow/In the Zone" thread though.

---

This one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

Sometimes I think you may be SLI. Waiting for events to "line-up", searching for "point of collapse", aiming for just the right timing, distributing your actions in accordance, all of that sounds reminiscent of Vortical-Synergetic cognition.

---

If he SLI, he be Te subfly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parkster

This one?

---

Thanks man, nah it wasn't it, but this one reminded me it was a post by force_my_hand.

Did a quick search and boom: http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...l=1#post741179.

No, I agree that you're LSE. You're much stronger at Te than I am. You are using it in an original way which comes from within yourself. A lot of my Te comes from things that I read, and I am less active at thinking on my own. You are much more logical and decisive than I am. Also, about your feeling that Si is too lazy - that's normal for an LSE to say - Si is only your creative function, and you don't want the Si to be stronger than your base function of Te - you are putting Si in its place. For you, Te is more important than Si. This is how they describe the mirror relation, that the SLI and the LSE try to balance each other out - to keep each other from using 'too much Te' or 'too much Si.'

This is probably going to confuse things even more, but I have to mention what I've been reading recently about the plus and minus signs. I am reluctant to mention this because it's a new idea to me and I haven't completely integrated it yet, and it could open up a whole new can of worms.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ed-conclusions.

Si is not the only type of sensing that deltas use. I am becoming convinced that we also use, and value, Se. However, it is a very specific kind of Se which is different from another disvalued kind of Se. There are a bunch of pages on forum.socionix.com that I linked to where they described the plus and minus signs.

The type of Se that deltas value is something that I might call a sort of 'rebellion' theme. This is why many of us relate to Ayn Rand and libertarians. We have ways of rebelling against oppression, and this is a manifestation of valued Se. A desire to protect our independence and to not allow other people to control us. Again, this is defined on another page, which was translated and slightly hard to read: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/51-l..._fromsearch__1 It's kind of close to the bottom of the page where they describe +:Se:, 'volitional sensorika', short range.

+Se is different from -Se. +Se involves 'insubordination,' which is something that I can relate to. It is different from -Se, which is kind of like 'Selling Out.' With -Se, you 'sell out,' or pretend to surrender whenever somebody takes over, and then, you join with them because they're stronger, and then, you go and destroy those who are weaker. That's the kind of Se that deltas don't like. +Se, on the other hand, is when you suppress weaker people without destroying them. It's a short-term solution. (This is still something that I'm trying to figure out.) Apparently, +Se is connected to -Si, and it's among the valued delta functions in the plus-and-minus chart that I keep linking to, which is one of my new favorite things.

So if you feel as though delta Si is somehow too wimpy for you and you can't relate to it, that's partly because 1. it's your creative function, so you don't want it to be the highest priority in your life, but instead it must take a lower priority, and 2. Si isn't the only sensing function that we value, but instead, we value a type of Se which for some reason hasn't been adequately described in a lot of places yet. Oddly enough, that way of describing Se matches a lot of the Myers-Briggs descriptions of the sensors, as they seem to mix together both Si and Se in their descriptions of the ESTJ and ISTP and every other sensing type. So it kind of helps to integrate socionics with MBTI.

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/4...emodeladq3.png

This definition of "Selling Out" reminds me of the description of -Se.

Again, I'm still figuring this out and I'm not sure about all this yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selling_out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

No, I agree that you're LSE. You're much stronger at Te than I am. You are using it in an original way which comes from within yourself. A lot of my Te comes from things that I read, and I am less active at thinking on my own. You are much more logical and decisive than I am. Also, about your feeling that Si is too lazy - that's normal for an LSE to say - Si is only your creative function, and you don't want the Si to be stronger than your base function of Te - you are putting Si in its place. For you, Te is more important than Si. This is how they describe the mirror relation, that the SLI and the LSE try to balance each other out - to keep each other from using 'too much Te' or 'too much Si.'

