What is Si?

[Erk]

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 , 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. Jung says this himself, the too little is raised a bit, too much, lowered somewhat.

[Beautiful sky]

Your feelings would be associated with , 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. 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.

[Galen]

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:



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.

[Erk]

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

[InkStrider]

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.

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.

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.

Your feelings would be associated with , 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.

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:



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!

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.

[Absurd]

This thread is nutty.

[Cuddly McFluffles]

This thread is nutty.

Now it's nutty.

[InkStrider]

Now it's nutty.

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

:Gives stern look:

[Absurd]

Now it's nutty.

Now it is a hard nut to crack

[Absurd]

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

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

[InkStrider]

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.

[Absurd]

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?

[InkStrider]

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.

[Absurd]

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?

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.

[Aiss]

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.

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.

[InkStrider]

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.

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

Sure.

Misattribution is common mistake, yeah.

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

I call it rocking the boat.

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.

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.

[Aiss]

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.

[Absurd]

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.

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

No shit mate.

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.

Sure.

Bold this as well, while responding.

[Erk]

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.

[DirectorAbbie]

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

[Galen]

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.

[InkStrider]

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.

[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.

[InkStrider]

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.

[golden]

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.

[InkStrider]

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.

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.

[silke]

... 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.

[InkStrider]

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?

[Park]

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?

[Park]

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.

[EyeSeeCold]

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.

[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.'

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 +, '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

[Nico1e]

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

[InkStrider]

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.

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?

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 +, '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.

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:

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.

+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.

"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.

[silke]

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.

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.

[Erk]

That's Nice.

[Erk]

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

[Marietta]

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.

[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

[Tallmo]

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.