---

I'd have to ask you to clarify what you mean by using Te "in an original way which comes from yourself". If you'd take a look at Force My Hand's (SLI) posts, I think you would notice them to contain a substantial amount of what you consider to be Te. If you are associating Te with analysis and factual argumentation, it isn't related to type. You only have to compare my writings to other LSEs you know of, whether in the forum or out, to notice that this isn't LSE related. The Dialectical-Algorithmic cognitive style though, probably is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

This is probably going to confuse things even more, but I have to mention what I've been reading recently about the plus and minus signs. I am reluctant to mention this because it's a new idea to me and I haven't completely integrated it yet, and it could open up a whole new can of worms.

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ed-conclusions.

---

As per my post in that thread, I do not find them to be of much use for typing and find them to be unnecessarily complicating. I checked it up, it isn't a new concept and has been around for a while now. If it has any merit, wouldn't it have been brought up and discussed more frequently instead of suffering from the present lack of interest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

The type of Se that deltas value is something that I might call a sort of 'rebellion' theme. This is why many of us relate to Ayn Rand and libertarians. We have ways of rebelling against oppression, and this is a manifestation of valued Se. A desire to protect our independence and to not allow other people to control us. Again, this is defined on another page, which was translated and slightly hard to read: http://forum.socionix.com/topic/51-l..._fromsearch__1 It's kind of close to the bottom of the page where they describe +:Se:, 'volitional sensorika', short range.

---

Or it can simply be called Se demonstrative? Assuming Ayn Rand is LSE that is. Though I think this to be enneagram stacking related more than anything else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

So if you feel as though delta Si is somehow too wimpy for you and you can't relate to it, that's partly because 1. it's your creative function, so you don't want it to be the highest priority in your life, but instead it must take a lower priority, and 2. Si isn't the only sensing function that we value, but instead, we value a type of Se which for some reason hasn't been adequately described in a lot of places yet. Oddly enough, that way of describing Se matches a lot of the Myers-Briggs descriptions of the sensors, as they seem to mix together both Si and Se in their descriptions of the ESTJ and ISTP and every other sensing type. So it kind of helps to integrate socionics with MBTI.

---

Or the present definitions of Si are stereotypes, and that Si does not equate to simply comfort and health? I understand that you are fine with this description of Si, primarily due to your own strong identification with health and safety matters. But the fact is, not everyone does. Some Delta STs do, and some Delta STs do not. I've pointed out a number of times that this has a stronger correlation to having an enneagram instinct of sp primary than being Si related. You do not yet recognize the significance of the enneagram in affecting our external behaviors, hence have persisted in making these mistaken attributions to the functions.

Quoted from siuntal which I have found very true:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by siuntal

From what I've studied of socionics and enneagram so far it seems like the two often get mixed up. Personality traits that are best covered by enneagram type and instictual stackings then get mis-attributed to socionics type and information elements. What socionics attempts to describe is actually quite abstracted in comparison to enneagram, and somewhat removed from immediate everyday situations and interactions between people (which is why I think so many people have difficulty with typings) and whatever immediate personality manifestations stand out at first are often best treated with enneagram/stackings.

---

What Si is as an IE has been discussed in this thread, some of them very good IMO and inching closer to describing what it really is a function.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nico1e

+Se is different from -Se. +Se involves 'insubordination,' which is something that I can relate to. It is different from -Se, which is kind of like 'Selling Out.' With -Se, you 'sell out,' or pretend to surrender whenever somebody takes over, and then, you join with them because they're stronger, and then, you go and destroy those who are weaker. That's the kind of Se that deltas don't like. +Se, on the other hand, is when you suppress weaker people without destroying them. It's a short-term solution. (This is still something that I'm trying to figure out.) Apparently, +Se is connected to -Si, and it's among the valued delta functions in the plus-and-minus chart that I keep linking to, which is one of my new favorite things.

This definition of "Selling Out" reminds me of the description of -Se.

Again, I'm still figuring this out and I'm not sure about all this yet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selling_out

---

IMO, Se whether plus or minus hasn't any connection to selling out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wikipedia

"Selling out" is the compromising of (or the perception of compromising) integrity, morality, or principles in exchange for money or "success" (however defined). It is commonly associated with attempts to tailor material to a mainstream audience. Any artist who expands their creative path to encompass a wider audience, as opposed to continuing in the genre and venues of their initial success, may be disdainfully labeled by disapproving fans as a sellout. Sometimes a sellout is seen as a person that is disloyal to one's group that he or she belongs (usually ethnic group) in order to gain money or become "successful". Selling out is often seen as gaining success at the cost of credibility.

---

I do not see how any part of the -Se description relates to this either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InkStrider

I wonder at that myself. Except that if you want to speak of cognition, Dialectical-Algorithmic seems to work fine too. But I believe that as I continue to expound on my own thought processes, some better clue will emerge eventually.

ETA: I do think though that actual SLIs tend to be more aware and concentrate better on these, but I'll continue to observe. What do you think are the significant differences between the way LSEs and SLIs use Si?

---

Well you know your cognition better so if DA works for you then LSE it is. With respect to differences in base vs creative Si, I find that it is very difficult to describe an element in isolation because the elements exist and work together in cohesion. When people try to describe a single element in its purity they will inevitably describe their cognitive patterns as a whole. Overall I'd say the main difference is difference in temperaments: IP vs EJ. For SLIs their Si produces a constant background effect that tunes them out somewhat from the present moment alike Ni of IxIs. For LSEs creative-Si is mostly hidden and only periodically turns 'on', however, whet it is 'on' they are more intense and adamant about it.

Here is a snippet from an article that goes over some of the differences between accepting (base) vs producing (creative) functions:

 

Accepting-producing characteristic of functions

Accepting elements "reflect, take snapshots, reproduce the reality and provide objective information to the psyche. This is always something that exists in the external world outside of the psyche. It is a reflection of the objective world and a reflection of oneself as a particle of this objective reality. It should be noted that the accepting element always has a sense of empathy or some kind of feeling of unity with what it reflects. Accepting elements perceive and accept that which exists outside." Thus this information is received as objective reality, that can be perceived, reproduced and used.

"Communicative efficiency of an element is that which gets extracted from information received via accepting method. This element can be called creative because it draws from the information that was received via accepting method a particle that has not existed and does not exist in the objective world. This is its conclusion, its conception of this given aspect of the objective world; conception of how this aspect is and how it should and can be.

Producing elements possess inherent instrumentality rather than empathy. Their creativity is that which the individual extracts from the information that was procured by accepting element. This, on the one hand, is a subjective adaptation of the individual to the objective reality, but on the other hand - creative realization."

Thus, we have two properties of the element: on one hand, reflection and reproduction of a particular aspect, and on the other hand, production of new element based on information provided by objective reality. The raw materials are supplied to the "factory" from which the product is derived.

It would be wrong to consider accepting elements to be absolutely accepting, and productive elements - exclusively producing. "Undoubtedly, producing elements take into account the relevant aspects of reality. That is they do not only produce, but to some extent also reflect picture of reality. " Each element is a combination of both properties: in accepting element acceptance prevails while in producing element - production, creativity. What is then the difference between these elements?

Products of the accepting aspects are based on modeling, construction based on the known elements. The functioning of these aspects is evaluated in terms of accuracy. This is reproduction based on already known designs, this is a constructor in which the details, the building blocks are particles of objective reality, perceived as a given. Creative work of the producing elements is production of something qualitatively new; invention with parts of improvisation; because an analogue does not exist what the end result will be is not always known. To some extent, this creative work is taken by the individual as very personal, as if it is a criteria of measure of his personality. A "hit" or negative information applied to this element is more unpleasant than if it is applied to accepting element. In case of accepting element such hit is perceived with surprise, with bewilderment. "I have been stacking these cubes well, how could anything negative have resulted?". In producing creative work, each cube is one's own personal creation, one's child, into which the person imparts a part of himself. Based on accepting elements the individual feels a sense of responsibility, while based on productive elements he is much less sure and does not agree to responsibility but will agree to carry out duties. Based on accepting elements we are inclined to talk about shortcomings; based on producing - about merits.


Strong mental accepting aspect

This is the most powerful and conscious accepting element. The amount of information received by this aspect is greater than information received by any other aspect. This information is seen most profoundly and in most "differentiated" form. A person receives and processes this information very naturally and so quickly that he himself does not take note of it but simply arrives at possession of already processed information. The ease of obtaining and successfully using information received by this elements is the result of the person constantly watching it, knowing the information channels and ways to influence society. In this element a person has a clear sphere of interests. Taking into account his confidence in correct understanding of what is happening around this aspect, a person is not shy about displaying it. Due to the ability to separate the important from the unimportant, the knowledge of the best standards pertaining to this element, a person easily tolerates criticism of others directed at this element and will himself confidently criticize others in this aspect.

Absolute memory - the ability at any moment to remember that which was seen, heard, understood, and done on this aspect. Therefore, the information pertaining to this aspect is the first thing we recall about another person during a meeting (their character, relation, position, etc.).

This first function is that which man prizes in himself the most. A person will be satisfied with receiving even a little bit of relevant information from the outside world. In the views and activities on this first aspect, the person is not inclined to listen or obey anyone else and will stubbornly defend his views and even attempt to direct others. Relations with other people (society) are determined by the needs of first aspect at the given moment. (Consequqntly, the government system is criticized from point of view of person's first and third elements, which can be used to find type).

The first function is inclined to be interested in others more than in itself, thus it needs a sphere of activity, people who will listen to it and obey it. And its point of view is indeed worth listening to, because the person recognizes the rights of everyone according go this aspect and will try to not advise anything negative. Following this element people are unlikely to get into conflicts, however, for their close ones "for their own good" they may seek subordination to this aspect.

Good training for this element is to not rudely negate the values of another but provide help tactfully.

Summary: 1st function determines the worldview of the person, his "information profession", his image. A person possesses maximum information pertaining to this element, uses it most confidently, one can say that this is the strongest function, a "zone of personal tyranny."


Strong mental producing aspect

This element is the second in strength after the first element, but in contrast it is not accepting but producing. According to first aspect, the person performs the role of professional, acts as a conservative and critical user, provider of the best known standards. The second element he uses as a tool to achieve goals set by the first one, and treats this element accordingly. In process of honing and perfecting this instrument (but only in accordance with how the first function dictates) something novel gets invented and discovered, hitherto unknown to mankind. If the first function in Socionics is called the base, the second one is thus called creative. One can use already known methods for purposes of an instrument, but since this is a donor function, the person is thus much more interested to invent something himself rather than to dig around the same old, which he does not strive to remember. If the first aspect is considered to be part of objective reality, the second aspect is considered to be more alike own personal skill, one's quality and creativity. Thus the criticism delivered to the second aspect may be perceived much sharper than on the 1st aspect. It may even evoke a desire to prove that one's rightness by all means necessary. Since we all tend to use ourselves as a standard in judging others, we relate to the manifestations of the second aspect in others as if they were our own, i.e. we suppose existence of creative freedom, demand for a measure of liberty, but categorically do not accept any negligence in this aspects even more emphatically than in the first aspect. We notice with acute sharpness the advantages and disadvantages of others according to this element. When we are asked for help in this aspect, we take it as recognition of our success and provide help readily. Moreover, if no one requires our second aspect there is a feeling of uselessness.

Good training of the second aspect: avoidance of strongly categorical judgements, unobtrusiveness. Training this function goes easier. Its successful use equates to self-affirmation in society.

Summary: second function is creative, here a person is able to create something new, unknown to him. This creativity is used to achieve the goal of the first aspect and to assert oneself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Director Abbie

Wow, nice. Obviously the past is made up of events and the present is not. Do Se/Nis really see it differently?

---

Those circles aren't quite representations of events. Going to hit your PoLR here, Abbie, with a bunch of very diffuse Ni stuff, but there is no other way I can explain this better. I don't know how many physics classes you have taken so far and if those classes have ever went over quantum mechanics. That picture you have quoted is best viewed in analogy to wave-particle duality. Basically all that you see around you exists as particles and waves simultaneously, which in that picture corresponds to solid balls (particles) vs connecting lines between them (waves). By Heisenberg uncertainty principle these two properties cannot be simultaneously known - making a measurement on position of a particle requires collapse of its wavefunction which makes its momentum measurement less precise. Drawing from this analogy one can picture how N and S on that drawing are dichotomous to each other. The difference between Si/Ne and Se/Ni is then only in how this collapse occurs. So you can picture Si/Se as concrete events while Ni/Ne would be representative of their wave-like momentum.

That's Nice.

What if the person was a dependent type, or was woefully unassertive, would they still stubbornly insist on the conclusions of their base function?

I think narrowing Si down to 'taking care of the boring details' in case of SiTe, style choices, cooking, feeding and health sounds as if someone was to say Ni boils down to being aware of what time it is without looking at a watch :).

Spiritually, the concept and practice of mindfulness - so popular out there these days - seems to be close to Si on some level.

Si input-processes compare quantifiable information with quantifiable references already residing in memory. In a sense, all newly acquired information is pre-filtered by comparing it with information that has been previously rationalized and accepted as valid, though some elements of this reference may not actually be correct. Learning tends to be far more incremental, critical and cautious than Se-types so this may be why they tend to be more convinced that they're right than are most Se-types.

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rebelondeck

Si input-processes compare quantifiable information with quantifiable references already residing in memory. In a sense, all newly acquired information is pre-filtered by comparing it with information that has been previously rationalized and accepted as valid, though some elements of this reference may not actually be correct. Learning tends to be far more incremental, critical and cautious than Se-types so this may be why they tend to be more convinced that they're right than are most Se-types.

a.k.a. I/O

---

Where do you get this from? Sounds like MBTI. That's not what Si is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Where do yo get this from? Sounds like MBTI. That's not what Si is.

---

Sounds like Ti HA lol

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Where do you get this from? ............ That's not what Si is.

---

All proponents of both MBTI and Socionics would say the same as you - but my estimation is likely closer to the process source that creates the observations.

a.k.a. I/O

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

Where do you get this from? Sounds like MBTI. That's not what Si is.

---

No it sounds like like an initial rough descriptive draft of computer's architectural component. Or something along those lines.

To understand Si one can compare it with Ni. (they are related)

Ni monitors the fluctuations of the unconscious, the "undercurrents" that are sortof the background of concrete reality.

Si does kindof the same, but it is more shallow and it just senses the impressions from the unconscious. It is perceived as something totally genuine and natural but it can also feel foreign.

Both Si and Ni can be felt as mystical experience but Si lacks any kind of insight or "vision". It simply senses.

Thanks to Si everything around you feels a little more "organic", a little more "deep", or "genuine".

Si is pretty much impossible to understand from just observing a person. They seem to be "taking in" the environment, but what they actually "see" is hidden. It gets even more difficult because most healthy Si bases are adapted and have developed weak functions in order to deal with everyday life. The glimpse of Si can be spotted when they take a rest or are allowed to behave freely without any restrictions, or when they suddenly forget to concentrate on the task.

Si is enjoying life in a parallel world in your imagination, but instead of just seeing it, you can actually feel it as though it was real.
You get input from the environment (that can be your own brain btw) and transform that into an abstract input that your body feels as a very personal reality

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tallmo

To understand Si one can compare it with Ni. (they are related)

Ni monitors the fluctuations of the unconscious, the "undercurrents" that are sortof the background of concrete reality.

Si does kindof the same, but it is more shallow and it just senses the impressions from the unconscious. It is perceived as something totally genuine and natural but it can also feel foreign.

Both Si and Ni can be felt as mystical experience but Si lacks any kind of insight or "vision". It simply senses.

Thanks to Si everything around you feels a little more "organic", a little more "deep", or "genuine".

Si is pretty much impossible to understand from just observing a person. They seem to be "taking in" the environment, but what they actually "see" is hidden. It gets even more difficult because most healthy Si bases are adapted and have developed weak functions in order to deal with everyday life. The glimpse of Si can be spotted when they take a rest or are allowed to behave freely without any restrictions, or when they suddenly forget to concentrate on the task.

---

What happens when a Si base takes a rest?

I can just "chill" for many many hours in a vegetative state, especially in new and different environments like the beach or lake where there's wind and sound and many things are moving in the background. But at least at home, to simply feel temperature, warmth, softness, taste and adjusting for max coziness is way too boring and unstimulating after a while. It's all good and stuff but there's way more levels to it.

I think I like to experiment with different types of tastes and sensations.

Activities that are very Si I partake in:

Organizing playlists, combining songs in ways where each playlist has a different taste too it
Making Pinterest boards of various internet aesthetics and things I find interesting or pretty: abandoned greenhouses, lost toys, porcelain dolls
Looking up various artists I like a lot and studying their style and vibes very seriously
Thinking of various people who's clothing styles I admire and mix-and-matching the parts I like from them in my head
Decorating my room with various knick knacks (cloud shaped humidifier, small music box, stuffed animals, hanging photos and art on the wall)
Photography, I very much the style old film creates, too bad they're so expensive :(
Collecting bits of stationary with cool features, I love drafting pencils and highlighters

The places I like to visit that have nice Si vibes:
Art museums
Small bookshops
Milk-based shaved ice restaurant
Local family-owned restaurants
Coffee shops
Antique stores
Candy shops
Si people's homes lol
Parks and biking along rivers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cybel

I can just "chill" for many many hours in a vegetative state, especially in new and different environments like the beach or lake where there's wind and sound and many things are moving in the background. But at least at home, to simply feel temperature, warmth, softness, taste and adjusting for max coziness is way too boring and unstimulating after a while. It's all good and stuff but there's way more levels to it.

I think I like to experiment with different types of tastes and sensations.

Activities that are very Si I partake in:

Organizing playlists, combining songs in ways where each playlist has a different taste too it
Making Pinterest boards of various internet aesthetics and things I find interesting or pretty: abandoned greenhouses, lost toys, porcelain dolls
Looking up various artists I like a lot and studying their style and vibes very seriously
Thinking of various people who's clothing styles I admire and mix-and-matching the parts I like from them in my head
Decorating my room with various knick knacks (cloud shaped humidifier, small music box, stuffed animals, hanging photos and art on the wall)
Photography, I very much the style old film creates, too bad they're so expensive :(
Collecting bits of stationary with cool features, I love drafting pencils and highlighters

The places I like to visit that have nice Si vibes:
Art museums
Small bookshops
Milk-based shaved ice restaurant
Local family-owned restaurants
Coffee shops
Antique stores
Candy shops
Si people's homes lol
Parks and biking along rivers

---

These are all things I've always wanted to do, and appreciate those who do it, but I simply don't have time for that or whatever.
I simply forget that these things exist really. They seem like a waste of time, but once you do them, you feel different
Seems like everyone out there is doing them, except me. That's how I feel

Augusta had to change Jung's definition quite a bit to get it to work as a part of Model A.

"harmony, pleasure, health, comfort, pleasantness, satisfaction, convenience, quality, cosiness, aesthetics"

These are all indeed Si themes, however most of them are only external indicators of sustainability, which means preserving life on its physical, mental, and (if awakened) spiritual levels.

silke's mentioning of stability sort of gets at this; unfortunately she also removed some of the perfectly valid descriptions above from wikisocion.

Can aesthetics be Se too?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by one

Can aesthetics be Se too?

---

No. Se seeks out and strives for intense experiences and that’s from directly interacting with concrete objects and physical activities. Se is focused on the concrete attributes of an object which is emphasized and immediate influence to change the object happens at that moment. It’s resourceful and adaptive, whereas lifestyles and aesthetics has to do with Si because it’s established, comfortable sensations that’s derived from one’s impressions felt by objects. Si emphasize the impressions caused by an object to establish homeostasis gained from the knowledge of gathered impression.